syria

I'm not sure which one is "no" but that one

*✗

If there's an argument for yes, it better look hard at Libya...

my vote is no

feel like odds of direct military involvement are pretty low anyway, but I don't see how any good would come of it. either with us or without us there's going to be some atrocities committed, and pretty much every side is gonna have their hands dirty by the end. if they all want to kill each other, there's very little we can do to stop it )outside of killing all of them).

I'd like to think that something could be done when ppl are getting gassed, but I'm not sure there is anything. That's a 'damning indictment' of western foreign policy for ya.

Alawites, mainstream Shia, Sunni majority, small Christian minority, Iran, Russia, Iraq, Turkey, Israel and possible spill-over into new Lebanese sectarian civil war... This is hyper-complicated.

Oh and Kurds in NE, iIrc

West's track record of trying to "fix" shit in the region hardly encouraging

yeah exactly

to say nothing of how complicated and tangled all the internecine struggles are, jabbing our sticky fingers in there has not worked out well historically

If there was a time for intervention, I believe it has passed.

if you're gonna start shooting you'd better have a reasonably high chance of a good outcome and we know that we don't.

The Free Syrian supporters really, really wanted Western help about a year ago or more (more than what they're getting now, I mean) but now I think they're so aggrieved at our indifference, that they've reverted to the usual anti-Americanism of the region and little we could do would change that.

the_west is not just america

http://cleanwebkids.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/gerome_bonaparte_before_the_sphinxb.png

No and France and the UK have already started making noises about the use of poison gas. They were involved in Libya and the UK and Germany gave France some help in Mali (mostly logistic). They are more concerned since Syria is on the Med and Turkey, a European nation, if not a member of the EU is a neighbor of Syria. Obama's comments today imply that he intends to do nothing without at least the support of European allies and probably now w/o UN Security Council support (which he'll never get).

Turkey, a European nation, according to about 10% of French people

ftr i sincerely hope none of the_west get involved

Shakey OTM. At this point it feels the best the West can do is just staying away.

The sad truth is that Russia, Turkey and Iran would rather see a stalemate than the total victory of the enemy of their proxy in Syria and they can live with a ruined and divided Syria with almost two million refugees externally and possibly twice that number displaced internally. It seems that the US just wants to make sure that chemical weopons don't fall into the hands of the most extreme jihadis and Israel probably doesn't mind if Syria's a complete basket-case provided Lebanon doesn't slide that way, too, since that would be a boon to Hizbollah. I imagine the US will use drones or cruise missiles if there's too much use of chemical weopons or there's a credible chance of them falling into the hands of radical sunni rebels/ Al Qaeda. Or maybe use proxies of their own... I can't see US boots on the ground right now. There's too much war weariness after our super successful interventions in Iraq and Afghansitan and the situation is that much more murky.

US boots on the ground never going to happen

'targeted strikes' by someone a possibility after this week

^^^

Otherwise known as:

"Look for something that's not already blown up. Blow it up."

"About that, Sir..."

USA or european intervention in Syria would basically be taking intermittent aerial potshots at any faction they don't like, whenever that faction looks to be succeeding too much. The factions most favored by the west are not nearly strong or cohesive enough to attract more backing than that. I have a hunch the US State Dept would prefer to see Assad resume control than see a victory for the majority of Assad's armed opposition. This is not a good time to be a Syrian non-combatant.

the option that would lead to fewest civilian casualties and displacements = covertly providing assistance to assad from the beginning

Automatic thread bump. This poll's results are now in.

http://i.imgur.com/jSUEikT.jpg

caucasian privilege in the mujahideen

this hews pretty close to my opinion on syria http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/girl-you-wish-you-hadnt-started-a-conversation-with-at-a-partys-summer-plans/n36354/

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/08/26/article-2401925-1B75DFF5000005DC-134_636x410.jpg

Louis, I have made terrible sexing decisions in the past indeed. But I can make better decisions in the future - you will always be a terrible person who gives leftists a bad name.

― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Sunday, 20 March 2011 20:39 (2 years ago)

^^^wonder how this guy voted

"There are rules to international law" is always a pisser in any US president's act, but this one delivers it with extra balls.

Three people voted for intervention. I think it would be interesting to hear their perspective.

what do u think treesh?

It doesn't seem like any sort of intervention would be able to accomplish much, and might further inflame the conflict (though i'm not sure it can get much worse than it already is.) Also there is no clear line of "when to intervene", which makes every "intervention" on humanitarian grounds suspect and complicated. So I guess I am for non-intervention, but I think it sucks that International Law exists but it can't do anything to stop a dictator's mass slaughter of civilians.

Really, what 'needs' to be done is establishing a no-fly zone, nobody is talking about invervention as in putting troops on the ground to take down assad. It's the planes and helicopters that needs to be stopped. I think this would have happened a long time ago if russia wasn't involved.

btw i didn't vote. I don't know what to do, but i think you guys are way too pessimistic.

do you think there should be international investigating magistrates in the civil law fashion, who can determine if violations have occurred and then authorize force under the imprimatur of the UN, thereby bypassing the vagaries of the security council or the intervionist whims of individual nations? xp

Maybe, but that seems like it would be a very long process and might not make sense if your goal is to stop an ongoing crisis.

so, kerry declares war, pretty much

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/2013/08/26/kerry-make-statement-syria/Z7ND7UdEp1OQSs9ZQH2v9H/story.html

i'm in favor of non-intervention but for the wrong reasons

which are?

so, kerry declares war, pretty much

airstrikes/drone strikes I guess

state interest in forcing commitment of iranian resources, bleeding of al-q, hezbollah, good distraction to keep radical fundamentalist attention away from the west, etc.

a nice lil quagmire without us in it, for once!

fairly grotesque but i can't disagree

treesh to employ the inane binary of robert kagan u seem to be a hobbesian realist distrustful of the kantian idealism of the UN

mordy is correct though

the distraction hypothesis is probably a bit of a zero sum fallacy because there seems to be an enduring supply of jihad bros, if 10000 of them die in syria then they are probably the same 10000 who were 'radicalized' by syria in the first place

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2013/08/BSm0bOBCYAAAph6.jpg

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/08/26/the-middle-east-explained-in-one-sort-of-terrifying-chart/

this ought to be a splendid one.

state interest in forcing commitment of iranian resources, bleeding of al-q, hezbollah, good distraction to keep radical fundamentalist attention away from the west, etc.

― Mordy , Monday, August 26, 2013 4:35 PM (15 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

a nice lil quagmire without us in it, for once!

fairly grotesque but i can't disagree

― R'LIAH (goole), Monday, August 26, 2013 4:36 PM (15 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

lol the "daniel pipes theory"

well you can subtract any glee at watching arabs gas and shell each other, for my part.

the point is, i think we have no hope of improving this situation at this point. the best thing about it at the moment, for syrians and americans, is that we aren't there doing anything.

i guess i'd be curious to hear what any intervention plan would be.

whatever the plan is, FSA just reported the russians are pulling out of the port in tartus

A few ideas of what it might be from Fred Kaplan.

FSA just reported the russians are pulling out of the port in tartus I thought they were mostly in Cyprus these days, anyway.

couldn't say, i frankly don't have the relevant context.

meeemories....of the wayyy we werrrrre

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BSnnm19CcAAYvCW.jpg

kaplan article fails to mention the air war in Kosovo was do-able because the russians and chinese weren't selling the bad guys sophisticated air defense tech like they have in syria.. this whole situation is bad news

Farm service agency?

"free syrian army"

"the world's most heinous weapons" ... an international poll of children finds they prefer to be blown apart with drones.

http://images.canberratimes.com.au/2012/03/19/3144987/asma-al-assad-729-2-420x0.jpg

feel like the odds of another unbelievably fucked up post-colonial exercise in making bad shit exponentially worse are shortening by the hour

Cameron's caught the Blair bug that's for sure

Simon Schama uncharacteristally hawkish on the radio just now

the list of names here more than anything else convinces me that not intervening is the right decision

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/experts-obama-here-what-do-syria_751267.html

ok "Dr. William Kristol" made me lol

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/25/opinion/sunday/in-syria-america-loses-if-either-side-wins.html

BHL signed!

Charles Pierce:

If Kerry is to be believed, the "situation on the ground" is that the Syrian regime used chemical weapons against its own people, a monstrous crime. If we aren't trying to "fundamentally alter the nature of the conflict on the ground," then why in the hell are we making war in in Syria in the first place? If we aren't trying to "topple" the Syrian president so he won't use chemical weapons on his own people again, why are we going to be firing high explosives into the country that are going to kill some of those people anyway? This is the difference between making war in a place and going to war in a place. If you're simply making war in a place, logic doesn't necessarily apply. Even a lot of the people proposing that we make war in Syria -- even a lot of the liberals proposing it -- admit freely that they don't know what will come next, or even on whose side we will be making war in Syria. This strikes me as an important thing to determine before you commit the nation to a course of action like the one proposed, but then, making war in a place enables you to do it from an antiseptic distance, to believe in the fairy-tale McNamara concept of "sending a message" by blowing stuff up, to believe that the most important thing for the World's Last Superpower to do is anything. The New York Times thinks making war in Syria will make the president a more believable president. And that, if the president decides to make war in Syria, the Iranians will wonder if they should still want a nuclear bomb.

I don't think we should intervene, but the international community can deter future use of chemical weapons from Assad without necessarily toppling him. He just needs to know that the cost for using them is higher than their value.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2013/08/the-debate-over-intervention-in-syria.html

He just needs to know that the cost for using them is higher than their value.

i don't think this is possible to demonstrate without intervention

Yes, I agree.

I have this suspicion that they'll target the 4th Armored Division's base near Al Horjelah.

Liberals endorsing "using our wonderful military"!?! Git outta town!

I guess partially I don't think our state interests align w/ an intervention in this case, I don't believe we can make a sufficient humanitarian impact (even if NATO can dissuade Assad from using chemical weapons it's not like that'll significantly limit his ability to kill civilians -- it certainly hasn't until now), and I'm not even convinced that Assad authorized the chemical weapon use. It's not that I think the rebels used them to get the West involved (like Russia has suggested), but that it's hard to imagine Assad has kept firm control of every chemical site in the country. Who knows who has control over what?

that weekly standard piece is fantastical. these people never learn.

don't go after the regime, go after the regime's weapons. oh ps is there anyone there we can give some arms to? you know, good people? can you try to find some?

"Experts"

x-post

I think all the "good" people are long gone.

My cousin: "Massive spying on US citizens, attacking whistleblowers, overuse of drones, and perhaps possibly bombing another Arab country. All Obama needs now is a 10 gallon hat and a fake Texas ranch to complete the picture."

Did we really need your cousin for that insight? Surely the wit + wisdom of Josh in Chicago was up to the task of making a Obama = Bush observation.

ugh, the conclusions in that NYT opinion piece are so dismal.

Maintaining a stalemate should be America’s objective. And the only possible method for achieving this is to arm the rebels when it seems that Mr. Assad’s forces are ascendant and to stop supplying the rebels if they actually seem to be winning.

our best option is to perpetuate a civil war!

This strategy actually approximates the Obama administration’s policy so far. Those who condemn the president’s prudent restraint as cynical passivity must come clean with the only possible alternative: a full-scale American invasion to defeat both Mr. Assad and the extremists fighting against his regime.

or we could also blow the whole country up ourselves!

cousin = name of dog

I think all the "good" people are long gone.

― Mordy ,

yeah well, when u had jack johnson u didn't want to hear it

If we aren't trying to "fundamentally alter the nature of the conflict on the ground," then why in the hell are we making war in in Syria in the first place?

Great question. The nearest I can make out atm is that the porponents of bombing are afraid of setting a precedent, where a government may openly use nerve gas in a civil war and not suffer anything worse than being vigorously frowned upon. While at the same time, those same proponents of bombing understand that there is no faction in Syria we can realistically help.

This is, at best, extremely muddled thinking. The desire to take a principled stand against nerve gas is fine, but extending that principled stand to encompass making war requires a responsible definition of victory. Instead, these acts of war are being described as 'punishment', as if we were administering a spanking to a wayward child. The chances that a government can be deterred from following its perceived interests by a spanking are exactly nil. When a government thinks that pointless political theater is a good excuse for killing people in another country, it is a government seriously out of touch with reality.

this is my first encounter with "making war" vs "having a war"; so looking forward to it never going away

it's like "having sex" vs "making love" only with explosions and dead bodies

yeah i think aimless is otm.

with sexy results

While I don't agree with it, I don't know why trying to create deterrence from the international community for certain events is so muddled. Assuming Assad deployed chemical weapons, and did so for domestic issues (to cow the rebels, maybe; or shock havens for the resistance w/ overwhelming unconventional force), international pressure could still change that calculus. If you feel chemical weapons are a unique horror (something to which I don't subscribe, but our Secretary of State does), changing such a calculus could be worthwhile. Maybe the next time Assad wants to commit a war crime he'll lay off the chemical weapons because he knows a cruise missile from the Mediterranean will be en route.

we Americans expect our prez to be a real man and use those bombs to make his bones. (gender-neutral days coming soon I'm sure)

For instance, let's say that Assad was systemically liquidating the Sunni civilian population in Aleppo through the use of chemical weapons, mass executions, etc. Wouldn't it make sense for a NATO alliance to draw the line at genocide and fire some missiles into the royal palace to get that message across? Even if toppling Assad wasn't the end game, there are certainly actions that would presumably require some response from the West.

