Syria, isolationism, and world police?

[Bubble181]

This is my main worry. The only evidence we've seen so far is that chemical weapons have most likely been used. We have no idea who did it. Before we put our troops at risk to take out a government and put some rebels in power, we better make damn sure those rebels didn't try to kill their own people with chemical weapons to force our hand. We have a shitty track record in that area, and I seriously doubt this will be any different.

The non-violent opposition (yeah, there's such a thing, but I haven't seen them mentioned in any English press so far) claim there's proof that it wasn't weapon grade chemical weapons - closer to terrorism-level homebrew than to actual military quality. If so, that would point to (one of) the rebels (groups) or Al-Qaeda being behind the attack, not the regime.

Anyway...Both sides are known to have used chemical weapons in the past. It's odd how now, all of a sudden, these 250-to-1,500 casualties get such attention, when there are now an estimated 100,000 civilian deaths in Syria in the past two years. What changed? Who stands to benefit if things escalate? This isn't a logical moment for the Assad regime to break out the chemicals - they were doing pretty good!

 

[Shakey]

This isn't a logical moment for the Assad regime to break out the chemicals - they were doing pretty good!

I don't get this either. He may not be doing great, but he knows if he uses chemical weapons he's done. If he doesn't use them, he can go on killing as many people as he wants and no one will step in.

 

[Bubble181]

In the "however..." category:

Spoiler: NSFWOL

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-23892594

Incendiary bombs (thought to be napalm), dropped from a plane (so almost certainly not the rebels), on a schoolyard - full of children as it was the end of the school day.

WARNING - the video has some disturbing footage of adults and children half-burned and untreated. Watch on your own responsibility.

 

[SpecialKO]

While I understand the "good of the people argument" for Syria (and understood it with Iraq), I think it's massively arrogant for us to know what "good of the people" means in the context of anywhere that isn't the US (and we don't do such a good job of it here all the time). Does it mean we support the rebels? Assad? Set up a puppet government? Divide the country in two? Head a Peacekeeper mission? Let France take the lead and provide logistical support? "Good of the people" always sounds like righteous in principle, but it's the practicalities that actually determine how "good" everything turns out, and its the practicalities that we don't have figured out here. We don't even know who used chemical weapons or what kind they were or what their status is (the same lack of info that informed my decision to be absolutely against going into Iraq in '03).

And, quite frankly, we don't have the moral authority or credibility to do any such thing. Not even counting our contentious history of foreign policy-making in the Middle East (and our deliberate ignoring of Saddam's chemical weapons usage in particular), we stood to the side while hundreds of thousands of people in Syria died. That may or may not have been the right decision, but getting militarily involved now because a fraction of those were killed with chemical weapons smacks of self-interest far more than any supposed humanitarian drive. If we're going to go nation-building again, we need international goodwill and support and we just don't have it because of the things we've already gotten involved in.

Short of actual UN Security Council support, pretty much the only thing that I think we can do right now is set up massive humanitarian aid structures just outside the country and funnel medicine, food, and doctors into the country under a UN flag.

 

[Bubble181]

Short of actual UN Security Council support, pretty much the only thing that I think we can do right now is set up massive humanitarian aid structures just outside the country and funnel medicine, food, and doctors into the country under a UN flag.

Putting far, far more pressure on some of those involved and actively try to help in the Geneva-2 talks instead of seemingly sabotaging them alongside the others involved.
Currently, the Syrian government is "willing" to talk because of Russian pressure, but insists Assad can stay, at least until elections (like that's gonna happen). The opposition, on the other hand, has ever more demands (some of which make little sense), leaving very little wiggle room (insisting on negotiators who don't have blood on their hands, but who do have military power, is asking for the impossible.
Anyway, the US is making things even more difficult, by excluding Iran from the table and makign heavy demands as well - meanwhile, the US (and EU, because this is something we're at least as guilty of) isn't putting any pressure on any rebel factions, or anyone else for that matter, to cease fire or to at least honor a truce. Kerry's operating pretty much without either a carrot or a stick - that's not effective or even really useful.

 

[GasBandit]

Kerry's operating pretty much without either a carrot or a stick - that's not effective or even really useful.

Well what'd you expect from John Kerry, competence? Kerry is to international politics as Marcel Marceau is to radio.

 

[TommiR]

Here are Kerry's remarks on the situation, delivered on Aug 30th.



