The End of Poverty in our time?

The contemporary debate on aid to the third world is polarised, with advocates and opponents arguing whether or not aid has failed. Discussing the merits of "aid" in this way conceals some amazing advances in development across some of the poorest countries in the world. Esther Duflo and Abhijit Banerjee's 2011 book Poor Economics expands on the ideas laid out in Duflo's TED talk, and brings to light some major advances in the war on poverty which too often go unnoticed.


Between 1999 and 2006, primary school enrollment in sub-Saharan Africa increased from 54% to 70%. In East Asia, the same seven year period saw the proportion of children in primary education rise from 77% to 88%. Despite rapid population growth in the world's poorest countries, the number of children of primary school age who did not attend fell from 103 million in 1999, to 73 million in 2006.

Of course, this leaves much to be done, and it is a scandal that there is still so much poverty amidst an abundance of wealth. Admittedly, the quality of teaching in primary schools is low in many countries, and millions of children go back to work in the fields at the age of 12, with no access to secondary education.

But there has been progress here too. Research conducted by Duflo and Banerjee shows that between 1995, enrollment in secondary schools increased from 25% to 34%  in sub-Saharan Africa, 44% to 51% in South Asia, and 64% to 74% in East Asia. These are major, positive changes which have happened in my lifetime. These developments are a reason to be optimistic about the future, and people should be aware of them.

As Paul Collier argues in his book The Bottom Billion, the number of people living in extreme poverty across the world is falling. " For forty years the development challenge has been a rich world of one billion facing a poor world of five billion people." Today, 80% of the world's poor live in countries which are on the up, while one billion are languishing in countries stuck at the bottom. Quoting UN figures in his book The Rational Optimist, Matt Ridley states that there has been a greater reduction in world poverty over the last 50 years than in the past 500. In a recent TED talk, economist Charles Robertson argues that Africa is now at the stage Mexico and Turkey were at 30 years ago, and a boom is coming.

For various reasons, this progress, although ostensibly the goal of NGOs, is widely ignored in the aid industry. Some are concerned that donations from the public would decrease if they knew that poverty was falling. But progress such as this, for example in the field of education, is a powerful reason to step up the war on poverty. For this progress shows that change is possible, and worth fighting for. On a practical level, these successes allow us to analyse which developmental and economic policies have been successful, and which have not, paving the way to a better approach towards tackling poverty in future. Suppressing success stories only reinforces pessimism and cynicism that development in the poorest countries is even possible under capitalism.

The fact that tens of millions more children across the world now have access to education is something that should be recognised and celebrated. News such as this belongs in the national curriculum. Positive change of this sort is a testament to human achievement and ingenuity. As Duflo and Banerjee conclude, "poverty has been with us for many thousands of years; if we have to wait another fifty or hundred years for the end of poverty, so be it."

Tangier: a forgotten episode of the British Empire

As an ex-world power, Britain sometimes seems to be wishing it had its empire back. When cuts in the defence budget were introduced in 2012 even the BBC seemed to be lamenting the fact that the army is now smaller than it was in 1900, and that Britain could now no longer fight more than one war at the same time. While few people today still believe in white superiority or Britain's duty to "civilise", many myths surrounding the British Empire remain intact. Linda Colley's 2002 book Captives challenges the conventional narrative by focusing on a largely neglected aspect of the Empire: British slaves.

Events such as the recent stand-off with Spain over Gibraltar illustrate the impact that the British Empire still exerts over the world map today. But as Colley points out, Gibraltar was only acquired after a disastrous and perhaps deliberately forgotten chapter of the British Empire. After the English civil war and Oliver Cromwell's republic, King Charles II took the throne and married Catherine of Braganza, whose dowry included the city of Tangier. Located on what is today the Moroccan coast, Tangier seemed an ideal strategic outpost with its position at the gateway to the Mediterranean.

Colley argues that the British Empire at this stage was far more fragile than is often thought. As from 1662 the English monarchy poured resources into the Tangier project, an average of £75 000 per year - more than was spent on all home garrisons put together. In theory, Tangier was to be defended by 4000 soldiers, but in practice there were often no more than 1500. But this is perhaps not surprising given that the population of England at the time was approximately 3 million. The empire was overstretched in terms of both finance and manpower.

