Full Of Sound And Fury

                                                                                                                                                                         

Democracy is fine. It's a noble idea. But it has limits. It confuses politicians.

The can be only one captain on a ship and one surgeon in charge of a procedure. Increase the number and disaster is certain.

The surgeon illustrates another important rule: “Right or wrong, but never in doubt.” It's said as an insult of the breed, but it carries an important truth: “He who hesitates is lost.” (Sometimes clichés hold important truths.) There are times when action, even if not perfect, is better than inaction. It also happens in war. "A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan executed at some indefinite time in the future." That's the way General George Patton put it. But, unfortunately, the opposite is the thinking of the present.

In the past year or so, several heads of state have warned Syria about its actions. There is a civil war going on now and the use of chemical agents – which is contrary to international law, most recently the Geneva Protocol – has been proscribed by most observers. It is viewed as a particularly heinous crime when the agents are used against civilians, because it is a weapon of mass destruction (WMD). President Obama has specifically warned of action if this “red line” is crossed. Similarly, there were stern warnings from David Cameron, England's Prime Minister and from others.

The use of chemical warfare is not new. During the “First Sacred War,” between the Amphictyonic League of Delphi and Kirrha, the League poisoned Kirrha's water, using massive amounts of the crushed leaves of hellebore, a poisonous plant. It took place about 590 BCE and, not surprisingly, the league was victorious. The details of the war are not important, but the use of chemical warfare is. In fact, it is the first reported such incident. The Delphic Oracle had called for total war, and this was the result. There were no prohibitions against the use of such a weapon then and no warnings not to do so.

But now both treaties and warnings are in place, and there has been no dearth of strong censures regarding the attack last week. The Bible cautions us against “standing idly by” the blood of our brothers, but there are many who have concluded that their own ox wasn't gored so it's not our problem. It began with the British Parliament, which decided that Great Britain should stay out of it. Having joined in the effort against Iraq, which they attribute to bad US intelligence, they refuse to participate in any other action in the Middle East. It doesn't matter that their own government attests to the crime. Consequently, the Prime Minister, humiliated, and at risk of losing his job, has announced acceptance of the will of the legislators. So it's all talk and no action; long on rhetoric but short on resolution. Not the image of someone in the place that Winston Churchill once occupied. Not true grit but, sadly, true Brit.

The stain of isolationism, however, has spread across the Atlantic. President Obama, apparently fearing similar loss of popularity, has opted to let Congress take the heat for any decision against involvement. That will probably be next week. In the meanwhile we'll sit and wait. The delay, however, is not important. The President's credibility has already been badly damaged. With no immediate response to the use of chemical weapons and the killing of his own citizens, Assad has learned that a threat from the US is more bark than bite. And the rest of the world has learned the same thing. Other countries now know that they cannot rely on guarantees from us. Whatever we say, our words speak louder than our actions. Our talk is cheap. We speak loudly but carry a small stick. A word from the strong should be sufficient, but it's not if we fear to use our strength.

Most parents utilize an implied threat. “One, two, three.” If the child takes no action by then, punishment will result. Not might, but will. It only takes a demonstration once or twice for the implicit message to be understood. And parents also learn. The most important lesson is that it is counterproductive to say what you don't mean; to make a threat that you don't intend to carry out. So when a threat emerges, a prompt and credible response is warranted – not a resort to discussion and majority vote.

But that's the risk of democracy. Our leaders follow. They're not prepared to take the chance that they, or their party, will suffer from a decision they make. “Plausible deniability” and finger-pointing are the tenets of government. Those who can respond immediately are afraid to do so. In this instance our President calls on Congress to weigh in, so he can blame it for any negative results, while taking credit if the policy works. And Congress, not wanting to take any responsibility itself, will follow the polls. But when it comes to protection of minority rights, we've accepted the principle that the majority cannot always have its way. And this is one of those instances that the will of the majority is not the prime consideration.

“One, two, three” may be effective against four-year-olds, but it is not likely to be taken seriously by a tyrant. He can accomplish too much evil while we're thinking about a measured response; if we don't immediately stand by our words. After all, “sticks and stones will break my bones, but (words) will never hurt me.” There are times when the acceptance of responsibility by those in charge is superior to democracy.