I don't know why trying to create deterrence from the international community for certain events is so muddled.

Because trying in this particular way will be ineffective 100% of the time.

I'm just not sure I understand why. Why won't a Western intervention, even on a limited scale, encourage Assad to stop using chemical weapons?

Maybe the next time Assad wants to commit a war crime he'll lay off the chemical weapons because he knows a cruise missile from the Mediterranean will be en route.

this presumes the cruise missile can hit anything assad can't stand to lose. i think our ability to punish or 'disincentivize' assad is nearly zero (what, a civil war in his country isn't enough?) so the whole question is moot.

By comparison, Assad has not attacked Israel despite a few Israeli air interventions on Syrian weapon stockpiles. Presumably because he knows there's no way he can beat the rebels if he's also fending off the IDF. Similarly there's no way he can beat the rebels while he's dealing with the NATO led air campaign. xp

No way - we know where a bunch of his weapons are being held. We could seriously damage his war capabilities.

Because Assad is fighting for something he values equally with his life, namely his position of power. Giving him "encouragement" to fight for his life in a particular way only works up until the moment when he thinks he needs to do it another way in order to survive.

You'd be correct if Assad believed chemical weapons were the only way he could maintain power at this point, but he has been doing an adequate job fighting the resistance without them until this point.

No way - we know where a bunch of his weapons are being held. We could seriously damage his war capabilities.

― Mordy , Tuesday, August 27, 2013 11:53 AM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

call it iraq/afghanistan fatigue but i don't believe this shit anymore

^^^

been waiting to find the congruities between the Syria and asexuality threads. thanks!

Maybe Israel will tell us where the weapon caches are, since they seem to have little problem locating them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BneI3C_F75U

We had this discussion in 2011: whether the Arab Spring was sufficiently different to put aside with misgivings The Lessons Learned in Iraq and Afghanistan, in part because not all interventions work the same way. But, yeah, sorry, I can't forget Iraq and Afghanistan.

I hope I don't need to explain the differences between what is being proposed for Syria and what occurred in Iraq and Afghanistan (not to mention that Iraq and Afghanistan were themselves substantially different conflicts themselves).

I also get the difference between what is being proposed and what actually happens, and how what is being proposed has consequences such that these proposals change

Notably, though, Obama has been studying Kosovo as a template for a Syria action. (Not that I think Kosovo is a good comparison either, but certainly closer than Iraq and Afghanistan.) xp

You'd be correct if Assad believed...

Assad's beliefs are rather more opaque to me than they seem to be to you. I see Assad's actions, but can only infer what's on his mind. Because he used chemical weapons, it seems strange to infer that he thought he was doing just dandy without using them.

I think that if you want to talk about Syria, but don't actually know anything about the conflict there, what is being proposed, what has happened to date, etc, you can easily fake it by citing your skepticism from Bush's excursions in Iraq. It takes a bit more work to speak to actual pertinent details.

It's fortunate then that no one here fits that description.

xp My inference is based on tracking the war to date. I can't read Assad's mind. I don't even know for sure if he authorized the chemical attack.

call it iraq/afghanistan fatigue but i don't believe this shit anymore

yes. my major concern with the use of violence to deter the Assad regime from butchering its own civilians - like Mordy, i think the chemical/conventional distinction being drawn isn't very important - is that i simply don't believe in the US/UK government's assurances of the "surgical" nature of such violence

call it iraq/afghanistan fatigue but i don't believe this shit anymore

seriously: on what grounds would anyone believe the stories being fed by u.s. intelligence to the news? zero credibility imo, the story they tell you is the one they hope will make you either say "hell yes, bomb them" or "well, it can't be avoided, but bomb them" or "I only say this with the most profound of reservations and I need to make clear that my position applies only to the situation on the ground in Syria, but bomb them" or "there must be international oversight, but bomb them" or any of the other stops along the liberal interventionism spectrum

isn't there a nonzero possibility that conducting some of our famous surgical strikes will draw other actors into the conflict - on the side of the rebels - in a more direct way?

at least the Obama administration is leaking info that they're aware that "surgical" also means the scalpel can cut an artery:

Planners said that although suspected chemical weapons depots are seductive targets, they are too risky.

“That is a hairy business,” the official said. “Our interest is in keeping the chemical weapons secured. You hit a bunker that holds chemical weapons and all of a sudden you have chemical weapons loose.”

What story is the u.s. intelligence feeding you that you're skeptical of?

sorry, i meant "- on the side of assad -", xpost

"Saddam Hussain Is Enriching Uranium With Yellowcake from Nigeria" and all subsequent stories about the middle east

if Israel's so great at this why don't we just let them do it eh lol

Well I'm glad we learnt everything we need to know about the middle east from Iraq. That'll save some time.

I agree, Shakey. Though I don't think Israel should do it. I think if they're so hot to invade, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and France should do it.

lol Saudi Arabia do they even have an army

they just shoot oil at everyone

France and its excellent track record of military intervention

show of hands: how many think clinton should've intervened in rwanda, irregardless of that he would've never gotten un approval? how many think he shouldn't have intervened in bosnia? how many think he waited too long? how many think europe should've taken the lead there? how many think europe should take the lead here? how many agree w/ morbs that an option polling w/ 9% approval (lower than congress) = something the american public is gung ho for? how many here read dempsey's letter last week? who here remembers joseph hoar?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armed_Forces_of_Saudi_Arabia

Technically the rebel army is their army anyway. Saudi + Qatar funded and equipped.

but yeah Mordy beyond the specific precursors of Iraq/Afghanistan the US military has proven itself time and time again as not being quite so surgical and accurate or cognizant of local conditions as the IDF. skepticism of any and all US claims about effectiveness of military operations is well warranted based not just on the last 10 years, but on the last, oh, 75.

xp

France and its excellent track record of military intervention

― what's up ugly girls? (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, August 27, 2013 1:12 PM (1 minute ago)

It's their former colony! Let them handle it.

how many think he shouldn't have intervened in bosnia?

the specific timing of the bombing there always made me nauseous.

I don't think the US should intervene. I don't think it's in the country's interest at all. I just take issue with this claim that intervention will have no effect on Assad's decisions to use chemical weapons. I think that's pretty dumb.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/28/world/middleeast/obama-syria-strike.html

great hed

chemical weapons are the why, not the what

like so glad Bubba waited til blowjobgate was grabbing headlines to take his principled moral stand lol

It's their former colony! Let them handle it.

worked so well in Vietnam and Angola etc etc

re Bosnia, Rwanda etc: i think that every time governments take military action against another government in the name of international law, without UN approval, they are undermining the concept of international law

What's your point Shakey? That it's not in France's best interest to intervene? No duh.

lewinsky was 98, clinton intervened in bosnia in 95. jfc.

I think international law is pretty lol - look at who is voting.

We don't have the credibility of the international community bc Russia doesn't want to sell out its client state = for all the reasons we shouldn't intervene, this one is the dumbest.

sorry mixed it up with Kosovo balls

"irregardless"! balls, balls

so you're blaming clinton for not intervening in kosovo before milosevic sent tanks in?

Angola was Portoguese!

What's your point Shakey? That it's not in France's best interest to intervene? No duh.

so is your position that nobody should intervene? even though you believe intervention could conceivably affect Assad's behavior? I'm confused.

i'm on my phone tracer!

lewinsky was 98,

he sure dropped one in her

Uh, yes. I've written that multiple times on this thread. xxp

international law has often been pretty lol, not least because it's quoted in bad faith by governments that demonstrate no real commitment to it. i prefer the attempt to forge a viable code of international law with a viable means of policing it than the good old days of colonial aggressors hitting each other with their big dicks. it's one thing to recognize the political realities that exist and another thing to bat for them as the best of all possible worlds, i think.

if you really want international consensus i think NATO action is pretty good. waiting for the UN is just silly.

this claim that intervention will have no effect on Assad's decisions to use chemical weapons

If all the US goverment were claiming were that bombing Syria would have "some kind of effect" on Assad's subsequent decisions, then I would not disagree with that contention, bcz lol of course it would have some kind of effect. But nobody in the US government is making that claim. What I dispute is that dropping bombs on Syria has any claim to be taking a moral stand with ethical effects.

What's an ethical effect?

my questions was understandably skipped over above, but does anyone think there's a possibility that "limited military actions" from the u.s. would increase the likelihood that other actors - e.g., russia, china, iran, hezbollah - would respond with "limited military actions" of their own, in support of assad? or is that not really in the cards unless the shit hits the fan and u.s. troops are on the ground in Syria?

Hezbollah is already militarily committed. I don't think we'd see an action from Russia or China. Iran is a possibility, but a low one imo. nb I can't predict the future.

http://www.ilxor.com/s.png

there will be no boots on the ground, get real

What's an ethical effect?

The deterrence that you expect will occur in the future, based on dropping those bombs.

I don't know why you call it an ethical effect, but okay.

america's funniest interventions

curious where you guys are seeing eagerness from the american military to intervene, cuz everything ive seen (including dempsey several times this year saying 'this is a horrible idea') has been some median between several generals going 'mother of god don't do this' pre iraq and james baker saying 'we don't have a dog in that hunt' twenty years ago.

also, to anyone paying even cursory attention obama has been seriously dragging his feet on getting involved from the beginning. i bet u he's regretting this morning making those 'red line' comments last year, otherwise he could continue to sit it out.

The rhetoric around chemical weapons is the rhetoric of morality, i.e. "crossing a red line" with the implication that using such a weapon is inhumane in a way that other weapons are not. You are juggling so many answers at once I can see how it happened, but you're confusing what I am referring to with what I am saying on my own behalf. I am referring to the statements made by the government. I have been arguing against those claims, not making them myself.

Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel said Tuesday that the world's most powerful military was "in place to be able to fulfill and comply with whatever option the president wishes to take" in Syria, but he suggested the Obama administration would wait for more facts on the alleged chemical attack in the Damascus suburbs before committing to a response of any kind.

the day the myth of 'credibility' dies in foreign policy circles will be a glorious one

On the moral requirement to respond to chemical weapons: I don't see how they differ substantially from any conventional weapons in terms of ethics/morality, so I think we're on the same page there.

On whether striking Assad for using them as a deterrent against using them in the future - I think it's silly to claim the threat of western involvement will have zero impact on his calculus about whether to continue using chemical weapons. Maybe he'll decide they're worth forcing NATO's hand, but I doubt it. I think he only went this far (again, assuming that this is from him) because he thought he could get away with it.

The only reason I'm still skeptical that he authorized the chemical weapons is because it really makes no sense to me. It doesn't seem like Russia was cutting him off, and the West was pretty much letting him have his way with fighting the resistance. Over 100,000 dead, millions of refugees, rebels retreating from key strategic locations - why do the one thing that will force Obama to get involved? It seems really dumb.

kerry swiftboats assad

The only two things I could think of were a) he's running out of funds and can't afford weapons from Russia anymore, and Iran can't provide funds bc of their own economic issues (new president isn't going to work out sanctions w/ the west in time to start the money train again), or b) he's legitimately concerned for his life (cf the constant direct attempts on his life) and he wanted to do something shocking to repress domestic rebellion, but that seems very unlikely to me for reasons mentioned above.

Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel said Tuesday that the world's most powerful military was "in place to be able to fulfill and comply with whatever option the president wishes to take" in Syria, but he suggested the Obama administration would wait for more facts on the alleged chemical attack in the Damascus suburbs before committing to a response of any kind.

sounds exactly how a defense secretary would respond to a president's query

show of hands: how many think clinton should've intervened in rwanda, irregardless of that he would've never gotten un approval? how many think he shouldn't have intervened in bosnia? how many think he waited too long? how many think europe should've taken the lead there? how many think europe should take the lead here? how many agree w/ morbs that an option polling w/ 9% approval (lower than congress) = something the american public is gung ho for? how many here read dempsey's letter last week? who here remembers joseph hoar?

― balls, Tuesday, August 27, 2013 5:13 PM (25 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

this is like a glengarry glen ross monlogue

suspect a lot of obama's 'we'll just keep fact finding' moves of past few years were primarily motivated w/ thought that this would've been long resolved by now. no firm basis for this but still suspect the recent acceleration is about the turn in relations w/ russia as much as anything else.

the intelligence is weak? you're weak!

third prize is you get gassed to death

yeah -- if Obama was really excited about attacking Syria you'd think this would've been sufficient:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/24/world/middleeast/israel-says-syria-has-used-chemical-weapons.html

curious where you guys are seeing eagerness from the american military to intervene

What I am seeing is the posturing of the US government to persuade its citizens that engaging in a violent act of war is the only good, upstanding and morally correct thing to do, however much we dislike it. This is the same pre-war propaganda that has happened over and over again throughout my lifetime. The population as a whole seems to be pretty reluctant this time and the posturing seems less gung-ho than usual, but the set up is the same old script. The drift toward bombing Syria is unmistakeable.

irregardless

xD

With all due respect, Aimless, I think that's the trend if you've only been reading about Syria for the last week.

does anybody think O is jonesing to lob bombs with his signature on them? i mean other than the shrill people who've had NO WAR ON IRAN bumper stickers since 2004

it's silly to claim the threat of western involvement will have zero impact

You're exaggerating again. No one is making that silly claim.

