Senate Intervention in Syria: Yay or Nay?

Gas a few Kurds, gas a few Iranians, hey...**** happens. Gas your own population in open rebellion and people lose their mind. I'm not saying what's going on is right, but the US has lost all credibility with after the revelation that we helped Saddam gas the Iranians over some BS 'payback' for the hostage situation and their own revolution. So you can put me down in the nay camp. I don't think supporting these rebels is a good idea nor do I think we should support the Assad government. You're just trading one group of thugs for another, and then you'll be back there again in 3 months when the next government ****s the bed. I also don't think acting as policemen has worked out too well for the US in the past so why is this one different?

I mean, if you've got a hard one for a war then that's...well...crazy, but understandable and that's no excuse to support military intervention. I'd like to see the United States go one decade without fighting a damn war, being involved in some other nation's disputes, or just leaving everything the frick alone. Just one. That would be nice. And Summer Dreamer, targeting rebels vs. military is nice, but it's not as if they wear big yellow signs on their back saying, "Don't shoot, I'm a rebel!" I don't think we've made that sort of missile yet. So while I appreciate the sentiment, you know that's not how it's gonna work out.

 

V03, what's completely funny is how little partisan that observation was. I was speaking in terms of consequence, not who the particular President was.

You do remember that Bush gave his "mission accomplished" speech at the conclusion of combat action in Iraq, not before, right? In fact, the entire speech was delivered to the personnel of the USS Abraham Lincoln, who were all heading home at the completion of their combat tour, so the scope was limited. However, what Bush hadn't thought of was how it would be viewed by his critics, considering the occupation of Iraq would continue on for another 8 years. Bush's "mission accomplished" just added fuel to the fire that he had lost control of Iraq, after it had already begun. But there was nothing policy-specific that was tied to the speech. It was just baffoonary.

Obama gave his "absolute red line" speech as a pronouncement-clearly a dare- before any hostilities had even begun, and as a representation of the foreign policy he would pursue in such a case. So now that there is evidence of chemical weapon use, he's locked himself into some sort of action. But what? Just shooting cruise missiles into buildings? Bombing aspirin factories? Assassinating Assad? What kind of proof is the administration going to accept? That's how the scales are different, because the red line speech represents a specific "if-then" equation. Obama himself outlined the conditions for US policy in this regard, and now he is coming off as unsure what to actually do, or how to specifically carry out what he pronounced. Garry Trudeau used to draw Clinton using the image of a waffle. If ever there was a case to bring back the waffle in Doonesbury, this would be it.

What's funny to me is how the overall rhetoric of war never seems to change, and how no one learns anything from past mistakes. Hearing the administration's justification to attack Syria is like hearing the justification to invade Iraq set on "repeat play" all over again. The administration is saying how such actions represent an undefined threat to US security, how such things can't go unpunished, and so on... I don't think Karl Rove himself could write better press releases back in 2003.

This works both ways, as what is the most cartoonish is Syria's boastful defiance. Yeah, with the same former Soviet/Russian military garbage that every other dictator always gets supplied with, and which is most successful at being destroyed in place. I expect to see a whole new round of night vision footage of Syria anti-aircraft guns firing blindly into the sky and/or T-72 tanks spectacularly blowing up where ever they happen to be.

But the nutshell is that the US should have never pronounced the red line, on its own, in the first place, and there is absolutely no reason why the US should take any kind of unilateral action based on that line. But that point is already past, I think.

 

What do you mean by "before hostilities had even begun"? I thought the "red line speech" was August 20, 2012, and Assad had first deployed his military against civilians in April 2011.

ABC News quotes that statement as:

I'd like to see a more careful argument for how this has backed the president into a corner in terms of any particular kind of action rather than the mere repetition of this meme in all the media as if it were some kind of empirical truth.

