A Problem Like Syria

The topic keeps popping up in other threads and since there is currently an attempt by the UN to inspect areas allegedly hit with chemical weapons, it seems there's plenty to discuss.

Should the US intervene? How? Should the UN intervene? Can anything be done?

If it is found that chemical weapons were used, I think the action taken should be on the part of the UN. The U.S., after the preemptive war in Iraq, has little if any moral authority with which to judge what others are doing.
It is illegal to store or use chemical weapons ? Do we have a store of chemical weapons ?

Report: U.S. Helped Iraq With Chemical Attacks
http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheats/2013/08/25/report-us-helped-iraq-as-it-used-...

>2 faceinbook: Do we have a store of chemical weapons ?

I would be shocked if the US didn't have a store of chemical weapons--for defensive / deterrent purposes, I assume, and at the very least for research on how to protect troops against them. Living on a Canadian military base in the 1970s, the spookiest building was one marked "Biological and Chemical" warfare. I lived and worked close to it, so hope decommissioned or just a library. Never saw anyone entering or leaving, and my (Signals) dad wasn't forthcoming when I asked him about it.

(Talking about biological warfare, there was a scandal at my Canadian university when people learned that undergrads had access to live anthrax in microscope slides. I remember assuming the material must be dead if they let us handle it! But then, we students infected chickens with another nasty (bird) pathogen that left their insides a hemorrhaging mess*, and some of my classmates were farm kids who may shortly thereafter have headed home. Some of us may have had pet birds...)

*If nothing else, the sight of those chicken innards sure made one appreciate safeguards to protect agriculture!

Should the US intervene?

No. If the US was ever going to intervene in Syria (though I was always against doing so), it should have done so over a year ago when the possibility of some combination of moderate and liberal group(s)--by Middle Eastern standards--could have succeeded the Ba'athists. The moderate groups in the rebel "coalition" have no chance now of gaining power unless the US were to occupy Syria and provide cover for them, just like in Afghanistan. That is beyond a non-starter.

Should the UN intervene?

The "UN" can't intervene as it has no independent military force. UN intervention would simply be Western intervention under a different label. Not to mention that it's a dead letter anyway because Russia and China would never go along with it after what happened in Libya.

#2

It is illegal to store or use chemical weapons ?

Under the Chemical Weapons Convention it is illegal to manufacture, use, or store chemical weapons. Syria (along with Angola, Burma, Egypt, Israel, North Korea, and South Sudan) is a not a party to the convention. Though one might be able to argue that since every other country in the world has signed up to the agreement, the illegality of chemical weapons has become a customary part of international law.

Do we have a store of chemical weapons ?

The US has still not destroyed all of its stocks of chemical weapons. The last time that I saw the number we still had yet to destroy about 15% of our total stocks that had been declared at the time the convention was signed. It's doubtful that we'll ever get rid of all of our chemical weapons unless the Russians do so as well (and they're only at about 50%). That might not matter, however, because chemical weapons have a use-by-date. They actually degrade quite rapidly if not stored in exactly right conditions.

One other thing. The US invasion of Iraq in 2003 was not a preemptive war; it was a preventive war. At least that's how most international relations scholars would label it.

From a Washington Post report, a nice overview of chemicals used in warfare (below). The US and Israel have used at least a couple on this list, some of which are permitted by the 1993 Convention. Sounds like most are easy to make, but difficult to weaponize for killing large numbers of people? States more capable of using them as weapons than are insurgents, though latter can terrorize with them?

Chemical weapons: what they are, how they work

"...Experts generally recognize seven categories of chemical agents used to expose disable or kill people.

Choking agents: Injure the nose, throat and lungs. Inhalation causes lungs to bleed, drowning victim. Examples: Chlorine gas, phosgene gas

Blister agents: Severely burn and blister the skin or respiratory tract. Examples: Mustard gas, lewisite

Blood agents: Inhibit the ability of blood cells to absorb oxygen, causing suffocation. Examples: Cyanide compounds, arsenic compounds

Nerve agents: Enter body through skin or lungs. Rapidly disrupt the transmission of nerve impulses. Examples: Sarin, sarin gas, soman" (margd: sounds like this one induces rigor mortis in live people by blocking the enzyme acetylcholinesterase--how awful!)

