I’ve been puzzling over this for a bit. How does a man who in the past was a shining beacon of common sense re not involved in international military morasses now think, somehow, it’s a good idea to lay down surgical strikes in an unstable region to make a foreign policy point.
I thought Bush was an idiot for invading Iraq now we have Obama who desperately wants to teach Assad a lesson about being brutal to his people. At some point do we step back from the impulse to (selectively) play lone gun policeman to an unfair world.
Just going after Iraq and Afghanistan, two borderline 3rd world countries beat the living muktuk out of our military resource capabilities and now we have the irresistible impulse to stick our hand in the hornets nest yet again? And logically to what end? The Syrian rebels fighting Assad are noted for their ruthlessness and are most definitely not going to be our buddies beyond us handing them weapons.
If this is how Obama is playing realpolitick I’m not impressed.
I think the strikes on Syria have been put on hold given that US/Russia/Syria/UN are coming to terms on an agreement to hand over the CW’s to the inspectors in the next couple of months. It remains to be seen how this plan will be executed (or not), but there is reason to be optimistic that it will all go off without the US having to strike Syrian targets.
As to how Obama has handled it, I think he played realpolitik exactly right. He threatened to strike while negotiating quietly with Russia and buying time with his punt to Congress for approval. The latter seemed like bit of a Hail Mary pass - either he would have been given permission and he may or may not have called for strikes, or he would not get permission and then he would not have ordered strikes with a good reason for not doing it.
(But there is any number of threads on this topic. Is there a specific reason you started another?)
What I want to know is, why was Obama (and every other world leader) perfectly happy to sit back and watch as Assad killed 100,000 people with bullets and bombs, but killing 1,000 people with gas – WELL HOLY SHIT THAT CANNOT BE TOLERATED !!!
So, in your opinion, it’s not acceptable for Obama to bomb a country that uses chemical weapons against its own citizens.
When would it be acceptable in your book for Obama to bomb Syria? Would it still be wrong for the US to “play policeman” if Syria started using germ warfare? Would it be wrong if they started rounding up Jews or Christians or some other minority for extermination? Would it be wrong if they somehow came across a nuclear weapon and decided to drop it in the middle of Jerusalem? Would it be wrong if they nuked us?
You have to draw a line somewhere and say “This sort of behavior is unacceptable from a nation-state and it is unacceptable for a nation with the power to do something about it to stand by and let it happen”. I’d say that deploying chemical weapons (which, remember, not even the Germans did in WWII) is as good a place as any to draw that line.
Wow, we didn’t have enough threads on Syria I guess.
Because the ‘foreign policy point’ happens to be ‘don’t use chemical weapons of mass destruction on your populace’. Why this is so hard to understand, as seemingly it is since we’ve heard this same argument in the other myriad threads on this subject is beyond me. The US wants to discourage countries like Syria from using chemical weapons. Simple as that.
And we have stayed out of it. We aren’t batting an eye about Assad slaughtering hundreds of thousands of his own citizens. What we are taking exception to is Assad using a WMD that is pretty much banned around the world.
Bush WAS an idiot for invading Iraq. I’m not seeing Obama with the same idiot factor, since we know, for sure, Assad has WMD and is willing to use them, and since Obama was not or is not planning on a full scale invasion and regime change in Syria. So, sort of an apples to orangutans comparison there.
Well, logically the end would be discouraging Syria from using WMD in the future, as future use would entail more strikes. I’m not seeing the whole hyperbolic ‘stick our hands in the hornets nest yet again’ thingy, since we were planning air or missile strikes, not invasions.
Maybe it’s just me. This all seems so clear and easy to understand, but since I keep seeing permutations on the same theme about this stuff perhaps it really is more confusing that I think it is. The strikes proposes weren’t to stop the civil war, or even to overly imbalance the current situation. They weren’t to save Syrian lives or overthrow Assad. They were, in short, an attempt to use military force to discourage Syria (and by extension any other nation who might plausibly use WMD on their own or another population) from using chemical weapons in the future by making it clear that if they did then they would risk similar strikes.
So you think surgical bomb strikes and then withdrawing will be the end of it re our involvement and that this will teach Assad a necessary lesson? I’m glad you think it’s “so clear easy to understand”. I glad you think that “surgical” intervention is going to be effective and that this will be a nice foreign policy chess move rather than the prelude to a mud wrestling contest with a tar baby. Hold that thought, hold it close and treasure it.
