Especially in the light of latest Kerry’s comments. The utter incoherence of the spokesmen that Obama sends out is astounding.
Kerry said the Americans were planning an “unbelievably small” attack on Syria. “We will be able to hold Bashar al-Assad accountable without engaging in troops on the ground or any other prolonged kind of effort in a very limited, very targeted, short-term effort that degrades his capacity to deliver chemical weapons without assuming responsibility for Syria’s civil war. That is exactly what we are talking about doing – unbelievably small, limited kind of effort.”
Why? Seems clear enough to me, especially in light of other things they have been saying. What they want to convey is that we are planning a small series of strikes that are meant to be punishments for the use of chemical weapons, not destabilizing attacks meant to change the current balance of power in the civil war struggle. We aren’t planning to kick in the doors, put boots on the ground or launch a systematic attack on Syria’s infrastructure, C&C or logistics, but instead this is a message to Assad…don’t use chemical weapons. If you want to whack your people in job lots, The World™ is perfectly fine with you doing it the old fashioned way with machine guns, artillery, planes and tanks. Using chemical weapons crosses the line.
Seems a viable enough strategy to us, considering what a mine field Syria is from the US’s perspective.
Trying to emphasize that we aren’t going to go hog wild on this, and set expectations for what exactly we plan to do. What’s the problem? Just his choice of a diminutive? Not macho enough??
Every time I think there are limits to the apologists for the Obama administration, I am proven wrong.
You’re serious, aren’t you? Please explain how an “unbelievably small” - hell, practically nonexistent - strike will do anything about Assad’s use or non-use of chemical weapons?
Yes, I’m being serious. I think it’s the best course in a bad lot. This doesn’t mean that it’s a good course…it’s the lesser of multiple weevils. We COULD do nothing…that seems to be the modus operandi for much of The World™, and frankly we are getting enough grief that it’s a viable option for us I suppose. However, we seem to have a president who at least is willing to entertain the notion that a nation state using chemical weapons against it’s own population should be something we take at least nominal notice of. We ignored it when Saddam used the things (either in the Iran/Iraq war or against his own people), which I think was a mistake. Possibly had we launched limited strikes against Iraq we wouldn’t have been tempted to invade the freaking place a few years later…and, more importantly, Saddam might have taken us more seriously when we did start to make preparations for invasion. See, it sets a precedence…use chemical weapons and the US launches some air strikes against you. And there is little to nothing you can do about it. Whereas, if you whack your people the old fashioned way then that’s obviously fine with The World™. So, carrot and stick. And you get to see first hand how nasty it is to be on the receiving end of a US air strike or missile strike when there is almost nothing you can do about it…and you know if you fuck up again you’ll get the same thing. Again.
Syria is a political mine field. The US interests aren’t really served either by having Assad win OR having the rebels win. It’s basically a no win situation, so is best left to play out as it will without any overt help by the US. Use of chemical weapons though…THAT is something we, as a superpower SHOULD discourage whenever it rears it’s ugly head. Obama et al has to try and weave a very narrow path through all of the potential ugly downsides and try and find one that is least bad. I think this is least bad. I don’t think that makes me an Obama apologist.
Doing an “unbelievably small” strike is, in practice, the same as doing nothing.
“Unbelievably small” strikes. Do you really think Assad cares about an “unbelievably small” strike, especially when it has been telegraphed for a month in advance so he can put the important assets away?
It’s not very “nasty” if it is an “unbelievably small” strike, isn’t it?
The post is about the Admin utter incoherence and inconsistency in trying to explain its proposed actions and goals. With an emphasis on Kerry’s incompetence.
If this was China or even North Korea using chemical weapons to gas an internal rebellion, would we be considering these strikes?
My guess is that we would not because the likely-hood of escalation would be too great. Which would be a legitimate argument for not punishing either China or Korea. Certainly there would be no talk of surgical strikes on Russia if Putin decided to gas a Chechen rebellion.
So there is more context to the decision regarding “teaching of a lesson” against the use of CW’s.