Yes, you're claiming that bombing Assad will have no impact on his calculus of whether to continue using chemical weapons. That's your argument!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/93/Deep_Impact_poster.jpg/220px-Deep_Impact_poster.jpg

Hollande today said that France will only logistically help its allies, the UK and the USA. All talk of their going in is groundless (they can't afford it and it's polling about the same as it is in the US). This game isn't just about chemical weapons, however praiseworthy or deluded that 'red-line' trigger subject might be. It's as much about Russia, Iran, Lebanon/Hezbollah, Iraq and Sunni/Shia, Sunni/other minority religions/ethnicities in the Middle East. Apparently Qatar (Sunni-ruled but with a sizable Shia minority) and Saudi Arabia [pushed through the strong Arab League condemnation of Assad's use of chemical weapons. That alone may be why were willing to lob a a couple of missile's Syria's way.

I think that's the trend if you've only been reading about Syria for the last week.

rme. You are hiding your verb tense in there. Are you saying the trend of the weeks past is the same as the trend of the past week? If so, I disagree.

If you are saying that the trend of the last week is not the present trend ("that's the trend") then that seems internally contradictory. How can the trend of this week not be the present trend?

Stop and think a little before you start typing, mordy.

I feel bad that this thread is bringing me so many lols

...

Dude, I'm saying that Obama has been dragging his feet on Syria for a long time. Even after he finally agreed to supply the rebels with weapons, after months of deliberation, he still hasn't even started sending them anything. When the initial chemical attack accusations came up in April he basically ignored him, and the only reason it looks like he's going to have to do something now is because it was so egregious. The trend is that Obama does not want to get involved in Syria on any level. This last week there has been some talk about firing some cruise missiles from the Med which could lead someone like yourself to mistake Obama painting himself into a corner as rah-rah grandstanding war propaganda, but it's just not accurate to reality. xp

MW - I do think that's accurate and my personal conspiracy theory is that we're getting involved so that the Arab League will sign off on the I/P peace plan.

I gotta get off this merry-go-round. Mordy, go ahead and think what you like, including thinking whatever you like about my "silly" opinion of syrian intervention. No skin off my nose.

Officials also cautioned that arguments for a more limited strike included the fear that the refugee flow to American allies Turkey and Jordan — where the influx already is causing political concern — would increase. And there are worries that Iranian-backed Hezbollah militants might step up terrorism around the region in retaliation.

hmm, i guess there are at least some other worryworts who think that u.s. strikes might prompt some sort of increased retaliation from other actors. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/28/world/middleeast/obama-syria-strike.html

so is 'benghazi was being used to funnel weapons to syrian rebels' strictly a tin foil hat thing

also lol @ searching 'benghazi syria' on twitter

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BSk-TuLCAAA2cgK.jpg

pre-execution, probably

I think a lot of people are being really selective with their examples. Yeah, Afghanistan, Iraq, bad ideas. But Kosovo, Libya, Mali turned out much better. Rwanda should obviously have happened. And really, what the international community is trying to do is not just create a better Syria, but create different expectations for what a dictator should do when his own people rise up against him. Will he be able to win by all means, or not?

he still hasn't even started sending them anything.

It may be murkier than that...

http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/report-israeli-us-jordanian-commandos-operating-in-syria/2013/08/26/

I tend to agree that Obama has painted himself into a corner where his non-interventionist, stay-out-of-the-mess has left him conceivably with worse options than had he intervened forcefully and early. Based upon my FSA facebook feed, they were appealing to our better nature and our own liberatory sentiments (lots of photos/video of dead children and outgunned young men). Now, the martyr element in hardcore Sunni may be taking over. Syria is one of those post-colonial nightmare amalgams that no-one really knows how to stabilize, anyway, and it has a long and tragic history of instability tempered occasionally by tyranny.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/08/syria-isnt-iraq-everything-isnt-iraq.html?mid=twitter_nymag

classic choad, i mean chait

http://www.theonion.com/articles/obama-weighing-his-syria-option,33641/

I hadn't seen that Le Figaro report before- its hard to believe.

I think a lot of people are being really selective with their examples. Yeah, Afghanistan, Iraq, bad ideas. But Kosovo, Libya, Mali turned out much better. Rwanda should obviously have happened.

well iraq and afghanistan were not sold primarily as humanitarian interventions.

extremely dubious whether things 'turned out much better' in libya in the long run.

The generation that came of age during World War II famously — and, in time, tragically — came to apply the formative lessons to every foreign-policy event that followed it.

I stopped reading.

it means "WARNING: unending blizzard of banality coming"

interventionists in 2003: this is not vietnam, everything isn't vietnam
interventionists in 2013: this is not iraq, everything isn't iraq

The biggest difference here afaict is that a) the people we would be bombing are funded by deep pocketed Russia and China and that b) a huge mix of the opposition are extremists allied with Iran and/or Hezzbolah, ready to rush into the power vacuum, and outspoken foes of the US. Dude on the radio today also made a really good point. Of there 100,000 person death toll estimated so far, half of those deaths are the opposition, but half are tied to the regime. It's been a horrible civi war, but hardly some one sided massacre.

Difference between Kosovo, Iraq, Afghanistan, et al.

As I said, it is not an easy call. But I continue to be amazed that some of my younger liberal friends find it so easy to dismiss any weighing of pros and cons by venturing arguments structurally identical to ones that, in a domestic context, they recognize as absurd.

here, Jonathan, I got a mirror to lend you

a huge mix of the opposition are extremists allied with Iran and/or Hezzbolah

Wrong

Extremists, perhaps, but Sunni

I'd like to hear more about this Hezbollah opposition.

i feel like most of these arguments would be less tedious if everyone just acknowledged that yes some wars are worth fighting, can we stop patting ourselves on the back for WW2 now

and for lots of people this limited military operation of surgical precision is!

Yeha, sorry, I mistyped. I meant just extremists, a variety of extremists. So on one side, backing the regime, is Iran/Hezbolah, which hates the US, and on the other are a bunch of extremist fighters, who hate the US. Just sort of a lose-lose.

any arguments which use the word 'generation' automatically suspect imo

http://www.cartoonaday.com/images/cartoons/2011/08/assad-booted-from-syria-cartoon-598x405.jpg

Alalwites are a sub-set (albeit kinda weird in an already weird sub-set of Islam) of Shia. The Baathist regime of Assad (an Alawite) and the IRI joined up when Khomeini was desperate for friends, despite Sunni Baathist Iraq's hatred for Iran. Hezbollah, similarly are an Iranian sponsored Lebanese Shia militia/liberation movement. Both are pals with Assad. The majority of the Syrian population is Sunni and increasingly pushed by desperation into the more radical and salafist aspects of Sunni Arab identity. One of the traditional bulwarks of the regime, using traditional mid-20th century nationalist ideology (with a smattering of socialist statism thrown in - call them Arab National Socialists to make your Israeli freinds shudder) was to reject sectarianism, communitarianism and colonial interference, was to protect minorities such as the Alalwites, the Maronites and the Kurds and to ruthlessly hunto down its enemies as reactionary and anti-national terrorists. Hafez, Bashar's dad, killed between 10,000 - 40,000 ppl in a Muslim Brotherhood uprising in Hama in 1982.

how many agree w/ morbs that an option polling w/ 9% approval (lower than congress) = something the american public is gung ho for?

As always, the American public's view doesn't mean shit. The ruling class wants their puppet to bomb, and he will making that wincing face that should be on his official portrait.

Oh and before 1921, Syria and Lebanon looked at each other (under the aegis of Turkish rule) as pretty much one large regional entity

as a kid I used to get off on colonial taxonomies: departments, mandates, dominions, possessions, etc

it would actually be fairly unusual for a war/intervention to begin with approval ratings this low -- libya had more than 50 percent support.

http://www.salon.com/2013/08/26/less_popular_than_nixon_during_watergate_our_potential_syria_intervention/

Contrary to Mordy's somewhat cynical or Israelo-centric view that the best outcome is a long, protracted stalemate notwithstanding, the Administration is saying that they want both sides to sit down together for talks and if either side feels they have the upper hand (as Assad clearly thinks he does right now) it will be counter-productive to brokered peace talks.

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/137043/gayle-tzemach-lemmon/the-best-case-scenario-in-syria

can i plz powerlol that this exists

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/pub?key=0Armn04XuMkEsdHI5VE1IUFE5YXQ5VHVfb3ZGZHFRNVE&single=true&gid=0&output=html

a spreadsheet tallying max boot's calls for intervention

just finished that chait article and christ, his equation of liberal opposition to 'foreign intervention' (in the form of, you know, BOMBING people) with conservative opposition to 'domestic intervention' (in the form of, uh, health care) is one of the most insane arguments i've come across in a long time.

the idea of just bombing them as a symbolic gesture, with no real interest in affecting the outcome of the conflict either way, seems insane.

^^otm

with no real interest in affecting the outcome of the conflict either way

What if it makes them sit down to the Geneva+2 (US and Russia) talks? What if they hit the 4th Armored Division (one of their best military units, closely allied to the regime) and degrade its usefulness?

What if it helps convince the Russians to talk to Assad about seriously sitting down at the table?

I am not necessarily disputing the accusations of madness, merely their lack of method, as it were.

What if it stops Assad from using chemical weapons? What if it stops the next regime fighting for survival from using chemical weapons? What if it makes the next regime think twice before escalating it's supression of a popular uprising, because it knows it can't use it's chemical arsenal?

What the hammer? what the chain? In what furnace was thy brain?

because it knows it can't use it's chemical arsenal

pretty sure this never happens/will ever happen tbrr. this is like that thing where people argue that the death penalty deters crime (it does not, btw). when people are ready to murder/gas "their own people" etc. people tend to be already well past the point of considering blowback/consequences, they're in precarious, chaotic situations battling for their immediate survival. short-term considerations trump all. of course if you can think of some historical example where some dude was *just* about to commit genocide and then was like "nah, someone might bomb me" lemme know

also yeah I pretty much agree w Mordy that setting aside chemical weapons as somehow worse/more nefarious than more common means of butchering people doesn't make much sense. it's a western hangup from WWI.

it's convenient from a US PR standpoint, though, to deflect outrage away from the civilian casualties in drone strikes by claiming that there is something much, much worse than killing innocent people with missiles

maintaining that indiscriminate slaughter by chemical weapons is somehow categorically different from indiscriminate slaughter by bombing is necessary to reinforce the fiction of "surgical" strikes (you can't "aim" a gas! they just kill whoever! but our supersecret smartbombs only kill the RIGHT people etc.)

But Obama already brought up the red-line of chem weapons usage. Now his credibility is on the line and the repurcussions wrt Iran are not negligeable, either.

xpost

Obama's "credibility" is only worth so much. I don't think it's worth this.

that makes it sound like Obama's gotta kill some people to avoid bringing shame on his family

I'm sure to a great extent Obama has always been 'fuck a Syria' compared to his concern over Iran.

Shakey, comparing it to the death-penalty seems less accurate than comparing it to 'mutually assured destruction', apart from the mutual thing. Also, you quoted the part of my post which dealt with the situation before it became desparate.

Also, hundreds apparantly died from this chemical attack. That is a lot of drones. If assad did it more, and with less caution, many, many more people would die. Doing something that kills 300 is worse than doing something that kills 50, even though it's innocents in both cases.

Ironically, Syrian strikes may undermine Rohani's capacity to engage in talks w/the US, though I don't know if anybody thought there was much that could really be said, anyway since Khamenei will do what he wants anyway and the president might never know anything about it.

it's a western hangup from WWI.

I thinks this is unfair. I think ppl's fear of chemical weapons is greater than that of being 'martyred' by conventional ones. and I think the psychological effect of using chemical weapons may exceed their actual counter-insurgent usefulness.

so, it might be that Assad escaped to Tehran

I think ppl's fear of chemical weapons is greater than that of being 'martyred' by conventional ones

really? what are you basing this on?

clare short repeatedly otm on newsnight

tony blair no credibility, who cares what he says
britain still the poodle
have a plan for leaving the situation better than you found it
let's get together with the russians to sort out this civil war (possibly not otm? though i like the sound of it)
ridiculous to rush in now, there is a report on this exact situation forthcoming

on the scale of awful things you can do to ppl chemical weapons do seem like a significantly more inhuman method of killing than (say) drones.

why?

Listen to the reports of ppl who survived the attack. They do sound horrific.

Chemical weapons have terrible long-term after effects. They're also illegal.

i've stayed away from that stuff. but fair enough, i don't want to be seen to minimize it and i should have been more careful. i'm still not sure the intervention will be an effective deterrent for the use of these weapons.

Would you rather be shot to death or be sarin gassed to death? I mean, it's all the same in the end, right?

Shot

Not a big deal if you die. Is a big deal if you survive.

would you rather to get shot or be tortured to death?

also, who said it was sarin?

i'm sarin

sarin reynolds

and i think that's a pretty weird hypothetical for a first date, plus your picture doesn't look anything like your profile!!

