250. To Arms, America, Against the Boko Haram!

-->

You know my kind.  Every time our president gestures toward action abroad we start yelling, "Hold back! Hold back!"  Well, it's time to change.  With these guys who, because little girls are trying to get a Western education, kidnap them and try to sell them, with these guys I say go all out. 

Sic the CIA on them, drop SEALs on them, grind them with your boots (there, on the ground), drone them, bomb them, make grease spots of them.  Anything to get those girls back.  And if you wipe out their culture in the process it's OK with me.

That's the passion of it.  Here's the reason: you can be a hero in the world's eyes and you've got nothing to lose. The deed can be done without any of the hazards of any of the other interventions we've feared or experienced. e

First, you're not going to get bogged down.  Not in Nigeria.  It's a friendly country.  And these guys have no constituency there, not any that counts.  Nigeria is nothing like Viet Nam or Iraq or Somalia or the Balkans.

Second, you're not going to get any flak from the American people.  On Twitter they're going nuts for action already. 

Third, you're not going to get any clucks from foreign heads of state.  Their people are out-twittering the Americans.  No intelligent leader is going to go against a Twitter-tide like the one moving now.

Fourth, and best of all, you're not going to get any flak from Congressmen.  Not any that won't take down their own planes.  Say you do all the stuff the opposing party loves to show shock at, like breaking your word and putting American boots on the ground.   Weren't those troops you sent there?  Did you lie about their presence?  Or did you simply rename them, as "advisers" and "trainers"?  Did you COVER UP?

"Yes, I did.  To save the girls.  And I did it the way you have to do such things these days," admits Obama, less tersely.

Can you picture a Republican getting huffy?  "Well, I certainly wouldn't have done such things."  Can't you hear the twitter?  "What kind of naive idealists speak for this party?  Are they afraid of dirtying their hands in a good cause? Do they think saving little girls is not good?"  Republicans, Republicans, will be coming off as wimps.  Heartless wimps.  They're not going to let that happen.

Of course you have to do this with the permission of the Nigerian government.  Will you get that permission in an open and upright manner?  Will you exceed its terms?  Will you cover up your maneuvers and excesses in dealing with them?  Maybe.  But have no fear.  When he's riding a Twitter-tide a politician can do practically anything.

If you're in doubt, picture the Congressional hearing.  "Did you get clear permission from the Nigerian government to do this?"

"Well, yes and no." 

"Aha," thinks the Congressman, "we've got a cover-up." 

Let him think it.  You need think only of the birds on Twitter: "Screw permission.  Get those girls."

216. The Horrors Competition

  

No, I don't mean a competition to see who can do the most horrible things to people.  Nobody tries to be a champion in that league.  I mean a competition to see who can rack up the most horrible things the other fellow has done.  It's the competition that gives us bragging rights in the Human League.  "You're more inhuman than I am."

Of course we mean "your tribe," "your race," "your religion," and, some of us, hope we can take the meaning to "your genes," "your essential nature."

People keep trying to win at this game. In the Balkans five nations are still piling up evidence that worse things were done to them than they ever did.  In Ireland Protestants are still adding up Catholic atrocities and Catholics adding up Protestant atrocities.  There's hardly time to get a count.  Stop to measure a pile in Asia — Muslims against Hindus, Buddhists against Muslims, Sikhs against Hindus — and somebody's sure to come running up with another bundle.  "Hold on!  The latest from Myanmar!  The Buddhists will never match these figures!"

Of course the Buddhists will match them.  Groups embarrassed by current figures just go to the past.  "Yes, we're bad now but seven centuries ago you had a general that makes us all look good.  Look how he slaughtered."

Not that there haven't been undoubted, all-conquering slaughterers.  Admit it, though, and what do you hear?  "Here's one, here's an undeniable case," and up comes another victim dragging his victimizer.  One Holocaust exception opens the gates. 

And not that there haven't been pure non-slaughterers.  Be one of those and you're a sure winner.  I don't think we'll hear from you, though.  You'll be too sweet to play this game. 

With everybody else, though, it's a contest that gets more complicated with every play.  Imagine yourself the scorekeeper.  The Crusades.  "You behead!"  "You crucify."  "Yeah, but you behead more than we crucify."  "We do not."  "Yes you do.  History shows that in 1189 you beheaded this many people." "Whose history?  Yours!"  "Yes but our history is more reliable than yours."  "OK, but even if the numbers are too high we're still ahead.  Crucified people suffer more than beheaded people."

