Syria

[walksalone]

Stay the F*** out of Syria with even our bombs and let the world see thousands and thousands of people die because of the UN inaction. Put egg on their face.

Thousands and thousands of people dead. That'll put egg on the UNs face!

 

It's not about putting egg on the U.N.'s face, it's about having enough people die for the U.N. to do something about it, without the U.S. admonishing Syria for it's behavior and threatening them with retalitory strikes in a civil war we have no part of....

[walksalone]

I think the most compelling reason for refusing action without the UN is the damage it would do to the U.S. image.

 

If we go that route, what are we going to get, though? Attaboys? Thanks for doing the right thing? No -- sneers and snickers at the 'historic Western retreat', a loss of U.S. credibility and influence, a lack of respect for U.S. resolve, and emboldened enemies.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought we had already suffered all those negatives (sneers, snickers, loss of credibility and influence, lack of respect, & emboldened enemies) by doing the opposite and acting on our own or with too small of a coalition. Isn't that what we've been told by the dems and Obama for 6-8 years now? How is bombing Syria going to garner or salvage any respect for the US?

 

We're not the world's police (at least we shouldn't be). It's high time some folks figure out that they can't have their cake and eat it too. If the international community can't get behind it, then let them suffer the consequences of their inaction instead of us suffering the consequences for acting.

 

This x1000...

 

Are we really worried that the court of world opinion will look down on us for not doing anything?? I think we're pretty much past that...

[walksalone]

We need to support the side that ends up winning. That's the most important thing.

 

only thing is, nobody's figured that out for over a 1000 years...

[Husker_x]

I think the most compelling reason for refusing action without the UN is the damage it would do to the U.S. image.

 

If we go that route, what are we going to get, though? Attaboys? Thanks for doing the right thing? No -- sneers and snickers at the 'historic Western retreat', a loss of U.S. credibility and influence, a lack of respect for U.S. resolve, and emboldened enemies.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought we had already suffered all those negatives (sneers, snickers, loss of credibility and influence, lack of respect, & emboldened enemies) by doing the opposite and acting on our own or with too small of a coalition. Isn't that what we've been told by the dems and Obama for 6-8 years now? How is bombing Syria going to garner or salvage any respect for the US?

 

We're not the world's police (at least we shouldn't be). It's high time some folks figure out that they can't have their cake and eat it too. If the international community can't get behind it, then let them suffer the consequences of their inaction instead of us suffering the consequences for acting.

 

I agree that we did but that was probably due to the lack of WMDs in Iraq and not the fact that we didn't go in with the UN.

 

The let's not be world police angle is one I'd support if it was in US interests. I used to consider this more of a moral question, but now I'm seeing it as a purely strategic question. I think there are many out there who do want the US to be the world police -- indeed, the US is the world's lone superpower and the chief global leader. Any international action taken by anyone could scarcely be led by anybody other than the United States. This may not always be true but it's a position that would benefit us to preserve.

 

The Russians would surely love to see us dealt a humiliating blow in that regard. But, yeah. Me, personally....I don't have much stomach for war.

 

I think this is a hugely important distinction.

 

1. If taken as a moral question, logic inexorably leads us to asking: "By what rationale do we determine when, where, and how to intervene whenever an atrocity on the scale of thousands occurs?" This a profound problem. North Korea is currently operating concentration camps not all that much different from the ones the Nazis used. They involve indefinite detention, torture, and murder. Looking at the Middle East (and Africa) more broadly, if we decided to intervene every time a significant number of people are killed or stripped of their inalienable rights (an ideal that we do not lose the right to claim simply because we don't fight other peoples' battles), there would be no end to the blood and treasure.

 

2. This makes it by definition a strategic question. Strategically the strikes in Syria are nonsensical. They offer no victory conditions. They offer no assurance of a positive outcome. They offer no probability of regime change. Even if they did, there is no telling what regime backed by whom would replace the current despot. In fact, speaking of likelihoods, the greatest likelihood I can see is that the United States would be drawn into another protracted conflict after some unforeseen circumstances draw us deeper into Syria's civil war. I'm not opposed to arming the enemies of our enemies to certain extent, but I am firmly opposed to repeating the blunders of Iraq and Afghanistan. America needs to accept as a matter of Reality that we cannot protect the world from itself, and unless our safety is directly threatened, war is rarely if ever the best option available to us. There is too much chance of escalation and too little chance of 'victory', which is not even defined in the current context.

