Perspective can be a dangerous thing when evaluating a topic from ignorance. The other week I was having chest pains. The uncertainty ultimately led me to a doctor, whose professional opinion allayed my fears. This, in turn, helped the chest pains go away, as they were simply stress induced. Thus, I accepted that the chest pain was initially cyclical and self-feeding. I was stressed, which caused chest pains. The chest pains caused stress, elevating my blood pressure and concerns. Repeat.
Had I not gotten my chest pain evaluated it would have continued in perpetuity, perhaps ultimately leading to an actual health issue.
The same is true, particularly of democratic institutions, when it comes to foreign affairs.
When the mass of voters, and even many of their representatives, are woefully ignorant of foreign affairs their ignorance can cause self-fulfilling prophecies. Fortunately, much as we have doctors to serve as professionals on medical matters, we have military and intelligence professionals for foreign matters. Our military and intelligence agencies work tirelessly to ensure that the many relevant layers of government are making informed choices based on sound reason and logic.
Unfortunately, with the intelligence agencies in particular being vilified by the Trump administration, this has weakened the trust in the institutional barriers that guard the average American against becoming a victim of their own stupidity.
On April 14th, 2018 the United States, the United Kingdom, and France launched a coordinated attack against sites within Syria believed to hold chemical weapons. The goal was to both dismantle the Syrian regime’s ability to launch new chemical weapon attacks, as well as to deter the regime from even considering it in the future. The public reaction was largely negative to this, with both left and right wing pundits attacking it as unnecessary meddling in foreign affairs.
With the seemingly unending presence of the United States in the Middle East costing Americans trillions of dollars and thousands of lives with no obvious payoff, it is unsurprising that people from across the political spectrum were upset. What I found more alarming was the degree of the reaction, or rather overreaction, to these strikes.
These were limited strikes, and though I followed them with mild interest, my assessment was that nothing would change and people needed to calm down. I read countless posts about how this was “risking World War III” and “Trump is trying to bring about the end of days!”
Less than a month later… hell, it barely took a week, and no one cared.
But with two of our three branches being elected by the public, public reaction matters. “Remember the Maine!” was a rallying cry that helped start the Spanish-American War of 1898. The Gulf of Tonkin incident was used to justify increased American military levels in Vietnam. Politicians are often reactive to public pressure, and with politicians being what they are, they will do just about anything to ensure their reelection.
This may sound counter-intuitive. After all, if elected officials want to stay elected, why would they do something deeply unpopular? And how could popular opinion of wanting to stay out of foreign affairs make matters worse?
Note that both the Gulf of Tonkin Incident and the sinking of the USS Maine were not fully understood at the time, but that politicians used these matters to further their own goals with the public. To sway public opinion they exploited these tragic incidents.
Professionals at the time would have been putting forward their best information. That information may even be as simple as “we don’t know, and we need to evaluate it further”. But they would certainly not have been stamping these items with absolute certainty, because they would not have been certain. Yet politicians chose to use these incidents for their own gain.
If politicians in 1898 had said “let us wait for the facts!” then perhaps we may not have had a Spanish-American War.
If Lyndon B. Johnson in 1964 had said “I won’t commit American forces until we have all of the evidence!” then it is unlikely that America’s involvement in Vietnam would have escalated.
In the case of Syria it is apparent that the United States seeks less intervention. President Trump wants to withdraw all US forced from Syria. Yet is this in the best interests of the United States? Likely not.
Striking the chemical weapons depots was an idea that almost certainly came from his security cabinet and professionals who understand that letting the Syrian regime gas civilians is a pretty bad precedent to allow become a norm.
Military and intelligence professionals have warned of the dangers of disengaging from Syria. Leaving Syria provides an opening for Iran, ISIS, the Syrian regime itself, and many others to gain regional power. All of these players will be fighting tooth and nail to gain as much influence as possible. And the Russians would come out major winners, no doubt, if the United States is not there to keep them in check.
Which ultimately goes back to my original point – by attacking intelligence professionals as part of the ‘deep state’ and sowing that distrust, President Trump has laid the framework to do pretty much whatever he wants, at least in the eyes of his base. Whatever he chooses to do, no matter how much career professionals may warn against it, his supporters will be dismissive.
The alternative to striking the depots is, obviously, not striking them. With the discord President Trump has sown he could easily have said “we don’t know, folks, we just don’t know…do you trust them? I don’t trust them.” And, voila, we would not have engaged in the Syrian strikes.
I believe Trump chose to strike, at least in part, because he rather enjoys seeing missiles fly at his request. It’s raw power, and almost by accident he seems to have wielded it properly, at least for now. This still leaves the unsettling unknown of why Trump personally signed off on these strikes. What was his motivation, if he does not trust the ‘deep state’? And who else won’t he trust that he should?
Doctors tell parents to get their children vaccinated. Parents decide they know more than the experts. Suddenly diseases that haven’t been a problem in generations are making a comeback.
Instead of microbes we are facing that very disturbing reality for geopolitical matters. A world where being an expert no longer matters, because someone else has an opinion.
Look at the USS Maine. Look at the Gulf of Tonkin. Look at how easily the populace is thrown into shock and disarray, with their short attention spans, by a few dozen cruise missiles flying on their open YouTube tab. Look at how deftly politicians may abuse the ignorance of a nation for their own goals.
When opinions carry the same weight as facts, people die.
An informed populace is a strong populace, a safe populace, and we would all do ourselves better by considering all of the facts and the knowledge of experts before forming our opinions.
The Rushin Perspective 
Leave a comment