"i'm sarin"

prove it

Is a big deal if you survive.

itt TS: having no limbs vs. neurological damage

My point, Shakey, is that poison gasses tend to intimidate more than gunfire and shelling. Is that perfectly rational? Perhaps not. But i still think it applies.

reserving judgment until the results of my "how terrified are you?" internet poll of syrians is complete brb

tbf assad is only gassing and slaughtering his own ppl, as his father did before him. it's not like he's doing something actually horrifying like datamining their email.

such an instructive comparison

"Would you rather survive a maiming from a drone attack or a gas attack?" seems like a p poor set of options to present civilians with, is there no-one could come up with better since this started

Casualty Estimates
CIA Drone Strikes in Pakistan 2004–2013
Total US strikes: 371
Obama strikes: 320
Civilians reported killed: 407-926
Children reported killed: 168-200

stanford study on living under such conditions

http://i.imgur.com/rIm2xyF.jpg

clare short repeatedly otm on newsnight

tony blair no credibility, who cares what he says
britain still the poodle
have a plan for leaving the situation better than you found it
let's get together with the russians to sort out this civil war (possibly not otm? though i like the sound of it)
ridiculous to rush in now, there is a report on this exact situation forthcoming

― TracerHandVEVO (Tracer Hand), Tuesday, 27 August 2013 23:06 (Yesterday)

the royal united services shithead was the most interesting, his lack of any sense of the absurdity of the uk firing some paltry amount cruise missiles to lend credibility to the usa, as if the uk's participation is going to persuade anyone unpersuaded by america alone

not included above: strikes in yemen, somalia; cruise missile strikes anywhere. 44 ppl died in a single cruise missile strike in yemen, 22 children, reportedly five pregnant women.

civilian deaths from bombing of normandy, june 6-july 19, 1944 - >50,000

WWII was pursued with entirely different objectives in view. It was necessary to take ground and hold it, to defeat armies and to win a "total war" against an opponent as technologically sophisticated and powerful as yourself. As an analogy to syria is sucks, balls.

SEA takes down NYT site

i wasn't making an analogy aimless, i was noting that if you want to attack a form of warfare for its civilian casualties you might not want to pick the one that has (by FAR) the lowest civilian casualty rate. esp if you doing it to defend gassing your own ppl as 'no big deal, whattya gonna do'.

my posts go to frederick b.'s "that's a lot of drones" & the above debate on the estimated horrors of chemical vs non-chemical warfare. i didn't feel a particular need to address something as asinine as "it's not like he's doing something actually horrifying like datamining their email" but i understand why you feel you had to type something.

i guess cyber warfare has a lower casualty rate but as we all know that is the most evil form of warfare of all.

Look what emerged today:

The U.S. government may be considering military action in response to chemical strikes near Damascus. But a generation ago, America's military and intelligence communities knew about and did nothing to stop a series of nerve gas attacks far more devastating than anything Syria has seen, Foreign Policy has learned.

In 1988, during the waning days of Iraq's war with Iran, the United States learned through satellite imagery that Iran was about to gain a major strategic advantage by exploiting a hole in Iraqi defenses. U.S. intelligence officials conveyed the location of the Iranian troops to Iraq, fully aware that Hussein's military would attack with chemical weapons, including sarin, a lethal nerve agent.

The intelligence included imagery and maps about Iranian troop movements, as well as the locations of Iranian logistics facilities and details about Iranian air defenses. The Iraqis used mustard gas and sarin prior to four major offensives in early 1988 that relied on U.S. satellite imagery, maps, and other intelligence. These attacks helped to tilt the war in Iraq's favor and bring Iran to the negotiating table, and they ensured that the Reagan administration's long-standing policy of securing an Iraqi victory would succeed. But they were also the last in a series of chemical strikes stretching back several years that the Reagan administration knew about and didn't disclose.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/08/25/secret_cia_files_prove_america_helped_saddam_as_he_gassed_iran?page=0,0

anyhow listening to talk radio on the way home it was funny the extent to which they were as much 'fuck i have not been paying attention to this story at all, but, um, i guess i'm outraged!' as the left. heard erickson and some caller do this tortured series of flip flops between the middle east is a neverending mess and america should stay out of it but we should also go in cuz if we don't we're weak so obama won't cuz he is weak and coddles al qaeda but wait i forgot it looks like he might that's the whole reason i called in the first place so um in closing benghazi and this all vindicates george w. bush somehow. just this strange confusion of motivations and slight realizations that however much they've bleated the surge worked and wmds were found etc that maybe invading iraq was a mistake. which if somehow somewhere inside their brain they've learned that lesson it's more credit than i can give john kerry or presumably joe biden who had enough sense to advise obama to pull out of afghanistan in 2009 but presumably isn't leading the charge (and let's not pretend the guy couldn't lob a strategic gaffe) against this despite it being a similar scenario only w/o 'well they harbored al qaeda' to serve as causus belli. can only dream what it would be like if obama actually went to the public for input on this, it would make clinton's 98 town hall (which totally stopped a plans that were as motion as the syria plan is now in their tracks) look like a birthday party for a popular eight year old. guarantee you won't see obama repeat that 'mistake'!

heard erickson and some caller do this tortured series of flip flops between the middle east is a neverending mess and america should stay out of it but we should also go in cuz if we don't we're weak so obama won't cuz he is weak and coddles al qaeda but wait i forgot it looks like he might that's the whole reason i called in the first place so um in closing benghazi and this all vindicates george w. bush somehow. just this strange confusion of motivations and slight realizations that however much they've bleated the surge worked and wmds were found etc that maybe invading iraq was a mistake.

Basically NRO right now. Can you imagine the meltdown in these people's brains watching Barack Obama and John Fucking Kerry make their arguments

yeah reagan aiding and abetting hussein using chemical is pretty well established and usually excused w/ the same 'chemical warfare is no big deal really' argument deployed above. similar human rights atrocities committed haffez al-assad were pretty far down the list of problems the us had w/ syria also, always more of a tool to be used than an actual motivation. human rights as an actual security concern effectively originates w/ carter (he had the cia run ops against south africa lol) and only becomes a predominant defense concern during the clinton years and there it was tempered by conservative arguments that the lives of half a million rwandans wasn't worth the life of 'one american servicemen'. then came 9/11 and the bottom dropped out of the life of one american serviceman market.

Reagan aiding and abetting Saddam, yeah, but the article above is the first proof that the CIA helped with the picking of targets.

yeah but nro is still somewhat neocon and at the very least marinated in foreign policy cw ie. credibility and other chimera. the gop grass roots (who are both numerous and passionate enough to actually matter somewhat on the right) are far more isolationist (be it in a 'those mud bloods have been killing each other for centuries, you'd be crazy to get tangled up in that and who cares if they die anyhow' way or a relatively more admirable 'they have done nothing to us, we should leave them alone, the world is not our problem' way), i think it's the largest (if not hottest) ideological fissure in the party today and i could see it being something that rand paul ends up using to his advantage (esp if his opponents in the primary use his non-neo-conservatism as a way to beat him up and show how extreme or unelectable/impossible to take seriously he is). haven't read larison yet.

oh man Larison. I haven't read him in weeks.

erickson's not a great barometer for anything tho, the guy will change positions w/in minutes as he realizes what hes supposed to think. had a great time watching him over the course of a night go from joking abt that dumb lena dunham obama ad to quoting fire-and-brimstone scripture when he realized what the line was supposed to be

not the hugest moynihan fan and obv the us has to have some sort of intel service (though hey looks like nsa has it covered! 110%!) but man i wish he had managed to shut down the cia back in the 90s.

erickson's not a great barometer for anything tho, the guy will change positions w/in minutes as he realizes what hes supposed to think. - haha calibrated perfectly for my needs. i'll listen to erickson for weasel strivers filter, hannity for hack party line, and limbaugh cuz he actually sets the table plus he's the only one of these guys who's actually any good at radio. i dvr chris hayes and maddow and the daily show but they just sit there unwatched, the only liberal non-print media i've consumed recently is olbermann last night (pretty good imo, still the best highlight man alive), which is also the only non-live sports espn i've been able to consume recently.

erickson for weasel strivers filter, hannity for hack party line, and limbaugh cuz he actually sets the table

yeah this sounds otm to me

max did you watch olbermann last night? he spent the first FIFTEEN minutes (of his FIRST show) tearing into the same ny jets beat writer chris christie tore into yesterday, it was pretty hilarious.

So cruise missiles on Thursday apparently? Not enough to do any lasting damage - 50x 50mm acc to http://news.walla.co.il/?w=/550/2673775 -- not that I'm an army military maven at all - I have no idea what that kind of firepower indicates except that it's mostly symbolic, McCain is already complaining that it won't do anything to shift the momentum. If you're against intervention, this seems like pretty much the best possibility w/out Obama actually backing down.

army equipment* I meant -- I couldn't tell you all the different cruise missile model + part numbers

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/08/27/20209022-military-strikes-on-syria-as-early-as-thursday-us-officials-say?lite

i missed it but i hear he was great, wonder if the daily news will go after him next:

http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1437951.1377586465!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_635/front-page-christie.jpg

So just 9% of Americans support an "intervention" in Syria but 49% were okay with drone/cruise missile bombings there even before the chemical weapons attack

http://swampland.time.com/2013/08/27/new-poll-shows-more-americans-support-syrian-air-strikes-than-oppose/

It's all about how you ask the question. I think in most people's mind "intervention" means going in there all gung ho tellin' em how democracy works at the barrel of a gun.

god i hate opinion polls

i mean i think we should intervene but i don't support an intervention y'know.

Opinion polls, C/D?

let's take a poll

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/139874/michael-weiss/how-to-oust-assad

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/08/27/exclusive_us_spies_say_intercepted_calls_prove_syrias_army_used_nerve_gas

but here's the twist: we sold the chemicals to syria in '75 ;)

passed gas

http://www.lawfareblog.com/2013/08/why-doesnt-president-obama-seek-congressional-approval-for-syria/

10-blueprints-for-gas-drones-the-government-doesnt-want-you-to-see

2008, never forget

Q. In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites — a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)

OBAMA: The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

rip

have you guys seen G.I. Joe: Retaliation? what if obama...isn't obama?!

The framers of the Constitution deliberately put the responsibility for declaring war upon the Congress, where the reps would be held accountable asap. These days we have such stalwarts for reps that they are overjoyed to push the responsibility to the prez and dodge that accountability forever.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/08/27/the-one-map-that-shows-why-syria-is-so-complicated/

can i throw one pee balloon at ezra klein for the 'the one X/in one X' headline

Intervene in a civil war with this one weird trick.

Targets likely:

Qutaifa missile base
Mezze Airport
Fourth Armoured Division base

lol Phil

These days we have such stalwarts for reps that they are overjoyed to push the responsibility to the prez and dodge that accountability forever.

You misspelled 'military industrial complex paymasters', Aimless.

Doesn't surprise me that a smaller number of people support some vague notion of "intervention" that could get Americans killed than drones that don't get Americans killed. (Unless you're an American traitor on enemy soil, at least.). It's a fascinating sort of double speak: the constant war of drones is not real war. Real war is people. But not the targets, of course. They don't get off so easy, even if they, er, get offed pretty easily.

God, I can't believe this shit is going down AGAIN. It's not like it's been 20 years or whatever, we barely just got out of Iraq/Afghanistan. Do they just throw darts at a map and say Libya, maybe, Egypt, no, Syria, bullseye?

i think so, josh

You'd think Canada would firgure more prominently in that selection process.

It's a pretty big target!

not sure about canada? i don't think they will be a target for the american military industrial complex until quebec declares independence

what really bothers me is how random the process seems to be. syria, iraq, libya, who has even heard of these places? next week we'll be invading some new arabistan amirite guyz? guyz?

what really bothers me is how random your trolling process seems to be.

i don't know what you're talking about

that was directly + specifically targeted

like our cruise missiles will be

i apologize for any collateral dmg

Afaict Mordy's trolling hasn't caused any collateral damage yet

i don't think they will be a target for the american military industrial complex until quebec declares independence

Fuck knows they've got loads of oil.

The drumbeat starts here.

I mean, you want an excuse?

http://userserve-ak.last.fm/serve/500/134425/Barenaked+Ladies.jpg

That'll teach them for sending their Biebers and Morrisettes and Adams and Dions and Lavignes.

Or maybe we should try containment with Canada

idk it's funny enough right now....but quebec shares a long land border with the united states

Tabernacle!

http://www.theonion.com/articles/so-whats-it-going-to-be,33662/?ref=auto

Not even remotely funny

It isn't really written to be funny?

Study: Majority Of Children Lack Strong Male Supermodels

That one was funnier

It isn't really written to be funny?

It's very well written and it's quite sad.

a lot of onion stuff is like that. they could stand to lay off the syria stuff for a while tbh.

the onion has been weird about shit lately.

so cutting it makes me cry! (when you cut an onion it will often make you cry)

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/08/28/did_white_house_leaks_already_spoil_the_syria_attack

David Deptula, a retired Air Force lieutenant general who commanded the no-fly zone over Iraq in the late 1990s, said that military action was most effective when a U.S. foe like Assad didn't have a clear sense of the timing and severity of a potential strike and couldn't take protective measures in advance like dispersing his troops or weapons so they'd be harder to find and destroy. The administration's public and private comments, he said, meant that Assad would have an easier time figuring out when and how to prepare for a U.S. assault.

"You don't want an adversary to know what's coming," Deptula said. "Now Assad does."

In recent days, White House spokesman Jay Carney has said that the military operations under consideration by President Obama "are not about regime change," while The New York Times and other newspapers reported that the White House was considering a limited series of strikes that would last one to two days and strike fewer than 50 targets. The paper said the U.S. would focus on hitting individual Syrian military units, headquarters compounds, air bases, and rocket sites, not chemical weapons facilities themselves. The information was attributed to unnamed administration officials.

