A little more than a decade ago I spent the better part of a year researching the Vietnam War. What motivated me to do so? Did I feel the necessity to finally eradicate the psychological scar that war inflicted on me as one of its combatants? Did I believe that its conduct had not been treated fairly in spite of the mountainous material that had already been published and broadcast? Did I feel that I needed to understand better the context in which I and my fellow soldiers experienced that war in order to gain a more truthful perspective? Or did I think that the time for that perspective had only just arrived with the release of confidential documents 40 years after the war’s conclusion? Basically, my motivation was inspired by all of these questions, but especially by the latter. With the beginning of President Bush’s preemptive invasion of Iraq, I could not shake the image of President Johnson’s preemptive invasion of Na Nang, Vietnam, in 1965. Both invasions were justified on the basis of erroneous intelligence data—the alleged Gulf of Tonkin incident and the alleged existence of weapons of mass destruction. Both wars resulted in a military occupation, the establishment of a sectarian government, and a violent insurgency that invited a counter invasion from a neighboring country to overthrow that government—in 1966 from North Vietnam and in 2014 from ISIL (Islamic State of the Levant, its more accurate pseudonym). Welcome to our present situation. Now we are once again engaged in a preemptive attack on a sovereign nation, based upon provocative, but unconvincing intelligence of any threat to our nation, and the prospect of instigating a terrorist response to the homeland (instead of an insurgency). At least we seem dedicated to precluding an American occupation which a large contingent of frontline combat soldiers would likely entail. Given that we American citizens might not know much about “actionable” intelligence and the resulting tactical maneuvers until nearly 40 years after-the-fact, what sense can we make of America’s response to ISIL?

I believe it is necessary to question what we are told about policy, goals, and tactics. It is not my intent to personalize an attack on the current administration. I do not believe that President Johnson, Bush, or Obama are warmongers or inveterate liars. But history clearly tells us that our Presidents can be led into a cul-de-sac not of their choosing. (Witness the standoff between Kennedy and Khrushchev during the Cuban missile crisis.) So, if my readers will allow me some license, let me question some of what we have been told about this latest American incursion in the Middle East.

➣ Our initial involvement was a series of airstrikes designed to protect American diplomats and free a Christian minority trapped on a mountain in Northern Iraq. The bombing continued after ISIL’s advance had been stopped and the refugees on Sinjar Mountain had been declared safe. What interests me is the pretext for this bombing. It is based upon two assumptions: the Kurds were not capable of defending their capital city and there were 40,000 homeless refugees on Sinjar. The former assumption was based upon the Kurds initial withdrawal from combat with ISIL; but we later found out that they were surprised, ran out of ammunition, and withdrew in order to regroup. The latter assumption became questionable when international aid workers finally landed on Sinjar and found only about 5,000 residents instead of refugees. Our State Department explained that apparently the refugees had already been evacuated by the Kurds under the cover of American airstrikes. These assumptions were presented as precursors for American involvement. But do they really represent our “Gulf of Tonkin moment”?

