While the corporate media is abuzz with the totally irrelevant ‘news’ item that Miley Cyrus and Robin Thicke danced provocatively in a music awards program, we see now that the red line may have finally been crossed. Sec. Kerry gave fairly stern remarks that the chemical attacks in Syria are a ‘moral outrage’ that has to have a ‘serious response’. We have started moving destroyers and a carrier battle group into position. My friend and former debate partner was told by one of his contacts to leave Jordan where he was working with Syrian refugees before the fighting started.
There are no good options in Syria. It seems likely that the President, bravely in my view, is resisting calls from the usual (and usually wrong) suspects like Sen. McCain, Sen. Graham, Bill Keller and the surprisingly hawkish British and French governments to set up no-fly zones and go in guns blazing. Unfortunately he is running out of time to let diplomacy work, and the political pressures within the Washington political establishment and our allies is getting to be too much to bare. A missile strike is imminent.
The US is prepared to make war on the fourth Middle Eastern nation in less than a decade, in spite of the fact that our efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan ended in miserable failures and our efforts in Libya have been complicated to say the least and can hardly be called a victory. We removed a solid and stable ally in Egypt in the name of democracy promotion only to restore the very same military leaders the second that democracy offended our liberal Western sensibilities, and while we condemn the carnage in Syria we say little about the growing carnage and crisis in Egypt. Even our calls against chemical weapons are hollow and hypocritical.
Experts from Tom Ricks to Colin Powell (no stranger to blurred lines) rightly point out the futility of US intervention.
As one liberal hawk once lamented, ‘nobody in the foreign policy establishment takes you seriously if you oppose a war’, even if it is one so obviously foolhardy as a civil war between Baathists and Al Qaeda, one that nearly 90% of Americans oppose, and one that could easily de-stabilize Israel, Jordan, Turkey and antagonize Russia and Iran.
But, the sabres are drawn, Obama is boxed in by an establishment he can’t contain, the media is already compliant, and even if Congress is consulted (which is doubtful), it will likely be a rubber stamp. These are the blurred lines of a post-9/11 world, a world where the masses are distracted by the gyrations of a former child star while their leaders prepare to make another war on a credit card to be paid for by closed schools, cut food stamps, and payroll taxes from low wage jobs. When it comes to actual peace and shared prosperity, America crossed a red line long ago and may never step back.
dave-from-hvad says
President Obama will explain exactly what our objective is. I’ve heard it is not to take out Assad. Is it just to knock out a few missiles? What will that accomplish? Before we send in the missiles, I hope the president will go on national television to state the objective as clearly as possible.
jconway says
If he asked Congress for permission too.
kbusch says
If you think about this for a moment, the U.S. foreign policy establishment has never been particularly fond, shall we say, of Syria. The rebels are not our dear friends. As a result, there’s a risk of a sloppy “Kill ’em all, let God sort it out” — a line that did not originate in Vietnam but, tellingly, from the Crusades.
There’s also all this misinformation about interventions. No bombing ever is ever “surgical” — unless perhaps blunderbusses and axes are now used by the college of surgeons. We just came off an intervention in Iraq that showed remarkable indifference to the Iraqis.
The fundamental problem, really, seems to be the lack of democracy — in Russia! For without Russia’s sponsorship, this wouldn’t happening. Their concern about Chechnya and China’s concerns about Tibet and Taiwan must be playing a role here.
howlandlewnatick says
Who are the terrorists? The CIA created Al Qaeda found by the Turks and others with poison gas supplies? The drone pilots firing on a wedding party and double-tapping the rescuers? Our torturers? The faithful servants of the 1%, our politicians of either party, that ignore our laws? (Even the Nazis followed German law – as barbaric as that was – our guys don’t follow US laws. Does that make them gangsters?)
The propagandists? Whenever I hear or read the news “Tonkin Gulf”, “Yellowcake” and the slew of other lies echoes between my ears. We’ve gone through this before. People will die for the empire and the dutiful politicians that assisted in their murder will lay a wreath on the tombs of the unknown soldiers this November and, with grave face, declare they “did not die in vain.” The sociopaths tending the sheep until they can be brought to market.
