You’ve heard enough from me. What do you think about the administration’s actions, arguments, and stated strategies?
About The Author
BooMan
Martin Longman a contributing editor at the Washington Monthly. He is also the founder of Booman Tribune and Progress Pond. He has a degree in philosophy from Western Michigan University.
Glad you asked.
To begin with, I am not as troubled as many are by the lack of more specific evidence as to who bears responsibility for the use of chemical weapons. Nor do I think that this position is inconsistent with my skepticism about WMD in Iraq. Simply put, I trust that this administration is not intentionally fabricating evidence for ulterior purposes.
For the same reason, I am willing to trust their conclusion that Assad or his generals ordered the attack (and I don’t see much significance whether it was just his subordinates). Again, I don’t believe that Obama would consciously manipulate the evidence to persuade the public into supporting intervention.
Also – and this is NOT directed at Booman – I have a real problem with a lot of the administration critics who see this as a black/white question whether we should go to “war.” Whether or not that term applies is a matter of semantics. But obviously, there is a world of difference between a ground invasion and targeted bombing.
On a somewhat similar note, I find unpersuasive knee-jerk claims that any military intervention is necessarily going to make things worse because we can’t control all the variables. Hypothetically, I think that there is a possibility that we can do some targeted bombing that would be more than a token shot across the bow, deter future use of chemical weapons and also not necessarily lead to chaos (greater than what already exists).
If it sounds like I’m hedging, well, yes I am. One thing I firmly believe, though, is that there is a genuine cost of inaction. And the cost is not just about our “credibility,” but also about what happens on the battlefield and politically (in Syria).
Finally, I recommend John Juris’ article in the New Republic, in which he interprets Kerry’s comments yesterday before the Senate. Juris believes that the administration -for better or worse- hopes that the military intervention will increase the chance of a political settlement, with Russia’s active assistance. That may be pie in the sky thinking, but I don’t automatically reject it simply because past wars and interventions were mistakes.
I mostly agree with all your points except I ultimately am against intervening in Syria unless there is a UN mandate (I’m not saying you are in favor of military action, just that you didn’t seem to say one way or another).
I’m satisfied that the Assad regime gassed its own people and that there is a genuine cost of inaction. That said, I think that even if the US has the support of the French, a military action will still be seen as the US engaging in cowboy foreign policy. Without a UN mandate to gain legitimacy, I don’t think action by the US will accomplish anything and will in fact probably make things worse.
No, we won’t get a mandate because Russia and China will oppose it. That’s on them, though. We have to recognize that if the world at large doesn’t want to act, we can’t do it alone.
First, I think that it is becoming clear what a complete piece of shit W was and how we’ll be paying for his willfully destructive behavior for generations, along with the world and its people. The destruction of our credibility is not necessarily going to deliver a worse outcome in this instance, but we can all see how we simply aren’t trustworthy anymore regardless of body counts and obvious facts.
Second, we are bombing Syria unless things change dramatically within the Syria regime and fast (see next paragraph), so what’s the point of all the blahblah (see last paragraph)?
Ideal outcome given the messy conditions? An international norm is upheld because a Sunni from within the regime/military replaces Assad explicitly because he killed his own (perhaps even prior to any US bombing). This would remove much of the rational for several opposition groups to keep fighting and permanently tilt the conflict to the one political entity that can maintain control over the CW stockpiles. If Assad is gone fast enough, the US attack may be rendered moot before it begins. This is within the definition of our goals as stated by Sec. Kerry. Yay us.
Worst outcome? The Syrian regime is significantly weakened and loses control of his stockpiles. They begin to be distributed by trans-national anti-American (or anti-anyone, really) entities, precipitating a race between Russia, Iranian proxies and the West to control said stockpiles on the ground and leading to the gassing of tons of civilian and military persons in Syria and/or abroad and perhaps even a direct conflict between nuclear states. Faced with the imminent threat of this last bit, the West would likely run as it did in Georgia and seek to use inspections and border controls to limit the spread of CW as Russia gains a pure proxy state on the Mediterranean and greatly expands is military presence beyond Tartus.
While I hope for the best case, it seems to me that the Russians are far better at chess that we are. There are at least two easily achievable positive outcomes from their POV: One would be the dispersal of WMD to anti-Western transnational entities (if only to make us waste more on the global war on whack-a-mole) and the other would be expansion of their military presence in the Middle East under the cover of securing CW stockpiles and/or protecting the regime’s ability to do so. It’s really up to them and how cynically they wish to approach the situation and what pressure we can place on them to prevent them acting in pursuit of these interests.
In light of all of the above, I think the best thing to do would be to continue to threaten and threaten while working towards a palace coup. If that fails, go ahead and bomb the shit out as many completely useless sheds and golf courses as we can pinpoint with an aim to do as little as possible to effect the outcome of the civil war. Sure, that last bit is a huge waste of money, but you get your norms upheld, maintain central control over the CW and have a chance to walk the fuck away without losing leverage over NK or Iran on the subject of WMD.
OK, I’ll take unilateral disarmament..
😀
I agree with most of your points.
But I would say that I’m pretty strongly committed to the idea that chemical weapons are a “red line”.
To the degree that we speak of “international law” we are speaking of an institution that depends on the will of the international community to make enforcing it palpable.
Everyone has Middle East war fatigue. This is yet another legacy of Bush’s lies about Iraq. But this isn’t Iraq. This isn’t going to Baghdad.
