I’ve just published a foreign policy-related post at Outside the Beltway:
A Counter-Argument on the Use of Force Against Syria
In the interest of continuing education I posted a link to an op-ed that appeared on Pravda.ru that posed a number of tough questions for the British Foreign Office and the American State Department. I don’t think that most people understand how narrow a sliver of positions is represented in the U. S. news media.
I wonder, for example, how many Americans realize that the UN has found that the Syrian rebels have used chemical weapons in the civil war there.
I am again drawn to Larry Johnson’s assessment of the U.S.’s apparent ramping up of some kind of military action towards Syria. In his latest post he reminds us of our past involvements, equating them as America’s military delusions.
In a commentary preceeding the above one Johnson astutely poses some questions Obama must answer on Syria, supposedly before he thinks any action is merited.
After drawing a red line over a year ago, before which Obama applied other threats through his muscular rhetoric, we are now going to fling a few missiles their way as our punishment for not listening to us? Somewhere I read that the U.S. is playing checkers, rather than chess, where any long term strategy is being applied. I tend to agree…..
It’s always good to get other perspectives.
My working theory is that the chemical attack is only a pretext and the real issue is the S-300s supplied by Russia to Assad. Is my theory half-baked, in your opinion?
I want us to stay out. That said, my sense is that this is not war. I think this is an attempt (misguided) to prevent the use of chemical weapons. The GOP has the urge to invade everyone, assuming they can turn Muslim countries into New Switzerlands. The Dems think that we need to stop authoritarian governments from large scale killings of their citizens (Samantha Powers anyone?). I think the Dem urge is a bit more noble, and probably more possible, but one that puts us in the position of being the policeman of the world, and subject to major manipulation. We cant afford it, and we are likely to make mistakes.
Therefore, I can see this as not a war, but a punishing action for the use of chemical weapons. It might work. Kill off a big portion of Assad’s family, just like we killed Kadafi’s, and maybe he stops it, but I dont see him stopping the war as a result of a few hits or some family killed. The returns on this seem awfully low.
Steve
Hey Dave. Do you have a link to where the UN concluded insurgent forces used chemical weapons?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22424188
According to that interview, its just suspicions at this point (and really, this is why you shouldn’t give statements while an investigation is pending).
This brings up another question: if insurgent forces are found to have used chemical weapons, where are they getting them from? I have not seen a report or claim from the Syrian government stating their facilities were breached. Nor have they made the claim that they’re provided by foreign powers (aside from typical jew/crusader talk, perhaps). So either the Syrian government has been using them, or they’re facilities aren’t as secure as they’ve been letting on.
EDIT: just wanted to clarify , the YOU was targeted at Del Ponte, not you Dave!
“I want us to stay out. That said, my sense is that this is not war. I think this is an attempt (misguided) to prevent the use of chemical weapons.”
So, Steve, as long as we can define this military maneuver as having no linkage to ‘war,’ it falls within the guidelines of being merely ‘misguided,’ but essentially ok. It it because Obama’s End-Of-War speech, delivered only last May at the National War College, proclaimed an end to war, as we know it? Are Obama’s speeches that God-like, so that anything he says must be true, or anything he does is not to be criticized and rebuked?
Regarding ‘prevention of chemical weapons from being used,’ why has it taken so long for any notable prevention to take place, if indeed chemicals were used? Obama has been talking for almost 2 years about Assad stepping down, or words to that effect. He warned Assad one year ago, when another outbreak of possible chemicals being used, was reported. Why wasn’t there some kind of prevention plan implemented while the problems were still in their infancy, than now, when it has grown and become full blown?
Also, given the fact that there is only about 9% popular support for involvement in Syria, at the moment, and no Congressional consultation or collaboration, has this country totally drifted away from what is supposed to be a checks and balances formula, ascribed to us in the separation of powers edict of the Constitution, in order to avoid a concentration of power in only one branch of government?
It’s like the proverbial coin toss, where one side is D and the other side is marked with an R. Why is it when the R side is facing up, and pushing the envelop of power, does the blood rush to the head of liberals and they explode with protest? But, when the coin is flipped to the D side, it’s nothing but rationalizations such as, ‘this is not war,’ or simply crickets nonchalantly chirping?
1) My first sentence is my preference. We should stay out. My last sentence says I see the returns on this as low, even if it is a limited attack to try to stop chemical weapons, and not really war per se. In the middle I say we cannot afford this and are likely to make mistakes. Not sure how I can be more explicit. I suspect you are just used to reading hysterical criticisms of Obama, and my failure to call him a Muslim, America hating commie (or whatever it is this week) makes it hard for you to see what is written.
2) To the best of my knowledge there was no prior proven chemical attack. I dont really think this one is proven as an Assad attack and as Sarin.
3)Link goes to his speech at the NDU, which is what I think you refer to. You might try reading it as it is not an end of war speech. I really wouldnt outsource your analysis. In the speech he says that core al Qaeda is weaker, but affiliates have grown up. That we face more home grown threats now. I dont think that comes even close to being controversial. He quotes Madison saying that continual war is incompatible with freedom. I dont think that controversial either.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/05/23/remarks-president-national-defense-university
Without looking around, Afghaniman, I can only give you my opinion. I don’t think that either the Assad regime or the rebels have been using military chemical weapons in the civil war, i.e. sarin or the like. What I think has been happening is that both sides have used extremely large amounts of anti-riot agents.
