Last week, like many other people, I was suffering over the issue of Syria. The media had zeroed in on the decision process, trying to analyze and over-analyze every morsel dropped by a member of the administration.
I thought to myself, how can we make good decisions in this way? At one point, the president said he was undecided. Everyone is undecided until a decision is reached. But, in the media it was treated as symptomatic of indecision.
As was discussed on last Sunday's Reliable Sources (CNN) the media are excited when possibilities of or military responses are raised. The media were sounding the drums of war, as some of the analysts noted. One international report I read even mentioned that Frday night, August 30, was the anticipated moment to strike. Fortunately that moment came and went.
I am glad that the weekend served to cool responses, after the president mentioned that he would consult Congress. That in itself will delay any response.
Good decision making requires one to sift possibilities and discuss options and their possible repercussions. As one analyst phrased it today, these sorts of decisions have to be treated as a chess game, not a checkers game. An unintended consequence of the war in Iraq has been to leave Iran as the most important power in Middle East since Iraq, once its equal, has been weakened immeasurably.
An attack on Syria, however surgiical or brief, may have a ripple effect throughout the Middle East. To do nothing may also have a ripple effect. It is not an easy decision.
It is a decision that needs to be made by cool heads, considering all the ramifications of any move or inaction. It needs time and time away from the media eyes, insofar as possible.
