Is Syria Like Kossovo?

The Obama Administration is discussing whether Clinton's air war over Kossovo could be a model for the kind of intervention the US might make against the Syrian government, if it got NATO approval--the chance for UN approval is nil. Intervention may now be considered necessary, because Obama was dumb enough to state, months ago, that Syrian use of chemical weapons would be "crossing a red line," and he would be forced to act accordingly.

It may be true that the Syrian government started a larger scale gas attack in part because evidence of an earlier, smaller attack had so far only resulted in words: our promise of supplying weapons and ammunition to the opposition still hasn't happened.

So, of course we have to "act," right? We're the USA and we're the good guys. Actually, public opinion, while malleable in crisis, is in no mood for another foreign adventure.

Before Obama considers an air war, or any kind of Syrian intervention, he should consider what kind of conflict he'd be trying to "fix." The Assad regime is horrid: autocratic, brutal, discriminatory, and perfectly willing to massacre large numbers of its citizens, especially Sunnis.

But the opposition is fragmented. About all they have in common is their determination to get rid of Assad and minority Alawite dominance. While there are secular democrats in the opposition, the large majority is divided: some are moderate Sunnis, driven by war to support ethnic cleansing of Alawites and Christians. Then there are the Islamic militants: al Nusra Front the best known, is highly effective militarily, probably equipped by Qatar, affiliated with al Qaeda and is made up of nihilist religious zealots. There are others, and some are Iraqis, the same al Qaeda zealots who tried to murder the Shia in the Sunni parts of Iraq.

So, whom, exactly would our air war promote? If it's the militant side of the opposition, then Syria could become an al Qaeda haven, even the foundation for the new Islamic Caliphate. Or, it could become a Sunni authoritarian "democracy," in which non-Sunni flee for their lives, or hole up in enclaves, balkanizing the country. Or it could end up as a civil war between moderate and extremist Sunnis, if our bombing polishes off the Assad regime.

Better if the US and Europe refrain from any intervention: Muslims have to handle this themselves, anyway. The best: simply walk away. If Arabs want to sell oil, we can buy it, or go solar, without causing death and destruction from the air.

But our Roman Senators might lose billions! The US would save hundreds of billions, maybe trillions. Does the empire belong to corporate overlords, or does our country belong to us? Are we a democracy, or a military/corporate dictatorship?

When the Roman Empire faced a similar decision, it bankrupted itself attempting to maintain control, like this, of conflicts beyond its power. Are we going to go there?

Romney and Mormonism

Already, people are beginning to look at Romney's religion. He's a Mormon, maybe the quintessential American cult, but not just a Mormon; he's a Mormon bishop, who's also given millions to his church.

A friend who knows "Christians," as in the ones in Tennessee or Florida, told me that one of his acquaintances wasn't going to vote for Romney: even though he's black, he voted for W twice. He won't vote for Romney, because he's not a Christian.

Set aside the polygamy thing, which only the ultra-reactionary fringe still practices, Mormonism is not your garden variety Protestantism. It's a revelation religion based on the writings and preaching of Joseph Smith in 19th century America, and it has its own holy books, which reference the Bible, but the way the Koran does: Jesus Christ is the previous prophet; Joseph Smith is the final one.

Mormonism may well become an issue. Not only is there a hit musical comedy on Broadway, "The Book of Mormon," there's a bestselling Mormon mystery novel.

Romney is not at all comparable to John F. Kennedy and Catholicism. Santorum said JFK's speech on religion and government made him want to throw up: Kennedy was a secular Catholic; Romney isn't a secular Mormon; he's a bishop who's all but admitted that he baptized long ago dead people, like Jews killed in the Holocaust: some Mormon even "baptized" Anne Frank!

Why is this important? If evangelicals in the South can't stomach voting for Romney, and therefore don't vote, Obama wins.

If I were a Republican, I'd seriously worry about Romney's Mormonism, especially, if I learned more about it, regardless of whether I was evangelical, or secular. That's why some pro-Obama super-pac may yet go after Romney on precisely this issue: all they need to do is point out how weird Mormonism really is. And what a Mormon bishop does.

I've been very disappointed, and even felt betrayed, by Obama--the Yemeni Pulitzer Prize-winner's detention, just the latest example--but I know he's better than Romney, especially a Romney beholden to right-wing Republicans. Romney is the perfect representative of the 0.01%, except for his Mormonism, but he doesn't even represent the 1%. He's a quarter of a billionaire, and he has not a clue how ordinary people have to struggle to make ends meet. On top of all that, he comes across as an uptight hypocrite.

Obama is less of a democrat than I hoped, but at least, although he's part of the 10%, he has some aspiration to represent the rest of us.

If Romney were elected, it would be the equivalent of the super-wealthy Petronius Maximus' accession to the Imperial throne, upon the murder of his predecessor--arranged by him--triggering the Vandal invasion and the wholesale looting of Rome. Maximus was torn apart by the mob, hours before the Vandals arrived. Rome "fell" 20 years later.

If Obama wins, we may have a bit more time.