Syria, chemical warfare, and marriage

As I read about the whole Syria chemical warfare debacle, it reminds me of my marriage. 

Here's how it sounds to me:

• I promise not to use chemical warfare.
• I didn’t use chemical warfare.  It’s a lie.  The other side used chemical warfare.
• You’re going to take consequences?  What?  No, I didn’t use chemical warfare.  The other side did.
• You’re really going to take consequences?  What?!!  Wait, let me get other big people involved on my side.
• Ok, the big guy is on my side and because of him I promise to hand over my weapons and play nice if you don’t take consequences.  But you won’t really know if I handed over all the weapons or what my intentions are in the future.  But trust me!

[In my marriage, what would come next was my forgiveness, reconciliation, and him saying:  I promise not to use chemical warfare.]

And it all starts again:

• What?  I didn’t use chemical warfare.  The other side did.

…

The similarities between the two situations highlights for me what’s wrong in both relationships:

1) These are not relationships of trust.  Dishonesty about motives, intentions, and future actions make it more of a power play rather than a real relationship. 

2) Both parties are trying to get what they want.  One party is trying to get the other to comply with a previous agreement, and the other party is trying to avoid consequences without having to fully comply with that agreement by appearing to comply.

3) Both parties are eyeing each other, sizing each other up, trying to anticipate each other’s next move.  It’s a nerve-wracking, hair-pulling situation as you try to gauge the sincerity of the other party and how much you can get them to do what you want.

4) The presence of the witnesses (Russia and the U.N. for Syria and the U.S.; counselors and the church for me) doesn’t really help because of #1 – the issue of honesty.  The influence of these witnesses – who knows if they will help or harm, as they try to push actions one way or the other? 

5) It's never about whether the one party intends goodwill, as they clearly don't.  It's more about what you can force them to do.  True trust can never come from this starting point.

I’m not trying to extrapolate and say that whether or not the U.S. should attack Syria is the same as whether or not I should file for divorce against my husband.  But for the first time I appreciate how delicate as well as dirty politics are, because I’m living it.  As an idealistic child I would have said tearfully, “Why can’t we all just be nice to each other?”  But in a world where oppression of others brings clear benefit, why would people be nice to each other when they could be not nice and get their way?  During the breakdown of my marriage I have understood a tiny tiny bit of what it feels like to be an oppressed people under a dictator who will take all your money, your freedom, your dignity, your safety and your lives, without the slightest bit of remorse, and then go onto a public mike and declare how much good he has done for his people.  The hurt and disbelief, the fury and indignation, the unwillingness to trust or compromise any more, the desire to just get that dictator out of there…I understand a little bit of how that feels.  I’m not saying that I support a violent overthrow or the murder of a dictator; I have been horrified at the atrocities that ensue with such a coup.  But I understand the helpless fury, the anger at all the manipulation and the lies, and the inability to trust after trust has been broken so blatantly and remorselessly.  I understand the shaking fists behind the Arab Spring, the "never again, never again."  

Oh, Jesus, please intercede...