The hawks want to convert this into a new push to arm the opposition, which I hope Obama still opposes:

As far as I'm concerned, a limited punitive strike satisfies the demands of Obama's "changed calculus" while hopefully holding off Karl Rove and the other war mongers listed above who want to draw us even deeper into the conflict.

 

Jabba, before the US entered into any kind of hostilities....

If two people are fighting on a school yard, and I just stand around watching, I'm not involved in the melee by any stretch of the imagination. If, while I'm watching, I yell "If you punch Petey in the nose, I'm going to join in!" If the other guy does actually punch poor Petey in the nose, then I'm most certainly just involved myself. As an aside, the one school kid might not have even thought about punching Petey in the nose before I issued my challenge, and perhaps even more importantly, I think Petey now has a reasonable expectation that I will jump in on his side, no matter the consequence to me.

That's kind of a huge difference, especially if the school yard potentially involves thousands of lives and millions of dollars.

 

Characterizing it as a dare ignores the fact that all along Assad was believed to have been sitting on one of the world's biggest chemical weapons stockpiles, and to leave that unaddressed would be irresponsible for a major power. Everyone in the media is focusing on the "red line" part of the statement rather than on the "changed calculus" statement. Of course, absolutely, unequivocally, the world should be thinking about the problem of involvement in Syria's civil war differently once chemical weapons enter the conflict. It remains in my view the most reasonable public statement that I could imagine Obama making about it. "We know Assad has chemical weapons. We know he will be tempted to use them if the going gets tough. We want him to know in advance that if he does it will change how the outside world --and the U.S.--thinks about the conflict." Straightforward. Practical. Sensible. Yet it does not commit the U.S. to any particular response, military or otherwise.

I think the British insistence on a more complete report from UN inspectors is also entirely sensible, and not inconsistent with anything Obama has said.

 

Except that goes back to how no one ever seems to learn anything from past history. To say that "Assad was believed to have been sitting on one of the world's biggest chemical weapons stockpiles," sounds vaguely familiar. To "leave that unaddressed would be irresponsible?" That also sounds familiar. From a policy standpoint, it would do nothing to shoot missiles into some buildings. So, if the goal is to actually assess and take control of Syria's "largest stockpile" of chemical weapons, if that is the concern, then someone has to send in ground forces to secure them. Otherwise, it's just rhetoric, and half a donkey will never pull a cart.

Jabba, 13 countries have declared that they are recognized chemical weapons producers under the UN's "Chemical Weapon Convention." Most are the typical international gang of big shots such as France, Russia, US, etc.. But there's also Libya....Bosnia.....India...Serbia...Iran....Iraq...

Additionally, Angola, Egypt, Sudan, and North Korea have all basically told the UN to stuff it and have simply ignored the treaty. Egypt is currently undergoing unrest. Where are Egypt's chemical weapons? Who is North Korea selling Sarin to? More people have been killed in Sudan's cleansing than in Syria's civil war, chemical weapons or not. What makes Assad's actions suddenly so much more worthy of attention?

It's one thing to make a general declaration that "any country that uses chemical weapons will immediately be subject to international scrutiny," as such a statement is undefined, if not obvious. But that's a statement the UN should make, not any single country. And in fact, is the basis for the UN treaty. It's all together different to declare in no uncertain terms that "If X uses chemical weapons in Y specific conflict, then it will be US policy to treat it as moment to which there is no coming back from." The differences are obvious.

 

You're ignoring context. Syria's chemical weapons are an issue of international concern specifically in light of an ongoing civil war. What Obama said was not that use of chemical weapons was a moment "to which there is no coming back from." What he said was that their use in the conflict would fundamentally change the calculus of how the U.S. thinks about its policy toward the Syrian civil war. You're not the only one, because most of the national media is also playing along, but you're mischaracterizing what the president said about it. It's not that Syria is the only nation with chemical weapons. It just happens to be the one that is under a dictatorship in the midst of a brutal civil war, which makes it fundamentally a different case from France.

