Simplistic, emotionally charged, we must intervene now OPs

[nadinbrzezinski]

Yes, somebody used Sarin. Yes, hundreds died, that we know. Up to close to 3K we are not so sure, regardless what the Administration says. Yes, something terrible happened in this civil war, AGAIN.

So let's examine some of this.

IT'S GENOCIDE? No it is not.

IT's a Munich Like Moment... Nope.

Our way of life depends on it (I expect it, and nope, it does not)

What all this is about is exactly what other interventions in the Middle East and Asia have been about. It is the grand old chess game, and the field is that strategic area. What is this about? Like any other war, it is about resources, this time Oil. that is what this is about.

Can we stop whoever used WMDs from using them again by lobbying a few hundred cruise missiles? No, not really.

Should we do nothing? Not quite. Yes, somebody used WMDs, the kind forbidden by treaty since 1925, but taking the country to a war time footing, and make no mistake, lobbying missiles is taking the country to a war time footing, is not the solution. The solution is taking those responsible before the Hague. I don't expect that.

It is not about regime change...ok, if the administration says so. But to take them at their word, I guess Assad will learn and let that pipeline through.

But this wonderful appeal to the good war is getting tiresome.

[KittyWampus]

1. Fact- Assad is getting desperate. His forces are deserting. He can't supply via ground.

AND he has chemical weapons.

So it's really, really likely a lot more civilians are going to get gassed in the relatively near future.

That's reality.

Now, it may be a sad truth that the best course of action is still to attempt diplomacy whilst massacres keep happening.

But we best be ready to witness more large scale deaths.

Edit- and be ready to help assist humanitarian efforts. Especially in countries already overwhelmed with 2 million and growing Syrian refugees.

[HooptieWagon]

16. No, Assad has had the upper hand for the past 4 months

Do you always make shit up?

[KittyWampus]

43. From Der Spiegel yesterday- please read the entire article but here is bit from middle

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/situation-in-syria-deteriorates-as-west-looks-for-answers-a-919733-2.html

snip
Yet, it is perhaps irrelevant who gave the order since the entire Syrian leadership is reportedly afraid that the defense lines will collapse. These fears have been fanned by a number of developments over the past few weeks: the unauthorized withdrawal of previously Assad-loyal militias to their Alawite villages; the feared rebel offensive; the declining morale of the regular troops; and the rising losses without military victories to show for them.

The poison gas attack was probably carried out by the 4th division of Assad's army. Experts and defectors agree that this is the only unit that possesses launching devices for chemical weapons. Immediately following the chemical attack, it shelled rebel positions with conventional artillery -- but was unable to take a single location.

Instead, the division lost at least seven tanks in the Damascus neighborhood of Harasta alone. A rebel video provides an insight into the lack of personnel among the elite division: Two crew members flee a burning tank -- but they are wearing no uniforms, no helmets and no radio gear. Shabiha militia members have apparently been forced to fill the gaps in the ranks of the army.

The images are highly significant and don't correspond with reports that Assad has strengthened his military position. Military experts and intelligence agents had been circulating this theory for months, ever since the battle for control of the small town of Qusayr in early summer. Under the leadership of over 1,000 fighters from the Shiite Hezbollah militia from Lebanon, Assad's troops were able to recapture Qusayr.


Snip
Nevertheless, the myth of a military turning point in the regime's favor has persisted since June. This has also hampered the search for motives for the poison gas attack: Many observers wondered why Assad should use chemical weapons if he is winning the war already. In actual fact, the situation has been difficult for the regime's troops for quite some time now. Since the spring of 2012, many of the army's positions have only been supplied from the air because all land routes are under the control the rebels.

[blazeKing]

41. Fact- Stopping Assad is putting Al Qaeda in power

And they have chemical weapons, and they will ethnically cleanse those who Assad gives protection to.

That's reality.

[treestar]

2. I think it's just as emotionally charged

when people argue the opposite; no one wants war or even military involvement; but there are a lot of OPS pretending there is no chemical weapons issue at all. Or just shrugging at it. Or trying to deny it happened.

[cthulu2016]

3. Such OPs are well balanced by

equally thoughtless tripe on the other side of the issue.

It Obama fan-clubbers and keyboard commandos versus conspiracy theorists and the blame america first crowd.