This is about exacting a cost for the use of chemical weapons. Because they are cheap and easy to make and if the world doesn’t exact a price for their use, then we can expect to see a lot more of them in the future.
After Mogadishu, we ran home with our tail between our legs. And when Rwanda happened, we decided we could not get involved in Africa again. Eventually, we bestirred ourselves in Kosovo, but it took an act of genocide in Africa to awaken ourselves to the fact that – like it or not – we really ARE the world’s policeman.
It sucks and it’s a thankless job. But the alternatives are worse.
I agree with this word for word, with the difference that I think strike advocates have the burden to prove the policy can be effective, and from I have heard that haven’t overcome the burden.
Aside from the other issues, a military strike makes me worry we’ll hit the debt ceiling faster. We still have that looming.
Good point.
I’m not convinced. I don’t want the AUMF to pass.
Frankly, I don’t care what goes on in Syria. I care more about the domestic terrorism that is being dealt by the GOP.
I’m concerned the administration is basing their case on an intercept Israel gave them which they refuse to release publicly. I don’t think that’s a very good basis to start dropping bombs. Especially when the avowed content of this intercept is already subject to interpretation. I’m unmoved by statements that the administration simply must classify things even when they concern issues of supposedly international interest. If that’s the only evidence they have implicating Assad, that’s just not good enough. I think if you go down that road then we can simply dispense with a democratic process entirely and let the General Alexander run the show.
I find the contentions that this action is meant merely as a deterrent and does not tend towards intervening in the civil war lack credibility, for many reasons. Even if I were to concede that the administration will be on it’s very best behavior and simply give Assad a good spanking and resist all further pressures to back a winner and so become involved in an intractable ethnic conflict (which pressure could exist for years if not decades, look at Iraq), it’s unclear how a strike which doesn’t tip the scales will also at the same time be a sufficient deterrent. And if you say, well blowing up some of his toys will certainly make him very sorry and give others pause while at the same time holding us aloof from the outcome of the war, I guess it’s still unclear to me how a strike that doesn’t alter the dynamic of the war (and give aid to people we really don’t like) is somehow better than a strongly worded letter or a UN resolution when it comes to sending the world a message about using chemical weapons.
First, with regard to the presentation of evidence:
I am convinced by the presentation that intelligence experts have determined with very high probability that elements of Assads forces were responsible for the attack. I am also fairly sure that any given bit of evidence is either too sensitive to release or not 100% persuasive on it’s own, at least when viewed by non-experts. This sort of intel is probably noisy/muddied in various ways, but when viewed in total makes a strong case. I think this explains why the administration is not releasing the evidence — it will either hurt their intel operations or set off a firestorm of criticism. I’ve already seen lots of that sort of thing on this site and elsewhere, even with what has been released.
Second, with regard to strategy: I believe that something should be done to punish Assad for this egregious breach of an important international arms control treaty. It would be best if the US could assemble the broadest possible international coalition to support whatever strategy is implemented. Any such strategy should not lead to even more loss of innocent lives than would occur otherwise. Some military actions that help to bring a quicker end to the civil war and oust Assad could satisfy these requirements, after which the perpetrators could be brought to trial for war crimes.
No offense, but your convictions are based on what you know and how it dovetails with your internal belief system.
I know that for most of my life our military and intelligence agencies have consistently lied in order to wage wars against the enemies of our corporations. My conviction is that there is plenty of evidence, and logic, behind the rebels deploying the gas.
Absolute proof? No.
But here’s the tell. Just suppose that it turns out that the rebels were responsible for that gas attack. Will Obama bomb the al-Nusra base camps to let them know that we drew a red line?
No offense taken. These are difficult issues and I have no illusions about my own or anyone else’s infallibility. Re. bombing the rebels, if we take O. at his word, I would like to imagine he would want to take some sort of action (in concert with allies) against the rebels if (huge if) they are behind the attack.
BTW, here’s what I suspect regarding the evidence. I suspect that there is a highly placed general (or two or three) in Assad’s army who is speaking to the CIA directly, and who overheard orders or was even involved in the chain of command for the operation. He may even have been able to provide documentary evidence of the orders, beyond the radio intercepts that have been reported.
Just a hypothesis. In any case this was a fairly big operation and the evidence will out eventually.
One more thing regarding your reading of history. I would beg to differ on an important point. In several instances I can recall (Gulf of Tonkin for instance) , the intelligence agencies and/or the military have lied or obfuscated, but always (as far as I know) at the behest of the politicians in command . The president gets fed the truth , as the agencies and military see it. What he does with it is his business, and the agencies and military follow his lead. I could go over the examples I can think of but I won’t bore you. I would be interested in any counterexamples you have, where the agencies or military knowingly lied to the president.
In any case, let us take as a given that the agencies and military have not lied. Obama and his admin. tell us what they have said: Assad did it with high probability. So, then, is O. lying? Why would he? Does he WANT to bomb Assad? I just don’ buy it, given his prior behavior.
The administration is flailing, has no direction, and is only confirming every far right winger’s accusations that he’s in over his head.
I only ask you a question in return: what strategy am I to comment on? He has none.
I have not been convinced, largely due to the questions Boomn has raised.
However, after the last round of “trust me”, I’m going to difficult to convince anyway.
I don’t see what our interest is here. I’m more interested in jobs here in the US.
Team Obama’s propaganda campaign for war seems as much if not more desperate than GHWB and GWB’s were for their aggressive wars on Iraq.
Jim White at Empty Wheel has connected some interesting dots in Why is Obama Changing the Date and Size of First CIA Death Squads to Enter Syria?
