The use of chemical and biological weapons in Syria in recent days is outrageous no matter who pulls the trigger. It should be universally condemned. But the Trump ordered airstrikes on Syrian targets, even if the Asad government was the perpetrator (still to be proved, although not out of the realm of the possible by any means) are no answer.

It may seem counter intuitive to many, but only a turn to restraint, diplomacy, compromise, and cooperation in the Syrian conflict and the Middle East in general stands any chance of bringing some semblance of peace and measure of stability to the Syrian people. For such an approach to succeed, Russia has to be a full and equal participant. The Asad government has to be at the table too – not to mention other representatives of Syrian society. The UN has to coordinate and lead the process. Iran, Turkey and other governments in that region also have to part of the process The international community must ramp up pressure as well on Saudi Arabia to end its funding of extremist groups and the Netanyahu government has to be kept at bay.

Immediate action to assist and bring relief to the millions of refugees, fleeing war zones, is imperative. Some will relocate in Syria, while others will seek refuge here and elsewhere around the world. And they should be welcomed, not turned into dangerous pariahs and likely terrorists.

In the longer term, a 21st century “New Deal,” to rebuild the Middle East should become an order of business for the world community, and especially the U.S. and European Community.

Trump and his team will resist such an approach. They thrive in an environment of fear, hatred, suspicion, and threats. It conceals their political agenda and becomes a rationale to build up U.S. military capacity. To  make matters worse, the White House could see a vigorous military response to the Syrian crisis as a unique opportunity to stop the precipitous slide in Trump’s popularity.

What adds to the problem is that much of the foreign policy establishment is yet ready to execute a u-turn in its approach to Syria and the Middle East.

Obviously, public pressure and intervention is necessary in these circumstances. We can begin by contacting our representatives in Washington.

* More than one article recently has remarked on the militarization and escalation of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. And much of this is happening without any significant challenge either at the congressional or grassroots level. And to think that some suggested last year that a Trump administration would offer a redirection of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. How to change that is a major challenge for the movers and shakers in the progressive, left, and peace communities. Among other things, the many sided assault by Trump and his gang makes this easier said than done.

Martin Luther King was the outstanding people’s leader of the 20th century. He left us an unparalleled legacy. Nobody combined a liberating and humane vision, strategic insight, and practical know-how as well as he did at the time or since. Below is a brief excerpt from his speech, “Beyond Vietnam – A Time to Break the Silence”  delivered at Riverside Church in New York City (1967). Still resonates. Or should I say it resonates even more?

” … we are called to play the Good Samaritan on life’s roadside; but that will be only an initial act. One day we must come to see that the whole Jericho road must be transformed so that men and women will not be constantly beaten and robbed as they make their journey on life’s highway. True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar; it is not haphazard and superficial. It comes to see that an edifice, which produces beggars, needs restructuring. A true revolution of values will soon look uneasily on the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth.”

I’ve decided to bench once again the term “center,” as in a political coalition of the center and left. That’s where it had been for years. But in the wake of Trump’s election, I decided to bring it back into action. My hope was that it would give emphasis to the necessity of constructing a coalition that is broad and diverse enough to contest the Trump administration and the Republican controlled Congress.

Or, to put in a little more polemically, I thought it would offer an alternative to the small-ball, ideologically driven, “blow up the Democratic Party” politics that were making the rounds on social media. The latter has a militant tone for sure, but, in dissing people, organizations, and sections of the Democratic Party occupying the middle of the political spectrum, they become a very poor strategic counterweight to resist the concentrated power of the extremist juggernaut entrenched in Washington and a majority of state capitals now.

On their best days, small ball politics can make some ripples, but what they can’t do is set into motion and sustain powerful waves of opposition to effectively oppose Trump. Only a dynamic, broadly constructed – and at times contentious – coalition that includes the center as well as progressives and the left, older establishment organizations as well as new social movements, and Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer as well as Bernie Sanders has that capacity. And even if assembled, albeit through dint of great effort, compromise, and creativity, the going will still be hellacious in present circumstances.

Moreover, much of center is trending in a progressive direction, realizing that the days of a centrism that turns on the unalloyed blessings of globalization, financialization, and triangulation are over.

So, you might be thinking, why bench the term? What’s the problem? The term, I found, in its brief run over the past few months, confused more than clarified. Rather than being understood as a broad and fluid political current that evolves and is an absolutely necessary part of the far flung opposition to Trump, it is, for some people, nothing more than a term of derision, signifying an attempt to recycle the corporate driven policies and ideology of the Clinton presidency. For others, less ideologically inclined and new to politics, it is too vague a term to shed much light on what kind of alliances and coalition relations are necessary, if we have any chance of turning back the anti-democratic and authoritarian impulses and polices of Trump and gang.

Now I realize that no terminology is going to magically put everybody on the same page. Nor will any term resolve longstanding political differences of the varied groupings that make up the resistance to the Trump administration. We’re still going to lock horns, for example, over the Democratic Party – its nature and reform (and radical) possibilities. No doubt differences will crop as well over the role of the labor movement and other traditional social organizations aligned to the Democratic Party. Nor will everybody be on the same page as far as how to engage the Trump administration. Finally, the discussions will continue on the merits (or weaknesses) of an economic-working-class populism that subordinates (and sometimes is deaf to) issues of race, gender, sexuality, and nationality.

None of this, however, changes my decision to bench “center.” I haven’t quite figured out what I will put in its place. But I do know this: what I won’t bench is is my conviction that broad and flexible strategic and tactical concepts of struggle that unify people and organizations, politically and socially varied in outlook and composition, is imperative at this moment.

A comment of mine to someone else’s post. I hope you get the gist.

I hope you are right, that Trump’s days are numbered. I go back and forth as to Trump’s longevity in office. If he goes, its effects across the political landscape, would go beyond, in my view, an exchange of one bad cop for another and the triggering of an angry backlash from Trump’s base.

First, Pence is a nasty right winger to be sure. But his political pedigree isn’t identical with Trump’s. Pence’s traces back to the rise of Reagan and Reaganism, while Trump’s better fits the new kids on the bloc – the alt right. This latter association makes Trump uniquely dangerous, but what cranks up the danger meter to a much higher reading is his psychological makeup – his unpredictability, instability, and narcissism.