Talk politics.

One of the most cliche expressions in English speaks of people living in a house made of glass. This expression came to mind during a discussion of Obama's Fathers' Day interview with Charlie Rose. The smooth operator denied any connection between US government actions and the escalation of violence in Syria. This is like denying any connection between US policy in Afghanistan and the rise of al-Qaeda. It reminds me of the scene in Stevie Wonder's song "Living For the City" where a naive country kid takes the fall by running across the street.

Official US policy on Syria has been to encourage regional governments to arm anti-Assad fanatics. Obama denies this policy because he is guilty of signing off on it. He even made an allusion to the policy in previous remarks. The Saudis are especially adept at secretly interfacing with fanatical militants. That is exactly how the House of Saud achieved its political status to begin with. Let us not forget that the Saudis are the chief financiers of Wahhabi training facilities. (Those guys make the Westboro Baptists look progressive.) The US government has a long history of giving a nod and a wink to this medieval vector of theft, murder and destruction as long as it serves Washington's narrow minded purposes. Here is Obama denying reality in order to establish a fraudulent moral superiority.

During the interview Obama mentioned that the fanatics are more militarily effective than the moderates. This was exactly the rationale that was used by the CIA in supporting the more fanatical Mujaheddin in Afghanistan back in the Reagan era. Moderates are less militarily effective because they have reason on their side. If Obama listened to reason rather than knee-jerk policy advisers, he would realize that a military solution cannot be a moderate solution. The most moderate people will not take up arms because they know that violence only begets more violence.

In the interview Obama claimed that he was only reacting to the use of violence by Assad's government against unarmed protesters. He claimed to be sensitive to the loss of civilian life. Promoting armed resistance has the inevitable consequence of escalating the level of violence, as we have seen in Syria and elsewhere. If Obama was serious about reducing the level of violence against civilians he would not even consider arming the opposition, whether fanatical or moderate.

Finally, he spoke of promoting a representative government. This is an area where the glass house syndrome seriously applies. Nobody who knows anything about the American political system considers it to be representative. It cannot even guarantee equal treatment to its own citizens when it comes to marital rights. It should be the last government to make a case in favor of representation. (It also brings to mind Kennedy's policy of destabilizing the Vietnamese government in order to promote greater representation.)

What other aspects of the interview with Charlie Rose strike you as problematic? Do you trust the CIA when it comes to picking who to arm in Syria?

Links: The full interview with Charlie Rose. Bob Dreyfuss on US policy in Syria. Music by Stevie Wonder.