Nor was the force in Tangier homogenous or unified. The soldiers were a mix of English, Scots, Welsh and Irishmen although this was before the Act of Union in 1707. Despite the threat of harsh punishment, defection was common. Many soldiers had fought on Cromwell's side in the civil war and felt no loyalty towards the king. Compared to Cromwell's New Model Army, pay was low and irregular. On one occasion, Irish soldiers were defending Tangier against English defectors, and communicated in Gaelic so as not to be understood. 

At this time piracy in both the Mediterranean and the Atlantic was rife. The so-called Barbary Pirates, who operated from ports on the North African coast, captured hundreds of ships and took those on board as slaves. Colley estimates that at least 20 000 English men and women were enslaved in this period. In addition to this, one of the punishments for defection from the English army was slavery. Despite the grand words of Rule Britannia, the English were enslaving their own kind.

But the greatest threat to Tangier was in fact the sea. Hugely expensive efforts to build a harbour wall to protect the port were thwarted time and again by the strong Atlantic currents and waves. In 1684, the Tangier project was finally abandoned and the port was demolished. The story of Tangier is an embarrassing defeat for the British Empire and has therefore been quietly forgotten. By reviving it, Linda Colley shows the British Empire in a different light.

 

Oliver Stone vs Steven Pinker

"The US must, can and will lead in this new century. The third world war that many feared never came. And many millions were lifted out of poverty, and exercised their human rights for the first time. These were the benefits of a global architecture forged over many years by American leaders of both political parties."

Hillary Clinton

Oliver Stone's 10 part documentary "The untold history of the United States" is a bold attempt to challenge the conventional version of post-World War II history.

Stone fought in Vietnam as an infantry soldier, and was shocked by the misrepresentation of the war when he returned to the US. But more importantly, when Stone had children, he was struck by the way in which pupils are still taught a simplistic story of good guys and bad guys at school today. This provided the motivation to produce "The untold history of the United States." 

The documentary begins with an overview of the Second World War. Stone charges that the American post-war period has been greatly shaped by two "founding myths:" that the US won the war, and that it was necessary to use the nuclear bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Of course, the US played an important role, but 80% of the German forces were focused on the Eastern Front. Approximately 400 000 Americans were killed in the war, compared to at least 22 million people in the Soviet Union, and possibly up to 30 million. 

The key role that the Soviet Union played in the Second World War remains largely ignored in American and British education. Stone alleges that this would not fit in with the conventional Cold War narrative, of freedom-loving Americans versus totalitarian Soviet communists.

Stone goes on to argue that contrary to popular belief, it was not necessary to use the bomb. 700 000 Soviet troops were pushing back the Japanese in Manchuria, and Japan was already heading for defeat. In addition to this, the number of lives saved through ending the war earlier has been revised upwards again and again. Stone sees Hiroshima as the moment the US lost its moral authority. As he puts it, "because we win, we are right, and because we are right, we are therefore good. There is no morality but our own."

The two founding myths led to the Cold War, and the frantic fight against communism both at home, and in proxy wars abroad. Millions of civilians were to die in the wars of Korea and Vietnam, while American history books continue to focus on the deaths of American soldiers, reveering them as dying to defend peace and democracy. The fear of communism was used to justify toppling democratically elected governments from Guatemala in 1954 to Chile in 1973, and some of the most despotic regimes were tolerated provided they were anti-communist. 

The documentary continues up to the present day, with 9/11 and the launching of the "war on terror" based on the same principle of "you're with us or you're against us" as the Cold War. Nor does it let Obama off the hook, berating him for his expansion of drone warfare. In 2011, the US sold 78% of the world's arms, and had military bases in 151 countries. Meanwhile, the US navy proclaims itself as a "global force for good" and statements such as Hillary Clinton's above continue to proliferate. Stone invites the viewer to consider whether the people of Hiroshima, Vietnam, Laos, Guatemala, Chile, Cuba and many other countries, might see the US in a different light. 

While Stone's documentary provides much food for thought, it is pretty depressing and whether intentionally or not, gives the impression that America's policing of the globe is making the world an ever more violent place. This is a notion which is very widespread - in a recent article on Syria in the Guardian, Nick Cohen claimed that the "world of tyranny and atrocity is no different now than it was 70 years ago", at the time of the Holocaust. 