“I never wonder to see men wicked, but I often wonder to see them not ashamed.” –Jonathan Swift
sabutai says
I don’t recall “making war” on Egypt. The US belatedly supported a regime change that was evidently going to happen. Then, as people often do, the democracy resulted in an incompetent government. Rather than ride it out or recall it, though, the people of Egypt allowed/asked the military to take over again. I have trouble thinking either depended on American support.
I don’t think Iraq should keep us out of the Middle East forever. It should keep up from electing mental midgets who think that the world is big game of Risk. Two different things.
Frankly, Syria can be like Kosovo or Afghanistan, where a well-supplied (Qatar, SAR), decently organized front can regroup in safe areas (Turkey, no-fly zones) and overthrow a regime. Sadly, it was out reluctance to move that have given Islamists the lead in that opposition group. I think it’s better to launch some missiles now and start dropping bombs to contain Assad than to sit there and watch the Islamists move into Damascus and have a hostile state in Syria.
PS: Iran has crossed a couple “red lines” relative to its nuclear program, and the US hasn’t done anything. North Korea has sunk South Koreans ships and shelled a South Korean island to no response. Red lines aren’t what they used to be.
drikeo says
Assad vs. Islamists, that’s just about the worst choice ever. And the Islamists took the lead because that’s how things tend to work with every political upheaval in that region. Religious factions are just about the only groups that can get any traction in Muslim nations run by a dictatorial government.
Plus, Syria is a hostile state and has been for decades. Unless the President can describe what an actual win there looks like, then we should stay away.
SomervilleTom says
I think there can be only one motivation for any sort of intervention — stopping the use of chemical weapons (or other WMDs).
Rightly or wrongly, the world reached a consensus generations ago that killing people with some weapons is qualitatively different from killing them with others. The fire-bombing of Tokyo killed about as many people as the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Neither Japan nor the rest of the world marks the occasion of the former.
In my view, therefore, the only “win” is in stopping further use of WMDs, by either side. The political outcome is immaterial.
howlandlewnatick says
Syria is a potential competitor for the natural gas terminal from the east. The US Polticians are on a short leash with Qatar and Saudi Arabia and will be rewarded handsomely, no doubt, if Syria can fall under the proper rule. And not be competitors. The mercenaries hired to do the job have collapsed to ethnic cleansing and cannibalism. Even the US government organization has stopped praising them.
Now is the time the US leadership to show again its true allegiance to foreign interest and not to the people of the United States or the Syrian people that will no doubt lose thousands in their “rescue”.
“The idea of democracy has been stripped of its moral imperatives and come to denote hollowness and hypocrisy.” –Paul Wellstone
jconway says
We did make war upon Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya so Syria would be the fourth Near Eastern state we invaded (Afghanistan is neither Arab or middle eastern but still near east). We have defeat in Iraq and Afghanistan in terms of failing to achieve our stated objectives, we have a weak liberal government in Libya with Islamist and Qadaffi loyalists destabilizing Mali and Chad. We have ethnic cleansing in Congo and the Sudan we are doing nothing about, but suddenly after two years of sitting it out we are going into Syria.
The missile strikes will fail, so like the amorphous no fly zone in Libya this campaign will quickly turn into ground interdiction against air and land targets. Unlike Libya, Syria has a sophisticated and at this point battle tested Air Force so we will lose pilots. Then we will need ground forces to secure the chemical sites. Short of that scenario, we are looking not at Kosovo but Sudan 2.0. We will tomahawk a couple of medicine factories and call it a win. That farce won’t be good enough for the hawks so mission creep will lead to the wider scenario I described because we made a commitment. Let the UN inspectors do their job, I recall Bush pulled them out before they were able to discredit him and his red line, lets hope Obama doesn’t make the same mistake.
ryepower12 says
Unfortunately when we’ve done these things, they’ve tended to a) blow up in our faces and b) even more importantly, not work out so hot for the countries we’ve involved ourselves in.
And that’s when we’ve done things that well intentioned reasons, as opposed to things like Iraq, which were crazy neoconservative fetishes.