➣ Our President laudably declined to extend our bombing campaign until the Iraqis formed a more inclusive government. This was a brilliant diplomatic ploy, but to what purpose? The obvious answer is to preserve what American investment (to the tune of 1 trillion dollars) has created in the form of a titular republic in Iraq. Also, it was our stated intent to use Iraqi and Kurdish troops to combat ISIL in place of American “boots on the ground.” Their success, however, seemed much less secure unless the Sunnis in Northern Iraq identified with the government in Bagdad and joined forces with the Iraqi military. Therefore, removing Malicki and muting the advance of ISIL with American airpower are merely initial efforts to dismantle a terrorist group—the stated goal of this Administration. Or is there a deeper reason for our interest in saving Iraq from ISIL? In Vietnam, our overall strategic interest was stopping the so-called domino effect of Communist aggression. In the more recent Iraq war, we wanted to expand its contribution to the world oil market. Remember: Iraq still has the largest known reserves of oil in the world. This is a treasure trove the West will not hesitate to protect and to exploit. Today Iraq produces about 1 million barrels per day over its pre-war level. But that increased production has only offset the 1 million barrels per day that Iran has lost as a result of American sponsored sanctions. Now any threat to Iraqi reserves also exacerbates the West policy vis-à-vis Iran. In addition, it just happens to be the case that all of Iraqi oil is shipped to Europe which desperately wants to cut back its dependency on Russian gas and oil supplies even though it supports Iranian sanctions. . As a consequence, ISIL’s initial moves against oil rich Kirkuk and its capture of two oil refineries set off major alarms. Though the Iranians are engaged militarily in defense of Iraqi Shiites, expect them to use the disruptive potential of ISIL as a pretext to breach the imposed oil embargo with Europe and to take a much tougher stand in the ongoing nuclear proliferation negotiations with the United States. ISIL also creates problems for the Sunni Arab states because they want to assume the banner of the Islamic Caliphate. (There can only be one Islamic Caliphate according to Moslem tradition.) But how does this Caliphate declaration affect America? Why is ISIL more of a threat than the Islamic terrorist group in Africa that holds a broader swath of territory and also claims to be the Islamic Caliphate? Are we choosing to fight ISIL because it presents more of a danger to us than other terrorist groups in Sudan, Somalia, Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Syria, or central Africa? By my humble estimate they all hate us about the same, though only al Qaeda seems to have the incentive and capability to harm us where we live. Perhaps we should be asking whether our fight with ISIL is more about preserving the production of Middle Eastern oil and our leverage with Iran in ongoing nuclear negotiations than any immediate terrorist threat to America. What is the primary reason for engaging ISIS at this time, rather than before?

➣ America under the leadership of President Obama is attempting to unite the “world” under a new doctrine of collective defense. The United Nations will likely be asked to authorize a collective military response against a non-state group in Syria which may present a threat to the West in the future. (Interestingly, nobody has asked for the collective defense of Ukraine against the present threat of Russian supported separatists.) Of course, the UN is not able to authorize such an action as long as Russia is a member of the Security Council. In fact, America has already expanded its air war into Syria with the support of some members of the Arab League before it even addressed the UN. But if our own Congress is unwilling to declare its support for the President’s initiative—which clearly exceeds the boundaries of his Constitutional authority– then it is understandable that he would seek some measure of international support. Like Woodrow Wilson before him, President Obama may be ahead of his time. The League of Nations died in its infancy, decades before the United Nations was resurrected after World War II. Our current President may be anticipating the Intergalactic Federation of the next century. Unfortunately, we do not as yet have a world body that can squelch bad actors before they wreak their havoc on sovereign entities. And America cannot function alone as the world police. In fact, I do not believe we do, except as a cover for our own state interest. The question here is whether gathering a coalition of nations and seeking some form of a UN mandate is any more than a diplomatic cover. The President has certainly put the “do-nothing-until-after-the-election” Congress on the spot. Is the President building on the Cheney-Bush doctrine of preemptive war? Or is he baiting a Congress that refused to grant him the authority to bomb Syria a year ago?

➣ And, finally, what is the purpose of training and equipping the supposedly moderate rebels in Syria to fight ISIL? For three years now we have claimed there was no moderate group trustworthy enough for anything more than American small arms. Several months ago a broadcast report aired an interview with rebels who had participated in clandestine, US sponsored military training exercises. They reported the training lasted only a few weeks, provided little more than shoulder rifles, and was felt to be totally inadequate for the actual combat they faced in Syria. The President has just asked Congress to provide half a billion dollars to expand this training and bring it into the light (meaning it will no longer be a CIA enterprise, but a fully funded program run by the Pentagon and monitored by Congress). But the program is projected to train only five thousand rebels in the course of a year. Obviously, this effort cannot fulfill the function the Administration has allocated to it. Not only is this trained cadre too small to confront ISIL and not available to deal with the immediate threat; but it would be hard pressed to focus on ISIL when its main adversary is the Assad government. So the obvious question is what is the purpose of this rebel training program? These newly minted moderate rebels may never become the “boots on the ground” fighting ISIL. Perhaps their mission is no more than the survival of a core faction America can support in some eventual diplomatic settlement with the Assad regime. From the beginning, the Administration has stated the civil war in Syria can only be resolved through some kind of political rapprochement. If there is some hidden diplomacy under the table, we may not be privy to its content and reach until some 40 years from now. But we can still question the stated objective of this training program.