“Going after” those countries did nothing of the sort. The US toppled the government of Afghanistan by pretty much using special operations. And the very large Iraqi military was crushed in 21 days. Our capabilities were not stretched. I have no doubt the US military could do the same to Syria. (If no other big countries jump in against us) Our resources were stretched after our initial objectives were met and we decided to attempt nation building.
I think just the fucking THREAT of our ‘surgical strikes’ was enough to get the Russians off the ball and get the Syrians to agree to at a minimum monitoring their chemical weapons stockpiles. So, yeah, I’d say there is good evidence that had we actually struck it would have discouraged them from doing it again.
No you don’t HAVE to draw that line. We don’t draw that line all day long for people being killed and oppressed around the world. We are reviled across large swaths of the Muslim world for our intervention and interference in their disputes even by the people we are purportedly assisting or defending. There is no “WE MUST DO THIS!!” world policeman imperative. Intervening via military action in another nation’s affairs is a very deliberate choice, it is not by any means a “have to”.
I’m not sure why you think air strikes necessarily lead to an extended military conflict. The last administration excepted, we have not, historically, had a problem with lobbing some cruise missiles at a state we’re angry with, and then calling it a military success and leaving it at that.
Not that I’m advocating that, mind - but it seems a lot more likely than us ever sending ground troops to Syria.
I am expressing my concern about his moves predicate to the Russians becoming involved as mediators. That Obama got very lucky (so far) is not (IMO) evidence of wise statecraft. Climbing out on that diving board was not (again IMO) a wise policy.
You’re right. America CHOOSES to draw the line somewhere. How and when it chooses to do so is often based on it’s own self interest and the philosophical bent of which ever party happens to be in charge at the time.
I think taking an absolutist view of always helping everybody or never helping anybody is a foolish approach. Each situation warrants consideration and weighing of pros/cons. Ultimately, whatever the decision, somebody is going to disagree with it.
I remember the buildup to the second Gulf War originally being based on Hussein’s evicting weapons inspectors from Iraq. Some months before “Shock and Awe”, Bush II also got an out when Hussein caved and agreed to allow the inspectors back in. At that point I was prepared to be impressed with Bush. I’d thought the buildup to be insane, but here it had led to real and positive results. Maybe these guys do know what they’re doing after all. Then Bush refused to take yes for an answer and invaded anyway.
It seems to me that Obama has done right everything that Bush did wrong. It might just be by dumb luck, and it might all blow up again, but for now we’ve got a real chance of eliminating some chemical weapons stockpiles, and we never had to fire a shot.
[QUOTE=Greg Charles]
I remember the buildup to the second Gulf War originally being based on Hussein’s evicting weapons inspectors from Iraq. Some months before “Shock and Awe”, Bush II also got an out when Hussein caved and agreed to allow the inspectors back in. At that point I was prepared to be impressed with Bush. I’d thought the buildup to be insane, but here it had led to real and positive results. Maybe these guys do know what they’re doing after all. Then Bush refused to take yes for an answer and invaded anyway.
[/QUOTE]
Well, leaving aside the obvious fact that Bush was an idiot (and so were the other folks in his administration), in fairness Saddam never proposed the rather sweeping deal that seems to be on the table here. Russia also never engaged, despite the fact that they were also trading partners with Iraq. Basically, I think that one of the factors here was how idiotic we were in the Second Gulf War that has pushed Russia into becoming more engaged this time. They don’t want Syria to go down and were obviously spooked about this proposed strike. Syria also was pretty obviously spooked since they have put some rather sweeping proposals on the table and are obviously doing everything they can to ensure we don’t start bombing them.
None of this means what Bush did was a good idea, mind…it was completely idiotic…but if life gives you lemons then making lemonade is a viable option, and it seems to me Obama et al have (so far) done pretty good at opening the stand.
Which doesn’t answer the question. At what point does action against Syria become justifiable? If Syria somehow detonates a nuclear weapon on US soil, is it still unjustifiable for the US to “play policeman”?
You do realize that damn near 100% of the use of the phrase “play policeman” in regards to world politics is referencing when we butt into conflicts that don’t involve a direct threat to us, right? Right?
What amazes me is that everybody is acting as if the threats to attack Syria were all part of Obama’s master plan to hook Russia into playing along on the chemical weapons thing.