There were signs Wednesday that the Syrian strongman has already begun reacting to the talk coming out of Washington about the potential targets of a U.S. strike. Reuters reported that Assad's forces appeared to have evacuated most of their personnel from several key army, air force and security headquarters buildings in central Damascus. Those are precisely the kinds of military compounds U.S. cruise missiles would reportedly be sent to destroy.

I think that's intended -- Obama doesn't want to accidentally bomb something important that might change the course of the war, so he's giving the heads up to Assad early.

plus Assad is, as Martha Raddatz took pains to point out yesterday and today, a madman. Who knows what he might do, etc

"Today, in Syria, at 0400 local time, we destroyed several empty buildings that may have some slight value, but the loss of which will not effect a regime change or anything resembling it. Mission accomplished!", said an obviously elated defense department spokesperson, Eli Weallye.

I think that's right. Obama gets to save face re 'red line,' maybe keep credible threat vis-a-vis Iranian nuclear program, w/out actually helping Al-Q in any way. It's kinda too clever to actually work.

The bulk of evidence proving the Assad regime's deployment of chemical weapons – which would provide legal grounds essential to justify any western military action – has been provided by Israeli military intelligence, the German magazine Focus has reported.

The 8200 unit of the Israeli Defence Forces, which specialises in electronic surveillance, intercepted a conversation between Syrian officials regarding the use of chemical weapons, an unnamed former Mossad official told Focus. The content of the conversation was relayed to the US, the ex-official said.

that's the one where the convo is reportedly all like "wtf is going on down there, chemical weapons, r u crazy?" rite?

the intervention level aimed for is "just muscular enough not to get mocked" reportedly. god i love politics

this is stupid and depressing

it doesn't even seem to seriously be about preventing the future use of WMDs. not really. it's not clear it will even deter assad from using them again because he is in such a desperate position.

maybe i'm dumb but i'm sort of skeptical this is *necessarily* going to spiral beyond a set of strikes that will result in rapid pullback?

i'm in a windtunnel of knowing antiwar people muttering into their bourbons about 2003, but i don't see it? not yet. idk.

British PM David Cameron, possibly jonesing for a chance to sell some arms to some other dodgy guys in suits, wanted an in-or-out vote today and recalled Parliament. His opposition, Labour's Ed Miliband - who won the leadership of his party over his brother and other candidates who were involved in deciding to go to Iraq - has done the first brilliant thing of his leadership by threatening a revolt in the Commons over this and insisting that the UN be allowed to report on Syria before any vote happens. Cameron's team are looking like shit because of this and are LIVID. This morning's Times reports a Cameron adviser calling Miliband a 'fucking cunt, a copper-bottomed shit'.

So this means that if the US want to go ahead as soon as possible they do so without Britain?

More likely it means that Britain just ignores the lack of a commons vote.

All those joeks Cameron liked to tell about Miliband stabbing his brother in the back, surprised it never occurred to him that Miliband might stab *him* in the back given the chance.

tbf there's very little 'in the back' about an opposition leader with a history of opposition to ridiculous foreign offensives ..... opposing a ridiculous foreign offensive?

Yeah you don't stab opposing parties in the back, you stab them in the front.

Has any British government in modern times committed to military action without a commons vote?

They didn't vote on Kosovo, did they?

There isn't any expectation to consult parliament, afaict. It's power that stems from government / sovereign privilege, i think.

Nah, from Cameron's point of view, I think he expected Labour to be and Miliband to be pretty much on board, so I think he at least feels it as a stab in the back, or at least a very low blow. I mean, this is an American military intervention at stake here, the main parties aren't supposed to disagree on that shit.

at least at least

Greenwald the Indefensible tweets:

This headline should be mounted on the wall of a museum wing devoted to US foreign policy

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/28/opinion/bomb-syria-even-if-it-is-illegal.html

if the White House takes international law seriously — as the State Department does — it cannot try to have it both ways. It must either argue that an “illegal but legitimate” intervention is better than doing nothing, or assert that international law has changed — strategies that I call “constructive noncompliance.” In the case of Syria, I vote for the latter.

Since Russia and China won’t help, Mr. Obama and allied leaders should declare that international law has evolved and that they don’t need Security Council approval to intervene in Syria. This would be popular in many quarters, and I believe it’s the right thing to do. But if the American government accepts that the rule of law is the foundation of civilized society, it must be clear that this represents a new legal path.

wow

isn't "Ian Hurd" a pseudonym for "Bill Kristol"?

"officer, this doobie..... look. i have to be clear, it represents a new legal path"

It does raise an interesting question. Assuming the Security Council has a requirement to intervene in violations of the Geneva Protocol, and yet due to its constituents (Russia, China) it is unable to do so, what are other signatories obligated/allowed to do in terms of enforcement? Is it a vigilante action to pursue military intervention (maybe through other consensus means - such as NATO)? I'm not enough of an expert in international law, and often it seems like most "experts" in that area just make up what sounds good to them on the spot. Doing back of envelope ethics, it seems like a failure of the international court system to enforce its own laws. Since international law it an agreement between nations, I don't think the NYT op-ed is wrong; an individual country (or constellation of countries) may be obligated to enforce its collective national agreement, even without all parties participating. Which is to say as I understand it, our obligation to international treaties is our own declaration to follow them; the security council does not have authority over its members. It's the individual participations and signatures that obligate countries - Russia cannot tell the US what to do or not do.

I think this is certainly true de facto if not de jure.

it's a diverting mental exercise, but as you say

often it seems like most "experts" in that area just make up what sounds good to them on the spot

i'm genuinely at a loss for how seriously the rest of the world takes 'international law.' growing up, the only people i heard use the phrase were anti-iraq war activists and their detractors scoffing at the very notion of int'l law.

If action in the Security Council is blocked, the UK would still be permitted under international law to take exceptional measures in order to alleviate the scale of the overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe in Syria by deterring and disrupting the further use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime. Such a legal basis is available, under the doctrine of humanitarian intervention, provided three conditions are met:

(i) there is convincing evidence, generally accepted by the international community as a whole, of extreme humanitarian distress on a large scale, requiring immediate and urgent relief;

(ii) it must be objectively clear that there is no practicable alternative to the use of force if lives are to be saved; and

(iii) the proposed use of force must be necessary and proportionate to the aim of relief of humanitarian need and must be strictly limited in time and scope to this aim (i.e. the minimum necessary to achieve that end and for no other purpose).

All three conditions would clearly be met in this case:

(i) The Syrian regime has been killing its people for two years, with reported deaths now over 100,000 and refugees at nearly 2 million. The large-scale use of chemical weapons by the regime in a heavily populated area on 21 August 2013 is a war crime and perhaps the most egregious single incident of the conflict. Given the Syrian regime’s pattern of use of chemical weapons over several months, it is likely that the regime will seek to use such weapons again. It is also likely to continue frustrating the efforts of the United Nations to establish exactly what has happened. Renewed attacks using chemical weapons by the Syrian regime would cause further suffering and loss of civilian lives, and would lead to displacement of the civilian population on a large scale and in hostile conditions.

(ii) Previous attempts by the UK and its international partners to secure a resolution of this conflict, end its associated humanitarian suffering and prevent the use of chemical weapons through meaningful action by the Security Council have been blocked over the last two years. If action in the Security Council is blocked again, no practicable alternative would remain to the use of force to deter and degrade the capacity for the further use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/chemical-weapon-use-by-syrian-regime-uk-government-legal-position/chemical-weapon-use-by-syrian-regime-uk-government-legal-position-html-version

Is it a vigilante action to pursue military intervention (maybe through other consensus means - such as NATO)?

There is no accepted justification in law for intervening without Security Council approval. However, if people keep doing it and claiming humanitarian reasons (starting with India in East Pakistan probably), people can keep pointing to precedents. There are two tracks - international law stemming from statutes, resolutions, etc, and international law stemming from custom. If you can argue that humanitarian intervention has become a custom, you can make the case that it's legal.

I think the problem is that a lot of ppl on the left misunderstand the authority international law by conflating it w/ domestic legislative/executive law. In a domestic context, the law is (i know, duh) passed by the legislation and then enforced by the executive authority using the state's monopoly on violence. In an international context though the law is voluntary - signatories to a particular passage voluntarily assume the agreement of the collective international body. The UN can't enforce its laws though - so their authority doesn't come from a monopoly on violence but on countries self-policing themselves. Violation of international law really just means not living up to the principles you already agreed to - it doesn't mean anything in terms of actual enforcement of law (except to the extent that other countries choose to enforce these agreement - like the US/UK re Syrian chemical weapons). I think ppl instinctively understand this, but instead of following it logically, they assume international law has a moral/ethical obligation that it does not. Cf basically all discussion of Israeli violations of international law. People demand that the PA bring Israel to the ICC, but the truth is that the ICC doesn't have a lot of authority in these situations except the authority of state violence member nations are willing to accept upon themselves.

A little OT, but this is one of my fave essays of all time about international law:
http://www.villagevoice.com/2005-05-24/news/the-global-theater-of-forgiveness/

In an international context though the law is voluntary - signatories to a particular passage voluntarily assume the agreement of the collective international body

International law is not voluntary, as such. Countries that torture people are still breaking the law even if they have not signed up to the convention on torture. Enforcement remains the problem, though.

What is a law that can't be enforced? A nice idea?

theres some notion that treaties become customary law applicable even unto nonsignatory nations if a plurality of another nations have signed and abided by them

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_the_Chemical_Weapons_Convention

That's fine, but what is the meaning of a law that can't be enforced and isn't observed? What makes it a law?

It can be enforced, though. It's just really difficult. People get convicted for violations of international laws quite frequently. They're also used as a justification for intervention when the Security Council agrees to do something about it. It's tough to enforce, and is enforced selectively, but it's not an abstract concept. xps

In this particular case, though, it cannot be enforced because members of the Security Council won't allow it.

It can't be enforced immediately but Assad could face charges in the future, like Milosovic did.

iirc a nice idea can become international law only through the voluntary death of a fairy

http://kavvanah.wordpress.com/2013/08/29/rav-yuval-cherlow-composes-prayer-for-the-situation-in-syria/

i prefer my one tbh

i hope assad brings some HOW MANY DIVISIONS DOES THE POPE HAVE delegitimizing rhetoric to his war crimes trial

I guess I can't help but feel that the UN and other collective nation-state bodies are just political power as expressed through other means: lawfare, for instance - but given the sexy veneer of ethical international legitimacy.

lawesome

us officials leaking like hell to kimberly dozier of the ap

"U.S. intelligence officials are not so certain that the suspected chemical attack was carried out on Assad's orders, or even completely sure it was carried out by government forces, the officials said."

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ap-sources-intelligence-weapons-no-slam-dunk

" U.S. and allied spies have lost track of who controls some of the country's chemical weapons supplies, according to one senior U.S. intelligence official and three other U.S. officials briefed on the intelligence "

"a possible series of U.S. cruise missile strikes aimed at crippling Assad's military infrastructure could hit newly hidden supplies of chemical weapons, accidentally triggering a deadly chemical attack."

:/

quick obama, have your team write up a justification that can used just in case our bombs accidentally trigger a deadly chemical attack.

there we go, now we're good. proceed

did we ever clear up whether members of al-nusra were arrested with sarin along the syrian/turkish border or not

that's the one where the convo is reportedly all like "wtf is going on down there, chemical weapons, r u crazy?" rite?

Juan Cole:

US intelligence agencies released an intercept on Wednesday showing that after the attack, a ministry of defense official made outraged inquiries from a local commander as to what in the world he had done.

The intercept would be consistent with local Baath chem warfare units routinely mixing a little deadly sarin gas into crowd control gas, killing small numbers of rebels with each deployment, but in this case making an error and getting the mix wrong. Thus, around a thousand were killed instead of dozens. British intelligence seems to have come to a similar conclusion

Apparently there are new, Jordanian-trained, guerrilla forces in Rif Dimashq near the capital that account for the local commanders’ panic and desire to forcefully push them back.

The intercept does not prove that Bashar al-Assad knew about or ordered the chemical weapons attack. It does not, however, disprove that the Baath regime has a systematic policy of low level use of chemical weapons.

It does put paid to the crackpot conspiracy theory, advanced by the regime and the Russians, that the rebels gassed themselves.

The character of the evidence released seemed to slow the Obama administration’s march to a military strike on Damascus, which had been expected by today, Thursday, but now seems likely to be delayed until next week at the earliest....

President Obama has probably boxed himself into rather uselessly tossing a couple of cruise missiles onto Damascus next week. For a thoughtful man he often seems to lock himself into undesirable courses of action by ill-considered and hasty public remarks. But whatever he does, it seems clear that it won’t have the kind of multilateral framework he prefers, and he’ll have to cowboy it.

Wasn’t that where he came in?

http://www.juancole.com/2013/08/western-strike-stall.html

This is a good piece about civilian life in Syria while waiting for the intervention:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/30/world/middleeast/syrians-wait-amid-fear-anticipation-and-long-lines-for-groceries.html

Those legacies have left many in the opposition deeply reluctant to support American strikes — even if they see them as necessary after the poison-gas attack last week that left hundreds dead near Damascus.