Now that we are shrouded in the fog of war, there will be many unanswered questions and many tactical twists and turns that will further befuddle us. Nation states will contest and play by rules that would embarrass an honest and upright person. As I have stated elsewhere (“The Rule of the Primate”), war is a testimony to where we are in our evolution as primates. A nation state can do what an individual or private citizen would consider unconscionable. And yet that very same citizen can bask in the glory of a battle won, for he/she bears no accountability for the detritus of war. Herein are both the bane of nationalism and its appeal. At this moment in our history, perhaps the best that we can do to better our world and advance our evolution is to question the facades and absurdities of nation states. And we can continue to give voice to the hapless civilians who will be discounted as collateral damage in these inane contests for power and resources.

The enemy of our enemy is . . . well, still our enemy. How does the United States navigate through the dilemma posed by the Middle East? We could put two brigades on the ground in Northern Iraq and drive the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) into the ground. There are many in Washington and in the American press already leaning towards that option. We listened to that chorus once before, except in Afghanistan we stopped our ground troops at the Pakistani border and in Iraq unwittingly invited al Qaeda to join the disenfranchised and disempowered Sunni insurgency against the American invasion. Perhaps I am just part of the uninformed citizenry in this country, but I have learned something from history. For example, I know that the war in Vietnam could have been avoided if the American administration had simply signed the Geneva Treaty we had negotiated. That Treaty called for a nationwide plebiscite to determine the national leader of a united Vietnam. Also, more recent history has demonstrated that we invaded Iraq under false pretenses. In other words, those two wars—the most costly since World War II—were completely unnecessary and ended in unforeseen negative consequences. We lost nearly 60 thousand soldiers and absorbed over 250 thousand casualties into our VA system while eliminating over a million Vietnamese (mostly civilians). What we won was a Vietnam adversary for over four decades that only recently has begun to normalize relations with our country. In Iraq we spent many billions of dollars (over 2 billion still totally unaccounted for) and lost over five thousand solders while killing (according to UN estimates) over 100 thousand Iraqis (again, mostly civilians) and creating over one million homeless refugees. As a result, we flooded our VA system with thousands of wounded soldiers and found ourselves in support of a sectarian government in Iraq not only antagonistic to our military presence but to our foreign aid-supported pleas for moderation in dealing with the Sunnis and Kurds. In other words, we seem to have abetted the situation we now have in Iraq where the Sunnis, ostracized from power sharing, have welcomed back the latest incarnation of al Qaeda, led by a former al Qaeda operative and self-announced Caliph of a new terrorist state in the Levant. Of course, these results are the unintended consequences of American foreign policy. But they clearly point to the hazards imbedded in policy decisions regarding war and diplomacy. As far as I can determine, here are the options that appear to be before our President and Congress to date:

• As Senator McCain is wont to say, we can “bomb, bomb, bomb (fill in the country here) . . .” The President has already taken this option in Iraq, but only as a limited stopgap measure to halt the advance of ISIS and to enable humanitarian missions. All the military experts seem to agree that the only military option that would effectively drive ISIS out of Iraq involves troops on the ground. But the President is firmly against re-engaging American combat troops. Why? I suspect he is aware of the unintended consequences. Remember the Sunnis in North and West Iraq not only fought us during the last war, but also welcomed al Qaeda to join them in that fight. When General Petraeus negotiated to end the Sunni insurgency and effectively won the American exit from that war, he promised the Sunnis a stake in the governance of a free, democratic state of Iraq. That promise could not be kept. What would motivate the Sunnis to rise up against ISIS (like the so-called Sunni awakening of the last Iraq war) and to accept our military presence? There is evidence that they might be motivated to take the former action, but not the latter. A leading Sunni parliamentarian and outspoken anti-American has already indicated that the Sunnis would willingly drive out ISIS if the government in Bagdad would cease its suppression of Sunnis (basically the de-Baathification policies instituted by the American occupation and resurrected by PM Malicki), free Sunni political prisoners, and allow more local autonomy (perhaps similar to what the Kurds have). The President has already pushed the Iraqi government towards this Sunni position. His first move in that direction was to pressure the Iraqi parliament to oust Malicki and to form a unity government that would include Sunni and Kurds in positions of influence. While this process is underway, the President has provided US intelligence and Special Forces to support the Iraqi military in Ramadi and the Kurds’ Peshmurga in and around their capital city of Erbil. Although the Kurds are already in the fight, they have mainly pursued their own interest which includes protecting Erbil and winning control of Kirkuk, a city long disputed between the Kurds and the Shiites. For the Kurds to fight for all of Iraq, rather than declare their independence, they also will want a seat at the governance table and a resolution of their demands for control of Kirkuk and a fair share of the oil revenue taken from their lands. So the President’s stated policy of supporting indigenous combat troops has begun with the Peshmurga and, to a limited extent, the Iraqi army. But his ability to win over the Sunnis to that fight will depend upon the coming together of the Iraqi political factions. These are the stated policies of the American President to address the ISIS incursion into Iraq. Clearly, the option he has chosen does not include Americans leading the charge in combat, though any US military support mission does not preclude American casualties.
• Syria presents a different type of quagmire in that the Assad government is clearly at odds with America. The only foreign governments that have any influence with Damascus are Russia and Iran, with which we already have strained relations. Do we send troops into the mouth of the Syrian whale? It appears that Assad has set us up to be swallowed into his civil war; for he has deliberately directed his forces (at least until very recently) away from ISIS. Effectively, he has enabled ISIS to combat the other groups that oppose his regime. ISIS has, at the same time, legitimized his claim that he was fighting terrorists while his real intent was to crush his political adversaries. The problem we have in any strategy to push back ISIS is the fact that their command and control exists in Syria. The “hawks” and the press echo chamber have been clamoring about or for US bombing in Syria. When the President was asked about this possibility, he indicated he had no strategy to bomb Syria at this time, though he admitted he had asked for military options. He also said that if he decided on that course, he would consult with Congress beforehand. Is it not likely that he is considering the unintended consequences? Not only would there be collateral damage to civilians at our hands, but the main beneficiary of our bombing would be Assad’s brutal regime. There are also geopolitical considerations that further complicate any military involvement of America in Syria. For example, Saudi Arabia has been a strong financial supporter of Sunni jihadists in Syria (though they claim ISIS was not one of their satellites). Turkey has also been involved in the conflict by allowing jihadist entry into Syria across Turkey controlled borders. And, finally, since ISIS also goes by the name of ISL, the Islamic State of the Levant, their claimed area of control for their concocted Caliphate includes Lebanon, Jordan, and Palestine. The latter group tangentially, but still strategically, concerns Israel as well. The President’s foreign affairs team is well cognizant of these potential players of interest. The President has ordered his diplomatic team to scour the Middle East to discover the level of their support for whatever action can be taken against ISIS in Syria. What this means has yet to be determined. Could the countries of the Levant provide resources or even ground troops to capitalize on an American air campaign? Further, the President has widened his net to recruit a possible coalition of the willing by partnering with NATO and via a UN resolution that might authorize military action against ISIS. Personally, I cannot imagine any military action against ISIS in Syria without dealing with Assad. His actions demonstrate that he will never step down; and neither Russia nor Iran appears willing to urge him in that direction. But perhaps he could be persuaded to negotiate a truce with the moderates amongst his opposing forces. It would be a real coup for the West if an agreement on some sharing of power with the secular opposition could be reached with the current regime. However unlikely such an agreement might seem now, there is precedent in history. The bottom line: there is no ready available answer to the problem of ISIS in Syria. Simply bombing them there would not eliminate them. Sending American combat troops into Syria would pull us into a civil war with totally unpredictable results. A diplomatic solution without the involvement of Assad does not appear probable. Some form of outside pressure from the UN and Middle Eastern countries, possibly with the threat of a combined military threat, might provide a viable approach to the “ISIS in Syria” conundrum. Apparently, the President’s team is exploring this approach. But, like the Ukraine puzzle, there are no simple answers when players like Putin or Assad are involved. We have seen their like before. Unfortunately, they tend to take down their country with them.

