Senate Intervention in Syria: Yay or Nay?

Not sure. If it pans put, it might be a way forward.

I wonder how trouble Kerry is in for running off his mouth. The administration looks rather in disciplined right about now.

 

I think that anything that does not amount to "let's fire some missiles" is a good thing. Let's face it, traditionally a regime like Assad had chemical weapons principally to keep his own people in line. Well his people are no longer in line and the international community now have very little tolerance for the use of chemical weapons. It makes no sense for Assad to hang on to them. Syria has changed forever.

 

Well Russia is obviously caving in to pressure, it (and Syria) wouldn't be proposing this if they weren't desperate to prevent a strike. I'm not sure if Obama/Kerry were planning on it happening this way (play hardball and get the other side to compromise), but if it's a credible proposal then I can see them jumping on it.

Still, I personally support us intervening and using our naval/air/special forces to destroy the WMD's and crippling the Assad regime's military. But getting half of that done without us conducting strikes would be a big step in the right direction. After/If the WMD's are handed over and destroyed voluntarily, then the US can re-evaluate and see if further military strikes should happen if more massacres occur (or if Assad secretly keeps/uses some WMD's).

I really dislike how the Obama administration has made chemical weapons the "red line" in the first place, instead of the thousands massacred by "conventional" violence, though.

 

Summer Dreamer - You seem utterly convinced that the Assad regime authorised the use of those chemical weapons on civilians. You don't believe that elements of the Syrian rebels (whoever the **** they are) are capable of using chemical weapons on their own people to get the US and others involved in order to instigate an international intervention and regime change a la Gadaffi?

 

Best idea no one in the U.S. government thought of apparently. Imagine that.

 

Why? You weem to be a-okay with the violence as well since the main thrust of your post only seems concerned with the WMD angle.

 

Human Rights Watch thinks Assad did it.

The evidence examined by Human Rights Watch strongly suggests that the August 21 chemical weapon attacks on Eastern and Western Ghouta were carried out by government forces. Our basis for this finding is:
• The large-scale nature of the attacks, involving at least a dozen surface-to-surface rockets affecting two different neighborhoods in Damascus countryside situated 16 kilometers apart, and surrounded by major Syrian government military positions.
• One of the types of rockets used in the attack, the 330mm rocket system – likely Syrian produced, which appear to be have been used in a number of alleged chemical weapon attacks, has been filmed in at least two instances in the hands of government forces. The second type of rocket, the Soviet-produced 140mm rocket, which can carry Sarin, is listed as a weapon known to be in Syrian government weapon stocks. Both rockets have never been reported to be in the possession of the opposition. Nor is there any footage or other evidence that the armed opposition has
the vehicle-mounted launchers needed to fire these rockets.
• The August 21 attacks were a sophisticated military attack, requiring large amounts of nerve agent (each 330mm warhead is estimated to contain between 50 and 60 liters of agent), specialized procedures to load the warheads with the nerve agent, and specialized launchers to launch the rockets.

So there you have it... a 'sophisticated' military attack. Nice choice of words, in combination with the cover image.

 

This. Also, rumor has it that Obama has changed his speech for the address to the nation Tuesday night to reflect the Russian initiative. If anything, it gives him some cover internationally to step back, at least while the UN is still waiting for the inspectors' report.

I'll be watching.

Peace,

V-03

 

I still find this whole thing rather silly as the world governments are basically saying that it's a-okay to kill each other, but just not with chemical weapons and then what? They're still going to be fighting. Is...that really the message the world wants to send? I'm not calling for military strikes, but I think this 'compromise' is just asinine. Russia (or whomever) could negotiate a ceasefire with the chemical weapons being turned in.

But no. It's the same lame-ass attempt to 'civilize' war that we've been fighting--and failing--for hundreds of years and it hasn't worked and will never work because war is destructive. There's no way to 'civilize' something like that. However, we'll certainly try to have gentlemanly killings old chap. Cheerio! Jolly good blood letting. Don't forget to eat their heart as that's what noble warriors do and war is about nobility and glory and honor. If a man insults your wife's cooking, why, give him a black eye. That'll show him.

 

That's the reality.

We all know by now that Syria is not a party to the Chemical Weapons Convention, but that it is a party to the 1925 Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare. The length of time the latter has been in force, and the number of countries that have ratified the former together make a convincing argument that the prohibition is a norm of international law, and that chemical weapons use is a red line that no nation should ever cross.

"Make love, not war" is not so much a norm of international law, unfortunately. So, really, the message that makes the most sense is that killing people with chemical weapons is not an acceptable way to conduct a civil war. It's truly sad that Obama is just about the only world leader with the balls to advocate for the enforcement of the norm. It's also sad that he had to push the threat of unilateral military action so heavily to get some real movement on enforcement. Speak harshly and carry a big stick, I guess. And keep those unmanned drones flying. That's our Obama.

John Kerry stock must be way up today.

 

FIDo, sometimes wars are beneficial. Is that something you can wrap your head around?

Also, agreements among a large number of countries tend to revolve around the lowest common denominator. We don't have more laws against war because there are countries that would feel threatened by such laws; you know the ones. That doesn't mean that "world governments" all think it's "a-okay" to kill each other; that's a synecdoche.

 

Are they? I see a history replete with examples of why war is wrong--sure there's your average revolution, but there's also genocidal wars that the US has fought against American Indians and the Nazis against the Jewish people and the Jewish people against the Palestinians. Then there's your war for territory that can either be small or great or last 90 minutes--your mileage may vary. There's also the war for revenge such as our little desert expedition in Iraq and Afghanistan (to be sure, I supported the invasion of Afghanistan). Oh, and a cold war with little 'police actions' (wars) in which the citizenry of the proxy war country is devastated and nothing changes, or one nation becomes split by a minefield where one prospers and the other is in a state of oppression--or 'revolutions' in democratic countries because they might not support your 'freedumz!' like you want them to.