Oi, the scoreboard.  Go from quantity to quality and it's a mess.  Well how about ten points for a crucifixion and three for a beheading, three leaving room for lethal injection, etc., lying ahead.  Sounds good but you just know that as soon as you get it fixed somebody's going to come running in with a disemboweling or a gassing.  And, if you're an old historian, you'll know more: any historian who runs in claiming to have found the last horror is going to be followed by another who has looked at the period more closely.  The closer historians look at any period the more horrors they are going to find.  Sounds to me as if anybody, if they slice it right, can be on top of the leader board.  "You're all more inhuman than I am."

Maybe what we need is a big, loud voice coming in and saying, "You're all inhuman, period.  Yes you too, you weak, you meek, you oppressed.  You just haven't had a chance yet."   The voice of the old-time God would end the game all right.

175. The Economist Calls for Intervention in Syria.

 

You'd never say that the editors of The Economist write heart-rending prose, but yet they can do something to hearts.

"Is it because America and Europe have tired of their own wars that they have started to turn their backs on other people's?" one asks this week in a leader.  "The number of dead in Syria has passed 30,000 and some days 250 bodies are added to the pile."

See the bodies, see them in a pile, see it growing, and growing, and growing — unless you do something?  Images.  Not as vivid as TV images, but still images.  The writer didn't have to give us that pile.  Nor what comes next, a hypothesized picture of "Syria's great cities ... ground to rubble" in a future where "the whole Middle East would choke on dust." 

He tells us that the dictator Assad's assault is against "civilians" (not "rebels") and the violence of it "breeds implacable hatred, and so the rebels [has to be "rebels" now; "civilians" doesn't fit the final verb] will fight on."  If Assad weren't so violent the rebels wouldn't fight on?  "Let's quit; he's just arresting us"?  The nouns are ticklish but that connective ("and so") is downright painful.  Painful to one accustomed to The Economist's care with cause and effect, that is.

Their care is to avoid the vague and wishful, and yet that "and so" is wishful.  So is much that is said to show that intervention is "feasible."  "It is possible" that the "mere threat" of a no-fly zone would "keep Mr. Assad's planes on the ground."  So is the word "probably" in this sentence about the behavior of other Arab countries:  "So long as there is no invading ground force (and there won't be), they will probably fall into line."  How confident that "and there won't be" is.  I think of earlier confidence: "Bombing will do the job.  Surgical strikes."

But, in light of the whole editorial, that must be a slip.  Economist caution, Economist cool, prevails.  The writer knows that "intervention is a slippery slope," that "nobody can be sure who would replace [Assad]."  He does "not call lightly for the world to undertake such a risky operation."

Maybe the coolest reason that journals can now offer for action in any region is that somebody is "destabilizing" it.  With the rest of them The Economist assumes that stability is good, and in a State Department way.  Geopolitical.  But "stability" can remain good only if you keep your eyes off of the root, "stable."  It means "firmly established, not likely to change."  Good only, then, if it's your good.  Not good if it's Torquemada's Spain or Stalin's Russia, no matter how firmly they're established.  Torquemada and Stalin have just as much claim on the word as you do, American journal writers. So we need some other word to justify going into Syria.  The Economist needs it — if it's to be superior to other journals

If the writer of the leader doesn't use the kind of words I'm looking for, the superior words, who does?  The writer in the business section.  Yes, an accountant is what I want.  Somebody able to do a cost-benefit analysis.  Makes realistic projections.  Makes sure that what goes on her page reflects what's in the real world.  Chary of images.

I see her coming over to give some instruction to this leader writer.  She's pretty severe.  "No, no.  You can’t talk about giving Syria 'a chance to re-emerge as a nation at peace with itself and its neighbours' without readiness to tell your reader when that peace was.  You say re-emerge.  Was there a time when no Sunnis had to fear an Alawite massacre, when Syria was at peace with Israel?" 

But it's the editorial's last sentence that will get her, the sentence that gives the boss (in this case the reader) what he pays an accountant for, a solid weighing up: The sooner the world intervenes the more lives can be saved.  "What figures back that up?  What experience?  Your reader is not an accountant but he can read the news.  Just today (Oct. 20, 2012), the papers tell of 'back-to-back bomb blasts in a crowded Baghdad market near a revered Shiite shrine,' and of a 'string of shootings targeting government officials' that killed at least 17 people.  On the net he can see that in the first eight months of this year 3,323 Iraqi civilians died by violence, about 1800 of them killed by suicide attacks and vehicle bombs.  Markets, shrines, children's playgrounds, pilgrim's buses, were targets.  This eleven years after an intervention for which humanitarian goals much like yours were part of the justification.  That's our experience in the real world, and the people who pay us will expect us to take it into account."