At the outset of this review, I indicated what options appear to be before the President AND Congress. As befits this Congress, their voice has not been heard, other than a few snarky remarks about the deficiencies in the President’s approach or in his words taken out of context. In other words, our elected officials are playing politics while the State Department and the President take all the heat. The press has tried to take up the debate, but it does not have the Constitutional authority of Congress to crystallize policy. Moreover, the press does not have access to the intelligence, briefings, and internal policy debates within the Administration. Congress has both access to this information and oversight responsibility as our representatives. And, finally, only Congress has the Constitutional authority to wage war if, in fact, our military intervention in Syria is the option considered. So the image of a President “playing the fiddle as Rome burns” is not what I see. Instead, before an expectant and silent audience I see an orchestra in which every musician left their instruments at home. That silence is indeed deafening.

Machiavelli, Bismarck, and Richelieu knew how the game was played. They made the moves that either maintained the balance of power or tilted it in their favor. Napoleon and Hitler played the game to win it all, but overextended their resources, losing it all in the end. Europe today is facing a new power broker who wants to reengage the contest for territory a/o hegemony. Will he pull Europe and the United States into another war? Will the western allies follow the path of World War I where mutual defense treaties drew nations into the fray like falling dominoes? Or will the allies begrudgingly give ground like the various diplomatic appeasements that further emboldened Hitler on his chosen course? So far Western Europe, following our President’s leadership, has taken a middle course in dealing with President Putin: gradually escalating his country’s isolation from the international diplomatic and global economic system while acceding to his historical claims to Crimea. But will this strategy compel Putin to change his game plan? Do we understand his goals, or even him, well enough to counter his moves?

Not too long ago our Vice President claimed he looked into Putin’s eyes and told him that he did not see a soul there. Putin allegedly replied that the same could be said of our VP. This interchange between the two men I find revelatory on at least two levels. First, Biden clearly states what is missing from Putin’s perspective: he is unable to see the human consequences of his actions—he is coldly detached. The people of the Ukraine—like the people of Georgia earlier—are merely pawns on his chess board. Currently, the citizens of Donetsk are dying as the Ukrainian army drops artillery shells on the separatists there who are armed and led by Russian agents. Putin, like other leaders consumed with their place in history, has no other persona than his mission which in his case is the reestablishment of the Soviet Union. To his people, Putin has become a hero, a national archetype like the Fuhrer in pre-war Germany. Russia’s prominence in the world depends upon his leadership. His setback is a setback for Russia itself; his success is Russia’s as well. Though he earned his status as a surrogate for his country, Putin loses his identity in the process. Not only does he have no connection with the soul of humanity or anything transcendent of material gain and domination, he also has little personality or ego identity other than his self-perceived role as Russia’s savior. He is a tabloid caricature, an empty façade. Although he has amassed a huge fortune, he doesn’t appear to live extravagantly. In fact, he is divorced, lives alone, and, like Hitler, apparently does not drink or carouse. He would hardly be called an ascetic, but his dedication to his mission is no less paramount in his life than that of a jihadist. Putin is his mission.

