jazztalk.net

I'd particularly like to hear from my guru on this...

I'm not your guru, walto, but I'll give my 2 cents.

Especially after what happened over a decade ago, I get nervous when the government starts beating those drums. 100,000 people have supposedly been killed in Syria and I saw the ghastly videos of kids shaking, skin peeling from chemical burns. I think the world has to intervene when something like this goes on. But I don't know what lobbing Tomahawk missiles is supposed to do. I mean, I just don't feel any level of assurance that it will actually do anything (other than kill people...like more civilians). If I had a reason to believe it would actually work I'd support it. Assad is a defiant jackass. For all we know this could make things worse.

I will wait for the report of the UN inspectors before I comment any further.

I do however agree with what Lenny sed.

It's a bit unclear what can be achieved. I guess the logic is that a strike will give a demonstration effect that the use of chemical weapons will not be tolerated, implying that the next use would be followed up by something more serious. The risk is that Assad could call the bluff of the US and potentially draw the country into war. Since Assad is currently desperate and isolated, he might actually calculate that this would be a good move, i.e. once he is fighting the US, he will receive more sympathy from the Arab world and beyond.

Moslems hate the West, we can't make them like us. It's time to really concentrate of independent energy development and stop trying to make them respect us. and let them kill each other off for their spot of sand.

One tomahawk missile costs 1.5 million bucks, could we find better use of the money? Like schools? Infrastructure? Complete health care?

I put them all in the same bucket, once they let women be equals and not chattels, maybe they'll have some credibility, This has been going on for centuries, they won't change.

It's all about oil, if the Muslems didn't have the oil, we wouldn't give a shit.

Circumcised or full collar?

Na na na na na

I don't like the mentality that says we do a limited bombing campaign and the problem is solved. Kind of like the sequester stuff where no one really thought long term.

I think Assad is just another deplorable head of state in the region. There are many regime changes that could/should be made (Israel, too). But what's our role in that?

The one thing I think is significant is that the Arab League and Turkey are both anti-Assad as well, but if they won't take up the battle in their own back yard, why should we? I'd like to put our focus on the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians.

I find it really hard to believe that Assad ordered chemical attacks. He's winning his war, the only thing that can take him out at this point is Western intervention and the only thing that is going to cause Western intervention is a use of chemical weapons. That chemical weapons were used, I don't doubt. By whom, though? This war is not a good one to intervene in. Assad, who we don't like, is opposed largely by groups we don't like. We can't stop people being killed, although we can change which sorts of people are getting killed and by whom but I don't see the advantage for us in doing so.

Monte Smith wrote:I find it really hard to believe that Assad ordered chemical attacks. He's winning his war, the only thing that can take him out at this point is Western intervention and the only thing that is going to cause Western intervention is a use of chemical weapons. That chemical weapons were used, I don't doubt. By whom, though? This war is not a good one to intervene in. Assad, who we don't like, is opposed largely by groups we don't like. We can't stop people being killed, although we can change which sorts of people are getting killed and by whom but I don't see the advantage for us in doing so.

I agree 100% with this, and also believe now and in the future this country should stop automatically taking on the cop of the fucking world role. Enough already. Interventions should be done only when we are directly attacked, or when there is a large broad coalition to do so.

Scott - I don't know.

But off the top of my head, it should involve at least 75% of the countries in the region, and also a 2/3 or greater UN vote.

If the world doesn't have enough governments and/or cultures to agree to something like this, then so be it. I just hate the old fashioned interventionist foreign policies of our recent and distant past, especially the disproportionate AND inconsistent aspects to our actions. First, we can't afford to police the world alone, by any measure. Second, who the hell are we anyway. In 10-20 years or so we won't even be the most powerful country anymore.

So what I'm saying is we should use the UN as it was intended back in the day. But seriously, WTFDIK.

Scott, is there a case when you think intervention would be appropriate? Do you think we should have intervened in Rwanda?

Then there's the simple argument advanced in this article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wor ... ed-to-ask/

"the reason that the world got together in 1925 for the Geneva Convention to ban chemical weapons is because this stuff is really, really good at killing civilians but not actually very good at the conventional aim of warfare, which is to defeat the other side. You might say that they’re maybe 30 percent a battlefield weapon and 70 percent a tool of terror. In a world without that norm against chemical weapons, a military might fire off some sarin gas because it wants that battlefield advantage, even if it ends up causing unintended and massive suffering among civilians, maybe including its own. And if a military believes its adversary is probably going to use chemical weapons, it has a strong incentive to use them itself. After all, they’re fighting to the death.

"So both sides of any conflict, not to mention civilians everywhere, are better off if neither of them uses chemical weapons. But that requires believing that your opponent will never use them, no matter what. And the only way to do that, short of removing them from the planet entirely, is for everyone to just agree in advance to never use them and to really mean it. That becomes much harder if the norm is weakened because someone like Assad got away with it. It becomes a bit easier if everyone believes using chemical weapons will cost you a few inbound U.S. cruise missiles.

"That’s why the Obama administration apparently wants to fire cruise missiles at Syria, even though it won’t end the suffering, end the war or even really hurt Assad that much."

OK, now the current situation:

- Obama, in a quick meeting with Putin at the G20 meeting in St. Petersburg last week, suggested that Syria should turn over its chemical weapons to international control for eventual destruction, and then directed Kerry to "run this to the ground."