“We have reached a state where the ideas of having dignity and caring about your country’s sovereignty are no longer something that we can hang onto when our people are being killed in this way that has no dignity,” said Rami Jarrah, a Syrian who runs the Cairo-based Activists News Association. “I am not happy, but there is no other solution. I know that if we don’t do something, we’ll lose.”

Meanwhile it keeps getting pushed back? I can't help but feel like the more Obama hesitates the less likely any action becomes.

This bit is good too:

But reflecting the deep division in the rebel movement, one Kuwaiti fighter and financier from the extremist Nusra Front, which is linked to Al Qaeda in Iraq, said members of his group considered American strikes an “inevitable evil” that could target them.

“I expect that the United States will attack or try to attack our bases, and they will announce that the Syrian regime did it to start chaos in the region,” said the fighter, Abu Thur al-Muteiri. He said the Nusra Front had moved its fighters to new locations.

“Sooner or later,” he said, “we will be targeted by the U.S.A.”

school me peeps (havent read the whole thread, prob mentioned), what was the point of the UN going in there in the 1st place if the US/Uk are going to just bungle in their anyway?

Cover

They were already in there investigating the earlier chemical incidents when this happened.

When the UN initially entered Syria, I don't think it was obvious that the US/UK were definitely going to intervene. Once they were there and the new incident occurred, it made sense to continue fact finding; but for whatever reason (the scale of the attack, intelligence generated by it, insert conspiracy here) the US was no longer interested in waiting on the UN to present their conclusions. Although that's not entirely true because they're waiting right now: PM Cameron said they'd wait for the UN findings before voting to authorize action, and clearly Prez Obama is waiting as well now.

Cameron's only really holding off because of Labour opposition - he'd been banking on them voting yes. Given the low level of public support for military intervention, the possibility he might lose a House of Commons vote, it could be politically catastrophic if he goes ahead regardless and everything fucks up majorly.

I think, eventually, the UK will end up joining the US on this one, though.

if the usa do relent on this then the uk's lockstep climbdown will be amusing

morbs' repost of juan cole is the nuts n bolts explainin' that i usually expect of Plasmon or Sanpaku and i have a knee-jerk instinct to trust such stuff

LONDON — Prime Minister David Cameron said that Britain would not participate militarily in any strike against Syria after he lost a parliamentary vote by 13 votes on Thursday on an anodyne motion urging an international response.

That's gotta be it. I can't imagine Obama hitting Syria w/out congressional approval and w/out the UK. That would be very politically damaged, I think.

someone made the same point in DEM not gonna CON dis NATION: Rolling UK politics in the short-lived post-Murdoch era but with sarcasm

small steps tbf

miliband just became the most useful labour leader since......?

this doesn't kill it, just gives obama an easier exit

He's clearly already concerned about getting some kind of legitimacy for the action; this was the easiest (most unconvincing) way to go about it. He could do something w/ Turkey maybe.

the absurdity is that to the wider world, there is scarcely no difference in 'legitimacy' conferred by uk involvement

in an american domestic context it emboldens isolationists but also the righteous fervour of the interventionists

It might be too early for post-mortems but the last few days have been the most maladroit of Barack Obama's foreign policy to date.

uh, you can't just go get everyone pumped up for killing some people without killing some people! of course we're going to drop bombs

it's definitely not time for post-mortem bc obv shit is really going to ramp up in syria now that assad knows no one is coming to stop the chemical weapons

the obama fuckup was drawing red lines in the first place

oh you're both right. It doesn't change my point though.

i'm guessing this was already linked, but this was published before the parliament vote, i think:

Obama Willing to Pursue Solo Syria Strikes, Aides Say

the obama fuckup was drawing red lines in the first place

― So hot in Herrenvolk (Nilmar Honorato da Silva

yes

I just watched ABC News, and yeah, going solo looks like it's gonna happen.

can someone link to the least uninformed rapid response summary of the implications for obama

President Obama is prepared to move ahead with a limited military strike on Syria, administration officials said on Thursday, even with a rejection of such action by Britain’s Parliament, an increasingly restive Congress, and lacking an endorsement from the United Nations Security Council.

Although the officials cautioned that Mr. Obama had not made a final decision, all indications suggest that the strike could occur as soon as United Nations inspectors, who are investigating the Aug. 21 attack that killed hundreds of Syrians, leave the country. They are scheduled to depart Damascus, the capital, on Saturday.

xpost here is some quick analysis

maybe some sort of elite special response blogger

so back in 2007 biden thought presidents who used military force without congressional approval should be impeached:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/08/joe-bidens-case-that-waging-war-without-congress-is-an-impeachable-offense/279160/#comment-1021887769

t's definitely not time for post-mortem bc obv shit is really going to ramp up in syria now that assad knows no one is coming to stop the chemical weapons

I'd assume the appetite for intervention might change if it became obvious the government was using chemical weapons on the reg. Might even stop Russia from holding things up.

We know that the government has been using chemical weapons on the reg, just in lower more controlled amounts. Presumably that continues, with the ceiling on prolificacy set a bit higher.

The Achilles’ heel of Israel’s preparations is the long lines for obtaining gas masks. The media are having a field day with the chaos at the gas mask distribution centers. Yesterday, the radio quoted one woman tired of the wait as saying sardonically, “If we don’t die in a war with Assad, we’ll die in the distribution line.”

If intervention is now off the table it's going to make Syria a lot harder to ignore, at least. How do we react if the next Assad atrocity is committed with weapons we know were on our planned strike list?

i don't understand why we're moving on to the mindset that obama is going to do nothing when his administration is currently sending out the signals that he's going to go it alone

yeah, i hadn't seen that when i speculated it was off

x-post
I'm not; it's just that the situation has become much less clear-cut over the last 24 hours.

it's a little surprising that super risk adverse president obama is going to do a military action w/out approval of security council, nato, congress, or even coalition of the willing

the Obama fuckup was drawing red lines in the first place

Unfortunately, all the painting into a corner was done over a year ago in the context of the ongoing Iranian uranium enrichment dispute. The coming ineffectual symbolic reprisal to "maintain credibility" will be in the light of the U.S./Israel relationship, Israel's fear of Iranian nukes, and the playground posturing of policy wonks.

As I said a while back on the Libya intervention thread:

All US presidents, upon taking office, should receive a tattoo that reads, "Cruise missiles mean never having to say you're sorry."

should point out - not just israel's fear of iranian nukes. united states has a lot invested in its policy of being an iranian deterrent, not least keeping saudi arabia from developing a nuclear program + sparking an arms race xp

if he does go ahead it's probably cuz he doesn't want to risk assad scaling up the war crimes after an american climbdown

nevermind that many of the people who would shit on him for inaction if that were to happen aren't exactly pushing for intervention now

risks of a few cruise missiles in domestic terms seems minimal

sanpaku i suspect syria has been more of a 'contained' thing and sending signals to israel is not of overwhelming importance here but i don't follow the middle east nearly as closely as i used to so i'd be interested in some background if u wish

contained as in despite the myriad of contingencies in the middle east and the refugee spillover etc, what happens there is not decisive wrt iran israel etc

I don't read the editorial pages as often as in years past, but I do recall there being some discussion from around a year ago that drawing lines in the Syrian desert was about sending messages to Tel Aviv and Teheran.

Does anyone know of any good background articles on the Saudi/Qatari exclusion of the U.S. in their Syrian rebel arming policy? I seem to recall the U.S. shut out was pretty disconcerting in the Beltway.

a summary style account of things in the recent WSJ article on bandar doesn't mention this, suggesting instead that they were trying to get the US more involved

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323423804579024452583045962.html

Saudi King Abdullah, whose mother and two of whose wives hail from a cross-border tribe influential in Syria, tried for a decade to woo Mr. Assad away from Iran's sway. He failed. The king's attitude hardened in 2011 after the Assad regime, rebuffing the king's personal advice on how to ease tension, cracked down brutally on political opponents and did so during the Muslim holy month of Ramadan. The king then decided to do whatever was needed to bring down Mr. Assad, American and Arab diplomats said.

Qatar also wanted the autocratic Assad regime out. While the Saudi princes initially were divided about how to proceed, some worrying that armed insurgents in Syria could later threaten Saudi stability, Qatar intervened quickly and gained influence with the rebels, according to Arab and American officials.

The Saudis stepped up rebel support in early 2012, at first by joining forces with Qatar and the United Arab Emirates to fund what was then the main opposition group, the Syrian National Council. Saudi Arabia quickly soured on the effort because the Council wasn't buying arms with the money, diplomats said, and began to push for directly arming the insurgents. It also began to work with Qatar through a command center in Turkey to buy and distribute arms.

But tensions grew over which rebels to supply. Both Saudi and American officials worried Qatar and Turkey were directing weapons to the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood. Qatari and Turkish officials denied they favored certain rebel groups.

The Saudi king also was uncomfortable at sharing control with Qatar, a Persian Gulf rival. At a meeting to coordinate arms shipments last summer, Prince Bandar took a swipe at Qatar, a tiny nation with one of the region's largest broadcasters.

Qatar is "nothing but 300 people…and a TV channel," the Saudi prince yelled into a phone, according to a person familiar with the exchange. "That doesn't make a country." Saudi officials declined to comment on the exchange.

It marked the start of a new, more aggressive drive by Prince Bandar, and a Saudi shift to operate out of Jordan instead of Turkey. In July 2012, the Saudi king—his uncle—doubled the prince's duties; already head of the national-security office, Prince Bandar took over the Saudi General Intelligence Agency as well.

"His appointment to head intelligence marked a new phase in Saudi politics," said Nohad Machnouk, a Lebanese legislator with close ties to the Saudi leadership.

The Saudi ambassador, Mr. Jubeir, has long been courting members of Congress who could pressure the administration to get more involved in Syria. He found early support from Republican Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina.

He also reached out to centrists, helping set up a rare one-on-one meeting for one of them, then-Sen. Ben Nelson (D., Neb.), with King Abdullah in Riyadh. Mr. Nelson said he told the king that if regional powers pulled together with a common strategy, it would be easier for the U.S. to become a partner.

Mr. Jubeir used his access to policy makers, including the president, to push the message that U.S. inaction would lead to greater Middle East instability down the road, American officials said.

A senior U.S. intelligence official called the Saudis "indispensable partners on Syria" and said their efforts influenced American thinking. "No one wants to do anything alone," the official said in explaining why the partnership expanded.

The Saudi goal was to get the U.S. to back a program to arm and train rebels out of a planned base in Jordan. Then-CIA chief David Petraeus was an early backer of the idea, said Arab and U.S. officials, and helped clinch Jordanian military support for the base.

...

the obama fuckup was drawing red lines in the first place

ehh, it was a vague attempt at deterrence that seems to have failed. it is curious that so-called lines were drawn over methods rather than results, tho -- and also that assad has crossed them anyway.

as far as the us losing 'credibility' should it now fail to attack, whatever. the us is ~capable~ of totally fucking up any particular despot (and unleashing chaos that it cannot control, of course). not attacking syria doesn't alter that capability should another situation require it.

the wsj article continues from there into the saudis convincing the US to let the CIA provide arms.

the heavy cia involvement,training, arming, making salary payments to the FSA, is interesting, in that the leaks to the ap basically against US military intervention were from intelligence officials & officials briefed by intelligence officials.

does Obama really need to worry about people doubting his willingness to drop bombs on people

god be with the days when u could just don cowboy boots not to be a wimp

http://presidentreagan.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/ronaldreaganathisranch.jpg

now that the nfl has settled with its concussion-addled former players, the usa is a nation of weaklings

also interesting from that wsj article

"Damascus suburbs allegedly targeted are at the heart of what the Saudis now call their 'southern strategy' for strengthening rebels in towns east and south of the capital."

"That winter, the Saudis also started trying to convince Western governments that Mr. Assad had crossed what President Barack Obama a year ago called a "red line": the use of chemical weapons. Arab diplomats say Saudi agents flew an injured Syrian to Britain, where tests showed sarin gas exposure. Prince Bandar's spy service, which concluded in February that Mr. Assad was using chemical weapons, relayed evidence to the U.S., which reached a similar conclusion four months later."

this plays into "the crackpot conspiracy theory, advanced by the regime and the Russians, that the rebels gassed themselves" referenced by juan cole posted upthread, the ap leakers' "U.S. intelligence officials are not ... even completely sure it was carried out by government forces" and more or less advanced here: http://www.mintpressnews.com/witnesses-of-gas-attack-say-saudis-supplied-rebels-with-chemical-weapons/168135/

of course there remains the intercept of low-level assad guys discussing a chemical attack, which must then be waved away as colin powell-like presentation or smthng

didn't the syrian army shell the site of the attack afterwards? Is the conspiracy theory that the rebels did that too?

yeah, i read that the assad regime shelled the hell out of the site to degrade the evidence, true

+ then sniped at the UN investigative team!

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2013/08/29/world/middleeast/wsw_hafez_assad_FB1/wsw_hafez_assad_FB1-blog480.png

it's a little surprising that super risk adverse president obama is going to do a military action w/out approval of security council, nato, congress, or even coalition of the willing

― Mordy , Thursday, August 29, 2013 4:43 PM (2 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxU2eqZtYmc

quality post

We know that the government has been using chemical weapons on the reg, just in lower more controlled amounts. Presumably that continues, with the ceiling on prolificacy set a bit higher.