And here is a link to the unclassified version of the US government assessment on the incident:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/164267522/08-30-2013-USG-Assessment-on-Syria-1

 

[GasBandit]

Congressional Approval? Obama don't need no steenkin' congressional approval!

(At least that's what a "senior Obama administration official" is telling Jim Acosta @ CNN)

So intelligence sources which Democrats have been calling lying, warmongering catspaws for the last decade are suddenly now believable (but "no slam dunk") and so now we're performing acts of war without the approval of the only constitutional body allowed to authorize war?

How's that nobel peace prize for not being Bush looking now? I know war is only OK when a democrat is in the white house, but jeez Louise, even my jaded self can barely believe the hypocrisy on display.

 

[Charlie Don't Surf]

i hope the obstructionist republicans win for once

thanks, obama

 

[GasBandit]

i hope the obstructionist republicans win for once

thanks, obama

The real game of chicken will come if the House votes NOT to authorize the use of force, but Obama issues the order anyway. Then the military gets to decide whose orders to follow.

Though, I guess it wasn't much of a decision previously, given how things progressed in Libya.

 

[Espy]

Man, I am... stunned. So, obviously this is not an official poll or anything, but suddenly my FB feed is filled with LIBERALS screaming that we MUST go to war and CONSERVATIVES who think it's a TERRIBLE idea. Not all of them obviously, but a lot of them on both sides.

What the HELL is going on? I can't help but feel this is going to boil down to a case of "It's my guy so I'm for it" and "It's not my guy so I'm against it". Which is really disappointing.

 

[Krisken]

Man, I am... stunned. So, obviously this is not an official poll or anything, but suddenly my FB feed is filled with LIBERALS screaming that we MUST go to war and CONSERVATIVES who think it's a TERRIBLE idea. Not all of them obviously, but a lot of them on both sides.

What the HELL is going on? I can't help but feel this is going to boil down to a case of "It's my guy so I'm for it" and "It's not my guy so I'm against it". Which is really disappointing.

I hate people so much.

 

[Officer_Charon]

We have no business going in there as a sole participant. If a United Nations task force could have been assembled, then perhaps I would have been okay with going in.

The United States is NOT the world's police force.

I mean... what's happening is horrible. And it happens to be happening in amidst a massive powder keg, like all things Arab-related, where a false step could trigger something truly massive. Doing nothing is clearly not a palatable option, but...

I... I don't have words to clearly work through my chain of thought on this... I've deleted and re-typed it multiple times, but there's just no way that I can write what I'm thinking without coming off as some ogre.

 

[Krisken]

I'll say it OC. We're tired. Tired of war, tired of being the bad guys. Tired of having our fingers in every fucking pie. Tired of risking our kids in wars across the world. Tired of finding out we are lied to. Tired of being led to war by our politicians, other countries who can't seem to get their shit together.

Mostly, we're tired of feeling tired.

 

[strawman]

We do not have the capability to resolve the problem. We may be the strongest military in the world, and if it could be solved with a dozen bombs and that's it, we'd do it in a heart beat. If we knew it could be fixed with a few years, several thousand lives, and dozens of billions, then sure.

But we could throw all that and more at it, and it would not be fixed.

At best we'd only delay and complicate things further.

I don't care if it hurts our image if its the right thing to do, but the reality is that there's no action we can take that would positively affect Syria in a long term manner.

If Russia and china were on board, ie a UN mandate, then, and only then, could we get anywhere close to having a possible solution.

 

[TommiR]

Congressional Approval? Obama don't need no steenkin' congressional approval!

Isn't POTUS launching military strikes without congressional approval pretty much par the course, though?

Seeking an OK from Congress might be a smart move on Obama's part. One of the few acceptable reasons that I can think of for launching the strikes is that similar 'red lines' have been drawn in nuclear disarmament talks with Iran, and if nothing follows from Syria's breach, then the iranians might take note. If Congress grants Obama the authorisation to launch, then it's a carte blanche for him in terms of negative consequences, and takes care of the domestic front. If they don't grant authorisation, then Obama can throw his hands in the air and say "hey, Congress said no". Might not help much with the iranians, but looks a lot better in terms of his own political career.

Another acceptable reason for interveintion that comes to my mind is the general notion that if you don't intervene, you give up the ability to influence events directly. Given Syria's past association with Iran, you might want to have a say as to who will come out on top there. But I'm not sure there are all that many options that are both good and realistic in the long run.