Secondly, Putin clearly sees his adversaries as projections of himself: the leaders who oppose him must be playing the same game without regard for its human toll. This inability to relate to people as anything other than objects for use or power is not unusual. We have seen it before in history, in our time, and even in our own country. Beyond our borders, we call such folks fanatics; within our borders, we call them radicals (left or right wing). But labels fail to reveal the underlying problem or how to deal with that problem. These people are disconnected to a specific reality: the unique though shared identity of the human experience. When you can look into the eyes of another and see the numinous aspect of a shared self, you find not only yourself but your presence in that experience. We can call this experience humanism for lack of a better name. But it is not an ideology like nationalism or theocracy; it is an experience of relation that must be lived, else it is inauthentic. People like Putin are perversely inauthentic. But when they gain a platform on the world stage, they can be destructive on a level that the 20th century has already exemplified. So how do the western allies deal with the danger this failed human being presents?

Within our own country, we need to weigh carefully the arguments of warmongers, military adventurists, and political opportunists (those who invent any rationale that will provide them with a political advantage rather than political effectiveness in governing). These people want to play Putin’s game and are playing by his rules: pander to the electorate (propaganda) while discrediting the political opposition (suppression)—in this case, by endless criticism of those trying to deflate an international crisis. At one point, they raised up Putin as a more effective leader than our own President, bringing to mind the 1938 Times cover announcing Hitler as the “Man of the Year.” Shortly afterwards, Hitler invaded Poland. These voices are not raised in support of peace or justice, but out of a hidden agenda for power. They are the counterpoint for Putinism and are equally inauthentic and manipulative. Cloaking their position in American “exceptionalism” and invulnerability as the lone super power, they attempt to dupe the public into believing we can exercise our power without incurring any deleterious consequences. But the wisdom we gleam from history clearly tells us great power must be wielded with restraint. Otherwise we risk a humanitarian crisis at our hands—witness the Vietnam or Iraq wars.

I’m no foreign affairs expert, and I certainly am not privy to the effectiveness of current economic and diplomatic policy aimed at isolating Russia. However, if World War II had not ended the regime of the Third Reich, I suspect Hitler would have been overthrown by the German people once the consequences of his actions were made known and his true character exposed. Putin needs to be exposed now for who he is, before his Ukrainian venture inadvertently leads to a broader conflict or further Russian excursions into Eastern Europe. He maintains his power today because he has successfully controlled the narrative in Russia through state-sponsored propaganda and the effective suppression of opposing voices. But we live in the digital era of the internet and wireless/satellite communication. The western allies need to use every media outlet available to expose Putin to his people.

You may conclude from what I have written here that I’m a foggy idealist. But, in fact, I believe it is likely that America will be pulled into future wars. We have been on a war footing for almost all of the last 100 years. I’m a realist who recognizes that throughout human history there has never been a lasting international order. Nations do not—and probably will never—subscribe to a uniform moral code. No Pax Americana is likely to endure. Nevertheless, I believe we must strive to build a better world. The first step in doing so is to pledge allegiance to our common humanity which can only be lived as individuals in relation to other individuals. It is only in that relationship that we will learn to build bridges between people of differing ethnic, cultural, and religious heritages. The inauthentic among us are simply incapable of building these bridges, for they view others as pawns to be played in a zero sum game. The human suffering they may cause is characterized by them as the collateral damage necessarily incurred in pursuit of larger goals. We must unmask their tactical maneuvering for its lack of compassion and of any actual relevance to the human condition. If we don’t begin to do so, there will never be peace among the sentient primates of this planet.

Men like Putin (for women seem to exclude themselves from these excesses) will bring violence into the world. But eventually they will encounter a Waterloo or a gun pointed at their temple. Their violence will reverberate upon themselves, even while they will have succeeded in making history, perhaps their only self-justification for their actions. But I’m not advocating for a military response to Putin’s interventions, though I recognize events could spiral into that option as a last resort. Personally, I put aside arms while still a foot soldier. My only response is in words. I advocate for the bonds of relationships between individuals, groups, and even nations.

In conclusion, may I suggest a more personal message? Embrace a loved one and be caught up in the mystery of the other; be drawn into the timeless awareness that is recreated in each relation. Look into the eyes of a newborn and witness that unnamed reality yet to be formed and potentially transforming—a new human life and perhaps the incubation of a new world order. The game of life is not a calculated, detached contest for power, but a lively, joyous dance between and within beings of incalculable substance. The change we hope for will not come in one lifetime. But it will never come unless it begins in each one of us now.

