Imminent mistakes in Syria

[kandrathe]

I'm opposed to the US overt and covert actions in Syria. It's like we didn't learn from any of our past interventionist mistakes.

So, yes, Assad is a bad guy who's using his army to kill +100 thousand of his own people. These last ~1000 are horrible too.

I think what we should do is; Do our very best to get a UNSC resolution, with Russia and China support in condemning the recent use of chemical weapons. It's not our unilateral role to "punish" Assad for his crimes, until we get him in front of a war crimes tribunal some day.

We preach the rule of law. We should follow it too.

[Jester]

I'm opposed to the US overt and covert actions in Syria. It's like we didn't learn from any of our past interventionist mistakes.

I'm scratching my head over this whole thing. I don't know what's going on here, and unlike Iraq, I don't see why this is suddenly such a high priority.

But yes, unless someone gives me an awfully good reason post haste, I'm opposed to this. It makes no sense to me.

-Jester

[Lissa]

I'm opposed to the US overt and covert actions in Syria. It's like we didn't learn from any of our past interventionist mistakes.

So, yes, Assad is a bad guy who's using his army to kill +100 thousand of his own people. These last ~1000 are horrible too.

I think what we should do is; Do our very best to get a UNSC resolution, with Russia and China support in condemning the recent use of chemical weapons. It's not our unilateral role to "punish" Assad for his crimes, until we get him in front of a war crimes tribunal some day.

We preach the rule of law. We should follow it too.

Bolded is the rub of this. Russia is getting money from Syria for all the arms they're selling and China is willing to take a blind eye to it so long as they can get oil from Syria and Iran (yes, Iran is illegally shipping oil through Iraq and Syria and everyone knows it). There is no way you're going to get Russia or China to back a resolution again Syria that has any teeth. This is the problem with the 5 permanent members having veto power.

[eppie]

Bolded is the rub of this. Russia is getting money from Syria for all the arms they're selling and China is willing to take a blind eye to it so long as they can get oil from Syria and Iran (yes, Iran is illegally shipping oil through Iraq and Syria and everyone knows it). There is no way you're going to get Russia or China to back a resolution again Syria that has any teeth. This is the problem with the 5 permanent members having veto power.

True, but even without that these situations are too difficult for us to know exactly what to do.
You feel very powerless because you can't do anything simple for these people (at least the women and children) but you also don't know exactly what is going on. Who is using what violence or what type of weapons.

You also know that Assad is an oppressing dictator but if the muslim extremist rebels are in charge things will probably get worse anyway. Helping them means helping Al Qaida.


I am also thinking that best is to do nothing because recent interventions in the gulf have shown that what you try to obtain doesn't work anyway.
What the world needs is a good system of apprehending and trialing war criminals. So single persons. This way you don't have to take sides in the conflict but you give a signal that people should play by the rules otherwise we will get you.


I mean look at WW2. How many nazi's have finally been convicted after the war? What percentage? The fact is that people can do what they want in wars because the chance that you get punished for your crimes against humanity are close to 0.

Of course this is not so easy practically.

[shoju]

I'm opposed as well. To me, the "red line" of chemical warfare just isn't enough. Some of my favorite talking heads on the net are looking at it from the "We should have done something far before this", even if that something was just getting the two sides to the table, and they've brought up some interesting points about getting the rebels, who have ties to Hezbollah, and Al Qaida, to agree to peace in other regions of the world in exchange for support.

For me? I think we should just take a step back, and let this work itself out, unless other powers that be start meddling.

I'm not a huge fan of the US as the World Police, and I'm really not a fan of going into yet another country without clear objectives. It's not like we can go in and bomb the chem compounds to shit, and then walk away. Those are (according to the various news agency maps) in fairly high population areas.

The reason we are getting involved seems to be pretty simple. This is a smoldering fire, that people are lobbing bullets into. Eventually, one of those bullets is going to go off in the wrong direction, and someone is going to get really angry (as in: surrounding countries), and this could escalate. And...... the Grover Dill to our Scut Farkus (kudos to anyone who gets the ref) Ally Israel in the Middle East is a neighboring nation.

But, as I've said in a few other places a few other times, I'm rather isolationist in my foreign policy.

[Taem]

I'm personally glad this administration has chosen to stick to their word - when you're the leader of a super power, you better damn well do what you say, else you look like North Korea - filled with hot air. When Obama said Syria's use of chemical weapons would be a "red line in the sand" a few months back, that was his administrations stance on the subject. Rather I agree with that decision or not is irrelevant to the fact that a nation as strong and powerful as ours has to be credible when it makes bold statements such as it's "redline" comment. I'd hate for use to loose a few backdoor negotiations because, despite our power, other countries know just how far they can push our buttons before stoking a reaction.