Reported by the NYT:
A bit like US and KSA arming and supporting rebel fighters for Afghanistan back in the 1980s. And it’s not exactly new information as the LA Times reported in June that the secret training began at least as far back as 2012.
What’s new? Go read Jim White’s article.
Sounds like a failed or ongoing attempt to provide a Western-friendly option to the crap options that the original cast of characters provided. A particularly nasty thing to do if it weren’t for the direct national interest we have in preventing the loss of state control over CW stockpiles. Still nasty, but rather understandable, no?
.
I’m consistently annoyed at how many people are getting sidetracked by weird theories about false flag attacks from the rebels, and a single-minded drive to war by the administration, while implicitly buying into the most fervid neocon fantasies about the omnipotence of the American military in general, and American air power in particular. The idea that a limited air campaign is going to spell doom for the Assad regime is pretty loopy, but it seems to form the basis for most of the skepticism that Assad launched the attacks.
pillsy, regarding false flag operations, remember the Maine. And the Gulf of Tonkin. And April Glaspie, if we want to expand the trickery category.
If our bombing weakens Assad, you’ve just strengthened the hand of the rebels who rape and kill women and children in Christian villages.
Or maybe we’ll just target unoccupied desert land. Or something.
Why not turn this over to the UN, find out what the inspectors found out, and let the world decide what to do?
The fact that military intervention is a terrible idea doesn’t mean that Assad’s regime didn’t kill more than a thousand people with chemical weapon.
I suppose that seeking Congressional approval for a limited act of war (which is what lobbing missles into another country is called) is laudable for an imperial president in 2013. But attempting to turn the Dems into an unpopular war party (after Iraq!) while letting Repubs do whatever the hell they want and have a foodfight is not a winning political strategy.
Kerry’s condescension (“amazingly…”) to those who for some reason are reluctant to trust or believe our can’t-miss intelligence community here is not exactly the way to persuade such folks, especially if the case is really so open and shut. And where was his explanation of Assad’s motive, since that’s Putin whole argument? Did I miss that? Did some senator ask about it? Details, I guess.
If the “strategy” after a successful vote is to unilaterally attack Syria without bringing the case to the UNSC for vote, then this is just more illegal American cowboyism under a different party and extremely regrettable. I fail to see how making the case to the UNSC and letting the vote occur harms us or our security interests or our “case” or our strategy or our image.
Our hi-tech wonder weapons aren’t going to accomplish even the destruction of the offending chem units in a largely urban setting. Collateral damage, baby. The world audience that will be impressed is very small and once again, we’re bombing Muslims. To help them, of course.
The Democrats have always been a war party. We are the internationalists. We are also better at war than the Republican party is. You don’t vote Democratic because you want to avoid war, you vote Democratic for competently fought wars instead of cluster fucks.
So who do you vote for if you don’t actually want your
tax dollars, you know, killing people on a regular basis for no particular reason?
I know, I know. I live in the wrong fucking country for that option.
Are you serious?
Paulistas!!!
Who else on a national level?
Please!!!
AG
Wow. You get a few pieces of isolationist candy and you’re willing to let those assholes experiment on our entire social contract.
WTFU.
I don’t know where you live or what you see on a daily basis, anarchronarchist , but here in working class urban America it appears to me that “our entire social contract” has been thoroughly nullified by a massive government that is totally uninterested in representing the will of the people who live under its sway.
Case in point? (Only the latest of so many.) A number of polls show that less than 10% of the people of the U.S. want to get involved in the Syrian conflict. Nevertheless, the Permanent Government most clearly does wish to do so and is pushing as hard as it can through the use of the Governmental Media Complex to make it seem that “right-thinking” Americans…that is, those who agree with its wishes…are in the majority. In the driver’s seat.
The whole N.S.A./surveillance state fiasco is another. How many of us really want to be lied to by our government on a regular basis? Have you followed the course of official lies about the extent of surveillance now in place? I have. From “Oh no…don’t worry about it. We’re not looking at the stuff we collect unless it is in our national security to do so in order to prevent them ter’rists from messing with us,” step by step backward as the truth has been revealed. The real motto of this government was spoken in public by James Clapper when he explained his baldfaced “No” lie regarding the extent of privacy violation in place during a Senate hearing. He said “”I responded in what I thought was the most truthful, or least untruthful manner…” And there it jolly well is, anarchronarchist. Our real “social contract.”
How’d you like them apples?
Wake the fuck up. Technofascism has come of age, brother. You either oppose it or you surrender. There is no longer any middle ground. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. The Pauls oppose this system. I agree. The rest of the anti-Paul bullshit? Do you know how to tell when the Governmental Media Complex is lying? When all sides agree.
Wake the fuck up.
AG
All sides are agreeing? Missed that. You must be dreamin’
Anarchronarchist …learn how to read. How did you get:
From what I wrote?
This part?
The salient phrase is “…to make it seem.”
Sigh.
Why do I keep tryng? When dealing w/people who use a catchphrase from “Star Wars” as a sig, what’s the use?
Sigh.
Real life isn’t about Yoda and the bad guys, anachronist. Where do you live, anyway? Someplace still stuck in 1977, more than likely. Like…in your own head.
Gotta go out now and deal with NYC’s subways and the CIA-allied police force that patrols its streets. Have a nice day in 1977. That was the year that this klutz assumed the presidency after his boss Richard Nixon melted down and was deposed.This one was so stupid he had to hunch over and grit his teeth just to sign his name.
Sigh.