And as other have pointed out, just talking about military options is enough to "change the calculus" and fulfill the red line distinction. Even having the debate about military options puts Assad on notice that the U.S.'s stance has changed as the result of his use of chemical weapons. Again. An entirely sensible approach and one the president should be commended for. Also, of course there are the many other nations that seem to share support for this approach.

 

Based on your past posting history, 44, it wasn't an unreasonable assumption to make.

But my bad if I got it wrong. All kidding aside, I do agree with what you said in response to my post; red lines are bad, no matter who draws them.

 

44, I maintain that the ethnic situation is incomparable with Iraq. If you want to make it seem that way, you're going the way of the 'Mission accomplished' banner.

Which by the way is a completely different way than the way of the red line speech. Again, incomparable. Why even try comparing the two? The red line speech is a conditional declaration of war, solidly motivated by idealism. The Mission accomplished banner is a misapplied victory photo op, seemingly motivated by considerations of morale. The red line speech takes the US back to policing the world, enforcing UN declarations. The Mission accomplished banner... was a sign that the US government was hurrying to wrap up their flagrant manipulation of the UN.

One could help rid the US of its overseas stigma, if it's followed up on The other only confirmed it.

So... here's your chance to finally see me support American military intervention, your chance to (at least temporarily) restore my faith in Team America, and you're arguing against it?

 

You guys all have it wrong. The red line speech was not a conditional declaration of war. It was a declaration of the conditions that would alter the framework within which the U.S. considered its level of involvement in the Syrian civil war. Obama did not promise military action. He did not even promise any action at all. He promised a new framework for considering what the U.S. would do, which might include increased pressure on the U.N., discussions with NATO, engagement of its key allies on the issue, etc. (precisely the things that have now happened).

 

I'm ambivalent. I think there are very few legitimate reasons to intervene in a country's internal civil war. One reason is to defend neighboring countries if the war spills over the borders (though I'd prefer the countries defend themselves if they're able). Another is genocide or ethnic cleansing, which is obviously not happening in Syria. The third reason is the use of so-called weapons of mass destruction-- that is, nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons. Obviously the U.S. would be hypocritical if it intervened in Syria and failed to do so in the Iran-Iraq war, but since when is that a new thing?

Chemical weapons are legitimately banned by international agreements. They are potentially far more destructive than "conventional" weapons and are prone to significant "collateral damage." Plus, you know, I like when any weapon is banned.

That said, the United States does not have a great history of meddling in another country's internal affairs. At all. Especially since 1945. I certainly think that, if President Obama decides to authorize military action, it will serve to strengthen the U.S./West's position over Syria at Syria's expense (be it ruled by the al-Assad regime or a successor state).

 

Yeah Jabba, that wasn't my point though. But you're right.

 

But you're intentionally diminishing the finality of the speech. It wasn't a declaration of war, no. But it was a direct warning. It was a challenge.

That's why I drew comparisons to the "mission accomplished" speech. Not to suggest that they were the same, but to suggest that the context they were delivered in overshadowed the actual message. Bush was simply acknowledging a specific crew on an aircraft carrier. He wasn't suggesting that Iraq in its entirety was "mission accomplished," but just that specific crew. However, it was ill-timed, and ill-informed to deliver that speech when military teammates to that crew still faced 8 years of insurgent conflict inside of Iraq.

Obama backed himself into a corner precisely the same way. He didn't suggest working with allies, or negotiating with the UN, or anything of the sort. And to suggest he did is disingenuous. This is why everyone is now scrambling to find "a proper response based on the evidence." Obama either declared that the US would go it alone, and now any allies have to catch up, or he pretended to speak for everyone when he had no authority to. Neither one is all that great. He, in no uncertain terms, issued an ultimatum. That's what drawing a final red line means. In fact, Obama also declared that it would be US policy to have Assad removed from power, so it was even a double whammy against Assad's regime. Obama left no room for Assad to back down, to come to terms or to offer any other alternatives. So, in a sense, Obama equally backed both of them into the same corner. Here's Slate's commentary on the situation, which goes into much more detail than I could in this space:

On Syria, Obama's words have done nothing but corner himself

When Barack Obama took office, the era of "dead or alive" foreign policy rhetoric was over. Even George W. Bush agreed this was a good idea. Obama's predecessor said that phrase--along with his "bring 'em on" taunt to Iraqi insurgents--were among his greatest mistakes as president. "I learned some lessons about expressing myself maybe in a little more sophisticated manner," said Bush. 'Wanted, dead or alive'--that kind of talk. I think in certain parts of the world it was misinterpreted." The Die Hard-style talk made Bush sound like a cowboy who shot first and asked questions never.

But on the eve of the US attack on Syria, President Obama is hemmed in by his own rhetoric in a way that many, back in 2008, would have associated with Bush rather than the man who won the Nobel Peace Prize based mostly on the quality of his words rather than his accomplishments. Obama is obviously compelled by more than having his bluff called. Had Obama never uttered the phrase "red line," he'd still be under public and personal moral pressure to act given the images of the attack. The United States did not respond when Saddam Hussein gassed the Kurds in 1988, even though as Foreign Policy reported this week, the United States knew it was being done. But there's no doubt that Obama's rhetoric has increased the penalty for inaction. It's one thing to fall short of the standard for the U.S. role in the world, as some commentators define it. It's a bigger failing to fall short of your own assertions. The president's rhetoric has opened him to other complications. He said that Assad must go, without coming up with an answer for who might replace him (or doing anything to push him). And last week Obama seemed to suggest that lack of U.N. support was a barrier to legal military action, more words he'll have to walk back when he takes action without U.N. support.

The full article raises some good points. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2013/08/barack_obama_s_red_line_the_president_s_foreign_policy_rhetoric_on_syria.html]SLATE[/url] HERE

 

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/19126-to-what-end-do-we-kill

Are you saying that doing nothing in Syria is the best option?

The unpleasant reality in Syria is that there are no good choices, for the U.S. or much of anyone else. But the crushing reality is that, comparatively, the U.S. and perhaps the world will be better off keeping Assad in power for the nonce, rather than coping with the likely chaos flowing uncontrollably from any other outcome.

There is no good reason to make a bad situation worse. It's likely to get worse all on its own, and unimaginably worse if the government starts to fall.

But wouldn't it be good if the "rebels" won?

Not likely. No one knows who the "rebels" are with any certainty, except that we know they are anything but a united, coherent force. We don't even know if any of them have goals worthy of support. There are many rebel groups with as many interests, most of them lethal – to each other, to their neighbors, to everyone.

But getting rid of Assad is good all by itself, isn't it?

Oh, of course, just like getting rid of Saddam Hussein was good all by itself. Have you no memory?

Unfortunately, we have been cursed with leadership that chooses to ignore the reality that nothing exists "all by itself." Everything is interconnected, which should be obvious to anyone. But Obama/Kerry don't seem to get it any better than Bush/Cheney did. Their common assumption, that they can control reality and determine outcomes, is a hallmark of hubris (also madness, also bloodthirsty recklessness).

For all the mindless destruction the Iraq war has visited on everyone involved (except the insulated commanders), the indefensible result today is an Iraq that has suffered and continues to suffer far more than it would have had Saddam remained in power. War crimes tend to turn out badly.

So we should leave Assad in power?

The first problem with that question is the assumption that it's up to "us," whoever "us" is. Unquestionably "we" can intervene in any horrific way we choose, and no one can stop us. But that's where our control of events ends, and the benefits of any intervention are hard to identify – most likely because they are nil.

Of course an attack might briefly satisfy the mindless impulse to "do something," even if all we accomplished was showing that we were tough, by teaching Syrians they better not kill Syrians unless they want us to come in and kill more Syrians.