Have their been exceptions to the times when we’ve ‘went in’ for the right reasons? I’d say so, but not many, and not without having 1) we had truly international coalitions, with other countries pulling in real weight and adding legitimacy, and 2) something akin to exit plans, or known conditions up front for when we would leave, and 3) some other group or organization to hand off the keys when we left, who we could reasonably suspect to be a stable and better government.
As for France and the UK itching for a fight… I say let them. They can be the leaders on this for once. If they’re not itching to go in under the above circumstances, they can go in alone and be prepared for the fact that Syria will be able to exert some considerable damage before the UK and France could enforce the no-fly zone.
Personally, I think they’d be better off if they wait for everyone else, but that’s just me.
BTW: If I still operated under the assumption that we could go in these places and leave them better off than when we came in, I’d be asking why we aren’t doing something already. However, I’ve been taught by past experience to be incredibly skeptical of going in anywhere, even after self-imposed “red lines” have been crossed — because getting involved may not make things any better.
centralmassdad says
The problem is that we said we would do something if they used chemical weapons, and they did anyway. I am not exactly sure what else could have been said or done.
Option 1: Assad and rebels, please negotiate for the peace and betterment of blah blah blah. But understand, Assad, that if you use chemical weapons, we will take action against you.
I guess the “action” could be sanctions, but there already are sanctions. So, at this point, you have to either say “never mind” or do what you said you would do.
Option 2: Assad and rebels, please negotiate for the betterment blah, blah, blah. But understand, Assad, that if you use chemical weapons, we will publicly deplore it and call you a meanie on TV. Rebels, just try not to breathe until the attack is over.
There aren’t many good options here, especially since the rebels are in large measure Islamist extremists. If nothing happens, this will be a propaganda coup for the Islamists, who can say that the US abandoned them to Assad’s gas attacks. If we respond against Assad, then it will be a propaganda coup for the Islamists, who will say that the US is attacking yet another Arab country.
Lose-lose.
Perhaps it would have been better to just admit that the US wouldn’t take an interest in the conflict, and let the rebels know in the beginning that they would be on their own for the duration. The rebellion might have then ended much sooner. But it would have been tough to actively support an awful regime like that in such a significant way.
Lose-lose.
jconway says
Compellence, or using conventional bombing to achieve political ends, nearly always fails. It failed in Kosovo, contrary to popular opinion (sure we lost no Americans, we also failed at every stated objective and inflicted huge collateral damage on the Serbian people). The fire bombing in Tokyo failed, it failed in Vietnam, it failed during the air war of Desert Storm (still needed to send in the boots) and it failed during Desert Fox. Libya arguably was a success in the short term, but again rebels removed Qadaffi and our bombs failed to get him.
James Fallow is right to point out this is all for show and the plans own architect is skeptical it will work.
Dempsey was spot on when he said we would need 75,000 boots on the ground and a 7 billion a month operation to have any hope of a tangible political victory. I doubt this will deter Assad or is making him quiver in his boots, nor will it suddenly help his opposition. The question is not will this campaign fail, it most certainly will, the question is what is step two after it fails? Do we start a wider campaign to eliminate air defenses and air and ground forces? I think there will be immense pressure to do so, and I think we will lose pilots and take casualties. How many pilots need to be dragged through the streets of Damascus before we pull out? How many of those same hawks that forced Obama into this mess suddenly become doves (looking at you McCain!)?
CMD is right. Since it’s lose lose no matter what, let’s pursue the losing course that results in no lost American lives.
Christopher says
Regardless of the political consequences some things are just beyond the pale. If these allegations are true then not responding would be immoral. This easily reminds of the idea that the only way for evil to prevail is for good people to do nothing, or that remaining “neutral” inherently sides with the oppressor.
kbusch says
I’m a bit baffled by this, christopher.
Sure we can drop big bombs from high up in the sky and claim “surgical accuracy” for them. If we end up killing more Syrians than Assad did, do we get some sort of Prize for Doing Something?
It’s all very well to think in neat moral aphorisms, but you and I don’t live in Damascus or Aleppo. We’re in no danger of becoming “collateral damage”, i.e., dead, from morally necessary, do-something bombs.