Second, I've heard the arguments on both sides, and it's unfortunate for us that this is truly an un-winnable war because the winners will not be allies of ours, but Obama's stance was humanitarian in nature, and if you don't see that, if all you see is state lines and dollar signs, then I'm inclined to believe fear has a grip on your moral compass. When is the use of chemical weapons on people [in general, not even talking civil war here] ever condoned by our society, or by the world at large? But I suppose the main crux of any [unstated] argument might be that the next leader to take over might be worse than the current, however I did not see anyone mention that here, so I fail to see reasoning in the logic of text posted in this thread. All I see is fear, with a moral compass pointed downward!

My personal, logistical reasons for not entering the fray of Syria's civil war would be: 1) A far worse dictator might take over and we may find these chemical weapons we're taking a stance on in the hands of terrorists and used on American, and allied, soil, 2) As terrible as it sounds, this country cannot afford to engage in another costly war and loose billions of our dollars fighting, training, and making peace with foreigners of a country who want's nothing to do with us, and whose end results could possibly spell another recession for us, 3) Even though I feel this chemical warfare business is a true human atrocity, I feel Syria needs to fight Syria's war, not us, and earn their own freedom and independence. By interfering this this process, we are stopping that country from becoming what we ourselves became, and finally 4) It's most likely illegal to intervene and this could do far worse to our already tarnished image than doing nothing.

I take to the notion that there are three separate categories of thought on this issue; Logic: I don't feel like doing a copy/paste job, but I would not enter the fray for those numerous reasons I listed in the paragraph directly above. Morality: I would have to justify a new leader being better then the current one before condoning any action on Syria and if this were to be true, then I'd enter the fray to protect the innocents and if not, I wouldn't enter the fray to protect the innocent, but my decision would be based on morality. And finally, Power: I'm compelled to do what I say, and by this I mean when I say "chemical weapons are a red line," that I'm going to take action no matter what the outcome! My word is law and I don't want others to question my motives or to push me further to see how far they can go to get away with abuses of power against my country.

At some points, each category blurs with the other, but for completely different reasons than intended. So for me, even though I feel multiple levels of emotion on this issue, my gut instinct is the follow the rule of Power, and stick with what our country said we would do, which also blurs with the morality side. Anyways, that is my stance, and I really don't see it changing.

[Kevin]

I'm playing Devil's Advocate here. I may get into my own opinions but at times I see bold statements that I think should have a counterpoint made to them.

When is the use of chemical weapons on people [in general, not even talking civil war here] ever condoned by our society, or by the world at large?

The US uses chemical weapons on it's own citizens all the time as well as enemy combatants. Tear Gas is a chemical weapon. It's not a particularly deadly weapon but it can in fact kill especially in closed spaces. The military uses it in closed spaces a lot. So are chemical weapons bad or are only some chemical weapons bad? Is a morality argument that subjective?

If it isn't then why shouldn't we be punished for using and actually inventing many of the chemical weapons in the past (WW1, WW2, Korea, and Vietnam)? Once we decided we shouldn't use them, we decided that no one should use them. You can say the same thing about nuclear weapons. The US has a pretty bad track record of doing horrible things with weapons to other people and then leading the charge of saying "No you can't use those! Those are bad things to use!"

My personal, logistical reasons for not entering the fray of Syria's civil war would be: 1) A far worse dictator might take over and we may find these chemical weapons we're taking a stance on in the hands of terrorists and used on American, and allied, soil,

If any part of your argument is based in moral objections this doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if they are used on Americans or their allies. You talk about the moral compass, this statement has nothing to do with that at all, and hurts your credibility.

3) Even though I feel this chemical warfare business is a true human atrocity, I feel Syria needs to fight Syria's war, not us, and earn their own freedom and independence. By interfering this this process, we are stopping that country from becoming what we ourselves became,

Get me a time machine and let's see how the American Revolution would have turned out had France not covertly then openly supported and fought on the side of the Rebels (Americans). The reasons they got involved are not the same, but they still interfered heavily in what, at the time, was a British Civil war.

While most countries didn't get directly involved in the American Civil war in the 1860's it was a near thing they didn't in some case and there was still a leveling of meddling being done that we are currently at.

and finally 4) It's most likely illegal to intervene and this could do far worse to our already tarnished image than doing nothing.