Steven Pinker's book "The better angels of our nature" and related TED talk, although not written as a riposte to "The untold history of the United States" offers a fascinating counter-argument to Nick Cohen's statement. Pinker certainly doesn't set out to defend American policy. His argument is that we currently live in the most peaceful era that humanity has ever known, and that violence has been consistently decreasing for the past 500 years. 

He provides some fascinating statistics. The 20th century is commonly thought of as the most violent in human history. But while it is true that it was the century with the most violent deaths, this is due to the fact that the human population was at its highest. We have to look at the proportion of people who died in conflict to gauge the level of violence. In the 20th century, approximately 1% of the population was killed in war. In hunter gatherer societies of the past and present on the other hand, this figure ranges from 15% up to 60%. Pinker goes on to list the world's worst atrocities in terms of the proportion of the global population killed. Top of the list is the An Lushan revolt in 8th century China, in which 36 million people, 15% of the world's population at the time, were killed, the equivalent of 469 million people today.

Pinker is no American triumphalist, but his book challenges the pessimistic outlook of Stone's documentary. Totalitarian regimes were responsible for 138 million deaths in the 20th century, while democracies killed 2 million. Despite so many atrocities, the faults of the US simply cannot be put on par with those of Stalin and Mao. In 1950, the average conflict killed 65 000 people. By 2000, this figure had fallen to 2000 people. Parallels drawn between Iraq and Vietnam are false and unfair - dropping napalm is no longer an option.

None of this is to excuse the wars carried out by the US under the banner of fighting for freedom and democracy. Stone is right to criticize the standard rhetoric surrounding US history. But we should also recognise the decline in violence that has taken place, and refrain from regurgitating the pessmistic mantra that history just repeats itself, or that violence is getting worse. Instead we should embrace Pinker's conclusion that while there is still far too much war, the world we live has never been more peaceful, and this peace is likely to last and spread in the future. 

How can the example of a babysitting co-op help us understand the financial crisis?

Economist Paul Krugman's latest book "End this Depression now!" is a passionate and well-argued call to action. He challenges the conventional understanding of the financial crisis and claims that "we have both the knowledge and the tools to end this suffering."

Krugman lambasts the proponents of austerity in both the Republican and Democrat parties. "They think of the US economy as if it were a family fallen on hard times, its income reduced by forces beyond its control, burdened with a debt too large for its income." Krugman's thesis is that on the contrary, the financial woes on both sides of the Atlantic persist because we are not spending enough to stimulate growth and demand. So if the metaphor of an indebted household is misleading and inaccurate, how should we understand the financial crisis?

Krugman proposes a story about a babysitting co-op which first appeared in the Journal of Money, Credit and Banking in 1977. The story involves 150 couples who group together to share babysitting. Each couple is given 20 coupons which can be traded to pay for a babysitter. This way, each couple has reciprocate for the babysitting it desires and the hours balance out.

But the co-op hit difficulties when there weren't enough coupons in the system. Couples became worried about running out of coupons, so they kept a supply of them in reserve. This meant that the total amount of babysitting slumped, as there were less hours available. As Krugman puts it, the key message from this is that "your spending is my income, and my spending is your income." Saving coupons, cutting spending or "tightening our belts", whatever we call it, hurts the economy around us. Everyone in the co-op was going out less because of the shortage of coupons. The only way to get the co-op going again is to increase the number of coupons.

The cause of the babysitting co-op's difficulties was not  that members were abusing the system. They weren't bad parents and they didn't lack babysitting experience. The issue was simply a lack of supply. The same thing goes for the financial situation in the USA and the crisis in the Eurozone. It has nothing to do with government overspending, overgenerous benefits or a glut of "shirkers" as Labour minister Liam Byrne put it.

Historically, recessions such as the Great Depression before World War II or the recession of 1979-1982 have been overcome by spending our way out of them. Massive government borrowing to invest in industry and infrastructure create jobs, enabling people to buy products from others, thereby stimulating the economy as a whole.

Despite the fact that Paul Krugman won the Nobel Prize in Economics in 2008, governments continue to ignore his advice, at an extraordinary cost to the economy and the population. Essentially, the economy of the US is not using its resources. In 2011 there approximately 24 million people unemployed in the US. This is sometimes been blamed on a lack of skills in the workforce, but Krugman points out that unemployment has affected people across the board, regardless of qualifications. When MacDonalds advertised 50 000 vacancies in 2011 it received one million applications.