Just not a pretty debate.


Lost in the shuffle is the actual question, which is, what is the effect, good or ill, or launching cruise missiles at some list of targets designed to not weaken the side being punished.

We have a very good case for doing something, but have no *something* to do that helps anyone. It's a sad affair all around.

I see no point in a symbolic strike. The downside risk exceeds any benefit.


90% of the arguments against a strike are awful arguments. But it only takes one good argument against bombing someone to be enough.

[BootinUp]

5. Agreed

but its not so clear to me that Obama intends to strike or at least not immediately. He was basically saying there was no reason it had to be right away, next week or even next month. Perhaps they can stop future Chem attacks by some terrific saber rattling. Or perhaps they can target key people who were using them.

[nadinbrzezinski]

6. Well there are valid reasons not to intervene

mostly who is who in the opposition is murky, and many elements are Al Qaida. So we will be the AF for Al Qaida, which worst case scenario takes over the place, will have no qualms about using those weapons against our interests in the region.

Of course the absolute worst case is triggering a regional war, but they... we need a new war I 'spose.

And we really do not know YET who deployed those weapons. The intel people say it was the Syrian government, but witnesses on the ground speak of a possible horrible accident. Both, yes it is possible, might be right.

I know I have been keeping an eye on Syria for close to two years now, and the only thing I can say is that the situation has become real murky over the last six months, with proxy wars being fought in the area by multiple parties.

[GoneFishin]

9. Agreed. The downside for Assad to use chemical weapons was too great, especially

after POTUS's red line declaration, to ignore the possibility of a false flag operation intended to satiate the violent appetites of the chicken hawks, domestic and among middle eastern allies. I don't buy the argument that Assad is crazy as a way to explain why he used CTs despite the American threat.

We've been fed bad intelligence before by people with nefarious intent. And the tab is at $3 trillion and counting because of people who gobble up whatever they are told rather than questioning the motives of all the players.

[nadinbrzezinski]

10. Stove piping it is called

and it has not stopped.

I FINALLY bought a sub to Foreign Policy Magazine, The Cable is quite possibly the best daily read on this mess.

[GoneFishin]

15. It's fascinating. There are those who have no problem believing a story about kids killing each

other over a pair of sneakers, but will call you a conspiracy theorist if you suggest that someone might lie or deceive the public for vast war profits, valuable resources, or immense power.

[nadinbrzezinski]

31. We like simple stories

And these are not simple stories.

[BootinUp]

33. What we really like is white or black issues

where it is not hard to decide whats right or wrong.

[nadinbrzezinski]

34. And the media trains us for that

[L0oniX]

45. It's a waste of time to explain how we would be helpiing Al Qaida and the results of a rebel win.

After it's over the same people who wanted Assad taken out will wonder why Islamic theocracy and Sharia law is enabled. There is no winning side to this and we should stay the hell out ...been saying it from the start.

[another_liberal]

35. Syria has never attacked the United States . . .

Yet we have the right, somehow, to murder Syrian citizens, destroy their nation's infrastructure and aid foreign fighters in an effort to remove their government and leave them with . . . whatever? Is that how you would like our country, and your loved ones' descendants to be treated by the next "superpower" who comes along? If not, you had better reconsider intervening in Syria's Civil War.

What goes around will most certainly find a way of coming around.

[mike_c]

39. I disagree with one important point....

"Lost in the shuffle is the actual question, which is, what is the effect, good or ill, or launching cruise missiles at some list of targets designed to not weaken the side being punished."

No, what's appears to be utterly and completely ignored in the shuffle is that it's a war crime-- and the U.S. has acknowledged that in the form of it's pledge on the U.N. Charter to NEVER initiate aggressive warfare for any reason. The ONLY justification for attacking another nation is self defense.

This isn't a philosophical debate. No amount of recourse to fantasies like "but would you agree to a war if Hitler were reincarnated and banging on your door" can change the truth that we are signatories of an agreement that defines precisely what we are debating doing as a crime against humanity and which forbids us from doing it. No amount of argument about Syrian crimes can change our agreement to not do what we are debating doing.