You might know this but people ranging from conspiracy theorists who think the evidence was fabricated to those who believe there were chemical attacks but that there's insufficient evidence to say that they were being coordinated from Damascus don't. Every subsequent chemical attack makes those positions more implausible. If Assad is pragmatic, knowing that he came within a whisker of being on the wrong end of a few Cruise missiles, there's a chance he'll actually do the opposite and roll back on their use.

Time OpEd from June 2011 re: Intervening in Libya vs. Syria:

http://swampland.time.com/2012/06/01/the-obama-doctrine-syria-vs-libya-intervention/

ok dlh, i slept on your post to see if i could understand it in the morning but i'm still at a loss. plz unpack it for me.

I'm still chewing on the fact that a Tory-run Britain isn't going to back US aggression but Socialist-led France probably will. Freedom fries, indeed.

just glib joke re it's ironic that he may have maneuvered himself into out-cowboying dubya after presenting himself not just to the voters but prolly to himself as the cosmopolitan antidubya. but here looks like a precision variant on dubya and a kinda clumsy great-gamer. just a heavy repetitive irony. but not clever enough for specific star wars parallels.

I'm still chewing on the fact that a Tory-run Britain isn't going to back US aggression but Socialist-led France probably will. Freedom fries, indeed.

Freedom muffins from here on in.

Oh I see 8 million people on Twitter have already made that comment. As you were.

Freedom... Breakfast tea...?

Nm

Long remnick article in last weeks new yorker on the humongous refugee camps just over the border in Jordan is really great so far.

I'm still chewing on the fact that a Tory-run Britain isn't going to back US aggression but Socialist-led France probably will. Freedom fries, indeed.

Stilton eating surrender monkeys

http://kirkpatrickmission.wordpress.com/2013/08/30/ten-reasons-for-western-intervention-in-syria/

yeah idk man

From that linked blog:

"6. The defeat of Assad would limit the reach of Hezbollah..."

This kind of thinking is infuriating.

First, it blithely posits that the USA will commit to sufficient resources to defeat Assad. It doesn't even try to think about what those resources would consist of, how many syrians we would need to kill and how many american soldiers would die. Next, it has no plan for who would replace Assad or how we would ensure the replacement would last one minute without massive US troop support for the endless future. Lastly, the strategic aim we are going to buy with all this blood and treasure is so hand-wavy it doesn't even envision eliminating or crippling Hezbollah, but merely "limiting its reach".

(aimless throws his shoe as gesture of utter contempt)

http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/press/release.cfm?id=7029&cat=press-release

MSF puts death count from what were likely chemical weapons at 355 since last week

guess those are only the MSF-supported facilities though?

PUMP UP THE JAM AMERICA, the cruise missiles are going to go flying no matter what!!

USA, USA, USA!!!

breaking: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/borowitzreport/2013/08/obama-promises-syria-strike-will-have-no-objective.html

Attempting to quell criticism of his proposal for a limited military mission in Syria, President Obama floated a more modest strategy today, saying that any U.S. action in Syria would have “no objective whatsoever.”

“Let me be clear,” he said in an interview on CNN. “Our goal will not be to effect régime change, or alter the balance of power in Syria, or bring the civil war there to an end. We will simply do something random there for one or two days and then leave.”

“I want to reassure our allies and the people of Syria that what we are about to undertake, if we undertake it at all, will have no purpose or goal,” he said. “This is consistent with U.S. foreign policy of the past.”

While Mr. Obama clearly hoped that his proposal of a brief and pointless intervention in Syria would reassure the international community, it immediately drew howls of protest from U.S. allies, who argued that two days was too open-ended a timeframe for such a mission.

That criticism led White House spokesman Jay Carney to brief reporters later in the day, arguing that the President was willing to scale down the U.S. mission to “twenty-four hours, thirty-six tops.”

“It may take twenty-four hours, but it could also take twelve,” Mr. Carney said.

“Maybe we get in there, take a look around, and get out right away. But however long it takes, one thing will not change: this mission will have no point. The President is resolute about that.”

pretty much nails it

the correct decision is always somewhere near the midpoint between the edges of opinion. keep triangulating obama, you can do it! SUM THE VALUES! DIVIDE BY N! USA! USA! FIND THE EDGES! FOLD IN HALF! USA! USA!

do not say anything empowering about andy borowitz

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhITpTtG888

Charles Pierce:

I wondered what Maher Arar thought today when Kerry made what appeared to be the most compelling case yet for regime change in Syria, and then said he wasn't talking about regime change at all. I mean, Jesus, if we've got all the proof Kerry says we have, and Assad's own brother directed the chemical attack that killed 1429 people, many more than the original estimates, then what in the hell are we fking around with a "limited response"? (To be fair, shortly after Kerry had finished, Andrea Mitchell defined a "limited response" as "100 or so cruise missiles," which is only "limited" if you don't happen live in Syria.) There was a lot of boilerplate there about credibility and what will history, Russia, China, Iran -- or North Korea (?) -- think of us if we don't act. But the case that Kerry put forth for the Assad regime's complicity in what can justifiably be called an atrocity gave us a million dollars worth of motive to justify a ten-cent response. What in hell are we doing here?

I do not want to believe that American policy is to weaken Assad but somehow not weaken him enough so that the rebels -- whom we do not trust and, frankly, do not know -- can actually overthrow him. I do not want to believe that the policy is to let Syria bleed itself white. I do not want to believe this because I remember when Henry Kissinger, that sociopath, actually adopted that policy during the Iran-Iraq War. We armed both sides to keep them at each other so that neither one would win. Thousands of people who were not us got slaughtered meaninglessly. I do not want to believe that American policy in Syria is within miles of that kind of lycanthropic realpolitik. I'd prefer to believe we just don't know what in the hell to do.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BS8QRcaCUAAhmdt.jpg:large

let's place bets:
when will the strike begin, if ever?

sunday.

no

atm i don't believe it's going to happen

why?
or should i read the entire thread for the answer

obama has indicated he plans to go ahead in some capacity but i think it's very unpopular in the united states, i think congress is upset about it, i don't think he really wants to do it anyway, plus w/ the uk backing out... idk. going ahead w/ this would not fit what i'd expect from obama - he seems much more cautious and consensus-seeking than that.

xp

Obama has been getting a lot of negative feedback on this, mainly that it won't accomplish anything useful, but will do more harm than good. Since O doesn't actually want to make war on Syria, his options are to blunder ahead with a poorly thought out strike in the hopes it makes him look resolute, or find a face-saving way to climb down from his isolated perch.

so how will syria "face consequences" exactly?
xpost

"find a face-saving way to climb down from his isolated perch"

pretty unrealistic i think

how will syria "face consequences" exactly?

An extremely vigorous international effort to frown upon them, call them insulting names and kick sand in their general direction?

This is where the US needs some local proxies in the ME other than Israel. In Cheneyworld this was to have been a compliant, newly-minted Iraq, full of enthusiasm to spread the benefits of secular democracy to their neighbors. Instead, the closest thing we have is The Hashemite Kingdom of Transjordan, sagging under its groaning load of refugees and keeping their heads well down to avoid all the political debris coming out of Syria.

"An extremely vigorous international effort to frown upon them, call them insulting names and kick sand in their general direction?"

yeah ,assad will surrender to that, for sure.

i wonder what will happen in the future if assad will use sarin again with worse results though

If you can think up a reasonable path to Assad's surrender, plz let Obama know cuz he'd appreciate it no end.

i think obama is only taking input now for how to make it look like he responded to assad w/out anyone surrendering or getting any closer to surrendering

Kill him?
xpost

Not that I think it will solve the problem..

Mordy otm

so

That was an interesting speech.

This strike is not going to happen.

http://www.retronaut.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/34.jpg

z s' eagle vid so crucial

unironic THANKS, OBAMA @ congress vote, btw. i kinda can't imagine he's gonna lose but still

Pete King: "President Obama is abdicating his responsibility as commander-in-chief and undermining the authority of future presidents."

WASHINGTON (AP) — Senior administration officials say President Barack Obama planned to take military action against Syria without congressional authorization, but told aides Friday night that he changed his mind.

Obama announced to the public Saturday that he wanted to launch a military strike, but that he first would seek approval from lawmakers.

The administration officials described a president overriding all his top national security advisers, who believed Obama had the authority to act on his own.

But these officials say the president spent much of the week wrestling with Congress' role in authorizing force and made the decision Friday night after a lengthy discussion with his chief of staff, Denis McDonough.

a face-saving way to climb down from his isolated perch? just insist the congress join him there and share the responsibility.

I never thought I'd be stunned by something Peter King said

politically, obama played this very well. he didn't even come across like he was backed into a corner, which he was.

lol @ Hagel's shirt

http://www.flickr.com/photos/whitehouse/9640275622/

this strikes me as kind of... the best possible outcome under the circumstances?

Asking congress to approve a military action. What a novel idea. We should write this down somewhere.

lol @ peter king

i guess the power of the presidency will never recover from bush asking congress to authorize the war in iraq

apparently obama also thinks he has the right to do this on his own:

Yet, while I believe I have the authority to carry out this military action without specific congressional authorization, I know that the country will be stronger if we take this course, and our actions will be even more effective.

it'd be bizarre if congress shot it down and he decided to do it anyway.

Asking congress to approve a military action. What a novel idea. We should write this down somewhere.

― panettone for the painfully alone (mayor jingleberries), Saturday, August 31, 2013 5:08 PM (47 minutes ago)

stealing this for twitter

ohbamapaws

do you think he's just doing this b/c he knows he has the votes or can wrangle enough of them?

or does he really think it best to have a congressional debate? (I would agree w/ him on this btw)

or maybe he knows he won't have the votes and this is an excuse not to follow through on what would be a pretty reckless and likely pointless exercise in killing?

i think it's the last one

smart move. wonder how long he had it in mind

"he"

david cameron gave him the idea

Asking congress to approve a military action. What a novel idea. We should write this down somewhere.

― panettone for the painfully alone (mayor jingleberries), Saturday, August 31, 2013 5:08 PM (47 minutes ago)

stealing this for twitter

― k3vin k., Saturday, August 31, 2013 9:57 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

wasn't this stolen form ygelsias

"stolen"

good decision for domestic policy
bad for foreign.

but, everything can change, time will tell.

i'm just following kev's form xp

why is it bad for foreign

well, american FP or FP in general

i hope we get to see dem doves + rep isolationists win it in the house over hawk dems + old school reps - i feel like these realigned coalitions have been prefigured for a while

vaguely tempted to ask my asshole conservative friend his thoughts, but it will only be 'obama is a pussy for not nuking damascus' followed by "obama led us into a quagmire/armed al qaeda" a year or three from now

gonna FP american foreign policy

hey did anyone read anything indicating what susan rice thought re: all this? I'm curious. Amy Davidson mentions reports that by pursuing approval Obama was going against all his advisors.

david cameron gave him the idea

What idea is that then? Surely Obama isn't taken with the idea that abject humiliation at the hands of the legislature, including members of his own party, and generally looking like a fat-faced fool who doesn't know what time of day it is is a good thing?

David Cameron has never given a single politician an idea about ANYTHING.

is it pretty clear now that Israel will stand alone if and when an attack against Iran will happen?

The Iranians are now laughing on their way to the bomb..

would have to imagine rice is hawkish here, rwanda was a pretty formative experience for her and the only person in the admin i can think of who's more of a zealot that the us should be a promoter/defender of human rights is samantha power (which reminds me - has anyone here actually read a problem from hell?). there was some sexist piece a couple of years back about obama being henpecked into syria (this was back when hillary was still sos and a huge syria hawk from day one)(something to remind yr puma friends if they're as clueless about this as mine are). the only doveish advisor i can think of that might have been in the room was dempsey.

balls.

rand paul on meet the press - "i would ask john kerry how you can ask a man to be the first man to die for a mistake"

admittedly I haven't kept up on this, but this brought me eerie parallels to Iraq. I'm just a pacifist by nature and hate armed conflict, especially when we meddle, but I'll abstain until I've caught myself up (out of town this week).

I suppose the main diff between this and Iraq is that something of note actually happened in Syria first.

what's the main similarity? they're both in the middle east?

i mean maybe there are some parallels w/ iraq in march and april of 91 but even there it's not as strong a parallel kosovo or bosnia or rwanda (where there are enough substantial differences between those crises and syria that one can hold different positions and still be coherent imo).

tbh I regret having posted that.

there's something really creepy about the idea of the elite echelons of the government being populated with manipulative power hungry narcissists, who are then supposed to provided measured advice to the president on a matter that involves a murderous tyrant, the potential deployment of hundreds of cruise missiles, hundreds of children murdered by chemical weapons, and a country that's the linchpin to an entire "region". the inner circle of advisers and aides is filled insane-eyed contestants that backstabbed their way to the final episode of political Survivor. of course they're all hawks.

has anyone here actually read a problem from hell?