Between 2006 and 2010, the number of cars bought in the US dropped from 16.5 million to 11.6 million, and the number of houses built fell from 1.8 million to 585 000. Krugman claims "the US economy is operating at 7% below its potential," leading to a loss of one trillion dollars of value per year. And "what makes this disaster so terrible - what should make you angry - is that none of this need be happening."

It's high time governments in the US and Europe thought about the recession in terms of a babysitting co-op.

The anniversary of 9/12

Yesterday marked the anniversary of 9/11. In the tragic events of that fateful day nearly 3000 people lost their lives in the terrorist attacks that struck the United States. But the planes that flew into the Twin Towers needn't have changed the course of history. The so-called 'war on terror' was unleashed by the misguided response of the Bush administration beginning on 9/12.

By mischaracterising 9/11 as an act of war the Bush administration justified its invasion of Afghanistan. Osama bin Laden claimed that Al Qaeda was responsible for 9/11, and he had been given support by the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. But 9/11 was not an attack orchestrated by the Afghan government. Nevertheless, the US responded by overthrowing the Taliban regime which the US and Saudi Arabia had funded and enabled to come to power, back when they were the "good guys" fighting the Soviets. 12 years on with several thousand soldiers dead and unknown tens of thousands of Afghan civilian casualties, the war continues with no end in sight.

But it was the identification of an "axis of evil" - namely Iraq, Iran and North Korea - which took the war on terror to its next stage. With the logic that the "axis of evil" were supporting terrorism, the Bush administration invaded Iraq, a country which had no connection with 9/11 whatsoever. The war was based on false and doctored information, flouted international law, killing several hundred thousand Iraqis and displacing millions.

When George W. Bush declared "every nation in every region now has a decision to make: either you're with us, or you're with the terrorists" he ushered in the absurd labelling of "good" and "evil" and the blanket term "Al Qaeda" for any terrorist attack, which continues to this day. This has allowed governments around the world from Russia and Israel to Indonesia and the Philippines to declare their support for the war on terror, thereby conveniently being able to label opposition movements as "terrorism." In Bush's framework, Hamas or Chechen rebels can simply be declared to be "linked to Al Qaeda," immediately qualifying them as "baddies," and by definition the governments fighting them the "goodies", regardless of the regime's democratic credentials. Thus the unsavoury regimes of Saudi Arabia, Uzbekistan and Chad have managed to end up on the "good" side.

Perhaps the most disappointing episode of the war on terror has been Barack Obama's embrace of the policy begun on 9/12. Rather than embarking on a new course, the Obama administration has continued the war in Afghanistan, and has expanded the war on terror with the use of drones, most notably in Pakistan and Yemen. Drone attacks have killed more people than 3000 people in Pakistan alone - more than the total death toll of 9/11.

9/11 continues to be seen as Osama bin Laden's winning strike against the US. But as Bobby Ghosh argues in his powerful TED talk, 9/11 in fact marked the beginning of the end for Al Qaeda. Despite the sickening celebrations which took place in some extremist circles, the overwhelming reaction of people across the Islamic world was the same horror and revulsion as in the West. Al Qaeda completely failed to unite Muslims in a holy war on western civilization. Once again it was the reaction of the Bush administration beginning on 9/12 that did much more to aggravate anti-western sentiment.

As Phyllis Bennis wrote on Aljazeera in 2011, Bush could have responded to the attacks of 9/11 with the following words:

Our people have been the victims of a horrific crime, a crime against humanity.
We recognise even at the beginning of this crisis that we cannot answer this crime alone. This was not an act of war, carried out by a country, and we will not turn to war against any country. That will not find the perpetrators or bring them to justice, nor will it prevent future such crimes from occurring. Instead, we need a legal framework that is international in scope and that relies on international law and the United Nations Charter for its legitimacy.

We approach this crime internationally because we know that the only sustainable justice is international justice. And justice - not war and not vengeance - is our goal. We will seek the perpetrators and bring them to trial in a legitimate and fair court... 

It would be fascinating to know how events would have panned out if this had really happened.

Who stands to benefit from a war with Syria?

