So Saudis are still qualifying their “support” by something that is impossible to ascertain:
“Saudi Arabia has said it is time for the world to do everything it could to prevent aggression against the Syrian people, and that it would back a US strike on Syria if the Syrian people did.”
FYI:
Contrary to the impression given in “Assad is a war criminal, but an attack will do nothing for the people of Syria” (Comment, last week, page 34), white phosphorus, used by Israeli forces in Gaza in 2008, is not a chemical weapon as understood by the Chemical Weapons Convention, and its use is in itself not “in breach of all international conventions”.
Red: Once again, I’m with you on the substance, but you can’t seriously tell us that “tear gas” is a “Chemical Weapon” as described in the Chemical Weapons Convention.
Like I said, I want to stay the fuck out of the whole mess.
But, gun to my head, and I have to route for either Assad or the rebels, I’d route for Assad. The aftermath of the civil war, if the rebels win, will make us yearn for the time in Iraq, 2007, when things weren’t quite as bad as in Syria.
Two and a half million Christians and (I think) 3 million Alawites will be refugees, if they are lucky, and dead if they are not. And I’m not even sure what will happen to the Kurds, Turkmen, Armenians, Druze and what-have-you.
Perhaps sometime in the future, some Syrian George Washington or Kemal Ataturk can guide that country to a relatively peaceful transition to democracy. Right now? I don’t see it.
I agree with you that staying out is probably the best idea(yes, I know I said that Assad must be punished, but since I can’t have it both ways…)
However, if you put a gun to MY head, I’d prefer Assad fall. Even if the people suck and would oppress or drive out minorities, I don’t think that keeping their will at bay is a reasonable strategy. The will of the people should reign supreme, and if that means we need to bring in a couple million Christian refugees, then that’s what we do. As for the Alawites, they can go to Iraq. As the ruling party that brutalized Syria for so long, as I have about as much sympathy for them as I did the Sunni Iraqi minority that felt they were entitled to rule and spent years killing our troops to try to return to ruling.
The planned military strikes on Syria would be “targeted, limited” and wouldn’t seek to topple the government of President Bashar Assad or even force it to peace talks.
They would also be punishing and “consequential” and would so scare Assad that he would never use chemical weapons again.
U.S. airstrikes would change the momentum on the battlefield of the Syrian civil war. But the war will grind on, unchanged, perhaps for years.
Man, even LA Times is starting to mock Obama administration…
It definitely reigned supreme in Rwanda, didn’t it?
Well, we have to stop genocides, regardless of whether the people want it or not. I’m just arguing that supporting dictatorships just because they keep the passions of the people in line by force isn’t the best way to go about that.
Well, its kinda in response to a logic puzzle. This doesn’t make a lot of sense, so why is it happening? I doubt anyone close to Obama is whispering in his ear that the rebels are splendid fellows and secular liberals, deeply committed a tolerant and reasonable parliamentary democracy. In conflicts such a these, power tends to gravitate towards the extremists. So, no, I doubt anyone has any misplaced faith in the opposition, or any at all, for that matter.
As for leaning towards Assad, impossible. I think the current regime is less monstrous than the father’s, but that’s like preferring smallpox to cholera.
So, here’s my scenario, here’s how I think the beads line up on the abacus. I think Obama wants to degrade Assad’s capacity in order to force him to the negotiating table, in the hope of bringing a swift end to this destabilizing crisis. To put out the fire before it spreads. Specifically, before it spreads to Israel.
But as well as Israel, the conflict threatens to ignite a Sunni-Shia conflict in the larger sense. Kinda one or the other. If Israel is involved, in might unite Islamists across ths Sunni-Shia divide in holy war. (Holy war - the most vile of oxymorons). The other disaster is a widespread conflict on religious lines in Islam.
Either or both could be headed off by bringing this to a swift end.
Obviously, this is more complicated than this brief sketch could do justice. But in a nutshell, that is it: it is important enough to do whatever can be done to bring this to an end as quickly as possible. I’ve read Guns of August maybe five, six times. Good bet Obama has read it at least once.
I think he is wrong, I don’t think it will work. My default position is away from military action, and I am not convinced to alter that. But I note with minimal modesty that he is the President, and I am some guy on a message board.
Side: isn’t it odd that no one is propagandizing the Islam-haters and fundamentalist Americans on the issue of the persecution of Christians? I wouldn’t expect we could be so lucky, and I don’t expect it will last.
Which one, in recent memory, did US stop? Name one …
What is DFH?
And, is it groovy?
Which is?
I can see a wave of ethnic cleansing no matter who wins this war. That is the problem with this particular war – there does not appear to be any way it can end well.
Stop digging.
DFH = Dirty Fucking Hippie.
What has Libya to do with this? When their civil war ended, the Libyans elected a government of secular-democratic moderates. Syria is not like Libya. Syria is more like Iraq, a country of several different religious/ethnic factions who hate each other.
FWIW, even if this leads to WW3, I don’t think it can become as anguishing as the Iraq war under W since that one was conducted under false, manufactured pretenses whereas in this one, even if Assad turns out not to be responsible, we know at least that there are WMDs there.
I think the red line argument boils down to a kind of faith thing, but still I can see why a President would want his red lines respected.
So I can understand if Congress decides to grant permission to launch 200 tomahawks (that’s what they’re discussing now apparently). Personally I think it will drag us into a full-blown war and so we really ought to be having that debate, and the lack of that debate up front is where the bullshit factor in this war enters in. What promises are Saudi lobbyists making to our political parties behind the scenes to promote this bit of bullshit?
I also think we really ought to wait for more world support. The red line thing has focused world attention on Assad. He can’t get away with using chemical weapons. Let’s allow for a solution that doesn’t involve another US engagement in the ME, or at least doesn’t isolate the US.
Since we aren’t planning an invasion or peacekeeping, support from other countries isn’t as necessary. We don’t need help to launch Tomohawks the way we’d need help to occupy a country.
So . . . even Obama starting World War Three would relatively OK, because At Least He’s Not Bush. :dubious:
Very illustrative post, thanks.
I’m not sure which comment is dumber. The idea that the government of Libya which has both government funded Sharia courts and religious schools is “secular” or that Libya doesn’t have several different “religious/ethnic factions who hate each other.”
I’m guessing you’ve never met any Berbers or any of Libya’s Sub-Saharran Africans.
Well, maybe if I got out more…