But chemical weapons are evil, aren't they?

That's really a religious question. But eve if they ARE evil, so what? Foreign policy doesn't involve itself with questions of good and evil.

That's not the cavalier response it may look like – the answer is "so what?" Because pretty much everyone uses chemical weapons one way or another, and almost all the time no one does anything about it. The cry of "chemical weapons" is mindless emotionalism designed to eliminate thought, not illuminate it.

What does that mean?

Depleted Uranium (DU) is a toxic heavy metal with lethal properties. The U.S. and other countries have used and continue to use depleted Uranium weapons, DU WMDs. Our depleted Uranium still poisons countries from the Balkans to Iraq. Logically, we should have been sending Tomahawk missiles against ourselves for the past 20 years, to teach ourselves a lesson we're clearly having a hard time learning.

So ignore the pseudo morality of a near-hysterical Secretary of State who thought the illegal war in Iraq was a good idea, or at least too popular to resist. When Kerry calls chemical weapons in Syria a "moral obscenity" (as he did on August 26), remind yourself that he has never objected to DU WMDs. Ever.

There is no principle at stake in the current Syrian situation, and there is no articulable goal that justifies intervention except intervention for its own sake. All that's at stake is the unprincipled use of power for its own sake.

Are you saying we should just stand by and watch people die?

Get over yourself. We do it all the time when it suits us.

That's how the world has been for a long time, probably even before we intervened with Native American populations by giving them blankets contaminated with smallpox.

 

To answer a post a few spots up:

According to sources, Obama will go it alone if he has to.

I kinda feel bad for him. If he was preaching non-intervention, he'd be castigated for failing to show American leadership. The guy can't win.

I wonder how Britain's move will play out. I listened to part of the Parliamentary debate today on BBC America; the PM was very passionate about why they had to join the US in sending a message.

I guess it didn't persuade enough people.

Peace,

V-03

 

Well, Obama's already earned my emnity for his handling of the domestic spying program and I'm sure I'm not the only liberal to think so. So, I don't think he cares who he alienates anymore, but he's turned in to a pretty lousy president.

And then there's this: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/08/how-an-insular-beltway-elite-makes-wars-of-choice-more-likely/279116/]link[/url]

I hate my country sometimes.

 

The difference is that Assad never tried to kill Obama's dad.

 

They knew full well what the implication was when they chose the phrase "Red Line". That was not a slip of the tongue, those were carefully chosen words. They knew full well that the threat of force is implied in that statement.

Their bluff got called.

 

I'm not sure that'll hold up, 'Well your honor, Assad never went after his dad sowe know Obama's intentions are pure.' Not a good defense, I think. This 'political pressure' stuff is tantamount to a guy's friends taunting him and calling him a *** until he does something stupid. For full reference n this I recommend watching Bill Burr's act on how men act stupid because we don't want our friends thinking we're weak. Anyway...I hope Obama doesn't decide to attack, but he's disapponted me thus far.

 

Well hopefully Obama's people didn't describe the evidence for the use of chemical weapons in Syria as a "slam dunk".

 

Yep, he has. And when 2016 rolls around, if the American people are fed-up enough, we'll either elect an 1) Neo-con, big-government republican who will make us beg to have Obama back or 2) Rand Paul, and who knows what he'll do; if you're dead-set on not getting entangled overseas, then you can turn all your attention to screwing things up at home.

Either way, the US has difficult times ahead.

Peace,

V-03

 

NPR explained the very sound reason Assad had for using chemical weapons in this particular situation. He had a group of rebels he wasn't able to dislodge with conventional fire. That group had acquired anti-aircraft weapons and had brought down several of his planes/helicopters. It was a very practical tactical decision to kill them all with poison gas. I mean, what would you have done?

 

No. And I don't give two craps about what NPR said. Just because they sound authoritative and unbiased doesn't make it so.

Sent from my SGH-T989 using Tapatalk 2