All in all, given that history of conflict I'd say war's have been on the whole a useless action. There's been what? Two or three actual revolutions where the country is better off than it was before? Not exactly a resounding success. Yes, I'm neglecting anything before the Enlightenment, mostly because our current history is really a reflection of the Enlightenment era and its aftermath. Which is funny that the US is slowly becoming more and more of a police state--the antithesis of what our founders intended. So even there our revolution is turning to crap and it's only been 237 years....soo...worse than the Romans. You've also got one war (World War II) which was necessary, but that war was only a result of the last one's failures to realize that revenge isn't the best policy. So I'd say that war only makes more war either in the interim after the last one or some time down the road because of the failures of the last one.

You'd think that since humanity is so terrible at predicting consequences that we wouldn't fight each other or try to dominate some other nation, but no, same crap as before. For further reference from the, "Zomg hee sais wur us bayud," crowd: Yes I am. I'm also not saying it isn't sometimes necessary. I'm just saying that if you're going to war, whether against another country or each other, you better make sure the consequences of that war are for the betterment of that country. In Syria's case I see no reason to get involved since aiding one side or the other would be bad for everyone. If we keep the status quo we're left with a dictator that regularly abuses his citizens and if we're to aid the rebels then we'll likely be back where we are six months later. There is no winning here, only various degrees of losing.

So I'd say that this 'compromise' is good only in the sense that it accomplishes what outside parties want, but it's still terrible for anyone living in Syria as they still have to live in that hellhole. But hey! Some wars are beneficial, 'eh?

 

Hey, everybody! Let's occupy FID.
He won't mind.

 

What do you guys expect from Obama's address tonight? It seems like it might be unwise to publicly commit to any course of action while the situation is developing so fluidly today.

I'm glad this middle way has presented itself, though there's definitely something strange about the optics of essentially declaring, "Now, go back to just killing rebels with bullets", but that dynamic's been present from the start.

 

I think he has to publicly commit to giving a diplomatic solution time to work.

 

Am I right to assume there is some kind of class level for WMDs? Syria might be off the hook if they give up their chemical weapons. Would they have a chance of avoiding a strike if they had used a nuclear weapon?

 

I shudder at the thought. Use of nuclear weapons under any circumstances, especially on one's own people, will open up an entirely new can of worms.

Nuclear is in a class by itself....except for maybe dirty bomb.

Peace,

V-03

 

You're really bad at refutation, aren't you?

 

Many organizations and qualified individuals seem convinced too. And if Assad didn't authorize it, and the government's armed forces did it anyways, that's even more reason to intervene. And if terrorist groups got their hands on this, then that's even more reason to intervene.

Also, Assad has already killed over 100k of his own people without chemical weapons, why would anyone doubt he's capable of using chemicals to do the same thing that bullets do? Also,, the Syrian rebels aren't a hivemind... and we know who most of them are.

And I've supported intervention that helps get rid of the Assad regime since early 2011, when he first started using violence as a response to protests.

Kerry proposed it, and there's a report going around that the WH has been planning this for months.
But even besides that... this is the really obvious solution, and one that Assad should have realized without it being proposed to him. The amazing thing is that Russia/Syria are actually considering it, which wouldn't have happened without this threat of force.

Um, that's because I'm responding to the geopolitical reality... I'm responding to those with the "chemical weapons are the red line" point of view (aka the Obama administration's view). You know I've been supporting intervention in Syria ever since Assad proved he wouldn't be a reformer but a butcher.

 

I like the fact that the position which is now being explored actually involves Syria as a willing participant. That is the entire point of international law and international norms, they have to be entered into voluntarily. Like a club with dress rules and etiquette, the objective of international law and its institutions is to foster civilised interaction between its members. This can only be achieved by collective and shared goodwill over the long term. There is and always will be your boorish and brutish members who turn up in jeans and flip the bird at the dress code. You have to take these brutes in hand and civilise them. Standing up and announcing that you are going rip their ****** hearts out if they don't stop is counter-productive. In this case, there appears to growing evidence that Syria has acted abominably. The correct path is to take their toys away. Stomping on their heads and kicking them in the balls is the antithesis of civilised interaction. I really hope this works out.

 

This.

 

People need to remember that before Russia announced this plan, we had already tried 2 years of diplomacy. We remember when Kofi Annan tried to negotiate a peace settlement for about a year? And then an Arab leader tried to negotiate a peace settlement for another year? And how Assad kept making promises and immediately breaking them? Yeah... the momentum for a military strike isn't out of the blue. We've been trying hard to find a diplomatic solution for over 2 years. This "breakthrough" has only happened now because we were making the case for military action. If it wasn't for that, this wouldn't have happened.

 

I think the central problem is going to be verifiability. Syria, obviously, is a war zone; UN inspectors took fire last week in Damascus. This is going to make site inspection obviously dangerous and perhaps impossible. You can of course use drones to "sniff" for chemical weapons, but they're not as good a solution as people physically looking at things-I'd say part of why Iraq got off the ground was that UN inspectors hadn't been inside the country to see what exactly (if anything) Saddam had, and before 21 March 2003 Iraq was fairly tranquil.

I mean, honestly, they may as well declare a cease fire and begin negotiations if they're talking about having the place safe enough for UN inspectors to look for signs of chemical weaponry without fear of being killed.

 

He just asked Congress to postpone the vote.

Good call; it might just save his presidency.

Peace,

V-03