As regards to intervention on the grounds of stopping chemical weapons use against civilians, I agree with Bismarck:

For heaven's sake no sentimental alliances in which the consciousness of having performed a good deed furnishes the sole reward for our sacrifice.

 

[SpecialKO]

What we have right now is a 4-way proxy war with Turkey, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia on one side, Russia and Iran on another, AQ and other Islamic militant groups on yet another, Hezbollah and other militant groups on yet another, and the actual Syrian participants of a variety of sectarian loyalties somewhere in the middle of all of that.

If it doesn't involve humanitarian aid or ceasefire negotiations, we should be staying the fuck out of it.

 

[Hailey Knight]

I hate to say it, but why are these atrocities more important than those the U.S. ignores in Africa on a daily basis? Genocide, civil war, ethnic cleansing--we don't do shit about one warlord or another.

It's disgusting what people do to each other, but we're not capable of solving the world's problems, whether or not we intervene. Why are some ignored while others get big-time attention? We can do the Iraq dance again, or we can play Cold War-era Afghanistan, or we can do like the rest of the world--nothing. There's no good action. It may be best to wait and see. We do that with plenty of other conflicts. What is the difference?

 

[TommiR]

Why are some ignored while others get big-time attention? We can do the Iraq dance again, or we can play Cold War-era Afghanistan, or we can do like the rest of the world--nothing. There's no good action. It may be best to wait and see. We do that with plenty of other conflicts. What is the difference?

The difference is Interests at Stake. Why would the United States, or any other country for that matter, do anything and in the process piss off people unnecessarily if they don't have some sort of a dog in the fight?

Even if you look at things from a moral perspective, the leaders have responsibilities towards those that they lead. Why should the heads of nations place their own people in harms way, if it were not necessary or sufficiently advantageous from their own country's perspective to do so? They aren't or should not be callous with the lives of their own soldiers, the people who put faith in them to lead well, so they shouldn't send in the troops to fight and die without a damn good reason.

Or at least that's the way it should be, in my opinion.

 

[Hailey Knight]

The difference is Interests at Stake. Why would the United States, or any other country for that matter, do anything and in the process piss off people unnecessarily if they don't have some sort of a dog in the fight?

Even if you look at things from a moral perspective, the leaders have responsibilities towards those that they lead. Why should the heads of nations place their own people in harms way, if it were not necessary or sufficiently advantageous from their own country's perspective to do so? They aren't or should not be callous with the lives of their own soldiers, the people who put faith in them to lead well, so they shouldn't send in the troops to fight and die without a damn good reason.

Or at least that's the way it should be, in my opinion.

I agree; what I'm saying is that it seems the U.S. is taking the moral stance in this situation as opposed to Interests at Stake. Why are we bothering to do so when ignoring so many other conflicts where the morally right thing to do might be to intervene? What makes this so special to Obama and co?

 

[bhamv3]

I agree; what I'm saying is that it seems the U.S. is taking the moral stance in this situation as opposed to Interests at Stake. Why are we bothering to do so when ignoring so many other conflicts where the morally right thing to do might be to intervene? What makes this so special to Obama and co?

Distraction from the NSA thing?

 

[AshburnerX]

Distraction from the NSA thing?

This was my thought too. They are latching onto this because it means they can pretend to be too busy to address the growing American concern over how much and what our government observes of us. After a few months it will blow over and then they can get back to business as usual.

 

[TommiR]

I agree; what I'm saying is that it seems the U.S. is taking the moral stance in this situation as opposed to Interests at Stake. Why are we bothering to do so when ignoring so many other conflicts where the morally right thing to do might be to intervene? What makes this so special to Obama and co?

The rhetoric is about international treaties and moral outrage, true, but I suspect it serves to cover more pragmatic concerns. Some have voiced views that there may be domestic politics issues at play. My personal take is foreign policy, that the Obama administration backed themselves into a corner with their seemingly ill-considered remarks about chemical weapons use being a 'red line'. I don't think they specified the consequences to be military in nature, but that probably doesn't matter at this point, as anything short of a military strike will likely be viewed as the USA backing down.

Of course, assisting the jihadis in overthrowing the only middle-eastern ruler who is actually fighting them at the moment is a bit of a downside. I understand the majority of americans are against military action, so going to Congress with this might give Obama a way out.