SomervilleTom says
I suggest that responding, along the lines of what we’ve done in the past and threatened to do now, is just as immoral as not responding.
Please say more about what you would have us do. Aerial attacks? Ground invasion? What is the purpose of whatever you propose? How will we know when it’s over? Who decides who the “good people” (and presumably also the not-so-good people) are? When the rebels (presumably they are the “good” guys in comparison to Mr. Assad) take power and use that power to impose whatever flavor of Islam the ruling class embraces (each rebel faction is passionate about one flavor of Islam or another) on the rest of the people, what responsibility do we then have?
The proposed responses that I’ve seen sound to me as though they are just as immoral as the evil they purport to address. I invite you to say more about a response — any response — that does more good than harm.
howlandlewnatick says
Dennis Kucinich had a good statement on this situation. While the preponderance of evidence and motive is that the mercenary FSA is the perpetrator, the US is ballyhooing their feelings that it must be government forces that spread the poisons. Somehow our ripping the guts out of men, women and children with advanced weaponry is so much more moral than using poison gas. So we must continue the slaughter with our weapons.
We learn nothing.
This is just another economy war of Realpolitik. This time, however, the 9% of the public support for intervention shows that real people just aren’t buying into this anymore. (Present company excepted.)
“The world has achieved brilliance without wisdom, power without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants. We know more about war that we know about peace, more about killing that we know about living.” ~Omar Bradley
Christopher says
This a humanitarian crisis if the allegations are in fact true. Standing by while noncombatants are indiscriminately gassed is simply not an option I can sleep with. How exactly that is accomplished is above my paygrade and certainly not causing more harm than already has been is a valid consideration. Our goal should be to stop a slaughter and punish the aggressors, not prop up one side or another. As for who is ultimately victorious our stance should always be to support free and fair elections, accepting the results thereof even if not to our liking.
jconway says
The people whose paygrade this is appropriate for, either are not sure what will happen, or are convinced this strike will do more long term harm and very little short term good. The very architect of the likely strike plan at the Naval War College has argued the commitment proposed is insufficient to achieve any of the political objectives of the conflict. As Clausewitz wrote, war is politics by other means. In this case, the normal course of diplomacy and multilateral politics has failed to achieve the political goal of getting Assad to stop using chemical weapons.
Yet military force seems highly unlikely to achieve that goal, at least on the scale proposed. So I understand you are with the ‘wont someone think of the children’ school of thought, but remember once we enact a Bear Patrol we have to pay for it, and in the case of an air war we may pay for it in blood.
Also we not only stood by but we directed the gassing of Iranians during the Iran-Iraq war, we are in fact not accept free and fair elections in Egypt, nor did we defend the noncombatants beaten and gassed by Bahrain. At the end of the day a realist, like me, does not attach themselves to ideals but recognizes that nations have interests. Our interests in Egypt require a stable and secular government, democracy be damned. Our interests in Bahrain require a naval base, and whichever government supports that gets our support. Our interests in Syria are non existent, and our ability to affect the humanitarian change you seek is far more limited than you recognize.
Have you not learned the lessons of Iraq? Saddam was far worse than Assad has been so far, he gassed his own people! And while that was outrageous, he kept his country together and more importantly balanced against Iran. All of the problems in the Middle East right now are a direct result of that war, a war where the US killed far more civilians either directly through the early phases or indirectly through the casualties of the sectarian violence than we arguably saved. It greatly disturbs me that it looks like history is repeating itself, and so soon.
Christopher says
I put values above interests in terms of what is obvious, but I also think that adhering more consistently to our values is ultimately also in our interests. If we always stood on the side of democracy the Arab Street wouldn’t constantly be mad at us for propping up regimes oppressive to them, thus spawning terrorism against us. You are right about how we have behaved, but it is a far cry from how we should behave. We don’t get to hold ourselves up as the beacon of liberty in the world when our actions so often betray that notion.