What a world!!!
AG
I think it was this:
Get some sleep.
Ford’s presidency ended in 1977. It began in 1974.
More dysnumeria. Been like that since I was a kid.
AG
Here’s what I’ve gotten out the testimony before the Congress thus far.
So the questions are:
Though I suppose ‘likely’ covers way too much ground, I have yet to see a coherent answer to 1 that looks worse than a coherent answer to 2.
What he said.
Bet on it.
AG
I don’t think it matters what evidence this administration presents…Obama has just tied up the teabaggers. The teabaggers are going to have their debate. Don’t you hear the circus music…the clowns are in the air and about to land in DC.
If and authorization does manage to pass, it will be filled with all kinds of teabag limitations and restrictions. It will leave Obama with a weak position to negotiate from.
Interesting responses from all. I must admit that I have no real idea what’s going on at this point. I find foreign policy crises much more difficult to parse than domestic ones. The normal signifiers of domestic politics – this party/politician/group is for or against action, in this particular way or not, etc. – tend to get blurred on FP issues. Especially ones as complex as Syria. And that doesn’t even get into all the secrets and hidden agendas of all the national and international players that are involved.
I have no sense of what’s going to happen next. The only thing that seems unambiguously good to me is that Obama is going to Congress. Any walkback of the Imperial Presidency – and this certainly seems like one – is a good thing IMO.
The Big Dumb Southern act in action:
subtext: Ya tryin’ ta get back that medal ya threw away, coward?
.
NATO partners in Europe are sitting on the fence as the US intelligence is not convincing. Today the Dutch MP’s got a top secret briefing from the Dutch Military Intelligence (MIVD). The Dutch are on the Turkish border with Patriot missiles and a contingent of 250 men. The Dutch have been a willing and reliable partner for the US in both Afghanistan (ISAF) and in Iraq. Dutch FM Timmermans had previously stated there is insufficient evidence. After today’s secret briefing, all members of parliament admitted there is insufficient evidence to establish Assad troops as the source of the attack and no scientific evidence sarin nerve agent was used. Obama and Kerry are not getting NATO allies on board for an air strike on Syria to put the Islamists in power and be part of a new genocide crisis. If you bomb it, you own it.
Yesterday from Belgium, an identical conclusion was heard … French Intelligence Report Not Convincing
Belgian expert Jean-Pascal Zanders finds the French intelligence report not convincing. He is a leading expert on verification of WMD arms control. He was seen in a VRT television interview yesterday.
.
The findings of the UN Inspection team could very well establish which party was responsible in Ghouta.
German intelligence says it was Assad.
The German intelligence was based on nothing authoritative. A Heznollah oficial said that Assad must have’snapped’, except there was no reason to believe this Hezbollah official knew anything more than the rest of us.
Read my comment here – The French and the Germans.
I HATE that I am in the position of defending the possible bombing of a small Middle East nation that has done nothing to us. But I hate letting bullies torture and murder children and doing nothing about it. I hate letting war criminals walk. I hate policy decision being based on fatigue and selfishness rather than effectiveness. I hate having President Obama, who has been really good on ME affairs, and who has desperately tried to keep out of wars as much as possible, being accused of acting just like Bush. And I hate having intelligent people choose not to trust the government, just because we were lied to before. I DON’T want another war. Neither does the President. But IF the evidence is sound, we have to do the right thing, even if it hurts. We can, and should, have a serious debate on what the right thing is. But it must be based on facts, and not emotion.
Big “IF”.
Read Lisa Pease, linked elsewhere.
Very big IF. But the Germans and French both support it, and they’re not known for lying on behalf of the US, so maybe they can actually prove the point. It’s all about the evidence.
.
France with President Hollande (has prerogative to bomb Syria w/o vote in parliament) waged war against the Islamic militants in Mali this year with support of Obama. Libyan arms and the Tuareg rebels were emboldened with local AQIM terrorists and formed a threat to the French uranium interests (Aréva) in Niger. The French have close ties to Lebanese factions and Syria because of history – French protectorate. France foreign policy is about pure self-interest and corporate power. An eyeopener, documentary by Al Jazeera – President De Gaulle, West-Africa and the Foccart network. How the establishment of colonial nations, secret service, mercenaries and arms transports, manage to pull off covert action and dupe democracies, voters and nations. Watch the Al Jazeera documentary or read about sinking the Rainbow Warrior in New Zealand.
The German intelligence (BND) gave us Curveball. The Real Story of ‘Curveball’: How German Intelligence Helped Justify the US Invasion of Iraq. Need we to consider how thrustworthy the “revelations” are?
tb,
you say this “But I hate letting bullies torture and murder children and doing nothing about it. “
So I assume you support the US punishing the rebels for their war crimes?
http://www.worldtribune.com/2013/08/11/alawites-flee-syrian-rebel-offensive-near-mediterranean-treme
ndous-fear-of-atrocities/
What’s good for the goose, is good for the gander.
.
We know that al-Nusra are planning to wipe out all Christians and Alawis in Syria. If I’m not mistaken they already did massacre a Christian village.
I feel you 100%. There is also the cynical point that our reputation will be repaired somewhat (it’s quite obviously fucked just now) if we actually can execute a military action with the real justification of upholding a global norm despite our horrific recent past.
In the long run, whatever action we choose will probably have very little effect on American citizens. But the fact that the people, and our chosen leaders, are actually debating the pros and cons of a military operation is amazing. If we could make a habit of this, it would change the world. This is yet another case where I can’t guess what is going on in Obama’s head. He didn’t have to ask permission, and he had to know it would be a fight. Did he decide that returning power to Congress and encouraging debate was more important than the decision itself?