...

And finally, Power: I'm compelled to do what I say, and by this I mean when I say "chemical weapons are a red line," that I'm going to take action no matter what the outcome! My word is law and I don't want others to question my motives or to push me further to see how far they can go to get away with abuses of power against my country.

So it might be illegal, but I'm going to do what I say because my word is law. So the law be damned! I realize you admitted it was a no win situation. However; if our countries power is supposedly based in the rule of law this is a very bad stance to follow.

[Taem]

When is the use of chemical weapons on people [in general, not even talking civil war here] ever condoned by our society, or by the world at large?

The US uses chemical weapons on it's own citizens all the time as well as enemy combatants. Tear Gas is a chemical weapon. It's not a particularly deadly weapon but it can in fact kill especially in closed spaces. The military uses it in closed spaces a lot. So are chemical weapons bad or are only some chemical weapons bad? Is a morality argument that subjective?

If it isn't then why shouldn't we be punished for using and actually inventing many of the chemical weapons in the past (WW1, WW2, Korea, and Vietnam)? Once we decided we shouldn't use them, we decided that no one should use them. You can say the same thing about nuclear weapons. The US has a pretty bad track record of doing horrible things with weapons to other people and then leading the charge of saying "No you can't use those! Those are bad things to use!"

How interesting. I never considered that when I made my statement, but on a broad scale, I suppose you are correct. For clarity, I was referring only to chemical weapons designed specifically for mass murder, you know like the "all guns aren't created equal" argument for handguns versus fully automatic rifles. Regarding the US doing "bad things," I agree, but this is hardly a reason why not to support doing the correct thing now; however I might add I only brought it up to show how jaded we've become as a society - the whole human race - including myself, and I say this because I choose not to agree with morality's stance when coming to my decision to support power.

My personal, logistical reasons for not entering the fray of Syria's civil war would be: 1) A far worse dictator might take over and we may find these chemical weapons we're taking a stance on in the hands of terrorists and used on American, and allied, soil,

If any part of your argument is based in moral objections this doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if they are used on Americans or their allies. You talk about the moral compass, this statement has nothing to do with that at all, and hurts your credibility.

The point here was that a far worse dictator might cause more deaths. Is that not logical san emotions? Regarding terrorists using chemical weapons on Americans, this is also a logical statement. I suppose my post was a bit hair-brained because I was supporting multiple arguments with separate points of view for my end paragraph, and because of that, you are in fact conflating two irrational ideologies which I meant to be clearly separate thoughts: power in the first paragraph, morality in the second, and logic in the third, with the fourth paragraph pulling it all together. I suppose I failed to convey that message?

3) Even though I feel this chemical warfare business is a true human atrocity, I feel Syria needs to fight Syria's war, not us, and earn their own freedom and independence. By interfering this this process, we are stopping that country from becoming what we ourselves became,

Get me a time machine and let's see how the American Revolution would have turned out had France not covertly then openly supported and fought on the side of the Rebels (Americans). The reasons they got involved are not the same, but they still interfered heavily in what, at the time, was a British Civil war.

While most countries didn't get directly involved in the American Civil war in the 1860's it was a near thing they didn't in some case and there was still a leveling of meddling being done that we are currently at.

I'm not too familiar with France's involvement in the American revolution unfortunately, but off the top of my head, I'd suggest that perhaps with Canada so close by, France had a vetted interest to intervene in the affairs of Britten.

and finally 4) It's most likely illegal to intervene and this could do far worse to our already tarnished image than doing nothing.

...

And finally, Power: I'm compelled to do what I say, and by this I mean when I say "chemical weapons are a red line," that I'm going to take action no matter what the outcome! My word is law and I don't want others to question my motives or to push me further to see how far they can go to get away with abuses of power against my country.

So it might be illegal, but I'm going to do what I say because my word is law. So the law be damned! I realize you admitted it was a no win situation. However; if our countries power is supposedly based in the rule of law this is a very bad stance to follow.

Heh, so it's a no-win situation for us now that the redline comment was stated. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. You are correct that we will look equally as bad to foreigners if we intervene than if we did nothing at all after that statement, but I prefer to have other countries know we are a country of our word, and when we commit to a statement like that, we won't back down!

Thank's for playing devils advocate against me; logical and sound counter arguments for me to digest on a slow day at work !