We should not have taken sides in the Iran-Iraq war. I am among those who wished Bush 41 had deposed him when we had the chance and was hoping Clinton would lose patience enough to shut him down one of the numerous times he pushed the envelope on the no-fly zone. My objections to the Bush 43 campaign in Iraq was largely one of timing. Saddam had at that point been quiet for awhile and we should have been focused like a laser on Afghanistan, but to conflate the two the administration used the flimsiest allegations of WMDs and al-Qaida links which were completely inappropriate. Ultimately, though, I’m not complaining too loudly that Saddam is gone.
Yes, the US doesn’t always cover itself in glory, but I can’t rewrite history. The administration of course always should think things through before making a military committment, but doing nothing is the one answer my conscience cannot accept.
SomervilleTom says
I understand that proposals are above your paygrade (and mine).
Yet, as jconway has pointed out, those who are competent to offer proposals have achieved near unanimity that they know of NO proposals that accomplish anything positive. Specifically, you wrote above that “certainly not causing more harm than already has been” is a constraint you agree applies here.
By that constraint, there are NO viable proposals on the table — from any paygrade.
Given that unfortunate reality, it seems to me that demanding that we do “something” amounts to “ready, fire, aim” — precisely the sequence that has caused us to do so much harm historically.
Perhaps this is one of those situations where the best action, especially for an idealist, is to take no action — at least until some acceptable proposal is offered.
In particular, we are part of an international community. Presumably that international community includes those who are as idealistic as any of us. Perhaps this is a time for us to practice humility while we hope (and perhaps pray, for those who find that helpful) for a viable proposal to be put forward.
jconway says
From the “with us our against us” Manichean duality of the Bush administration to a similar chickenhawk “something is better than nothing and at least I’m not the one doing the dying” laid back kind of attitude. I expected better from you Christopher.
I can’t think of a single person opposing this attack who is in favor of keeping Assad in power. To argue that is a giant strawman. What those of us skeptics are saying is that any time you use American military action in the Middle East it has had profound unintended consequences.
Limiting the strike in nature to just the chemical sites and just as a one time operation will do absolutely nothing. But if we lose a pilot, or if Assad does it again and this time it’s worse, than we get dragged in to further involvement.
Listen to the CJCOS Dempsey who said this would require at least 75,000 ground troops to take out the regime, or that a no fly zone would eventually require ground interdiction, risk far more pilots than Libya did, and cost $7 billion a month not spent on head start, healthcare, education, our decaying infrastructure, paying down the debt, or rebuilding the middle class.
There are no good guys in Syria, I could just as easily say by wanting to intervene you must love Al Qaeda and want them to “win” in Syria. Lets send weapons to Jordan and Turkey, shore up the Patriots, and let the inspectors do their jobs. Lastly, the best thing the US, the world, and all of us can do is help the refugees of the conflict. A good friend of mine has just spent his summer there and the stories and pictures he has posted on his facebook are just devastating. And considering how many of them were victimized by the rebels as well, we should really pause before assuming a black and white view of the situation.
Christopher says
Sounds like the strawman here is you implying that I think opponents want to keep Assad in power. I said absolutely nothing about the motivations of those who want to be involved. I said we have a moral responsibility to defend the defensless.
jconway says
So I am I siding with Assad or not? In that statement you are saying I am, and that I am immoral, and that I am letting evil prevail. Very reminiscent of Bush and Cheney Iraq arguments.
Burke was misquoted, but he has also argued that moderation is the measure of a statesman and that we must avoid the unintended consequences of noble intentions made without foresight. I am not arguing the interventionists, at least the liberal ones, have noble intentions.
What I am arguing is, I agree with Rachel Maddow that there has not been enough thought of what our entire game plan will be, there has been no way to win the peace proposed and no limit on what the action might be. They are going out of there way to say surgical and not regime change, but I can’t see how logistically this will deter Assad. Historical and military analysis seems to indicate otherwise. I don’t see how we stop, I don’t see where we draw another line on our own involvement. And it is up to our Congress and media to ask those tough questions now, and not after the body bags come off the plane at Dover.
