The Arab League isn’t endorsing any kind of military reprisals in Syria, and neither are most Arabs:
The vast majority of Arabs are emotionally opposed to any Western military action in the region no matter how humanitarian the cause, and no Arab nation or leader has publicly endorsed such a step, even in countries like the Persian Gulf monarchies whose diplomats for months have privately urged the West to step in. In the region, only Turkey has pledged to support intervention.
Behind the scenes at least two closely allied Arab heavyweights, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, may be split over which enemy poses the greater immediate threat to their regional interests: the Sunni Islamists who dominate the Syrian rebels, or the Shiite Iranian backers of Mr. Assad.
The Arab League, a regional diplomatic forum that has already expelled Mr. Assad’s government, said in its statement that it holds “the Syrian regime responsible for this heinous crime,” but the statement also appeared to suggest that the specific “perpetrators” were not yet known and should be brought to international justice.
Yup. Not much support for the Do Something Caucus. Not abroad. Not on the left among the president’s supporters. Not with the public at large.
Man, I wish we had a Do Something Caucus for the economy.
Not on the left among the president’s supporters.
What about Chait? He supports “doing something.” Is HolyJoe still considered someone on the left? What about Marty Peretz and Leon Wieseltier?
I suppose it comes down to just how loosely we wish to define “left”. I’d posit that if Holy Joe Lieberman is considered “left”, the term has lost all meaning. Lieberman always seemed to be not only a war hawk, but in many respects culturally conservative. The others, are ones that – while not being necessarily people I’d call right-wing – are ones I have almost never seen referred to as “left”, unless “left” is really merely a signifier that someone votes for Democratic Party candidates more often than Republican Party candidates.
Many of the names you mention, do still appear in the “do something” chorus. Chait isn’t exactly against “doing something” either, apparently, and seems pretty dismissive of those who are against yet another military intervention. Not really surprised, of course.
Peretz, Lieberman and Wieseltier have one thing in common: They are citizens of Israel first and foremost.
What does Chait actually suggest to do?
Just what seems to be DC Conventional Wisdom at the moment. We have no clue what we’re doing but lets send Assad a few Cruise missle, just because.
Chemical weapons norm > Arab opinion
Is this the same Arab League that did nothing about the genocide in Darfur?
Is being spun both ways:
Has anyone found a link to the actual text? I am having trouble finding a transcript on-line.
There’s always the lingering question with no answer on what do the players do the day after? After seeing Assad’s attack, on the anniversary of Obama’s ‘red line’ speech, there’s obviously some goading going on. And isn’t Assad’s brother the head of one of military elite factions?
It’s being noted that next week Obama is set to be in Russia for the summit and that announcing action while in Putin’s backyard isn’t an option.
Meanwhile the Syrian hackers are giving everyone grief, so what are they warming up for?
Where is the evidence that it was “Asad’s attack”? I have seen none, and despite a deceptive headline to the contrary, Lakhdar Brahimi, head of the UN inspectors, appears to be unwilling to say one way or the other. In fact, this morning he was not even prepared to say what sort of chemical agent was used.
LOVE the willingness to rush to judgment when it comes to bombing browm people on the other side of the earth. When its MY brown people I tend to take it personally.
Your people, and the Syrians have been suffering under Assad for 2+ years now. The UN inspectors, by all accounts have zero mandate to resolve the question of who it is that used the chemicals which explains why there will be no comment coming from them.
“My people” AND the Syrians have been suffering? Whom exactly do you think “my people” are, and if they are not the Syrians, then how is it that they have been suffering?
And by the way, contrary to popular propaganda, the Syrians have not only been suffering “under” Asad, they have also been suffering horrifically at the hands of various “oppostion” groups, many of whom are not themselves Syrian at all, but are foreign groups that have jumped on the bandwagon to try to make hay out of the situation. This is not unique to this specific civil war, but is the most common scenario.
In any case, the bottom line remains the same. Adding U.S. military violence to this mess will only exacerbate the situation for the most vulnerable people in Syria, mainly women and children. It is just simply wrong.
What is your back ground anyway?
I used the “my people” term in specific reply to your own reference of “my people”.
Addendum: I asked where is the EVIDENCE, and you replied that the UN inspectors will not comment. That does not answer my question.
Where is the EVIDENCE that it was the regime and not one or more of the “oppostion” groups. Certainly there are some among the “opposition” who have the access and the ability to use chemical weapons of some sort, who apepart to have used them in the past, and who have a far stronger motivation to use them at this particular time than the regime does.
There is no conclusive evidence as far as I know as to who perpetrated last week’s attack, so whom should the U.S. punish with their missiles?
No. I was responding to your assertion that the UN inspectors are not responding to address where the attacks came from, the military, the insurgents, or wherever because that question and answer is not a part of their mandate.
My first point goes more towards yours. I was questioning what happens the day after an attack. Without being guided by knowledge of specifically who, when or how the attacks are generated, the day after an initial attack is sure to bring disaster ten fold.
Humanitarian military intervention is an oxymoron.
I DO love that the vast majority of Arabs are “emotionally opposed” to the U.S. bombing Arab countries. It could not possibly be that they are morally opposed, ethically, opposed, intellectually opposed, or that, based to a significant degree on direct experience, they consider the phrase humanitarian military intervention to be a piece of propagandistic absurdity.
For those with access to a good enough library – or can find the book cheap enough – I would recommend “Dark Threats & White Knights: The Somalia Affair, Peacekeeping, and the New Imperialism” by Sherene Razack. The author looks at the “humanitarian” intervention in Somalia in the early 1990s, and the negative consequences for those who are on the receiving end of the intervention.
I DO love that the vast majority of Arabs are “emotionally opposed”
Yeah, that’s pretty appalling word choice right there. Nobody caught that?
The credibility issue with the upcoming report has neither to do with John Kerry or Barack Obama.
It has to do with “least untruthful” James Clapper. And the quality of the information that he passes to the President and the Secretary of State.
Looks like the “Show us the intelligence” line is pre-emptively morphing.
The USA has numerous intel services. James Clapper is no more in charge of every single bit of US intel any ore than President Obama can unilaterally pass bills in the House.
Then the Office of National Intelligence has succumbed to the same disease that occurred with the Central Intelligence Agency. Because being in charge of all of the US intelligence community was what was sold to Congress as the reason for establishing the Office of National Intelligence.
How many more times will we go down this internal political boondoggle path?
The military has its own intel arm which is probably bigger than the Central Intelligence Agency, to name just one. Do you not think that if the conclusions of one intel arm directly disputed the conclusions of another, on a matter this large, such dispute would not reach the ears of the POTUS?
the serious (“syria-ous”?) people have spoken. That’s all you need to know. So SHUT UP.
I am greatly worried about the idea of attacking Syria without going first to the UN, or with at least robust support from the Arab League. Regardless of the horrors of Chem warfare or of the legitimate idea such use should come with it a heavy price. This is the Middle East and next door to The Holy Land. This is the place even the best-supported international efforts come to to fail.
Even if the UN proves (once again) not up to the task of dealing with thorny issues I think the UN should be given its chance to address the issue. If it fails to do so, so be it. But I gotta think it should be given its chance.
I am greatly worried about the idea of attacking Syria AT ALL, and particularly based on mere allegations that the government used chemical weapons.
What specifically do you believe constitutes the UN “addressing the issue”? What would they need to do to convince you that they are doing so? I have my point of view on this, and am interested in yours.
Is not the concept of the UN addressing the issue self-evident?
Call me dense, but not, it is not self-evident to me, and I would sincerely like to hear specifically what you believe that should consist of.