This is my read. And I think it’s been all too widely ignored. He’s said, “Here’s what I think we should do. What do you think? We’ll share our information and make our case, and if you’re not persuaded, we’ll revisit what we’re doing, or limit it further.” That’s IMMENSELY important. You’d think it would be immensely important to people who purport to be outraged by an “imperial presidency” and expansive executive powers, but, well, ahem.
Yeah. About that.
There was a vigorous debate, in both Congress and the public, and a six-month buildup, with “Operation Desert Shield” and the Gulf War in 1991. There was widespread public opposition. (Here in Seattle, protesters shut down the federal building for a week). Despite that widespread opposition, the operation went ahead.
Eleven years later there was a vigorous debate, in both Congress and the public, before the 2002 AUMF vote and again in six following months of buildup to the invasion of Iraq. A month before the invasion, Feb. 15, 2003, was the largest single day of peace protests in the history of both the US and the planet. Despite that widespread opposition, the operation went ahead. We found out later the decision to procede had secretly been made long previously.
Now, once again, 11 years after the 2002 AUMF, there is vigorous debate, in both Congress and the public, and widespread skepticism and opposition. Gee, I wonder how it will turn out?
Completely independent of the arguments on all sides, I wonder what purpose the debates do serve and for whom, since I don’t recall any, ever, where the people in charge didn’t reach the same conclusion. With a heavy heart but grim determination, we must reluctantly accept the sacrifice of accepting the burden of making other people (and, let’s be clear, brown people) suffer and die. Funny how, regardless of personalities or ideologies or circumstance, it’s always the same conclusion.
Are these meaningful debates with uncertain outcomes, kabuki, or allowing opponents to blow off steam so they won’t be as angry as they would be if our latest round of war crimes (using the definitions of those “quaint” treaties the US once signed) were taken with no public process at all? My money’s not on the first option. I’d love, for once, to be proven wrong. Not tonight, I’m afraid.
And all of those that made the huge effort to become as informed as possible and rationally engaged in those debates in opposition to those mad rushes to war are chumps. In denial that what keeps the US economy running is war and cheap natural resources from the lands of poor and exploited peoples. Then there are all the “little” wars such as Kosovo, Afghanistan, Grenada, Panama where the debate is skipped and war comes as well.
As a responsible citizen, I had to learn the difference between Sunni and Shia Islam, then Wahabism and Salafism, and Copts and Kurds while our national “deciders” know nothing more how to line up with this year’s “friends” and “foes.”
I am a chump. A chump that at too tender an age listened to Ghandi and MLK, Jr. Two men that walked their talk.
It seems to me that the first right and good thing to do in any violent situation (especially intervention in countries) would be to care for the victims. A massive effort to aid the civilian refugees in camps. This seems even more significant when the consideration is “droning” retaliation. Drone warfare is just a leisurely step above the firebombing of Dresden or the blitzkrieg of London.
Why after a 20th C of constant war and civilian refugee camps, isn’t a there a nation of wealth and good on this earth prepared to think first about civilians?
Tried that in Somalia. Results weren’t very good.
We tried war too. Results weren’t very good.
All forceful and violent inclusions and/or exclusions eventually become moot. War is an inept conclusion, eventually.
Did any think to tell John Kerry that it might not be a good thing to make us look like mercenaries for the Arab states that hate Syria? Good grief.
He also said it was not on in the cards. Should he have held that information back? Isn’t one of the criticisms here and on almost every other blog that the administration is not being forthcoming enough?
I thought about it, but he doesn’t accept my phone calls.
I think that Syria is no threat to the US.
I think the idea of firing missiles to “send a message” is appalling; our message will be spoken in the same language as the people who used the sarin: dead innocent Syrians.
The interventionists justify the proposed attack by referring to international treaties banning chemical weapons. To be able to claim to be enforcing international law, we ought to have an international consensus that something must be done, an international consensus on what that is, and some allies. Preferably a U.N. resolution too. Lacking these things, an attack would be just another case of America unilaterally beating up on a smaller country just because we can.
very eloquent and concise.
It’s a symbolic response with no military value except to mess things up a little bit more, with unpredictable consequences. The message will not mean to Syrians what it ostensibly means to the US and its allies.
I am not at all convinced that Assad is responsible for the gassing, and it’s hard to believe that “his crazy brother” or the elite units, would have done something like that on their own. Not because they are such nice guys, but because there’s no benefit in it for them. Anybody could see that, even before hand.
So we have to give Russia a veto over our response? There is no international fig leaf available. Then what?
What do you think the vote would be in the General Assembly? The Brits, the French, the Germans. The Sunni Axis. After that the rest of the world sounds pretty much against it.
But I would want to hear what the inspectors have to say about what they found.
There’s a very good piece of Syria by Lisa Pease over at ConsortiumNews.
Here:
http://consortiumnews.com/2013/09/04/the-still-sketchy-intel-on-syria/
It’s looking a lot like it was the rebels who deployed whatever poison gas was used. And it doesn’t seem to be sarin.
The question I have is: Who supplied the rebels with poison gas? The problem with the question is that there is no one in Washington to demand an answer. No one stands up to the CIA.
I entirely agree with her interpretation.
Public be damned. Looks like Congress is wired to approve this disaster.
It’ll probably get approved in the Senate. Not so sure about the House.