- Kerry said at a press conference that if Syria agreed within a week to hand over its chemical arsenal, they could avoid a US military strike.

- Vladimir Putin, Syria's protector at the UN, and who had said Russia would support Syria militarily in the case of a US strike, immediately seized on the proposal to say that would be a great idea. And Syria also said, "Yeah, hey, that sounds like a plan!" The rest of the world applauded, including Ban Ki-moon.

The press is reporting this as "stumbling" and characterizing Kerry's proposal as "off-handed" and "an off-the-cuff remark," although clearly it was the result of intense diplomatic activity over a period of several days.

It looks to me as if Obama may have handled this quite deftly.

- Like the rest of the world, he wants to deter the use of chemical weapons, but not risk too much to do it.

- On the ground, he doesn't really want the Syrian regime to be ousted by the rebels in a hurry. That would create a power vacuum that Hezbollah, backed by Iran, and al-Qaeda Sunni affiliates would compete to fill. It could feasibly become another Afghanistan, right next to Israel. Nightmarish.

- He plays the unreasonable, Strangelove-ish bomber, intent on military action despite the protests of the world and the American public and Congress. Everyone assumes he might just be foolish enough to go ahead and do it despite all the risks. (And in fact he might just have been.)

- He lets Russia play broker to force Syria into giving up its chemical arms instead of taking a beating. This flatters Russia by giving it a key role on the international stage as a serious player who deals coolly with the big US bully, and allows it to keep its regional ally in place.

- Unpredictable, uncontrollable, quickly spreading, high-grade snafu is prevented, in favor of sort-of-predictable, slowly spreading, medium-grade snafu continuing.

If it does play out this way, we'll just be in an Iran-type situation, with endless back-and-forths, delays, and mind games played with inspectors and the UN. Meanwhile, it takes the chemical weapons out of play, always a good thing. But that's about all it does. The slide into chaos continues, just without the scary catalyst that US intervention may have proved.

If it doesn't play out this way, well, who knows what will happen.

Thanks for that helpful overview, Tom.

Scott Dolan wrote:Gotta love how hundreds of thousands of civilians had already been killed in this battle, yet the second they break out chemical weapons it's suddenly an outrage.

It's the one thing there's any theoretical consensus on concerning warfare: don't use chemical weapons. Shoot, bomb, bludgeon, stab, slash, hang, drown, decapitate, burn... OK, war is war. But gas? Never!

To an extent it's arbitrary, but gas is like neutron bombs, it's really only good at indiscriminately killing whoever happens to be there without destroying equipment or buildings. As such it is especially pernicious, as it is tempting to use it, for example, to gain territory and matériel by gassing a village or town, waiting a day or two and moving in to burn the bodies, occupy the terrain and take over whatever goodies you've got. It's not a bad thing to start somewhere with prohibiting war methods for which civilian populations run a special risk.

What's more hypocritical is the way Western countries will manufacture chemical weapons, sell them, and then say, "What?? You've USED them? It's an outrage!"

War is hell!

Good overview, Tom, but if that deal ends up being struck I don't think it will be because Obama handled it deftly. He's painted himself into a corner and if he gets an out I think he should feel like he won the freaking lottery.

He did paint himself into a corner, but IF this thing works out, and assuming it was, as he reports, his idea, then you have to give him credit for finding a way out of that corner.

Arguably:

1. He could have kept his mouth shut about the red line not to cross, then done nothing. Result: does nothing to deter future use of chemical weapons in general, does nothing to keep Assad from using them again, ignores the gassing of hundreds including children; would be loudly criticized for all that and depicted as "weak."

2. He could have just gone ahead and bombed without talking it up first, without seeking a coalition, without seeking any other solution. Result: unpredictable consequences; could kill lots of civilians by mistake, could tip Assad into losing the civil war, with further unpredictable consequences, many of which could be utterly dire; would be denounced by everyone for recklessness and hubris.

3. He could have charged ahead as he did, and, finding no support anywhere, backed right down and blamed it on Congress. Result: no change in the Syrian civil war status quo, including chemical weapons being an option; ridiculed by everyone as a prevaricator and weakling.

4. He could have charged ahead as he did, and, finding no support anywhere, consulted Congress and then ignored their rejection of intervention and bombed anyway. Result: unpredictable consequences as described above, plus the real possibility of impeachment and widespread condemnation of his hypocrisy and arrogance.

Instead, he may have found a way to meet what I assume is his realpolitik goal of not speeding an eventual overthrow of Assad, while helping deter the use of chemical weapons in general and taking them out of Assad's hands in the Syrian civil war, while also smoothing strained relations with Russia at least a little bit.

If this business doesn't work out for some reason, I guess he'll have to go with 3 or 4. So, whether he was deft or not depends on whether it works. It's like launching the basketball from way out in the court: if it goes through the hoop, you're a genius; if it doesn't, you suck.

Very well-reasoned and stated, Tom.

Now I'm getting out of here before I get sucked into the political vortex.

I thought his "domino theory" defense of the national security aspect here was completely absurd.

Actually, the whole speech did little for me but give Nixon flashbacks--although Obama's "secret plan" would only deter and disable (or whatever it was) rather than "end the war."