[Taem]

Just saw some really poor spelling error that snuck in while re-reading this from my phone. Oh well, don't hate . Can't edit a post that big from my phone, sorry.

[Taem]

Heh, so it's a no-win situation for us now that the redline comment was stated. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. You are correct that we will look equally as bad to foreigners if we intervene than if we did nothing at all after that statement, but I prefer to have other countries know we are a country of our word, and when we commit to a statement like that, we won't back down!

What a sly dog; such masterful eloquence of planning. I can't believe Obama passed the buck to Congress knowing they will vote against any action towards Syria, yet at the same time saying he "would" authorize a strike himself, but needed "approval" from Congress. Now he's fulfilled his promise by way of the "redline" comment by differing the issue to Congress after saying he would approve any military action Congress voted on. Hah, this guy is something else; a real swindler - in a good way. Even if you don't like the man, you have to have respect for Obama's rhetoric and quick thinking.

[Jester]

Hah, this guy is something else; a real swindler - in a good way.

Or, perhaps, a long-overdue acknowledgement that Congress' constitutional authority to declare wars does, in fact, override the non-existent requirement to back up every piece of bravado with cruise missiles and carrier groups...

-Jester

[kandrathe]

Or, perhaps, a long-overdue acknowledgement that Congress' constitutional authority to declare wars does, in fact, override the non-existent requirement to back up every piece of bravado with cruise missiles and carrier groups...

I think this is more true when their is not an imminent threat to US interests. You might even ask; for what possible reason would we even seek to be involved in the Syrian civil war. In this situation, I just see downsides even if we succeed in getting a cruise missile on target.

So, say the DPRK lobs a missile at us. Then, yes, the CIC should act and bring congress up to speed when the can next convene on an emergency basis, but depending on where they are that can take 24 hours (if on recess). Otherwise, why not consult congress?

Lastly, lobbing missiles in not "grown up" diplomacy, it's a bully move. "Stop using chemical weapons, or we'll punch you in the nose again." What would hurt Assad more would be to arm the good guy rebels (not Al Queda) with, some Saudi elite "advisors" helping to train them in on anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

[Sabra]

As a Middle East watcher, my heart breaks for the Syrian people. As a Jew, I have a huge problem with regime change in Syria. Basser Assad has no interest in Israel and has left it alone for years. Yet the day after the Sarin attack, 4 missiles were launched into Northern Israel from Lebanon. This is a common practice used to provoke Israel into military strikes to cover whatever horror the Arabs are perpetrating on their own. Iron Dome shot down one or two, and the others fell outside Israel. When I left Israel, the IDF was flying missions over Tyre.

It's another "Better the devil you know" situation for me. And THAT makes me feel just sick about myself, because I really do feel for the civilians in Syria. But the better Devil that I know inside myself tells me that regime change would only lead to a stronger presence of Islamic Extremists in control of Syria.

[FireIceTalon]

It seems odd to me that the U.S. only wants to get involved in this conflict now, when it has been going on nearly 3 years. It reeks of imperialism more than it does humanitarian purposes, given its track record and the results of the Iraq War. They say the use of chemical weapons crosses the line, but there is two issues with this:

1. They have no reliable proof or hardline data that Assad has used chemical weapons, much in the same way they were misinformed about Saddam having them back in 2003. It was an excuse to further push the interests of American capital - not because they wanted to liberate the people of Iraq. And even if they did have such data....

2. Hundreds of thousands have already died in the Syrian conflict - and not from chemical weapons, but from bombs, guns, and knives. Why is the US only becoming interested NOW? Was not the use of violence by standard weaponry from Assad enough?

Actually there is a 3rd issue as well, and that is none other than the US media, which has provided an extremely biased and one-sided viewpoint of the entire situation. The actions of Assad are horrible to be sure, but the media pays very little attention to the atrocities committed by the rebels, which are equally violent.

It seems funny to me that back when Iraq was our ally, the US backed Saddam, or at the very least did nothing, when he used chemical weapons on his own people, but now when Assad allegedly does it to a few of his own people (even though most of the people killed in this conflict, again, have been killed by bullets and grenades, not chemical weapons) the US suddenly has a problem with it. The hypocrisy is astounding. I think the real reason is because the US knows that as of now is because Assad's forces have a favorable position in the conflict, and this is unfavorable to the interests of US and Israeli capital. Also, the US has backed many groups that are linked to Al Quada, our sworn enemy - as Eppie already hinted at. In short, screw western media and its unbalanced/biased, hypocritical, half-truth reporting. As was the case with Iraq, we have little interest in actual regime change and humanitarian purposes unless we can use it as an excuse to further US imperialism. The moment we can do that, we send in the good ol' boys and use our lovely bourgeois media system to call it a 'national liberation movement' or some other attractive phrase that the average person will suck up in a 30-second sound byte, and think once again their country is some heroic entity doing a great deed of spreading so-called freedom, democracy and peace around the world, and not a imperialist dictator waving a big stick to make a bunch of corporations and the military industrial complex already wealthier than it is - at the expense of everyone else involved. And when we can't do that, we stay behind the lines and wait for the opportune moment, surprise surprise. My humble, red viewpoint of things.