Although much is made of the moral grounds for war or warlike action, the game of war is played across a diplomatic table where only winning and losing is at stake. Let’s look at the hand played in recent days by two world powers and their respective leaders. First, the American President had the following cards in hand:
* The morality card – innocent civilians killed by poison gas and the international treaty prohibiting such;
* The “red line” threat previously announced and actual preparations made to conduct a punitive military strike;
* Lack of support for any warlike action from American citizens, likely including members of Congress;
* Inability to pass any punitive measure through the U.N. Security Council;
* The President’s reluctance to be involved in another Middle Eastern war;
* The President’s reluctance to commence a proxy war with Russia and Iran instead of spending the bounty of the wars just ended or ending in support
of his domestic agenda.
Now let’s look at the Russian President’s hand:
* Unfettered resupply of weapons to Syria;
* The backing of China as practically the sole proprietor of Syrian oil (and the main source of revenue needed to pay for Russian weapons);
* Veto power in the U.N. where any move against Syria could be easily blocked;
* Fear of a U.S. military strike that would both weaken Syrian capability and expose Russian inability to protect a client state;
* Growing international condemnation of Russia’s unwavering support for Assad in lieu of any political solution likely requiring him to step down
from office;
* Reluctance to spur the U.S. into a proxy war where the potential drain on the Russian economy might become insupportable (remember the
Russian-Afghan war).

Obama had two cards (first two bullets) and Putin had three (first three bullets) to play. But, if the American President played his hand, Russia’s lost would be greater. Putin would never have forced Syria into compliance if he thought otherwise. Certainly, Obama risked losing political and international influence. But he was not risking re-election. And he has shown a willingness to put his presidency on the line before (remember the fight over Obamacare, his pursuit of Osama Ben Laden into an allied country, and his continual use of drone strikes in the face of international opposition). Oddly, the outspoken voices of hawks in the U.S. Senate may have even strengthened Obama’s hand. In exchange for their support, the Administration was forced to cave somewhat on the last two bullet items by agreeing to provide more support for the rebels and even to “change the momentum” of the war. Any increase of American involvement would further weaken Putin’s position and strengthen Obama’s hand. So, in this fast and furious game of Syrian poker, all hands were thrown onto the table with a single game changer: Syria must sign on to the international treaty prohibiting the use of chemical weapons and release their stockpile of these weapons to U.N. control. All sides can now discard their negative cards: the non-proliferation treaty calls for punitive enforcement measures; a potentially damaging military strike is avoided; and both superpowers seem aligned on a path that could lead to further demilitarization. Both Putin and Obama look like winners, though the Syrians are still stuck in a civil war that defies prognostication.

My conclusion is that something positive may in fact come out of this nasty business of high stakes poker. Machiavelli, Cardinal Richelieu, Churchill, Kissinger and the like would call this potential result a diplomatic achievement. But I call your attention to the fact that the cards held in hand involved weapons and lives. This situation reminds me of an old Star Trek episode where an enlightened people fought wars with computers, wherein the digital tally of victories and losses was recorded until the program could determine the overall winner. Then the losing side would accept their defeat by voluntarily surrendering their computed losses in the form of human lives. The point of the storyline was that the game was no less barbaric than the actual wars averted. In the diplomatic games of the 21st century, we are no less barbaric. We expect our President to be “warrior-in-chief,” even when we deny him support, demonstrably washing our hands of the outcome. But we voted him into the game and expect him to play as deftly as he can for there is a penalty in abandoning the game. In the case at hand, the penalty is possible proliferation of chemical warfare. But let’s not fool ourselves about how the game is played: the end seems to justify the means. And that ethical construct is hardly the banner of an enlightened civilization. It is simply how the game is played.