In the wake of Iraq and Afghanistan, who could possibly be in favour of a war with Syria? Of course there are members of the public and political elite who feel that we should attack or even oust the Assad regime out of sympathy for the Syrian population. I have tried to outline in previous blogs why I think this would in fact do more harm than good. The Iraq war was routinely condemned for being fought over oil, and similarly there are accusations of economic and geopolitical interests behind intervention in Syria. The aim of this blog post is not to put forward a conspiracy theory. It is inevitable that changes in world politics have winners and losers. This is an overview of the various different groups who stand to lose or gain in the event of a military intervention in Syria.

Although the US is the main backer of military intervention with Syria, the interests at stake are highly ambiguous. Although Barack Obama can't run again for election in 2016, he still wants his place in the history books and it is in his interests that he is succeeded by a Democrat. Despite his tough talk of a "red line" being crossed with the alleged use of chemical weapons and his threat of military intervention, Obama acknowledged in his address to the nation that war with Syria is not popular among the American public. According to an NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, nearly 60% of Americans oppose war with Syria. Of course, a short and successful war such as the Falkland Islands for Thatcher or Grenada for Reagan can be very popular and even win elections. But with the spectre of Iraq and Afghanistan in the background and the deaths of thousands of American soldiers, Obama knows war with Syria is difficult to sell to the public. 

In an article on Aljazeera entitled "will Syria's chemical weapons take down Assad - or Obama?", Mark Levine claims that Washington doesn't want with Syria at all, and has pushed itself into a corner through its own ineptitude. When Obama stated that he would put a vote on military intervention in Syria to Congress, it seemed like he was looking for a get out of jail free card. Secretary of State John Kerry clarified that Obama could still order a military intervention without Congress' approval, but a no-vote would also have made it easier for Obama to justify holding off.

But while Obama fears that Syria could become his Iraq, there are also other interests at stake in Washington. In her book "Empire of Capital" Ellen Wood points out that the US' superpower status depends increasingly on its military capacity. Economically the US is falling behind - the EU together is now a bigger economy, China is catching up fast, the Euro and Yuan are rivalling the once all-powerful Dollar and the US is heavily in debt. It is only in the military sphere that the US reigns supreme. Wood argues that interventions in Afghanistan, Iraq, and now potentially Syria are necessary for the US to demonstrate its influence and maintain its superpower status. 

Hawks in Washington may believe that a show of force in Syria would show the Iranians that the US means business, thereby discouraging them from pursuing nuclear weapons. Of course, intervention in Syria could also make Iran feel more vulnerable, making it more resolved than ever to acquire nuclear capabilities. Meanwhile Saudi Arabia has been one of the main backers of the Free Syria Army, the rebel movement fighting against the Assad regime. Predominantly Sunni Saudi Arabia and Shia Iran have long been the two rival great powers in the Middle East. Intervention in Syria is an opportunity for Saudi Arabia to show its value as an ally to the US, and potentially to secure a fellow Sunni government in Syria, thereby striking a blow against  Iran.

In an article in the Asia Times Pepe Escobar claims that intervention in Syria "is all about control of natural resources and channels of distribution." This may sound somewhat hyperbolic, but it is clear that there are energy interests at stake. The biggest supplier of natural gas to the West is currently Russia, but Putin's government has been known to exert political pressure by increasing gas prices. It would therefore be beneficial to Western countries to reduce their dependency on Russian gas and to find another source. Qatar has enormous reserves of natural gas, but the question is how to access it. A pipeline from the Persian Gulf to Europe would need to cross either Israel, Lebanon or Syria in order to get to the Mediterranean. A friendly government in Damascus would be helpful. Of course, a military intervention that plunges Syria further into civil war and instability for the next decade would be counterproductive in achieving this goal. 

Syria's key ally at the UN has been Russia. Russia has had good relations with the Assad regime for many years, as Syria allows the Russian navy to use the port of Tartus on the Mediterranean Sea. Assad has been able to rely on support from Russia as he knows the military strategic interests which are at stake. Russia would veto a UN resolution to intervene in Syria and Putin has questioned the credibility of the claims that chemical weapons have been used, but at the same time Russia doesn't want to be seen to be supporting dictatorships around the world. The Russian brokered plan to put Syria's chemical weapons under UN control has therefore been a masterstroke of diplomacy, steering clear of war, protecting Assad and coming across as far more reasonable and peace-loving than the belligerent looking Obama administration. 