 

[sixpackshaker]

Syria is a major financier for jihadist. There is just a new group of jihadist in town, that does not owe them allegiance.

 

[GasBandit]

John Boehner and Eric Cantor have both indicated their intention to support the authorization of the use of force in Syria.

WELP.

 

[Gilgamesh]

I'm loving the flip flopping on the Republican Talking Head side.

Obama is weak! He makes America look weak in the eyes of the world! This would have never happened under Bush/Reagan etc

-Obama announces possible strikes-

Obama is out of control! He just announces attacks without asking first! He thinks he's a dictator/emperor not a President!

-Obama announces he's going to talk to Congress before action-

Obama is weak! A real president would stick to his original decision and do what he says! He should have gone through with the strikes!

****

It's absolutely hysterical to me. It's better than the 24/7 comedy station most of the time. They may not represent what most Republicans really think, but they're the only thing that the public hears from the Republican side.

 

[GasBandit]

Was the Damascus chemical attack a false flag operation designed to "trick" the US into getting involved in opposition to Assad? As happened in Bosnia in 1995, apparently.

 

[blotsfan]

I'm loving the flip flopping on the Republican Talking Head side.

Obama is weak! He makes America look weak in the eyes of the world! This would have never happened under Bush/Reagan etc

-Obama announces possible strikes-

Obama is out of control! He just announces attacks without asking first! He thinks he's a dictator/emperor not a President!

-Obama announces he's going to talk to Congress before action-

Obama is weak! A real president would stick to his original decision and do what he says! He should have gone through with the strikes!

****

It's absolutely hysterical to me. It's better than the 24/7 comedy station most of the time. They may not represent what most Republicans really think, but they're the only thing that the public hears from the Republican side.

Isn't that exactly what the democrats do, but for their guy?

 

[Morphine]

We should do a bit more research about what the US military has done in other countries when "helping". More innocent children will die because of this, it has happened before because that's not really what matters the most to the US government. As @Shakey said: "We have a shitty track record in that area, and I seriously doubt this will be any different." The "US world police" is a very corrupt one.

 

[Gilgamesh]

Isn't that exactly what the democrats do, but for their guy?

Considering the volume of Republican talking radio heads vs Democratic, I'd say the Republican side is alot louder.

 

[Krisken]

I think it's hard to say who is louder at this point of time. It's not as if people are watching multiple perspectives of news anymore. Frankly, it's all horrifically biased.

 

[Gilgamesh]

I think it's hard to say who is louder at this point of time. It's not as if people are watching multiple perspectives of news anymore. Frankly, it's all horrifically biased.

It really isn't. Turn on the radio sometime and try and find some Democratic Talking Heads. You'd be hard pressed. Republican though? Tons of em?
TV? Democratic is a bit larger in number, but there's definitely closer balance than radio.

 

[Krisken]

It really isn't. Turn on the radio sometime and try and find some Democratic Talking Heads. You'd be hard pressed. Republican though? Tons of em?
TV? Democratic is a bit larger in number, but there's definitely closer balance than radio.

But does it matter? They talk till they are blue in the face, but does it convince people to join their cause? There are people on the left who are just as obnoxious as the d-bag talking heads on the right. Talking points may sway a couple idiots here or there, but it really isn't going to shift an entire populous.

We don't really gain anything by saying 'there are more of those guys than of these guys'. I really think that the best way to become above that kind of thing is to not play the game. We're not on a 'side' when it comes to politics, other than what is best for the country and in its best interest. The sooner we can get people to realize we're all on the same side, the sooner we can drop all the petty bickering and find solutions.

 

[strawman]

It really isn't. Turn on the radio sometime and try and find some Democratic Talking Heads. You'd be hard pressed. Republican though? Tons of em?
TV? Democratic is a bit larger in number, but there's definitely closer balance than radio.

Keep in mind that in your market you are surrounded by republican talking heads. I'm quite certain that democratic talking heads are more widely available in other markets where consumers demand them.

I'm not convinced that either machine is actually "winning" at talking head wars.

 

[GasBandit]

It really isn't. Turn on the radio sometime and try and find some Democratic Talking Heads. You'd be hard pressed. Republican though? Tons of em?
TV? Democratic is a bit larger in number, but there's definitely closer balance than radio.

Speaking as a member of the radio broadcast industry, TV's viewership has radio's listenership outstripped by so many orders of magnitude it isn't even a valid comparison.