Resolved: The US should bomb Syria

Great Debates
1

There are a number of terrible arguments for US military action IMHO, but I maintain that Assad’s use of chemical weapon presents a security challenge that requires a high level response. I am, however, open to diplomatic solutions.

Unfortuneately, my argument has multiple steps. Assad has good reason to use chemical weapons. The world’s necessary hegemon has most incentive to maintain existing taboos against chemical weapons. [1] After all, the US will be fighting the most high level battles over the next 50 years. If Assad uses chemical weapons as a way to convey that he lacks restraint, that will demand a similar response from his enemies. All good and well, except that Syria is crawling with Al-Qaeda opponents to the regime. And we don’t want them gaining experience with chemical weapons. Because if they add that to their arsenal, we can expect that they will use it against civilians as a terrorist tool.

**So we need to get Assad to knock it off, to prevent the sort of arms race that will end with terrorist organizations using chemical weapons. **

“Use chemical weapons and you will lose your air force”, might work. But recall that we don’t necessarily want Assad to lose – because at the moment Sunni radicals from outside Syria are fighting more battles than the home-grown Syrian resistance. Yet we may very well have to hit him in some militarily explicit manner, because Assad believes that breaking taboos - conveying to your opponents that you don’t play by humanitarian rules - is the key to remaining in power. That’s what his Dad during in the early 1980s. They called it “Assad Rules” or no rules at all.

Welcome to the Middle East
After WWI, Western powers set up 3 artificial countries ruled by minorities, because it was thought that countries ruled by minorities require outside power to prop them up. Those 3 countries were Lebanon (which had a civil war rectifying matters during the 1980s), Iraq (ditto, the 2000s) and Syria (where Alawites make up maybe 10% of the population). So yeah, it’s a powder-keg. The US has conflicting interests in the area, that go well beyond amorphous matters of “US Credibility” and other juvenile schoolyard comparisons.

Incidentally, I’m quite the expert on this subject: I’ve seen 2 Frontline specials and have read maybe 3 blog posts. :dubious: :rolleyes:

There are many counterarguments. One involves Congressional approval, though as of today Obama is seeking it. Another notes that if chem weapons are such a big taboo, then it makes sense to build international opposition to it, right? It seems like bombing Syria in another month with some international support (i.e. NATO) would be superior to going it alone in 10 days. What’s the rush?

Recommendation to my fellow posters: There are a bazillion reasons to oppose the OP, plus a few dumb reasons to support it. You might want to consider summarizing your point in a sentence (if you can) and placing it in bold. We rarely settle anything on the board, though sometimes we assemble most of the main arguments.
[1] But note here that Syria hasn’t signed any chemical weapons treaty.

2

Yeah yeah right right sure. The US has had 15 significant military actions over the past 50 years, and I’m sure all of them had chin-strokers like the OP supporting them. That works out to one every 40 months or so. Maybe we could try asking a few questions before shooting this time around. I give the mike to James Fallows:

For 20 years now we have seen this pattern:

1. Something terrible happens somewhere -- and what is happening in Syria is not just terrible but atrocious in the literal meaning of that term.
2. Americans naturally feel we must "do something."
3. The easiest something to do involves bombers, drones, and cruise missiles, all of which are promised to be precise and to keep our forces and people at a safe remove from the battle zone.
4. In the absence of a draft, with no threat that taxes will go up to cover war costs, and with the reality that modern presidents are hamstrung in domestic policy but have enormous latitude in national security, the normal democratic checks on waging war don't work.
5. **We "do something," with bombs and drones, and then deal with blowback and consequences "no one could have foreseen."**  Emphasis added.  The US is operating off of general principles. They are going up against a dictator who focuses on dictating methods of staying in power. Very different levels of commitment.
3

If we’re going to do something like this, why not instead offer an ultimatum: “Destroy your chemical weapons, or we will”? If Assad complies he loses a weapon he’s not allowed to use anyway, we keep the chemical weapons out of the hands of Al Qaeda, and we will have responded in a manner equally appropriate whether Assad used the weapons himself or merely allowed them to fall into the hands of those who would.

4

Lebanon was specifically created as a state with a Christian majority. It became a minority later on.

5

Do you have beyond a reaonable doubt proof that Assad is party which used chemical weapons? No? Then shut the fuck up and stop trying to resolve a conflict by killing more random people.

Debate finished.

Stranger

6

I understand that there are no plans to bomb their chemical plants, since that would poison civilians in the area.