Just 36 hours ago a military strike on with Syria seemed imminent - today it looks like war may be averted. Yesterday civilians in Damascus thought that within weeks American bombs could be falling on them. They still can't rule out the possibility but now it seems less likely. None of the geopolitical interests which I have mentioned can explain the change in the stance of the Obama administration on their own, but it is clear that there are various agendas being played out behind the scenes. It is horrifying that in the 21st century human lives, in this case of the Syrian people, can still be treated with such indifference.  

The similarities between Syria's chemical weapons and Iraq's WMDs

So now it looks like Barack Obama has stepped back from war with Syria. In his address to the nation which only days ago had been intended to try to sell a war with Syria to the American public, Obama instead confirmed that he would pursue the Russian brokered peace plan. Diplomatic rather than military options are to be used to try to put Syria's chemical weapons under UN control. Nevertheless the possibility of war has not been ruled out - Obama stated that the US military would "maintain its current posture," and once again invoked the death of 1400 people in a chemical weaponsattack in a suburb of Damascus as a justification. But how sure can we be that the Assad regime really is guilty of killing civilians with chemical weapons?

In an article in the Asia Times, historian and journalist specialising in US national security policy Gareth Porter argues that the "intelligence" behind the chemical weapons claim is highly questionable. Obama's case for military intervention in Syria hinges on the widely circulated allegation that "1,429 people were killed in the chemical weapons attack, including at least 426 children''. Porter states that there is no source for this figure. The number of casualties is also several times higher than estimates held by British and French intelligence.

So what is the source of information behind the chemical weapons allegation? According to Portas, "the White House selected those elements of the intelligence community assessments that supported the administration's policy of planning a strike against the Syrian government force and omitted those that didn't." The key document in question entitled "Government Assessment of the Syrian Government's Use of Chemical Weapons on August 21, 2013'' was in fact released by the White House press secretary rather than the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper. 

The title of the document speaks volumes - is this a government report or an intelligence report? Former director of the Strategic, Proliferation and Military Affairs Office in the Bureau of Intelligence and Research Greg Thielmann asked "if it's an intelligence assessment why didn't they label it as such?" DNI James Clapper has refused to endorse the report. It sounds like yet another "dodgy dossier" and Iraq all over again. Another war with a Middle Eastern dictatorship based on doctored "intelligence."

And the similarities with Iraq don't end there. The Obama administration has made it clear that it would be prepared to intervene without a UN resolution. Once again an American government is prepared to start a war with a country which poses no threat to its own security, to flout international law and to ignore the lack of support both at home and abroad. The BRICS group of emerging economies - Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa voiced their opposition to military intervention without UN approval at a G20 summit last week. Meanwhile Hillary Clinton's comment on recent developments was "if the [Syrian] regime immediately surrendered its stockpiles to international control as was suggested by Secretary Kerry and the Russians, that would be an important step. But this cannot be another excuse for delay or obstruction." In other words, war can't be ruled out even if the Assad regime complies fully with the UN in giving up its chemical weapons stockpiles. 

Once again an American government is prepared to go to war based on a dubious claim to be upholding international human rights. As John Pilger points out in the Guardian today, Obama's condemnation of Assad reeks of hypocrisy and historical amnesia given the US usage of napalm in Vietnam, white phosphorous in Iraq and drones today. Meanwhile the fact that Saudi Arabia is a key backer of the Syrian rebels and would-be partner in a war on Assad shows that Washington is still happy to work with highly unsavoury regimes to further its own agendas. 

Obama has stressed war with Syria "would not be another Iraq or Afghanistan." But who exactly are the members of the Free Syria Army? Secretary of State John Kerry estimates that "hardcore Islamist fighters account for only some 15% of the rebel army." The removal of Assad's regime would likely plunge Syria into civil war, with various extremist factions fighting for power. In other words, it could well be Iraq or Afghanistan all over again. As Slavoj Zizek put it, "will the US repeat their Afghanistan mistake of arming the future al-Qaida and Taliban cadres?"

We can only hope that the plan to put Syria's chemical weapons under UN control succeeds, and that Syria's similarities with Iraq and Afghanistan end before a military intervention takes place. But even if there is no war with Syria, it is terrifying that the Obama administration has come this close.