 

Obama's mistake was he should have kept his God damned mouth shut. He introduced this idea of a 'red line', as if somehow killing 100,000 men, women, and children with conventional weapons is morally superior to gassing them. Thankfully he's wised up and will go to the congress, who will tell him no--if we're that lucky--in which case he can simply say, "The people have spoken." And we have. I've yet to see any sensible case that addressed the issues I wrote about above. Until that case is irrefutably made, the government/military-industrial complex has absolutely no right to our national trust.

[walksalone]

I think the most compelling reason for refusing action without the UN is the damage it would do to the U.S. image.

 

If we go that route, what are we going to get, though? Attaboys? Thanks for doing the right thing? No -- sneers and snickers at the 'historic Western retreat', a loss of U.S. credibility and influence, a lack of respect for U.S. resolve, and emboldened enemies.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought we had already suffered all those negatives (sneers, snickers, loss of credibility and influence, lack of respect, & emboldened enemies) by doing the opposite and acting on our own or with too small of a coalition. Isn't that what we've been told by the dems and Obama for 6-8 years now? How is bombing Syria going to garner or salvage any respect for the US?

 

We're not the world's police (at least we shouldn't be). It's high time some folks figure out that they can't have their cake and eat it too. If the international community can't get behind it, then let them suffer the consequences of their inaction instead of us suffering the consequences for acting.

 

I agree that we did but that was probably due to the lack of WMDs in Iraq and not the fact that we didn't go in with the UN.

 

The let's not be world police angle is one I'd support if it was in US interests. I used to consider this more of a moral question, but now I'm seeing it as a purely strategic question. I think there are many out there who do want the US to be the world police -- indeed, the US is the world's lone superpower and the chief global leader. Any international action taken by anyone could scarcely be led by anybody other than the United States. This may not always be true but it's a position that would benefit us to preserve.

 

The Russians would surely love to see us dealt a humiliating blow in that regard. But, yeah. Me, personally....I don't have much stomach for war.

 

I think this is a hugely important distinction.

 

1. If taken as a moral question, logic inexorably leads us to asking: "By what rationale do we determine when, where, and how to intervene whenever an atrocity on the scale of thousands occurs?" This a profound problem. North Korea is currently operating concentration camps not all that much different from the ones the Nazis used. They involve indefinite detention, torture, and murder. Looking at the Middle East (and Africa) more broadly, if we decided to intervene every time a significant number of people are killed or stripped of their inalienable rights (an ideal that we do not lose the right to claim simply because we don't fight other peoples' battles), there would be no end to the blood and treasure.

 

2. This makes it by definition a strategic question. Strategically the strikes in Syria are nonsensical. They offer no victory conditions. They offer no assurance of a positive outcome. They offer no probability of regime change. Even if they did, there is no telling what regime backed by whom would replace the current despot. In fact, speaking of likelihoods, the greatest likelihood I can see is that the United States would be drawn into another protracted conflict after some unforeseen circumstances draw us deeper into Syria's civil war. I'm not opposed to arming the enemies of our enemies to certain extent, but I am firmly opposed to repeating the blunders of Iraq and Afghanistan. America needs to accept as a matter of Reality that we cannot protect the world from itself, and unless our safety is directly threatened, war is rarely if ever the best option available to us. There is too much chance of escalation and too little chance of 'victory', which is not even defined in the current context.

 

Obama's mistake was he should have kept his God damned mouth shut. He introduced this idea of a 'red line', as if somehow killing 100,000 men, women, and children with conventional weapons is morally superior to gassing them. Thankfully he's wised up and will go to the congress, who will tell him no--if we're that lucky--in which case he can simply say, "The people have spoken." And we have. I've yet to see any sensible case that addressed the issues I wrote about above. Until that case is irrefutably made, the government/military-industrial complex has absolutely no right to our national trust.