So, your issue is really with the semantics of the phrasing then? Again, I believe Kerry is trying to set expectations and also to assure The World:trade_mark: that the US isn’t going to go hog wild. Personally, I’d have gone with the perennial favorite of ‘small surgical strikes’, but that would have set off alarm bells and exploded heads all through Europe and probably our own liberal population as well. While the buzzword ‘unbelievable small’ will, perhaps, reassure both groups. The reality is going to come in exactly what we ARE planning to do. My impression is we will hit a small number of key military sites, perhaps some of the targets identified with the production of chemical weapons, and that will be it. Assad is likely to get the message, which isn’t the size of the hammer, but the ease with which we CAN bring the hammer down any time we want. YOU might not see the point but I guarantee he (and his generals) will…assuming we actually end up doing anything at all, which still seems up in the air.
You are being absurd. I absolutely do not support the Obama administration’s intent to attack Syria, but there is nothing incoherent about the quote you give from Kerry. The worst that can be said is that he used a standard rhetorical device (hyperbole) slightly clumsily.
Its reasonable enough. I think its wrong mostly because I believe that “reasonable” is a standard that no longer applies to the situation.
And one should point out that Assad hasn’t used them since that strike. Is that due to the threat level directed towards him, or has he had a humanist revelation? Who knows?
Perhaps the best solution is a Congressional resolution to the effect that Assad is not to be punished for what he has done so long as he does not do it again. With the proviso that unilateral action by the US of any type is not approved and will be sternly responded to. “Boots on the ground”, of course, is right out!
But there must remain some level of threat. If Assad’s people believe that they can get away with mass terror attacks on their civilian population, then perhaps he will not use such weapons unless he thinks he is losing. But then we will have tilted the field in his favor, he will have options he otherwise might not have.
[QUOTE=QuickSilver]
If this was China or even North Korea using chemical weapons to gas an internal rebellion, would we be considering these strikes?
[/QUOTE]
China wouldn’t be stupid enough to use chemical weapons on it’s own population (when tanks or soldiers would do), and we’d almost certainly not hear about it if North Korea did it (besides the fact that the NK’s population is so beaten down that they wouldn’t be rebelling in any case). My WAG is that if China DID do something that stupid we’d be looking at punishing them in economic ways with embargoes and such. If North Korea did it then we’d probably be pressuring the Chinese to embargo or curtail trade and aid and possibly for THEM to do something militarily or in some other way punish them…and if not, then I’d guess we would consider surgical military strikes against NK depending on the gravity of what they did. There are other hammers in our bag of tricks besides military ones.
While the hypothetical is theoretically possible, it’s extremely improbable that China or Russia would do something so stupid. If they did, then the economic ramifications for either of them would be harsh enough. North Korea would be touchy, but my WAG is if they did something like using chemical weapons on their population then some form of punishment would be forthcoming, even if it wasn’t military strikes.
I don’t believe there is. There are simply other ways to teach it than military strikes. IN the case of Syria we are ALREADY applying economic pressure, so it would be time for something a bit more direct. Also, Syria doesn’t have the major trade connections either China or Russia does, so it’s not as much a punishment to them if The World™ cuts off trade with them as it would be if that happened to either China or Russia. As for NK, they are totally reliant on China, so pressure could and would be applied from that direction if they did something so blatant.
No. Because it’s an “unbelievably small” strike. If he were to expand on this, that would make it a “really very tiny” strike. Which is bigger than what the administration has in mind.
Really stupid wording, but on par with how the administration has been handling this. It’s going to be an “unbelievably small” strike that will still significantly degrade and deter Assad from using CWs again.
Huh?
The world is laughing at us. And those who aren’t laughing are staring in disbelief. One can say it’s just semantics, but diplomacy is about sending the exact right message. Kerry is our chief diplomat.
Again, I believe Kerry is trying to set expectations and also to assure The World:trade_mark: that the US isn’t going to go hog wild. Personally, I’d have gone with the perennial favorite of ‘small surgical strikes’, but that would have set off alarm bells and exploded heads all through Europe and probably our own liberal population as well. While the buzzword ‘unbelievable small’ will, perhaps, reassure both groups. The reality is going to come in exactly what we ARE planning to do. My impression is we will hit a small number of key military sites, perhaps some of the targets identified with the production of chemical weapons, and that will be it. Assad is likely to get the message, which isn’t the size of the hammer, but the ease with which we CAN bring the hammer down any time we want. YOU might not see the point but I guarantee he (and his generals) will…assuming we actually end up doing anything at all, which still seems up in the air.