During the Bush admin, it wasn’t simply a case of the Prez and most of his top advisors not having served and therefor any military action was questionable. It was that these people stank of unpleasant militarism and that this attitude was driving us to war.
And remember, a lot of these guys supported the Vietnam War during the war and yet avoided serving.
Being a reluctant warrior is a bit more consistent with not having served.
You see, I largely agree with this. Establishing the principle that a leader will be punished for employing NBC weapons is a worthwhile effort.
I do, however, disagree with the choice of targets. There’s no real point in trying to incentivize someone without making the punishment directly impact that person. The target shouldn’t be military, or at least not exclusively. A campaign targetting Assad directly - homes, palaces, places he’s known to frequent - would make it clearer to both Assad and others that crossing this line could have direct consequences for the leaders continued life. Make it as real as a punch in the nose.
Now, this would take a Presidential finding that such is exempt from Carter’s order that foreign heads of state should not be targetted. But I’m pretty sure the American public would be OK with a plan of attack that hammered leadership instead of the individual soldiers for a change.
Substantially degrading Assad’s conventional military capabilities will, or would, have fairly direct consequences for his continued life. Like Gaddafi, I don’t think he will survive losing this war.
Do you see Obama as “a reluctant warrior”? I don’t. He’s had the military blow people and stuff up in at least four countries, and lately he’s been pushing to add Syria to that list. It’s not Congress pushing / dragging him to war, it’s been him pushing / dragging Congress.
I thought chickenhawks were men who had a sexual attraction to underage girls. No?
Those are small engagements and not at all warlike. Hell, Pakistan allowed us to strike before they got all pissy we actually got OBL. And who’s advocating going into Somalia? 
Obama and Kerry opposed Iraq, that’s the biggie, that one matters. So advocating strikes on Syria does not make them war mongers
No. It’s men who have a sexual attraction to underage boys.
Just to be clear, Kerry voted for the Iraq AUMF. He opposed it after he voted for it.
NATO flew over 26,000 sorties over several months (Libya). That’s pretty damn “warlike”.
Is there any reason for that other than you really want the one they opposed to matter and the ones they supported to not?
Putin, certainly. He looks like the big hero who solved a Major International Crisis :eek::eek::eek: And Assad will be much more secure, and can go on killing people secure in the knowledge that nobody will give a shit because he won’t be doing it with chemical weapons.
As for Obama, given that he was planning to make a public appeal for war, and literally had to re-write his speech at the last minute, I don’t see how you could consider this any kind of a victory for him. More like, he had the rug pulled out from under him.
Anyone who considers Obama a peacenik is delusional. He’s absolutely in love with drone strikes. Also known as “extrajudicial killing,” also known as “assassination.”
One difficulty I see with this is the idea of a “punishment”. Most of the world has agreed that chemical weapons are not to be used, so there is legitimacy in doing what you can to prevent that. In any society, preventing or stopping wrongdoing is a legitimate action for a member of that society to take. But punishment is a different issue, and those doing the punishing need a greater level of legitimacy. Perhaps it’s an oversimplification to make this comparison, but an ordinary citizen can take action to stop a burglary in progress, but not punish a burglar after the fact; the society as a whole has to do that. So I agree that any country has a right and a responsibility to take action (where possible) to prevent the use of chemical weapons, in Syria or anywhere else. But by what right can any one member of our “global society” decide what punishment is appropriate, and deliver it?
Syria isn’t included in that “most of the world”. They haven’t signed the Chemical Weapons Convention.
Iraq was a full-scale war involving the land invasion of a foreign country and its occupation for several years (along with attendant casualties and costs) while none of the strikes you’ve mentioned cost Americans a single life nor incurred any significant monetary cost.
I question the math skills around here. Libya cost us 4 lives and a good bit of money. Obama’s afghan “surge” (which wasn’t included in the “strikes *'ve mentioned” before) incurred significant monetary cost and cost many lives.
The deaths in Libya came long after the US’s military involvement. Libya was also orders of magnitude cheaper than Iraq.
Wikipedia says the total cost of the Libya campaign was in the range of $1 billion. That’s the cost of running the Department of Defense for 14 hours.
According to the article the intervention cost about 750 million dollars-which a drop in the backet as far as the federal budget is considered.
For comparison:
Iraq:
Cost-$845 billion
US Lives Lost-4,487
Libya:
Cost-$1 billion
US Lives Lost-0
Hmm… :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
Any President would have implemented a Surge strategy in Afghanistan. Or do you not think Bush or McCain would have done so in Afghanistan?
I understand that, but typically the majority rules. Ask a psychopath and they might tell you they haven’t agreed to the “don’t murder people” rule, but the fact that the majority of people in (a) society like that rule means that it continues to exist, and be enforced.
nm
Only conservatives care that Kerry changed his mind, the rest of us knew what he was referring to and how it wasn’t a gaffe, just an unfortunate choice of words
Iraq was an actual war and the others aren’t
Are we at war with Pakistan? Are we at war with Somalia? With Yemen and Libya? Those are closer to police actions than actual wars, or limited military strikes upholding some international principle. Iraq matters, it was a real war. That the others were fairly clear in their intent and goals and Iraq wasn’t (not to mention dishonest), makes it matter