Well they certainly got to the bottom of this little matter. Very Serious, indeed.
No greater priority than bombin’ for peace! Will Poker McLame really be left behind? To vote “no” on a war?! Apoplexy on the senate floor!
Or maybe they saw intel in the closed door sessions that was convincing.
Because we know the GOP would never vote against Obama just for shits and giggles.
McCain got more bellicose language in the authorization before it was voted on.
Obama has not rescinded the PNAC Plan of destabilizing the Mideast. It wasn’t his plan to begin with, of course. The “final conflict” in the Mideast has been spoken about for centuries before centuries. How many Cheney moles are in the various departments and black box areas of the government yet now? With their own idea of how a true American patriot would or should think or act. If peace were to break out, there would be some serious downsizing in the military, CIA, NSA, etc. A lot of people directly threatened in their livelihoods. When you throw in the seemingly complete Zionist hold upon our politicians and media, it becomes clear that there is a tremendous “Lobby” for the PNAC Plan.
I’m a strong Obama supporter. And I’ve listened and been inspired by him a lot over the past years. I’ve seen deeper strategies at work than many folks seem to understand. But this Syria thing is so obviously phony and Obama/Kerry are so totally unconvincing at just a basic body language level that it’s a true WTF moment. So this speaks to the point of “trust”. No matter how much faith we have in someone, honesty demands that we remain open and curious as to the real situation. That means asking and inquiring about the subject at hand and listening to the responses. This is why the truth “Trust, but Verify” must be applied here.
So are we going to jump into the pit of hellish war, the edge of which we are teetering upon, incomprehensibly it seems, or is there a hidden doorway out?
Here’s my HOPE list of outcomes.
I hope this episode further fractures the Republican party.
I hope this episode exposes the Zionist/Neocon agenda.
I hope this episode shows that, as a dying, gutted empire, we need a new paradigm to move forward successfully as a country.
I hope this episode allows us to make the peace that is waiting for us vis-a-vie Iran.
I hope this episode wakes people up to the primary fact of standing with truth and not propaganda.
So how does Barack ‘I Got This’ Obama thread the needle on this one? I think by just slightly messing with the Plan. Do enough to say we did something, but not enough to begin WWIII. Then let the bitching begin. Because that’s one thing Obama is well practised in handling. The idea is that the region is too overcharged for nothing to happen. But if a way can be found to lance the boil and not explode it, that’s what I will be looking for as far as leadership from Obama goes. If he goes too far and initiates a major war there, then I’d say the evidence is conclusive that I have been duped and he is a tool of the Zionists in his foreign policy objectives.
From your hopes to God’s ears.
When people say “zionist/neocon agenda”, why do they always leave out the Saudis? And the funny thing is, THEY’RE the ones with the oil.
LOL, you are so right. They are lucky they have a loud bully in the neighborhood to draw attention away from them! ‘BandarBush’ used to be a regular on the Sunday talk shows, decades ago. He went dark after 9/11. Now we have McCain. There hasn’t been another Saudi PR guy that I can recall. Bandar seems to be tasked with spearheading the coordination of the rebels in Syria now. The Israelis seem to have the natural knack and the task of spinning the naive Americans. See: Bernays. See: Sucker born every minute.
Also, too, there is that the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi. But the security and owner of the towers were zio.
Question: Have the Saudis EVER been in a conflict with Israel? I’m drawing a blank here. And if not, how convenient!
Bandar then was ambassador the US. Bandar now is head of Saudi intelligence.
I’m sure you did know that Saudi and Israel have been in conflict in the past.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Arab%E2%80%93Israeli_War#Initial_line-up_of_forces
Saudi participated directly, although they weren’t a significant military power.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War
Saudi supported belligerents with planes and funding.
That was then, this is now. “Now” having been going for quite a few years already. Not sure when or how it started though.
I think Obama wants most of all to slow the proliferation of chemical weapons among dictators and militants globally.
I also think he has already won some ground. There are intense discussions at BT, nationwide and even globally about chemical weapons control. This has to please the guy who worked in the Senate with Lugar on non-proliferation issues and also believes in citizen involvement.
I personally think the longer the conversation about chemical weapons goes on the more the average American thinks of it as a serious issue. And intentionally or not, Obama did the one thing sure to prolong the national/global conversation. He threw it over to Congress.
Kerry’s hilarious antics make Obama’s measured, precise words look much better – almost a relief.
At some point – and obviously I don’t know where – this has got to concern Assad. I sometimes wonder if we are close to deterring him as much as we could hope to, even without firing a shot. That UK vote was close. I expect the US vote to be close. At some point even if he isn’t attacked by the US and others, I think Assad is more likely to think he dodged a bullet rather than think he can use chemical weapons without concern.
As for deterring other potential CW abuses around the globe, I’ve got no idea.
Syria does not represent a proliferation of chemical weapons. It represents one of the last six holdouts. Even Somalia just ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention.
Angola, South Sudan, Egypt, and Syria haven’t signed.
Israel and Myanmar haven’t ratified.
Few nations have stocks of chemical weapons at all. The US and Russia are slowly destroying the last of their stockpile. China will have the old Japanese stockpile that is still in Chinese territory dismantled and cleaned up by 2022.
The idea that chemical weapons are in a breakout condition by nations is not true.
The real danger is D-I-Y creation of “good enough” chemical weapons by militant groups, but the US and all of the supporters of intervention are discounting that having happened as a possibility.
