The Outrage Machines: Libya and the US Congress

Salman Rushdie recently described the violent protests and assassination of Ambassador Stevens in Benghazi as a product of the "outrage machine" that has grown more sophisticated since targeting him in 1989. A couple of related questions are in order: Why has the outrage industry multiplied and whose purpose does it serve?

Surely one of the efficiencies is the advent of a better internet, with more people connected than ever before via greater infrastructure penetration and social networking applications. Ironically the same forces that unleashed the Arab Spring have been adapted to the purposes of marginal extremists. Moreover practice makes perfect as the saying goes.

And whose purpose does it serve? The clash of civilizations between Islam and the West has been sporadically reignited by incidents such as this one. The West for its part advertises its contempt for the barbarity of the Muslim world by publishing stupid cartoons and videos and burning Korans. The Muslim world responds with senseless and random violence. Why?

First we should note that there is no parity. Violence is violence and incitement is incitement. They are not the equally bad or the same.

That said the answer to the question is one word: power. Extremists exploit the sensitivities of either side to expand the ranks of their followers, magnify their voices and marginalize moderates. Eventually the media in the US caught on to this trick with Pastor Terry Jones in Gainesville, Florida. Thanks to their refusal to give him attention, when he actually did burn the Koran the consequences were less serious than when he had backed down on his threat earlier.

The Middle East is going through a turbulent transition and there are many factions looking for an opening. Extremists are afraid they have lost the initiative to the democratic upswell. Ultimately it will stabilize.

Now what does all this have to do with the US Congress, you ask? Or perhaps it is already obvious. Mann and Ornstein wrote an excellent book about the polarization of the Congress over that last 40 years. In their analysis, it all began when certain Republican members of the House stumbled upon a brilliant, if ruthless, strategy. Demonize your opponents and they shall come. Conflict rather than compromise gains attention. It can make an unimportant person seem important and crowd out the serious-minded people who should be leading the party.

I hate to join the chorus of lunatics who routinely deride the media. But both stories do highlight a constructive media critique. The media is as predictable as piranhas.

Finally, one topic that is missing from the debate is the boundaries of the freedom of speech. Tarek Mehanna was sentenced to 17.5 years for inciting Muslims to engage in terrorism by translating extremist literature and publishing it online. Similarly in Europe it is illegal to deny the Holocaust or sell Mein Kampf in many places. But somehow there is nothing illegal about intentionally provoking violence and the clash of civilizations via denigration of the prophet of Islam or its holy book. Is it not unlike shouting fire in a crowded theater? It is a more worthwhile discussion to have than the one about whether the Ambassador's death helps or hurts Romney.

The spring in Bashar's step

A new Syrian refugee camp inside Syria has sprung up along the Turkish border. These refugees have fled multiple times from aerial bombardment and were turned away by the Turkish authorities who are struggling to deal with their existing refugees.

The latest Syrian tactic is bombing bread lines in Aleppo. "Ten bakery attacks is not random – they show no care for civilians and strongly indicate an attempt to target them.” said Human Rights Watch. The video shows a chaotic scene of panicked civilians covered in blood and dust. I am beginning to have my doubts in the media's choice not to show graphic images. It makes us complacent and drives the current passivity in the face of an escalation of violence.

Bashar al-Assad has slain, in the 18 months since this conflict began with peaceful protests, some 20 to 25 thousand of his own people. Compared to Bosnia or Rwanda, this is more of a slow-motion massacre, calibrated to avoid intervention. Assad projected confidence in his pre-recorded appearance on Syrian TV, describing the effort as a "cleansing of the nation". The interview, with a dramatic musical score, seems more like a movie trailer.

Clearly what is needed in Syria is a political transition that honors human rights and avoids the type of chaos seen in Iraq that has the potential to draw Lebanon into its vortex. But a number of obstacles continue to frustrate this process.

One problem is the Syrian opposition. It is splintered into about 30 factions, the most well known being the Free Syrian Army. Many of these fighters are far from 'pure as the driven snow'. This lack of credibility as a force for democracy and human rights limits the flow of humanitarian and military aid, the bulk of which currently comes from Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Qatar. The civilian body composed mainly of Syrian expatriates, The Syrian National Council, also lacks legitimacy due to its lack of cohesion and support.

What would help is for Syrians to recognize more clearly who their friends are and who their enemies are. Their international outcries should be directed more forcefully and with more cohesion against Russia. They should call for protests at Russian embassies around the world and in the Arab League.

Russia and China have vetoed three resolutions in the UN Security Council. The UN General Assembly denounced Syria with 133 votes in favor. Russia, China, Iran, Syria, Belarus, Myanmar, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela and Zimbabwe voted against it and India abstained. The resolution was watered down at the end, with calls for sanctions and Assad to step down removed. The Arab League has called on Assad to step down.

Once again France seems to be playing the most forceful role, although Hollande is less hyper than Sarkozy. Sanctions imposed by Europe, the US, Canada, Australia and Japan have not been joined by the bulk of Latin America, Africa and Asia.

One proposal, now backed by Turkey, is the establishment of a buffer zone inside Syria which would be defended by international troops and air power. This would allow refugees a safe place to live and enable organizations like the UNHCR greater humanitarian scope. Further it could serve to engage and empower the best elements of the Syrian opposition.

Another proposal is a no-fly zone or several no-fly zones. The Syrian regime is now regularly attacking rebel-held districts with aerial bombardment and shelling, depriving residents of their lives and homes for allowing the rebels to take over.

Diplomacy has failed, deprived as it was by the lack of a credible threat to the regime. Ultimately it would be best for the Syrian regime to accept a UN-brokered transition, but that will not happen without greater leverage.