I guess I was misled by Fareed Zakaria here: see the first 30 seconds of the video. Admittedly, it was clear from his tone of voice that he was giving a simplistic view of history, but I’m too ignorant on the subject to know the difference. I’ll quote wikipedia without endorsement:
[QUOTE=wikipedia]
Consequently, the demographics of Lebanon were profoundly altered [after some wrangling by various colonial powers during the 1920s -mfm], as the territory added contained people who were predominantly Muslim or Druze: Lebanese Christians, of which the Maronites were the largest subgrouping, now constituted barely more than 50% of the population, while Sunni Muslims in Lebanon saw their numbers increase eightfold, Shi’ite Muslims fourfold. Modern Lebanon’s constitution, drawn up in 1926, specified a balance of power between the various religious groups, but France designed it to guarantee the political dominance of its Christian allies. The president was required to be a Christian (in practice, a Maronite), the prime minister a Sunni Muslim. On the basis of the 1932 census, parliament seats were divided according to a six-to-five Christian/Muslim ratio. The constitution gave the president veto power over any legislation approved by parliament, virtually ensuring that the 6:5 ratio would not be revised in the event that the population distribution changed. By 1960, Muslims were thought to constitute a majority of the population, which contributed to Muslim unrest regarding the political system.
[/QUOTE]

7

I’m not sure what the appropriate standard of proof is for US citizenry, but here’s what we have:
[QUOTE=Jerusalem Post]
US intel report holds Assad gov’t responsible for Syria chemical weapons attack

… The report said US authorities have a high degree of confidence that the Syrian government of Bashar Assad was responsible for the attack. It stated that this is the strongest position the US intelligence community that vetted the report can take short of confirmation.

A central piece of intelligence included a communication that was intercepted from “a senior official intimately familiar with the attack,” who confirmed that chemical weapons had been used by the government on August 21 and was “concerned with the UN inspectors obtaining evidence” about it.

The intercepted phone call between Assad regime officials trying to cover up the attack “speaks to a level of concern on their part vis-a-vis potential detection and attribution,” the officials said. “We do assess that [Assad] is the decision maker and he directs employment… the overall program is firmly under his control.”
[/QUOTE]
US intel report holds Assad gov't responsible for Syria chemical weapons attack - The Jerusalem Post

I think I heard something similar on NPR this morning, but I’m not sure.

8

In other news, we’re still looking for that Iraqi ‘yellowcake’ Saddam Hussein was stockpiling. I’m sure we’ll find it any day now, probably in Valerie Plame’s basement. Bitch was hiding it all along, I’m sure.

I would take US intelligence reports with about the same degree of credulity as Daily Mirror stories on Kate Middleton’s secret lesbian witch coven.

Stranger

9

I do not have a high opinion of the intelligence and competence of any Syrian government officials that are making decisions, I really don’t. But this really does not make sense. Using chemical weapons on the scale that they have been used in this incident is not possible to cover up, especially in the territory you do not control. That is obvious BEFORE you attack. In fact, “covering it up” is exactly what you don’t want to do when you use chemical weapons - they are used as a terrorizing method not as a tactical weapon. See how their use was not followed up by a concerted “boots on the ground” attack - they were not used to “soften up” the resistance before going in with a force. They are used to terrorize. Covering their use up makes chemical weapons pointless.

“Expressing concern” about not being able to cover it up after the attack is not just stupid. It is moronic. People who are just plain stupid may rise to fairly high positions in any government, but this kind of moron is unlikely.

As I pointed out before, drawing a “red line” at use of chemical weapons is practically an invitation to someone who wants US to attack to stage the chemical weapons use. Yes, it is ruthless, and a war crime, but look at who the players are - do you really think they would balk at a couple of thousand civilian casualties (or even militant casualties) in order to gain major advantage?

In the past year plus Syrian opposition overran quite a few Syrian army installations. It is quite possible that some chemical munitions have fallen into their hands. Saying that only the Syrian government has the capability of using chemical weapons ignores the reality on the ground.

10

Add me to the list of intelligence doubters, because I have to agree with Stranger and Terr here.

11

Ok. There’s more material at the Jerusalem Post link: I only quoted a little of it. I haven’t found a serious discussion of the false flag hypothesis, though I confess I am somewhat dubious about it. That said, Putin, Pravda, Pat Buchanon and Ron Paul are pushing that line. I haven’t found any serious experts doing so, though one former poster here noted that the Syrian regime’s base is split. So I can’t rule out a Rogue Element hypothesis, but then again neither do US statements. They just say that Assad is responsible, not that he ordered the attack, AFAIK.

Show me somebody serious discussing false flag in some depth. I struck out on that one.
ETA: Fred Kaplan reports that 16 intelligence agencies have “High confidence” in their assessment (no false flag AFAIK). That appears to be good enough for that expert. Obama’s Syria speech: His decision to seek congressional approval for his Syria strike was risky and right. The yellowcake story had published doubts about it by serious people back during the runup to the Iraq war, so that’s not really a counter-example.

12

Ok, now permit me to dispatch a couple of pro-war arguments:

Q: Ok then, what do you think we should do about this humanitarian atrocity?

A: Send Syria humanitarian aid, administered in Turkey. On a cost/benefit basis, it will probably work better than Freedom Bombs.