Assad is not dodging any bullets even if his regime survives. He must reconstitute it on a different political alliance if he is to remain in power. That will be true whether the US acts or not. And that politics will require the elimination of Syria’s chemical weapons capability one way or another. The threat of his using chemical weapons on his own people is now credible enough among people who knew his ruthlessness but did not think that the chemical weapons would ever be used internally. Under a political agreement, they will not let the chemical weapons be maintained.
It is time for Israel and Myanmar to ratify and join the club. Egypt too. In fact, IMO it is very important for the Egyptian government right now to move quickly to declare and dismantle any chemical weapons it might be holding. Probably more important than Syria. That those actions are not being discussed in DC belies the argument that this is about chemical weapons.
Obama isn’t worried about the countries continuing to comply with CWC. He also understands why Egypt and Israel haven’t gotten fully on board. I’m familiar with CWC compliance or lack thereof from this site mostly:
http://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/cbwprolif
You’re very much focused on the specific Syrian situation and have a lot of thoughtful posts. I think Obama is looking past that with regard to chemical weapons.
What I’m saying from a 10,000 foot view is that militants (non-state organizations) globally are a concern for Obama and so are other states who may have leaders crazy enough to try to acquire them. I think he feels there needs to be solid global condemnation as a force for preventing re-emergence of CW.
The impression that stockpiles are winding down according to CWC timelines is accurate, but that isn’t the whole story. UN inspectors have mostly been focusing on that compliance but are starting to rotate into looking more closely at chemical manufacturing for signs of re-emerging challenges to the treaty.
There are a number of ways for hiding production of CW or chemicals that are precursors of CW to be used later in manufacturing.
I suspect whatever happens, Assad is toast, sooner or later. If you look again at my comment I am trying to read his mind, not predict what happens to him. I think he is misguided enough to think that if his forces are not attacked, he may feel the danger to him has passed and be reluctant to repeat the behavior that put him in that danger.
It’s the schedule 2 and schedule 3 chemicals that folks should be focusing on tracking. I’m not sure how far inspections have gotten on that. In principle after 9/11 the UN established a tracking mechanism for WMD precursors and dual use substances of all kinds as a part of ordinary hazardous chemicals tracking of shipments under various commercial agreements. I don’t know how well that has been implemented and how much it is just a matter of recording manifests and doing random inspections.
Not convinced, and worried about where we are headed. No good can come of this.
Keith Alexander’s wanting to get his Guernica on
As “Tom Tomorrow” says in “This Modern World” over at Big Orange earlier this week; “nothing says “we care” like a Tomahawk Cruise Missile strike.”
Are the advocates for bombing Syria, up to date on how Libya is faring?
Looking as if life is going to get harder for the Libyan beneficiaries, both direct and indirect, of those oil revenues.
The beautiful thing for oil companies is if the oil is flowing, you control it. If it’s not, you raise your prices.
Asking whether action against Syria will make us safer is the wrong question. It probably won’t. I very we’ll may make us less safe.
The issue is whether any person on the planet has to worry about being gassed by a despot without other humans caring and acting. Is that the planet we want for ourselves and our kids?
And in time when the economies of Asia surpass the US will those nations likely pick up our lead on these matters? Not likely.
That said there must be clear undeniable proof. And the UN should vote for it. And the American people need to be convinced. I believe that is what Obama is trying to do. And I trust he is not making up stuff for political gain. It would have been so much easier to walk away from this.
There are only six nations not parties to the Chemical Weapons Convention, and two of them are signatories who have not ratified the convention (which would require declarations of their chemical weapons program).
So exactly which dictators are you worried about?
The possibility of use of just-good-enough chemicals by non-state actors is is a more plausible risk.
The chemical weapons ban is one of the few weapons restrictions that there is almost complete compliance with.
The bigger issue is US flagrant violation of collective security agreements (like the UN Charter) by going it alone and bulling the issue through.
I find Congress’s pom-pom waving instead of establishing the facts so the public knows what’s going own to be an appalling failure to exercise their war powers. And it sets a bad precedent for complete seizure of war powers by future Presidents.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/03/obama-strategy-assad-republicans-syria?CMP=twt_gu
I think McCain’s hard-lining today is based in some part on assurances that Obama has made to him about doing more than limited strikes. McCain’s doing the dirty work in the Senate. The House will be a tougher job. It’s sad that Republicans seem to be approaching launching a new war with more clarity of thought.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/09/02/where-the-votes-stand-on-syria/
I still think Obama is willing to do just about anything short of boots on the ground. Yet, the pressure to do more will only increase.
“It’s sad that Republicans seem to be approaching launching a new war with more clarity of thought.”
You make me think of the phrase “War is a force that gives us meaning” — the title of a book by Chris Hedges, but could also be the motto of the Republican Party (and a lot of DEmocrats).
Asking whether action against Syria will make us safer is the wrong question. It probably won’t. I very we’ll may make us less safe.
The issue is whether any person on the planet has to worry about being gassed by a despot without other humans caring and acting. Is that the planet we want for ourselves and our kids?
And in time when the economies of Asia surpass the US will those nations likely pick up our lead on these matters? Not likely.
That said there must be clear undeniable proof. And the UN should vote for it. And the American people need to be convinced. I believe that is what Obama is trying to do. And I trust he is not making up stuff for political gain. It would have been so much easier to walk away from this.
I see this as a potential huge mistake by Obama. If we game this out, one finds many potential dead ends. What if we bomb Syria and then they put a thumb in our eye by launching another chemical attack? Do we then feel obligated to get in deeper?