[nadinbrzezinski]

46. Mike we are also signatories to the Genocide convention

The idea of intervention in case of genocide (this is not the case IMHO, at least not yet, there is potential here) has taken root. Elspecially after Rwanda. So if this was Hitler, the world community woud have an obligation to intervene.

[mike_c]

50. through the UN....

That's the problem with American exceptionalism-- we sign agreements that we expect others to abide by, but act as though the law doesn't apply to us. Any debate in Congress about whether to intervene in Syria is a farce, because we've already given our pledge not to. Now it's time to see whether America's promises mean anything or not.

IMO the genocide convention does not apply here in any event. This is a civil war, not a genocide.

[nadinbrzezinski]

52. As I said, it has potential

For genocide in the classic definition of the word. We are not there.

[DevonRex]

57. Ugh. Stop the fan clubber shit. Just makes you sound like a jerk.

You have the starting point of a discussion with your POV but I'm sure you put me in the fan club box a long time ago. Oh well. Could have been interesting.

[CakeGrrl]

4. Simplistic, emotionally charged, we must NOT intervene OPs

In fact, I'll bet I can find more that fit the profile I describe.

[VanillaRhapsody]

29. I was thinking the exact same thing CakeGrrl upon reading the title of this OP

I don't think anyone who believes that something needs to be done about Assad side are really enthusiastic about a war as some on the opposing side try to suggest. It's the farthest thing from the truth.

All the talk of Gloom and Doom and World War 3 and a "war we cannot win" and on and on and on with the hyperbole but apparently that's not really "emotionally charged" I guess...

[CakeGrrl]

36. The OP is projection, IMO

It's simplistic (and quite wrong and intellectually lazy) to write off this President and this situation as Bush/Iraq all over again.

It takes a reasonable, open-minded thought process to understand the difficulty of the decision. Congress will now demonstrate some of that difficulty as they are called to debate.

The emotion and anger lie mostly in the rejoinders of those who say "No war ever" and "Leave the U.S. out of this".

[felix_numinous]

7. So many questions

-one I have is: If the whole world (especially those in the Middle East) knows that the US MIC is chomping at the bit to go into Syria, why would any Syrian national facilitate this by using chemical weapons? We were just in the process of pulling back our troops.

Is someone willing to betray their own region and country by making a deal with a crooked corporation? They cannot want us there this bad.

Something really stinks, beyond appearances, we have to track the money trail before taking any action. Apologies if this has been answered already and I missed it.

Peace~Felix

[nadinbrzezinski]

8. There are and I doubt we will be able to answer them

something about August 1914 comes to mind, and incidentally it was the use of mustard gas which led to the 1925 convention.

But you are right, there are way too many questions about this.

What is not in doubt is the use of Sarin, that there is no doubt somebody used it.

[VanillaRhapsody]

40. Yes that somebody is Assad...

to try to say that the Rebels "might" have used Sarin gas on their own people is ridiculous on its face. Occam's Razor tells me that Assad has been doing low level chemical attacks all along...only this time something went terribly wrong....they messed up the formula and caused enough death to get it noticed. To pretend at this point that the most obvious thing that happened "might not" have just to prove your point is insulting to the very people that were killed by this. To give Assad cover just to prove your point is nauseating.

[creeksneakers2]

17. I don't think the MIC is behind this

The MIC has the right wing in its pocket but the right wing opposes going to war in Syria. If the MIC wanted war they'd have Limbaugh and Hannity and all the rest of them pushing it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

32. Project for a New American Century

It is right wing, and very relevant

[VanillaRhapsody]

42. So forever more...anything that happens in the Middle East is covered by PNAC?

how convenient. I don't think this President signed the PNAC did he?

[dkf]

11. Actually not quite oil...natural gas. But the same "great game" as ever.

[nadinbrzezinski]

12. Someday it will be something else

spice, I tell you the Spice is valuable.

[dkf]

13. Sadly much too true.

[mbperrin]

14. I oppose any US action in Syria for any reason at all.

There has not been a justifiable military action by the US in my lifetime, since 1952.

Just making it clear where I stand here. No matter what they find out about chemical weapons, blah blah blah. We should do nothing. This is a Syrian matter, period.

[JEB]

28. Same age, same opinion.

Thanks for stating it so clearly.