In the last week I’ve heard some interviews with medical staff who’ve been treating the wounded and dying in Syria and the symptoms they’ve describing are not characteristic of military chemical weapons but are seen in certain anti-riot agents, especially when used in extremely large quantities.
As to how the rebels could get their hands on those I would think that every time they ransack a police station they obtain substantial quantities of them.
I’ll give you a scenario that suggests this is brutal “realism” on our part:
1) Civil War between Shia and Sunni. Or Hezbollah and Al Qaeda. Or Saudi puppets and Iranian puppets. Doesn’t matter, because either way it’s two bad guys killing each other. (See also: Iran-Iraq war.)
2) American interests? Wouldn’t it be great if these two sides just went right on killing each other with neither side scoring a win? Why, we could kill two species of terrorist at once without lifting a finger. If we keep hands-off, we may see Iran and Syria continue to pour treasure and prestige into this for another ten years.
3) Also, Russia.
4) But chemical weapons do have certain unique uses. Let’s say you have a city. Cities are very tough to take against determined opposition. People sleep in their basements while the HE rounds make the rubble bounce. Ah, but chemicals like basements. Could be a game-changer for Assad. We don’t want a game-changer.
5) So we dis-incentivize Assad from using chemicals. Use gas and we blow up some stuff. Use it again, we blow up more stuff. We equalize the players. So that Assad doesn’t win, and the rebels don’t win, and they go on killing each other.
6) We pass the popcorn, secure in the knowledge that our actions appear at some level, to be moral.
That would be the “realist” approach, I think.
It is quite a contrast that the UK is convening it’s parliment tomorrow in order to discuss what action is to taken in Syria. However, the U.S. president is calling for no such emergency session of Congress, so the same kind of collaborative brain-storming can occur between the different arms of government. Instead, what to do in Syria all seems to be an in-house administrative, contemplation. How would this play out should an R president be considering and exercising the same unilateral moves, absent any democratic input?
Jan:
Maybe the British Parliament isn’t dominated by nihilist cretins who deny their PM is British, deny evolution, threaten their own government’s economy and pass the same hopeless piece of legislation 40 times in a row while avoiding all the country’s real problems.
With our current Congress you really cannot brainstorm. At best, maybe you could get a brain shower.
Steve
I’m short on time, but I wrote this comment on another blog I visit. I’ll just repost it here:
I think, at this point, the evidence isn’t clear enough to come to definitive conclusions. It’s kind of dismaying the certainty displayed by the various sides. IMO, it doesn’t “make sense” for either side to have conducted this attack, but someone conducted it nonetheless. The Administration promised some definitive intelligence and the reporting I read today indicated that they would release compelling evidence to include sigint intercepts of Syrian forces involved in the attack. We’ll see…. Personally, I’ll hold judgment.
I think much of the “case” will come down to capability – namely, who had the capability to conduct this attack? The rebels overran several military bases and various facilities, and were bolstered by defections from regime forces. A critical intelligence question is whether any CW facilities were captured by the rebels and whether the rebels control any CW delivery systems (especially the delivery system used). If they didn’t and don’t, then it would be hard to argue that this attack came from the rebels. On the other hand, if they do….
I would think the Assad regime would be incentivized to publicize any compromise of its CW capabilities, particularly now, but AFAIK they’ve said nothing. Strange – you’d think they’d at least hint at that even if it weren’t true.
I suppose for the sake of completeness we should consider third party involvement. There doesn’t seem to be any evidence to support this, but, as of now, there doesn’t seem to be any evidence eliminating the possibility either.
Finally, as to the Administration’s purpose for attacking, I think the Administration is trying to balance several things:
– They don’t want to decisively tilt the balance of power in the civil war to the rebels.
– They want to be forceful enough to deter further CW use by Syria and reinforce the “norm” against the use of WMD.
– They want to be forceful enough to establish the credibility of US red lines for deterrence purposes. This is as much about Iran as Syria.
– They want to preserve the ability to take additional actions, so they won’t want to blow their wad in one go. In other words, they want to preserve the ability to hit Syria again without tilting the balance to the rebels.
There are, obviously, a lot of assumptions (many questionable) underlying those goals.
So, like the Goldilocks, the Administration wants the action to be “just right” and in my opinion that will be an operation on the scale of El Dorado Canyon at the low end and Desert Fox on the upper end. My guess is it will be more like the former given the operational details reported by the major media outlets. Regardless, given the rhetoric, I think a strike is almost certain, so we’ll find out soon enough.
Whether this operation will lead us down the path of decisive intervention in the Syrian civil war is an open question. This is another area where many make definitive conclusions based on little evidence. Another answer we’ll discover in time.
Michael and Steve,
No matter who is in charge, and what you think of them , elected officials should respect their cohorts in all three branches of government.
In this instance, Obama doesn’t get along with the House. However, the House is elected by the people as representatives of their POV, and consequently should not be left out of the equation of decision-making, no more than if the POTUS was a R, and should want to ignore a divisive democratic House.