Eisenhower sent a few “advisers” to Vietnam. Kennedy escalated. Johnson got sucked in so deep, one of the most savvy political operators of his time found himself caught in a situation that destroyed his political career. His successor came to office promising to end the war and then couldn’t find a way out and came to be identified with it. Ultimately, there was no way out that saved face.
I think it unlikely we’ll be drawn in that deeply in Syria. I think we slink away with our tail between our legs long before that happens. But I’m seeing more risk than potential reward.
I don’t see this so much as a mistake by Obama. I think he tried to control it, but the push may be too strong. It’s not coming from him. See Lisa Pease :
http://consortiumnews.com/2013/09/04/the-still-sketchy-intel-on-syria/
There’s a bad history of Presidents who oppose the CIA and Big Oil.
I support an effort to degrade Assad’s ability to strike with chemical weapons. I have no problem with us bombing empty military facilities and military air strips. It’d be cool to thermite [new verb] the heck out the weapons cache.
The message needs to be sent: you use stuff like Sarin gas on people, you have to suffer some consequences. If just the threat of a precision strike can make key people defect…or better yet bring people to the table to talk, then all the better.
Not sure what else could happen beyond that, but I trust this President has no hidden agenda or daddy issues or need to chest thump or make bundles of cash off the deal.
If it turns out that the rebels did it are you down with thermiting the rebels?
I’m down with thermiting the weapons.
One question I have not seen asked. Everyone seems to be assuming that whatever the United States does, it can do with impunity. What happens if Syria shoots back effectively ? What if they manage somehow to sink one of our ships ? Do you think there will be any way to control what happens next ?
Read this and then explain to me how dropping a few cruise missiles on Syria is going to solve any of that country’s problems–or ours:
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/09/your-labor-day-syria-reader-part-2-william-
polk/279255/
BooMan, gotta give you a big thumbs up for posting this thread seeking our input.
I have little doubt congress will approve the strikes, I have little doubt the strikes will be ineffective.
Absent some negotiated settlement, the US really can’t win here, and it is hard for me to see how strikes make sense as policy.
If Congress does reject the strikes, the GOP will absolutely take is a sign the President can be had, and will play tough on the debt ceiling and HCR.
It is this possibility that will lead most Democrats to support strikes. They will do so out of fear that the damage to the President will be permanent should he lose the vote on Syria.
Domestically the politics are awful, and potentially disastrous. A good number of bloggers (most notably Bondadd, there are others) draw the link between oil prices and the economy – the connection is pretty direct. My own work has found a direct connection between oil price spikes and Presidential Approval. If the crisis drags out we may see oil spike, with direct and indirect effects that will be very bad. Add to this the nearing debate over the debt ceiling (which in 2011 tanked consumer confidence) and it might be enough to tip the economy into recession.
The humanitarian concerns in Syria trump my domestic political concerns.
But right now I am worried this debate may turn into Obama’s Katrina with disastrous implications for US politics.
What do I think? Unless we accomplished something truly “game changing” like taking Assad out with a cruise missile (kinda hard to do, think F-117 “surgical strike” at Saddam’s “HQ” at beginning of Iraq war, only, ah, he wasn’t there) a “send a message” strike will do nothing whatsoever to improve the situation in Syria.
Moreover, this is NOT our war, nor should it be. Have we learned nothing from our experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan? And even if we were clever (lucky) enough to take out Assad, what’s the point? The insurgents are not our friends, any more than the current al-Maliki government is in Iraq. If we were to kill Assad and “decapitate” the current regime in Damascus, the only result would be chaos like things are in Iraq.
This is one we should leave to the U.N. Build the evidence, make the case, condemn the current regime, embarrass the Russians and Chinese who support Assad, but let the war run its course. Sooner or later Assad’s going to be toast anyway, I think.
In short, Tom Tomorrow’s cartoon is spot on.
We have indeed learned nothing from our experiences in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. Indeed, in Afghanistan the second in command thinks that we are never getting out until the job is done. The military prefers stab-in-the-back “Politicians wouldn’t let us win” rationalizations over the clear evidence that meddling in other countries unites the people of those countries against you–even if they hate their dictators.
We have not left the hubris of being “the world’s sole superpower” even though W broke that.
The British, the French, and the Turks have been clamoring for intervention in this conflict for over a year now. I believe that the entire “red line” remark by the President was a way of seeming to be engaged in the conflict without ever having to commit to any particular course of action, believing that Assad would never actually use chemical weapons.
I think his position was that it is much better to allow both sides to bleed the other while a political solution evolves that essentially removes the Assad family while leaving the regime in place. I still believe that this is the strategy, but it has been complicated by a massive chemical weapons strike, that forces everyone to focus on the red line remark rather than a brokered solution.
I am opposed to the strike, but not the threat of the strike. I want the international community, Iran and Russia in particular, to be convinced a strike will occur in the hopes that they will pressure Assad to abdicate.
If the US has concrete proof that the Syrian government is responsible for these strikes, they have an obligation to present these findings to the UN.
I believe that the President is a thoughtful, deliberative man, it’s why I voted for him twice. Personally, I think he’d like for this to go away and is not looking to burnish his CIC reputation. I also don’t think that in the course of 5 years he’s become stupid, or weak, and I offer up the fact that he’s willing to give up some power here to allow more deliberation of this. I think he is being horribly served by John Kerry who seems to be a man from another time when out-sized rhetoric was the normal discourse to a frightened nation. Those days are over, and the administration would be better served by less rhetoric and more facts.