Christopher says
As an individual you are entitled to your opinion. As an individual you are not in a position have a policy of intervention or neutrality that would have any effect on Assad – only countries have that capacity. A country, however, which has the ability to stop an atrocity and does nothing is what runs the risk of engaging in a false sense of neutrality.
jconway says
Then I support America supporting Assad? A conclusion lacking on nuance my friend. I think neither you, nor sabutai, and scarier in my view, Hagek Kerry and Obama-haven’t thought through the end game. How much are we willing to invest for what level of outcome? I think we are on a course that will either do nothing but give Obama cover to say to the hawks “bombed him a little, now shut up”-OR force us down the rabbit hole of escalation. Neither is very moral in my book.
Oh and I do not advocate “doing nothing” simply because I think our military shouldn’t be an actively participant the Syrian Civil War. The money we will waste on futile military operations would be better sent sending humanitarian aid to the refugee camps. Lets send our best military doctors as well, send books and set up schools for the kids, and find a way to transition them to other areas. Some air defense and special forces could secure those sites. We can arm and protect our allies in the region, and we can start diplomacy with Iran and get them to stop backing Assad and building nukes in exchange for lifting sanctions. We can let the inspectors do their job and give the UN back credibility it loses every time we act unilaterally. All of these things are good ideas that would do more good than a strike and cost fewer lives and dollars while increasing rather than damaging our image.
kirth says
Airstrikes don’t make any friends. Violent intervention in the affairs of other nations doesn’t make any friends. Look at almost any of our wars, starting with Vietnam, and substitute constructive humanitarian aid for the incredibly destructive force we actually used, and the outcomes would surely be very different, especially for the mostly-innocent residents of those places. Whenever someone advocating armed intervention starts talking about ‘ideals,’ I want them to explain those ideals in detail, because it appears that respect for fellow humans is not one of them.
Christopher says
It’s like you can’t take yes for an answer. I have tried to explain that I am not questioning your motives or sympathies, yet you seem to insist on making me think you are the bad guy. I don’t know how else to say that is not the case. Nuanced is exactly what I am trying to be when it comes to individual opinion vs. state action. I’m all for verification (certainly not ready, fire, aim as Tom tries to pin on me above), but it is my strong belief that if the allegations are true there needs to be an appropriate response.
SomervilleTom says
I’ll stipulate that the allegations are true.
I get that you strongly believe that there needs to be an appropriate response. If any of us, including you or anyone else, could describe what an “appropriate response” is, then I’d be far more inclined to join you in supporting that response.
I don’t know about anyone else, but I can assure that I’m not trying make you a bad guy. I simply don’t see the value in insisting that we pursue an “appropriate response” that, as far as anybody knows, doesn’t exist.
Could we perhaps agree to redouble our efforts to find that “appropriate response” — and also agree that we should NOT pursue any military action until that search succeeds?
Christopher says
…but when force is used shamelessly and indiscriminately against non-combatants, I’m having a hard time thinking of an appropriate response that does not itself involve force.
jconway says
It’s called diplomacy my friend, and its been a long time since we’ve used it.
Christopher says
Assuming Assad is behind it I don’t think our response can be, “Can we talk?” or “Let’s negotiate.”
jconway says
We never gave ourselves the opportunity, we said ‘Assad must go” and “red line” way before this escalated to the extent it has. Listen, Assad is evil and I am not defending his actions. But if we step outside the binary ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ morality and look at him as a rational actor and what he needs to do to stay in power, we see that we can offer him a face saving way out. He quits, a general replaces him, they set up an Alawite-Christian colony on the West, the East can stay in rebel hands. We split it up along ethnic lines a la Dayton.
I might add we tolerated and even negotiated with worse monsters like Molosevic, like Stalin who was our best WWII ally, like Chairman Mao who Nixon opened up China with right after he had millions and millions killed in the cultural revolution. Not to mention we regularly negotiate with and tolerate the existence of North Korea, a state that is clearly one of the worst in human history. Far more will die there via famine and forced labor and political executions than in Syria.
My point is, if idealism was the standard we lived by we would invade every country run by a bad guy and slay every monster. But since it’s no, idealism must be tempered with realism. And utilizing realism there are some basic fundamental questions a populace should ask its leaders before going to war that have been basically unanswered or ignored by those in charge. That is giving me great pause, and I am surprised so many liberals like yourself are eager to push the button on this.
