Consider two scenarios.
One: A young George Orwell, armed with a gun, is walking towards an elephant on the loose; more than two thousand Burmese inch close behind him, eager to see the drama.
And two: A little more than a year ago, President Obama demarcated a red line for Syria. “We have been very clear to the Assad regime,” Obama said, “but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized.” By attacking its own people with chemical weapons, the Syrian regime has now crossed Obama’s red line. The world is eagerly awaiting a drama. What will the U.S. do?
In recent days, a variety of arguments have been offered for a United States military intervention in Syria. Assad’s breach of the red line is a recurrent and key argument. President Obama’s and the U.S.’ credibility is on the line. Yet if we consider Orwell’s essay Shooting an Elephant, the credibility argument starts to appear dubious.
In 1936, Orwell was stationed as a colonial police officer in Burma. Upon the information that an elephant was inducing chaos, Orwell picked a gun and went out to inquire. “As soon as I saw the elephant,” wrote Orwell, “I knew with perfect certainty that I ought not to shoot him.” However, he found that as he stood before the elephant, a throng of more than two thousand Burmese stood behind him. Orwell’s thoughts changed. “Suddenly I realized that I should have to shoot the elephant after all. The people expected it of me and I had got to do it.” Orwell’s and Britain’s credibility was at stake. “To come all that way, rifle in hand, with two thousand people marching at my heels, and then to trail feebly away, having done nothing — no, that was impossible. The crowd would laugh at me.” He ended up shooting the elephant, “solely to avoid looking a fool.” Later, Orwell deeply, deeply regretted the incident.
What, from this, can be instructive for President Obama? The two contexts, to be sure, are tremendously different. Obama, as President, certainly has a lot more at stake than did Orwell as a colonial police officer. But Obama finds himself with a dilemma — retaining a sense of honor and protecting one’s credibility — similar to Orwell’s. Should he attack the Syrian regime “solely to avoid looking a fool?”
Based on what we can tell from Shooting an Elephant, the following is an argument that Orwell might make.
“Mr. President, do what you have to do in Syria. But do not situate your decision on the issue of credibility. Sure, credibility and honor are important. Sure, it would be nice to uphold them, and appear resolute. But doing something simply in order to appear strong before others can be self-defeating. You had declared a red line that, if crossed, would invite U.S. retaliation. That line has now been crossed. Do retaliate by all means, if you must. But do not do so simply or chiefly because credibility and honor warrant you to. Do what you, yourself, truly want to.
“If you do end up militarily attacking Syria because of the credibility question, then you would be unwillingly shooting an elephant in just the way that I did, some seventy years ago.”