Eleven years ago as the Iraq war unraveled: one of my favorite history books of the last 20 years, inasmuch as it covers the origin of the term "genocide" and replays in its full horror the political squabbles in the mid nineties over Srebrenica and Kosovo.

samantha power is a manipulative power hungry narcissist? martin dempsey backstabbed his way to the final episode of political survivor? why is region in scare quotes - have you read something that reveals that contrary to what israel wants you to believe syria is in fact in central america?

yeah i kept meaning to read a problem from hell during the 08 campaign when she was obama's key fp advisor (lol just remembered power was forced out of the obama campaign after she called hillary a "monster"; wonder if there were points over the past few years or hell past few days when obama was much much more resistant to action in syria than clinton that power thought she may have backed the wrong horse, she'd be the first justified puma if so), if this debate or the actual action itself drags out (and i'm not going to go full rumsfeld and say the action won't last nearly as long as the debate over the action unless you're defining debate there to go all the way back to first calls from mccain/wieseltier/etc to act) i could imagine it getting more play, nyer profile of power (anyone but senneh plz), being to 2013 what black lamb and grey falcon was to 1995 (ok going too far there).

this is not remotely similar to iraq, unless you mean clinton lobbing some missiles at iraq as opposed to bush invading and overthrowing the government and staying there for 10 years.

i'm against most wars but tbh the course obama's taking is probably the least bad option.

mostly i just see a general futility of all ideology in the face of a flawed humanity destined to kill itself

Mankind, which was in the age of Homer an object of contemplation for the Olympian gods, has now become one for itself. Its self-alienation has reached such a degree that it can experience its own destruction as an aesthetic pleasure of the first order.

that sounds kind of sontag-y

also maybe not apropros?

lol

Sontag would be thrilled to hear you say that!

lol

well would have been I mean

http://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1474&context=wmlr

xpost

oh yeah that's walter benjamin, right? yeah, well sontag was a benjaminian sometimes, so I wasn't that far off. certainly her earlier stuff about violent imagery is from the same playbook.

benjamin is too hyperbolic for me, although it's understandable given the time/place he lived in.

If Obama acted without Congress, he would be constrained by what his own administration has said he can do on his own authority. Obama could attack the Assad regime with bombs and drones, but he would not be able to deploy American forces in a manner that could involve potential US casualties, “sustained fighting or active exchanges of fire with hostile forces.” The proposal the Obama administration has put forth however, authorizes Obama to “use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate” in order to “prevent or deter the use or proliferation” of chemical weapons in Syria. That means everything would be on the table.

http://tv.msnbc.com/2013/09/01/congress-to-amend-obamas-broad-syria-strike-plan/

i really really really doubt there's any sentiment toward putting troops on the ground

Most likely any Congressional resolution would be something along the lines of condemning Assad and his government for 'crimes against its own people' and authorizing the president to take 'all actions necessary to any prevent immanent attacks and deter similar attacks in the future' which language, of course, Obama could stretch or shrink it to cover any action from a stern rebuke and finger-shaking to a full scale nuclear attack. Then, whatever Obama might choose to do, the reps who voted for the resolution could say they never dreamed Obama would have used the resolution to yadda yadda, in case things turn sour.

I would make a wild guess of a vote split in the neighborhood of 230 in favor to 205 against. This would give Republican tea party types and committed Democrat liberals room to express their misgivings, with the tea party types making up the largest contingent against, just because they hate anything Obama does.

A Syrian state-run newspaper did not mince words Sunday, writing in a front-page editorial that President Obama’s decision to seek congressional authorization for a military strike amounted to a “retreat” by the United States. "Obama announced yesterday, directly or through implication, the beginning of the historic American retreat," the al-Thawra newspaper said, according to Reuters. The newspaper also noted that Obama’s apparent reluctance to launch a strike comes from his “sense of implicit defeat and the disappearance of his allies,” according to the Associated Press translation.

Syria’s Deputy Prime Minister Kadri Jamil was even more blunt, telling a Lebanese television network that Obama “was defeated before the war began,” according to Israel’s Arutz Sheva. The Syrian official added that the seeming back-and-forth from Washington “has made a mockery of the U.S. administration all over the world.”

Sure, this can be spun by Assad as a propaganda victory, but most of the world can figure out that Assad used sarin bcz he's is in deep shit in his own country and that cruise missiles, stealth fighters, Trident subs, ICBMs and the huge US military technological lead didn't disappear because Obama can't figure out how to punish Assad without helping Iran and al-Q. iow, no one should get too het up about this kind of chest-beating crap, bcz it makes no difference to anything real.

Chest-beating? I vote dick-waving.

Tea Party? I vote lemon party.

bcz it makes no difference to anything real

and everything like it keeps us from addressing what matters. God Bless America.

most of the world can figure out that Assad used sarin bcz he's is in deep shit in his own country

I thought he was winning

given the complexities of the situation i assume that any blustering/stalling is because of maneuverings (and cock-ups) we can only guess at. that is, it seems a dead cert that "going to congress" is cover for attempting to get certain military and/or syrian opposition ducks in a row

but that won't stop a week's worth of op-eds mulling over "the obama doctrine" or whatever

Messaging like "we don't care how Congress votes, we'll act anyway" and "Congress' authorisation would only make a difference if we want to sent troops in" feel like the a challenge to vote against it.

which is maybe the idea?

i mean nobody has wanted to touch this for years, for reasons that have nothing to do with how horrific the violence has been on a scale of 1 to 10

the core fact is that getting rid of assad causes more problems for america, uk, france et al than it solves. which is why i'm sort of curious why saudi arabia is beating the drum for strikes? aren't we always on the same page with them?

Is there an upside for Obama in losing the vote? He's already committed to doing something regardless, so assuming he won't back out completely (???) all he can do is manage the optics and share the responsibility.

the core fact is that getting rid of assad mubarak causes more problems for america, uk, france et al than it solves

loving these glib dismissals of human rights concerns and dumbed down realpolitik approach to foreign policy, this shit has totally worked out for us in the past

i..... am not the one dismissing human rights concerns

the core fact is that getting rid of assad mubarak causes more problems for america, uk, france et al than it solves

note that these countries' lines on mubarak were variations on "the legitimate grievances of the population must be heard" NOT "mubarak must go". that said egypt is less of a regional powderkeg than syria so if mubarak had started shelling town after town "we" may have had less compunction about activating the drones

putting the US in a position of authority on international human rights, well, you know any other ones?

cw is that obama can't act now w/o congressional approval. legally he could easily even if you believe that wpr wasn't effectively finally nullified by the courts post-kosovo (the only way an action against syria would last > 60 days is if obama was committed to overthrowing assad) but politically it kills him and even though boehner has ruled out impeachment there would still be strong talk. have no idea how that vote is going to go and party leaders giving no guidance and telling members to vote their conscience or whatever only muddies it more (god only knows what these lunatics voting their conscience looks like). if i had to bet i would guess they vote 'no', this will draw phone calls and letters from the constituents and the ratio's going to be heavily against acting. was thinking that even if this does somehow strengthen/ratify wrp and bring more balance between legislative and executive branches (and this is obv a good thing)(though i'm still not sure if that was a motivation for obama or if it was purely getting critics on the record or if it was a pontius pilate move) that the only military actions that would've been blocked post-1973 are humanitarian interventions - bosnia and kosovo and rwanda (if clinton had decided to intervene) most definitely, libya very possibly. the only one i can think of that would've made it past congress was operation provide comfort and there it would've been via drafting off a larger war.

tracer the us literally called on mubarak to step down. it took a few days but clinton made the speech.

i thought it was ilx cw was that russia was the foremost authority on international human rights, definitely no objections to their intervening in syria amirite

tracer the us literally called on mubarak to step down. it took a few days but clinton made the speech.

hmm yes you seem frustratingly to be correct

one thing i could imagine acting as a pro-intervention force on the vote is all the 'does anyone doubt now that this president would abandon israel to iran's nukes?' talk i've seen, if somehow this vote turns into a way of showing yr support for israel all bets are off. considering how ambivalent israel has been about syrian civil war i'm guessing it's doubtful any israel lobby actively makes this case (could totally be wrong though - mordy?) but i could see it being a neocon talking point somehow.

well actual israeli cabinet members have been making that exact argument to the press iirc i.e. "now there is NO DOUBT that israel cannot count on ANYONE"

the ppl who want to make the argument that israel can't count on anyone don't necessarily want the congress to prove them wrong by voting for action in syria. while i think no action on syria might end up emboldening bibi to attack iran unilaterally, i don't see that changing a lot of votes here + now.

"can't win, don't try" as the highest moral standpoint:

http://jacobinmag.com/2013/09/good-wars-real-or-imagined/

ugh freddie

Tpm posted a photo of Graham McCain Obama and famous GOP hate totem Susan Rice all in the same room at their epic pow wow this weekend. I bet that was nice and comfy.

why not? Nice to see Presidents McCain and Obama in lockstep on this one.

http://www.salon.com/2013/09/03/chomsky_syria_attack_would_be_war_crime/

Patrick Cockburn:

Limited intervention means that the stalemate will continue. One of the best chances for peace – the day of mutual exhaustion and realisation that nobody is going to win on the battlefield – is postponed. The analogy with Kosovo in 1999 is shallow and misleading since defeat was only admitted by an isolated Serbia after a 78-day air bombardment and the threat of a Nato land invasion.

If all-out war is not feasible, could peace come by negotiation? Here America and Britain's stance has been hypocritical, publicly supporting peace talks while offering only surrender terms to the Assad government at a time when it controls most of Syria. This was largely the result of a miscalculation by world leaders in 2011-12 whereby they underestimated the staying power of the Assad government. Its collapse was gleefully predicted, a role for Assad in Syria's political transition ruled out, while Iran, an important player, was to be excluded. A peace conference so out of keeping with the real balance of power is not going to stop any wars. But bringing Iran in would undermine the US, European and Israeli effort to isolate it over its development of nuclear power. The US would effectively have to recognise Tehran as a regional power, which would infuriate the Israelis and the Gulf monarchies.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/in-syria-its-a-case-of-all-or-nothing-8792975.html

lol the old 'give war a chance' argument, that was a pretty popular line against intervention in the balkans back in the 90s, foreign affairs even gave it a cover one issue

meaningless limited strikes is clearly the optical way to go, God Bless Bipartisan Bombings

well, no news here

http://www.thenation.com/blog/176001/nyt-cuts-references-aipac-syria-debate#axzz2dqVvspTW

meanwhile congrats to kerry for finding an analogy much much dumber than iraq

you're right morbs - the same ppl said limited strikes wouldn't work in the 90s and obv w/ serbia controlling bosnia and kosovo and having cleansed the muslim stain from both those ppl were proven right

good to know yr problem w/ the possible action is it's not 'meaningful' enough, i guess we know what side of the chambliss-mccain debate you come down on

Clinton hit the Balkans about 3 years after the horse left the barn

i guess we know what side of the chambliss-mccain debate you come down on

probably not, since I don't recall exactly which meaningless POS debate that would be.

also go get under a limited strike

don't know how credible the washington times is, but surprise surprise:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/6/syrian-rebels-used-sarin-nerve-gas-not-assads-regi/#.UiX0EppOMF0.facebook

When Challops Go Bad: A Case Study in Stupidity

lol @ peter king

'the president should get congressional authorization! what is he, a tyrant?'

2 days pass...the president announces he will seek congressional authorization...

'the president is wavering! he looks weak for seeking permission to act!'

don't know how credible the washington times is

um, it's not credible at all!!

re that UN 'story'

http://blogs.wsj.com/emergingeurope/2013/08/29/russia-goes-ballistic-over-inaccurate-syria-report/

(that WashTimes URL is 4 months old)

Clinton hit the Balkans about 3 years after the horse left the barn
- lol so he should've intervened in bosnia while he was governor of arkansas and he should've intervened in kosovo before milosevic sent tanks in? are you coming out for some states rights/ preemptive strike ideology here?

you're not good with facks

what year was clinton elected in yr world?

The Washington Times is owned by a loony cult leader

he bombed Yugoslavia in '99, u fuckface asshole

holy fucking shit you're dumb - do you actually not realize kosovo and bosnia are two entirely different wars????

btw established no fly zone (much larger engagement than anything obama is proposing) in april 93, three months after inauguration. resolution 836 came in june 93.

'he has his good days and his bad days'

not in my world, sweetz, or Wikipedia's apparently

bye thread

dayton accords september 95 so there was literally no point in the bosnian war where clinton coulda woulda shoulda intervened 3 years prior

The Washington Times is owned by a loony cult leader

My bad. I'm from the UK, so I don't know too much about American news outlets.

well. you're not the only person who doesn't realize it's a batshit paper.

lol @ congress calling Obama's bluff and lining up behind him for a strike. nauseating.

bad show Nancy!

i'm nuts for thinking this is a prime opportunity for constituent base agitation to fight this thing, right

tell me it's better to be hopeless

Cong. Tim Huelskamp @CongHuelskamp

Since #Obama still refuses to tell us the whole truth about #Benghazi, why do GOP leaders trust Obama to be truthful about #Syria? #TCOT

asking the tough questions

lol those guys

must. go. back. to. well...

im afraid what #TCOT stands for.. so afraid I wont google it lest my eyes burn

'top conservatives on twitter'

it's really the dumbest hashtag ever

hello conservatives i am saying something really conservative now would other conservatives please read this i am conservative i would like to be a top conservative could the other top conservatives give this a look thank you

the only thing funnier to me than 'tcot' and 'tlot' (libertarians) is when the spittle-flecked followers of breitbart include tlot or tcot along with their memorial #WAR tag, as if there's anything less threatening or hostile sounding than "tee cot" or "tee lot"

Ms. Pelosi said she did believe that Congressional authorization was a good thing, although not necessary,

oh fuck you

remember when she was a Radical SF Lefty (RIP)

'if someone had a crime that the president had committed, that would be a different story.'