[Bolty]

It seems odd to me that the U.S. only wants to get involved in this conflict now, when it has been going on nearly 3 years. It reeks of imperialism more than it does humanitarian purposes, given its track record and the results of the Iraq War.

The cynic in me says it's about one thing: Snowden. Russia gave him a home when no one else would, and you can bet the US told them there would be repercussions. And here they are. Russia does NOT want Assad thrown out.

[FireIceTalon]

I'm a bit hesitant to say its entirely about Snowden, but it would not surprise me if that was also part of it. Who knows. Either way, you know they will never come out and say that, hehe. Cause they know very well that would be an extremely flimsy and unpopular excuse among most American citizens to attack Syria, even if some people think Snowden is guilty of treason. The alleged use of chemical weapons by Assad, however, is something people are much more likely to buy, even if in reality they should know better from the Iraq war. But people tend to forget things over the long term. You are correct for sure about Russia not wanting Assad thrown out, as this would be detrimental for their political and economic interests. At the end of the day, this is all about competition between the ruling classes between East and West.

*edit*: whether this is because of Snowden or not, western action against Assad seems likely to lead to something much worse than what is going on now - perhaps even a new proxy-war between the US and Russia? Not good. I know its still early but I doubt Russia is just going to let America come in and do a Syrian regime change that is almost certainly against Russian interests.....

[Jester]

The cynic in me says it's about one thing: Snowden. Russia gave him a home when no one else would, and you can bet the US told them there would be repercussions. And here they are. Russia does NOT want Assad thrown out.

An interesting possibility, but the magnitudes seem wrong. I wouldn't think the US (or anyone) launches cruise missiles over someone like Snowden. It just doesn't seem like a big enough issue to justify the risk or the expense.

I wonder if this isn't all about knocking out an Iranian ally.

-Jester

[eppie]

The cynic in me says it's about one thing: Snowden. Russia gave him a home when no one else would, and you can bet the US told them there would be repercussions. And here they are. Russia does NOT want Assad thrown out.

An interesting possibility, but the magnitudes seem wrong. I wouldn't think the US (or anyone) launches cruise missiles over someone like Snowden. It just doesn't seem like a big enough issue to justify the risk or the expense.

I wonder if this isn't all about knocking out an Iranian ally.

-Jester

I agree with you. The damage of Snowden has been done. (showing everyone how much spying there is going on) It doesn't change anything if he is brought to justice in the US or not.
For sure not important enough to risk a conflict with Russia and China.

[DeeBye]

It just doesn't seem like a big enough issue to justify the risk or the expense.

The cynic in me says "follow the money". War is expensive, so someone out there is making a fortune every time a bullet is fired, a missile is launched, and a body bag needs to be replaced.

[Lissa]

It just doesn't seem like a big enough issue to justify the risk or the expense.

The cynic in me says "follow the money". War is expensive, so someone out there is making a fortune every time a bullet is fired, a missile is launched, and a body bag needs to be replaced.

*BING* *BING* *BING* We have a winnar!

The people making money right now on Syria is...

*drumroll*

Russia!

There's your reason why Russia doesn't want the situation in Syria to end, they're getting paid quite a bit for weapons to the Syrian regime.

Likewise, taking out the Syrian regime would also cause a lot of pain for Iran because they couldn't ship their oil out through the Syrian port(s).

It would also cause Hezbollah and Hamas (both puppets of Syria and Iran) to weaken considerably and maybe allow for some possible peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

So yeah, the US striking Syria would do a lot of damage to a variety of bad people and those bad people are saber rattling right now..

As a somewhat side note, a co-worker just got back from Lebannon after visiting family and was in the area of where the bomb went off. He believes that it was done by Syria to take focus away from what is going on in Syria, how right my co-worker is or not remains to be seen, but it's not something that would surprise me that Assad and his regime would do.