You also can’t honestly say you want to enforce international norms when we are once again undermining the credibility of the UN by refusing to wait until inspectors do their jobs, when we refuse to go to the GA or UNSC, and when we refuse to consult with our own Congress or go in with a broad coalition regarding this action. At the end of the day, lobbing a couple of cruise missiles at a few compounds that I am 1000% sure Assad has already evacuated doesn’t seem all that productive to me. It would have to be more than that which is why the ‘surgical, limited, and no boots’ promises all sound like the BS that they are.
thinkliberally says
I get that there’s punishment due to a nation using WMD.
I get that Assad is killing his own people.
I get that this wouldn’t really be a war over oil. Or geography. Or “us vs. them”. Or terrorism.
I get that there appear to be legit and reasonable causes for action.
What I don’t get is the end game:
Who do we want in power?
Is there someone we know will be better than Assad?
If Assad is out or destabilized, is there a legit benefit to Syria?
The US?
The World?
Would further destabilization create battles between rebel groups that could be even uglier than what we have now?
Maybe war is necessary. I just have a really hard time imagining any way it ends well.
jconway says
Against force.
maxdaddy says
Where are our two senators here? Where are our representatives? There is virtual radio silence–appalling.
Anyhow, “… chemical weapons are far from being the greatest threat to Syria’s people. That is the war itself and the death and destruction that has engulfed the country. If the US, British and French governments were genuinely interested in bringing it to an end – instead of exploiting it to weaken Iran – they would be using their leverage with the rebels and their sponsors to achieve a ceasefire and a negotiated political settlement.”
See the whole article at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/27/attack-syria-chemical-weapon-escalate-backlash.
theloquaciousliberal says
While Warren (on vacation?) has been pretty silent (http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/columnists/joe_battenfeld/2013/08/battenfeld_outspoken_liz_warren_stays_silent_on_syria ), Markey has been more outspoken and in support of “surgical strikes”. See e.g.:
http://www.wbur.org/2013/08/27/markey-syria-assad
In Warren’s defense, she did say last year that: “Because assistance can have complex and unintended consequences, we should not act unless we are confident that we can do more good than harm and that we have a clear plan and achievable goals.”
Though Capuano is also quoted in the Herald story above, Rep. McGovern seems to offer the most nuanced argument against military intervention: http://mcgovern.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/us-rep-mcgovern-issues-statement-on-reported-use-of-chemical-weapons-in
Tsongas seems to have a quite comprehensive page on foreign policy issues in which she says: “While the mass killings must stop, and Assad must eventually answer for his crimes, any potential use of force would need to be very carefully weighed. Any intervention scenario would be complicated by Assad’s massive chemical weapons stockpiles and relatively sophisticated air defenses. We must carefully consider whether America’s vital interests are at stake, what the costs of intervention would be, and what outcomes we realistically expect to achieve. To that end, I voted in favor of an amendment to the FY 2014 NDAA which I believed would help to better define Congress’ role in our response to the crisis in Syria.” http://tsongas.house.gov/foreign-affairs/
So, hardly complete radio silence. What would you like them to be doing or saying this week?
maxdaddy says
Agreed, Markey has supported a surgical strike. But what does this mean? There are lots of different kinds of surgery. There’s hemorrhoids, there’s heart transplants. Plainly we are not aiming to destroy the chemical weapons themselves, since this could well inflict collateral damage far worse than the original attack. So what else is on Sen. Markey’s target list?
McGovern’s statement is mush. It does not, in fact, oppose military action at all. It is not “nuanced”–it’s just vaporous.
The other quoted materials are just not timely–particularly given the extraordinary defeat the Cameron government has just suffered concerning Syria. When your chief ally in the world bows out of the dance, isn’t a little humble reflection in order?
Anyhow, where are the other seven House members?
National polls now show Americans clearly oppose intervention in Syria. Cf. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/08/how-an-insular-beltway-elite-makes-wars-of-choice-more-likely/279116/. I doubt the results are very different in Massachusetts as a whole, or in any of its House districts–surely there is no less opposition and there may be more.
