What I find most disgusting is the gleeful, nearly masturbatory joy of right wingers about the whole thing. “Oh Boy! Obama painted himself right into a corner! Now he’s GOT to do something! Haw haw!” These are real people being murdered by their goverment and some are dying very painful and horrific deaths. Yet because their suffering makes life for Obama difficult, right wing Americans are downright giddy.
We as a nation need to ask ourselves if we want tinhorn dictators to slaughter their own citizens with chemical weapons. If the answer is no, then we have to do what it takes to either neutralize their threat or make them pay a high price for using these weapons. This isn’t Iraq- Assad has the goods and is currently using them.
Yes there are other places with brutality going on. Rwanda was a place where the US could have made a difference, we walked away from the carnage that was Somalia. But inaction in other cases doesn’t require inaction in all cases. We don’t need to conquer Syria and I don’t think anyone wants to. A few Tomahawk missiles and maybe a no-fly zone for the Syrian Air Force seems about right to me.
Do we need, “as a nation”, to ask ourselves if we want tinhorn dictators to slaughter their own citizens (in greater numbers, even) with non-chemical weapons?
I don’t think a President must ask Congress for support of a non-self-defense military operation. But this President, unequivocally, stated that a President must do so in such a circumstance. Yet when the time came to do so, he didn’t (with Libya). And he apparently won’t now either. That’s the hypocrisy.
The weapons make it easier. Without them, you’ve got to find soldiers with hard enough hearts to put bullets through babies’ skulls. That’s hard to do. The WMDs make it so all you have to do is push a button.
Did you miss the part where the definition of “non-defense”, or any similar terms, is up to him? Since you’re having trouble finding the quote directly, here:
Then, if you think that 50.1% of the populace agrees with you, it shouldn’t be a problem getting a Congressional AUMF against Syria. Which hasn’t been done, as far as I know, and probably won’t be, if that 9% approval figure floating around is anywhere close to reality.
Assuming though, that the Obama Administration feels like they don’t need something like an AUMF, and goes ahead with military action anyway, they may later wish that they tried to get one. Lobbing TLAMs at a recalcitrant dictator is the modern equivalent of gunboat diplomacy: a Great Power sending a gunboat to shell a foreign port to express the GP’s displeasure with the dictator’s policy. Usually, this is harmless for the GP. And since it’s harmless, no one so far cares about the strict legalities and Constitutionality of the practice. But what if the gunboat explodes?
In addition to who knows what sort of global terrorism assets, Syria has missiles that are, theoretically, a non-trivial threat to a U.S. carrier group. If the USN screws up and has a really bad day, they could lose the carrier and more than a few other ships. Expect U.S., casualties in the thousands if that happens, by the way. Losing a capital ship unexpectedly has happened before. In which case, I’d expect Articles of Impeachment, for getting the U.S. involved in an illegal war, to be presented in the House almost immediately.
I don’t think this is likely to happen. A lot would have to happen for a Syrian missile strike to make it into the same time zone as a U.S. carrier group. Further, I think the USN is very good at what they do, and has people who’ve made their profession sussing out scenarios like this and how to avoid them. But it’s quite conceivable. And failure’s often an orphan.
The same sort of logic that has underlain pretty much every other Presidential decision to use military force anywhere ever - i.e. his own authority to decide what constitutes it.
So, what *was *your position on Bush’s decision to invade Iraq no matter what? (cue McCain singing “Bomb, bomb Iran”)
Everybody knows that the true answer is that “gassing his own people” is a terrible thing to do when America’s enemies do it but that it is not so bad when its allies do it and that America would do it without second thought if it served its ends. It is just that America does not need to use such weapons right now because it has better weapons but if the need came America would have no qualms. Just like torture was totally unacceptable until suddenly it was not torture but enhanced interrogation. By the same token white phosphorus used in the destruction of Fallujah was really just fireworks. Or agent Orange in Vietnam. Or personal land mines which have been banned by most countries. The truth is that America does whatever the fuck it wants without any regard to morality or Human Rights and that any criticism of other countries for their morality or human rights rings very very hollow in the rest of the world. We all know the truth of the matter. But you can go own pretending.
I hear you and, in many ways, I’m sympathetic to your viewpoint. I also agree that Obama should have never put the red line comment. Still don’t understand why he said it (or if he regrets it now) but I look it simply: if the U.S draws a red-line, and that line is crossed, is incumbent that action be taken, otherwise, it makes us looks like chumps and it shames the party. This is not the time for Democrats to be dovish on this type of shit especially when you have a clear moral mandate for action.
Does anyone think our growing tension with Russia figures into the decision to launch a limited strike on Syria and arm the rebels?
The rebels are not likely to support the US, but neither does Assad. We would neither gain, nor lose anything. However, the Russians would lose another state they have influence in if Assad is displaced.
I guess similar to the same way Russia supports Iran and we support Israel. Do you think we consider a strike on Syria to be something like a “strike by proxy” against Russia and Russian interests? A way to keep potential rivals weakened by losing a customer to sell weapons to?
I may be looking at this from way too much of a simplistic “board game” style viewpoint.
I was just talking to my GF about the proxy wars of the Cold War era and how this fits into the template quite well. Yes, Russia would hate to lose an ally in the region, but I don’t expect whoever replaces Assad to become an instant US ally. Russia has other options they’re keeping close to the vest, no worries there.
I don’t think Putin respects Obama in the least, and I don’t think he really fears him in any measurable way. A “limited” strike by the US will be seen by Putin as nothing more than a political move by a President who wears a helmet and mom jeans while he bikes. Putin will wrestle another gator and continue to do what he wants.