 

[JJ Husker]

Excellent post Husker_x.

[EbylHusker]

We need to support the side that ends up winning. That's the most important thing.

 

only thing is, nobody's figured that out for over a 1000 years...

 

Well, it flip flops back and forth. So we just support the side that will win this time, then when the next cycle comes around, we support them, etc. Bombing the side that's going to lose is always a winning strategy.

[zoogs]

X...

 

Strategically, I'm also extremely skeptical that the Obama administration has a good plan here, or even if one is able to exist.

 

I believe the almost universal position is that there needs to be a political resolution, and the hope is that the strikes will bring Assad to the table by weaking his position in the conflict. That's awfully and conveniently clean and while I see the logic there, I can't help but feel it's a bit of an idle hope.

 

I also think the Obama administration is responsible for bringing us to this sad and messy juncture. When the situation was already bad, he ducked responsibility and action by offering up that 'red line'. This was a time when international support likely would have been much stronger, and action probably a lot more decisive and useful.

 

Instead, we waffled, didn't want to get involved, and now we're here.

 

I do not believe, however, that we can play the isolationist, because these events don't occur in a vacuum. (Sadly, if they were in certain parts of Africa, they may as well be...) They occur in the hotbed of one of the regions of the world most pertinent to U.S. interests (for a variety of reasons that don't need saying).

 

So, I think the question is that of what's the best course of action here, be it military, or not -- and not the broader, "Should we just leave totally out of this, or not".

[irieboy8]

not looking good...

 

http://www.liveleak....=f53_1378668985

[carlfense]

This would be good news.

Syria today "welcomed" an offer by Russia to put its chemical weapons arsenal under international control so that they could eventually be destroyed. Syria's statement came very quickly after the proposal was made by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in what he said was an attempt to avoid a U.S.-led strike on Syria. ...

 

"The Syrian Arab Republic welcomed the Russian initiative, based on the concerns of the Russian leadership for the lives of our citizens and the security of our country," [syria's Foreign Minister Walid al-Muallem] told reporters, according to Russia's Interfax news agency.

http://www.slate.com...a_workable.html

[StPaulHusker]

This would be good news.

Syria today "welcomed" an offer by Russia to put its chemical weapons arsenal under international control so that they could eventually be destroyed. Syria's statement came very quickly after the proposal was made by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in what he said was an attempt to avoid a U.S.-led strike on Syria. ...

 

"The Syrian Arab Republic welcomed the Russian initiative, based on the concerns of the Russian leadership for the lives of our citizens and the security of our country," [syria's Foreign Minister Walid al-Muallem] told reporters, according to Russia's Interfax news agency.

http://www.slate.com...a_workable.html

It would be good news but it seems like John Kerry didn't intend for it to be taken seriously.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/09/kerry-comment-could-undermine-obama-push-for-syria-strike/

 

[carlfense]

It would be good news but it seems like John Kerry didn't intend for it to be taken seriously.

You don't think that it would be a good outcome?

[StPaulHusker]

It would be good news but it seems like John Kerry didn't intend for it to be taken seriously.

You don't think that it would be a good outcome?

I think it would be a good outcome. I was just showing where Kerry made what he said was a rhetorical comment and was not meant to be taken seriously. I took that as no matter what, this administration has made up their mind and will do what they want regardless.

 

 

[carlfense]

I think it would be a good outcome. I was just showing where Kerry made what he said was a rhetorical comment and was not meant to be taken seriously.

It looks like it is being taken seriously.

 

I took that as no matter what, this administration has made up their mind and will do what they want regardless.

Do you think that they will order a strike even if Congress votes against it?

[StPaulHusker]

I think it would be a good outcome. I was just showing where Kerry made what he said was a rhetorical comment and was not meant to be taken seriously.

It looks like it is being taken seriously.

 

I took that as no matter what, this administration has made up their mind and will do what they want regardless.

Do you think that they will order a strike even if Congress votes against it?

It's a good thing it is being taken seriously. I just wished the administration thought so, too.

 

As far as the strike goes, I think it will depend on the vote tally. If it is closer to even , they will probably do it. If it is largely a no vote, I think they will play the diplomatic card and see where this other option goes.