Jane Goodall once compared the aggression she witnessed in chimpanzees to their anthropological cousins, human primates. If you’ll excuse my paraphrase, I believe she said their manner of aggression was very similar to ours. I’ve thought a lot about her comment, but not so much in the context of the individual human, but in its application to nations. You see, the individual chimpanzee will usually flee danger, but Goodall was specifically addressing their inclination to ban together with familiars to conduct violent raids on neighboring tribes of chimpanzees. The purpose of these group acts of aggression was either to establish territorial control or to conserve food resources for themselves. Now we humans, primates all, don’t normally raid our neighbor’s house for food or property rights. But, banned together as a group, we can become quite a threat to others. The last 100 years have given testimony to such group violence as genocide, world wars, racial “cleansing,” religious persecution, sexual slave trade, forced child warriors, and so forth.

Have we in the West not come to believe ourselves enlightened? We’ve thrown off the suppressions of theocracy, feudalism, and various tyrannies to form freer societies governed by law. We citizens of America accept our constitutional obligations as free men and women “to promote the general welfare.” But does our government demonstrate the same commitment to other nations? How do we square the invasions of Vietnam, Panama, Grenada, Libya, Iraq, and Afghanistan with the moral code we generally apply to ourselves as individuals? Except for the first Iraq war, these were all preemptive wars against sovereign states. The America we love has also overthrown governments, assassinated foreign leaders, executed drone attacks in nations with whom we have never declared war while killing innocent civilians caught in our line of fire. At this very moment we are planning an attack on Syria. What I find surprising about our nation’s lack of moral standing in these instances is its conformity to the logic of international conduct. Nations have always acted in this manner. In fact, if a nation failed to be aggressive when its self-interest was at stake, it would find its resources pilfered by other nations, its people subject to foreign hegemony or rule, and/or its share of the world’s bounty restricted by competing forces. What makes national aggression so particularly grievous is the harm it afflicts on individuals. Sometimes this harm is waived aside as “collateral” damage—an incredibly duplicitous pseudonym for it implies lack of intent. Our President and Congress are set to deter Syria’s gas attack on innocent civilians by killing more innocents. In terms of the history of nations, this act would be justified and most likely lauded as a legitimate defense of the internationally recognized ban on the use of chemical weapons. The irony is that we are the only nation that has ever used nuclear weapons against a civilian population. Of course, President Truman’s intent was to end the war and save American lives. Could anyone say he did not intend to kill over 100,000 innocent civilians, really? But he was only using the logic of war and exercising the same code that seems to govern international affairs. And that code may be the norm, but it is not moral.

What can I conclude from this dichotomy between what is considered acceptable behavior amongst individuals and what is the norm between nations? As individuals, we believe we should be governed by common moral precepts that simply don’t apply to nation states. The enlargement of our frontal lobes may have allowed us to evolve beyond our chimpanzee ancestors. But the world in which we find ourselves is still governed by primate rules. The lesson I draw from this circumstance is that our species has not evolved far from its roots. As individuals, we seem to recognize what is right and wrong. But as nation states, it’s still a jungle out there. We fought major “wars of liberation” in Vietnam and again in Iraq. Our intent seemed laudable. But at the conclusion of these wars, South Vietnam fell under the control of North Vietnam and the Sunni tyrant of Iraq was replaced by a Shia tyrant. The cost in lives was enormous, not just to our soldiers, but to the innocent civilians victimized as mere collateral damage: of the one million killed in Vietnam and the 100,000+ killed in Iraq, the vast majorities were civilians. If America were to truly lead the community of nations into a more humane and peaceful coexistence, if it were to effectively model the principles of its own foundation, then it would have to find more compassionately creative and diplomatic ways to solve the problems between nations than by the point of a gun. The problem with this type of idealism is the double bind it creates for America. Without the use of its military power and economic hegemony, America would lose its leverage to effect change in the world. With its exercise of power, however, it assures the world will not change its self-destructive ways. We as a nation merely sustain the insanity that governs the world of nation states. Unless we citizens of the world gain this awareness in mass, we can never hope to change the world or evolve into a truly enlightened species. Until then, primate logic still rules.