Q: The US’s credibility is at stake. The President made a big show of red lines. If we back down now, nobody will take us seriously again. Ever!

A: Oh noes! International diplomacy isn’t a pissing match. And frankly, I think backing down would send a most excellent signal to the world. Message: “Don’t treat every Rose Garden burp and fart as divine revelation, especially in matters of war.” Yeah, Assad crossed a red line: that doesn’t mean we have to bomb him. It means we get to think about it. No one-time Presidential remark alone obliges the US to do something ill-advised.

Furthermore, I also think it sets an excellent precedent to force a congressional vote on this. Even better would be to have a few congressmen willing to swing on the subject, depending upon the evidence.

13

ETA: Money quotes from somebody that should not be paid attention to. From Jeb Lund’s twitter feed.

“Barack Obama is not going to beat Hillary Clinton in a single democratic primary. I’ll predict that right now,”
— Bill Kristol, 2006

“Evidence that Iraq may have aided in the horrific attacks of September 11 is beginning to accumulate”
— Bill Kristol October 1, 2001

“[The war] will cost $100 billion to $200 billion”
— Bill Kristol, March 1, 2003

“Very few wars in American history were prepared better or more thoroughly than this one by this president.”
— Bill Kristol, March 1, 2003

“Predictions of ethnic turmoil in Iraq are even more questionable than they were in the case of Afghanistan.”
— Bill Kristol, 2003

“Hey, you are literally comprehensively incompetent at your SPECIALTY, so let’s listen to you talk about anything else.” - TV News

You cannot name a SINGLE thing Bill Kristol got right about Iraq, and he was an Iraq “EXPERT.” So now let’s interview him about Syria.

Bill Kristol.
Founder: Team Palin, Project for a New American Century.
Career Batting Average: .000
Salary: More than you will ever have.

14

Just take the compelling evidence to the UN. Get a legal mandate. Build a coalition. Call me crazy.

15

Is the nation in question:
[ul]
[li]Composed of brown people?[/li][li]Mostly non-Christian?[/li][li]Sitting on oil and not Saudi Arabia?[/li][li]Unwilling to be an American puppet?[/li][/ul]
If it’s one or more of the above, and it’s believed to be unable to inflict serious casualties in return for our attacks, then that’s the only proof Americans need.

16

I’m a bit confused.

You seem to be insisting that Syrians are “brown”.

In an earlier thread, didn’t you insist that Cubans were “white” not “brown” or did I misremember?

If you do think that Syrians are “brown”, please explain your reasoning?

Thanks in advance for your response which I’m sure will be well thought-out, logical, and have respectable cites.

17

I am with others here who are not *at all *convinced that the Assad government is behind any chemical attacks, and believe it would be an EXTREME mistake for the US to take military action in this regard.

18

clairobscur has already noted the error with Lebanon, which was actually set up to gerrymander a state where the Maronite Christian were the single-largest constituent. But Syria as a whole was also not set up as any sort of ethnic/confessional minority state either - it just so happened that the Coup of 1966 brought an Alawite strongman to power, who was later replaced by another Alawite in Hafez al-Assad. Alawite rule in Syria is largely coincidental to those two dictators.

Sunni rule in Iraq was coincidental to the British backing of the Sunni Hashemite dynasty from Western Arabia as clients.

While Iraq Syria and Lebanon can all be considered artificial constructs of Western powers, there was no deliberate policy of specifically promoting minority rule in any of them. Lebanon was established as a confessional haven - but for what was then the largest single group ( if not an absolute majority ), the vaguely pro-French, Eastern Catholic Maronites. Syria’s creation had no special confessional character in mind at all. Iraq’s rule by a confessional/ethnic minority ( Sunni Arabs, distinct from Shi’a Arabs and largely Sunni Kurds among the larger groups ) was mostly coincidental to them sitting at the center of power.

19

Der: Syria doesn’t export substantial amounts of oil. Public opinion is mostly against military action: I suspect its intensity is perhaps comparable to opinions regarding Project Runway.

Ibn: “Brown” is a sociological category anyway, not wholly a matter of melatonin. Pathetic, I know.

The Security Council won’t go for it because Russia supports the Assad regime and neither Russia nor China like humanitarian interventions. The UN general assembly might be a different matter (or not). At any rate, Obama’s decision to ask for a Congressional vote is a little unusual and is likely to have some value as precedent for a military action of this (currently small for the US) size.

Then you share my desire to secure a decent citation on this issue.

Tamerlane and clairobscur: Ignorance fought. Thank you.

20

After Obama used the Irish Spring in the Rose Garden today, I will state that there will be no US military action in Syria. I will further say that I think this is a Good Thing. Honestly, I’m tired of caring if people in other parts of the world want to kill each other, even if they are doe-eyed urchins. That’s their world and they are welcome to it.