So, first, I would like each and every member representing Massachusetts in the Senate or House to explain clearly what he or she knows, or believes, that justifies flying in the face of this opposition, on a matter where no vital interest of the US exists, and where explicit American involvement may aggravate already deadly levels of violence.
And second, I would like them to explain why–assuming Assad’s government and perhaps Assad himself is responsible for the chemical attacks–a military response is the right one. Why is this not precisely a time, if the evidence is so clear and incontrovertible, to lay it before the world, to seek referral of the chemical attacks to the International Criminal Court, and to invite all the parties of interest, including Iran, to a conference on Syria where all matters are on the table before all parties? (This is someone else’s good idea which I happen to share. See the sketch of a proposal by Harvard’s Stephen Walt, http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/08/29/imaginative_creative_way_deal_with_syrian_crisis.)
Christopher says
British parliament shot down the Government’s request for a force authorization, and I don’t know when the last time was we acted without the UK with us. Also, our own intelligence people are saying the case against Assad is not a slam dunk.
Christopher says
Of course, force should be a last resort or only for emergencies, but aren’t we in a better position now than in WWII? We put full effort into defeating soundly the Germans and the Japanese, but afterwards invested heavily in their redevelopment ultimately turning them into among our strongest allies and trading partners. We showed that we knew how to win the war and the peace. Why do we assume we can’t do that again? Is it because we don’t have the stomach for an all-consuming effort like we had in WWII?
SomervilleTom says
An effort to crush and then occupy Syria would surely be resisted by Russia, turning the effort into WWIII. As awful as the situation in Syria is, I do not think it merits WWIII. The world is a big place. The abuses of Syria are not unique, either in history nor in today’s world.
In my view, America’s wealth and power is better served by using it to liberate, enrich, and empower people — starting with the world’s poorest people — than by using it to punish yet another Arab-world despot.
jconway says
How about we take the money we would waste rebuilding Damascus to rebuild Detroit. How about we take the money we are giving the Egyptians to shoot their own people and use it to clothe, feed, cure and educate our own? The Arab League vote shows how feckless are allies in the region are. Their leaders were begging us to intervene until they realized their own people would be inflamed. I am confident with their backs against the wall any of our despotic allies would be as cruel as Assad.
Christopher says
I’m not looking for WWIII and I have to keep reminding myself that our involvement in WWII did not stem from our desire to stop the Holocaust as much as I wish that were the case. It seems that often, including likely in Syria, what you posit as alternatives in your second paragraph are in fact very much mutually inclusive.
jconway says
Too often we think of WWII as “the good war”, and no question it was in most respects but too many forget it is the direct result of our failure to stay out of WWI. The worst myth of American history, at least among policy makers, is that we did make the world save for democracy and Wilsonian idealism triumphed. It failed because the other world leaders treated the peace as a game to be won and outmanuevered Wilson who accepted two terrible premises. The first, the punitive peace against Germany which sowed the seeds of the next war empowering a hyper nationalist like Hitler. The second was his principle that all people’s have the right to self determination which caused most of the worst conflicts of the last century and this one. This directly leads to Bosnia, all the brush fire conflicts in Africa, and the Balkanization of the Middle East. Not to mention the Armenian genocide. We are still stuck with the borders Wilson drew and they are making Syria worse.
By being realist we avoid fights that aren’t ours, fights we can’t win, and fights our presence actually make the situation worse. Using your example we should’ve stopped the communists in Vietnam but after twenty years, fifty thousands lives and so many billions we didn’t get true Medicare for all we had the same result we would’ve had if we just stayed out in the first place. It’s a bad result, I’m making
Christopher says
Wilson wanted peace without victory, but the Europeans decided to punish Germany. Fortunately it seems we learned that lesson after the Second World War. On the homefront he couldn’t get the US into the League of Nations, in large part I’m ashamed to say because of our own Senator Henry Cabot Lodge. If either or both of those had happened the world’s history of the next few decades would have been very different. We learned from the domestic failure too and joined the UN. I am in fact very much a Wilsonian when it comes to foreign policy except that I’m not convinced every imaginable subgroup needs its own state. In that regard I only wish that everyone’s vote counts and certain basic rights are protected. WWII, however, was certainly NOT a result of our participation in WWI.