[reformist2]

18. They'll keep appealing to our 'moral outrage' until it doesn't work anymore.

That's one good thing about an aging population - as time goes by, we slowly are wising up. We remember. We may be at the point where this morality crapola doesn't work anymore.

[nadinbrzezinski]

19. And mind you, I was all for the Bosnia intervention

and that one I think was justified. Or at least was the closest to it.

[markpkessinger]

20. K&R! Don't know if you saw this, but in a similar vein . . .

This Op-Ed from Sunday's Washington Post offers a superb critique of the notion of the "good war." Highly recommended.

U.S. intervention in Syria: War for virtue

[Buns_of_Fire]

38. It's almost like we're always looking for a new confrontation to atone

for our last confrontation, which we got into to atone for the confrontation before that. Always looking for the side of the gods, but the gods don't seem to be cooperating.

[another_liberal]

21. You forgot to mention . . .

The need to support our "special ally" in the Middle East, the modern State of Israel. They desperately want to weaken Hezbollah, the only Muslim/Arab force which has ever fought the IDF to a standstill (Lebanon, 2006). If Hezbollah's principle ally, Assad's regime in Syria, can be removed, that cherished goal will be achieved. In other words, economy and hegemony will both be served if the United States is saddled with an otherwise pointless war of choice in Syria.

Both big oil and Israel demand it!

[nadinbrzezinski]

24. IMO it s resources

As it always has been. That sliver of land is strategic for access to the med. I have gotten way too cynical

[another_liberal]

27. Money doesn't talk . . .

Last edited Tue Sep 3, 2013, 02:25 AM - Edit history (1)

It shouts so loud you have to cover your ears. No doubt about that.

[dionysus]

22. more self important word salad...

[golfguru]

23. Syria attack is going to happen, like it or not

Red lines once drawn can not be erased. A bell can not be unrung. World criminals using WMD's on CIVILIANS can not be let off without adequate punishment. Laws can not be allowed to breakdown, because then we have anarchy.

[nadinbrzezinski]

25. Except when great powers do break those laws

[golfguru]

26. Hehe you got me there!

Y're right, a cop speeding to the donuts shop never gets a ticket.

[VanillaRhapsody]

30. but that's what the Anarchist want!

shhhhh don't tell them they are Anarchists...they like to call themselves Libertarians sometimes too!

[The Straight Story]

37. Israel has attacked Syrian targets before and the world didn't end,no war erupted

between the two (other than the 70's and their general dislike of each other and some Golan shelling).

They didn't go to the UN, didn't talk to the NATO nations and ask the UK to vote on it. They just sent in some planes and took out a nuclear facility one day and it was basically forgotten the next.

[randome]

44. What pipeline are you talking about?

[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[FSogol]

51. Word Salad Pipeline (WSP)?

[Link Speed]

56. Iran/Iraq/Syria

Be done with those pesky straits.

Maybe have a southern leg - Saudi/Iraq/Syria.

[backscatter712]

47. Don't you love the "We must DO SOMETHING!" crowd!

Well, do what? Is blowing shit up with cruise missiles going to solve this problem?

Are we going to eliminate all of Assad's (or the rebels') chem-weapons and chem-weapon facilities with a few dozen cruise missile strikes that the Syrians knew were coming for weeks?

You think Assad's going to meekly say "I'm sorry, my bad, I'll switch to murdering my people with machine guns now."

What a load of horseshit.

As Tom Tomorrow put it so brilliantly, this is about Sending a Message. It proves that war is as kabuki as the rest of politics.

And as Tom Tomorrow put it, it'd be cheaper to send Assad a message on Facebook. It'd cause fewer casualties, and have about the same odds of changing his behavior.

[nadinbrzezinski]

48. Same crowd that loves the NSA

And if this was a republican they'd hate both with a passion. It's a partisan thing

They do not think beyond the football game

[backscatter712]

49. Yep. The same people...

YAY TEAM BLUE!

[uponit7771]

53. +1, "...taking those responsible before the Hague."

[Fantastic Anarchist]

54. Agreed, Nadin!

[DevonRex]

55. Good fucking lord. Uninformed propaganda bullshit. The FACTS are the FACTS.

ASSAD used chemical on his own people.

Look, disagree with doing anything about it if you want to. But don't carry water for Assad.