"Riot -control agents: Eye, skin and respiratory-tract irritants. Can be fatal in concentrated doses. Examples: Tear gas (CS gas or CN gas)

Incapacitants: Cause psychotic disorders, including incapacitation and an inability to make decisions. Examples: LSD, BZ, PCP

Defoliants: Destroy vegetative cover and crops and can cause nerve damage. Examples: Agent orange, paraquat..."

http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2021686339_syriasidebarxml.html

#4 & 5: That is beyond a non-starter. Agreed, and well stated.

AP's Big Story, yesterday: For Obama, the world looks far different than expected

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/obama-world-looks-far-different-expected

from it: Few foreign policy experts predicted the Arab uprisings, and it's unlikely the U.S. could have — or should have — done anything to prevent the protests. But analysts say Obama misjudged the movements' next stages, including Assad's ability to cling to power and the strength of Islamist political parties in Egypt.

"The president has not had a long-term strategic vision," said Vali Nasr, who advised the Obama administration on foreign policy in the first term and now serves as dean of the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. "They're moving issue to issue and reacting as situations come up."

#5

Slightly off-topic: The U.S. invaded Iraq. On patently false pretenses. A country which posed no credible threat to the United States, and only a marginal threat to its interests. So, whatever some people would like to call it, it was at best a highly dubious act of war.

A intervention in Syria would involve another Mid-East war. This would be bad.

#7,

Historically the US has had five pillars to its grand strategy: 1) expand to the widest territorial extent possible, 2) maintain military and political hegemony in the Western Hemisphere, 3) ensure the free navigation of the seas and the free flow of trade between the US and other states, 4) ensure an adequate amount of energy supplies, and 5) ensure that no state or combination of states comes to dominate the Eurasian landmass.

The only one of those that still applies to the Middle East is #4, and that pillar of US grand strategy gives no real guidance as to how the US should respond to the Arab Spring. Under the Bush-43 administration there was an attempt to place democratization and human-rights promotion as the sixth pillar of US grand strategy, but I think that it's obvious that by the end of Bush's presidency that that policy had faded back into the pack of second-order goals.

It's not surprising that the US is floundering in the Middle East right because there's nothing driving our policy there. When a state doesn't have a rallying cry to its foreign policy, it's necessarily going to deal with things on an as-needed basis. That's not necessarily a bad thing if the particular administration is good at relationship management. The problem for the US right now is that Obama's personality is not well-suited to that type of diplomacy. It requires a more jovial and glad-handing type of diplomacy that was displayed by the likes of Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton. Obama would have done much better in the structured diplomatic environment provided by the Cold War, where the strategic international situation did much of the relationship-management heavy lifting for the US.

The chemical weapons depot that I'm aware of because it's upwind of home:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Grass_Army_Depot

Chemical weapons are like spying from embassies: they're illegal, no one is supposed to have them, everyone DOES have them, and no one is supposed to talk about those facts.

Of course, denials become a little harder once you start using them, which is why such weapons are only used on opponents who lack them.

Scholars of the Iraq war should not call it a preventive war. It was whatever the opposite of that would be called. An imperial war?

Well if one "starts" a war there's no "prevention" involved eh.

The serious question is whether the public will support the "war" as a "surgical strike" or as a potential for "escalation." Most folks might I believe go along with the former and be reasonably wary of the latter.

Now another question appears to be DID the Assad guys actually use the sarin or did the "Free Syrian Army" in order to provoke the US into coming in "on their side" ostensibly. Evidently sarin is not particularly difficult to acquire so the assertion of the Russians (as well as from Assad) is not so far fetched.

However is the Assad regime "morally capable" of gassing its fellow citizens? Sure, so I can understand why the US is so accepting of that proposition but maybe one ought to wait for the "inspectors" as per Ban Ki-moon? If the US has intel it may well share it -- Bradley/Chelsea where are you when we really need you?!

If this might turn out as per Libya (WITHOUT of course the fiasco of the Benghazi consulate attack) a US "intervention" may well have a salutary effect but if it results in some sort of Syrian retaliation then we're up the "down staircase"?...

Remember what Vicini says in The Princess Bride?

'You fell victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous of which is "never get involved in a land war in Asia," '

Good advice, still.

It would be easier to know what to do in Syria if the rebels weren't such unsavory characters (to put it mildly).

Here's a recent quote (the slogan of some rebel groups):

"Christians to Beirut. Alawites to the grave."

In other words, force Christians to flee, and murder all the Alawites. And these are the "good guys"!?

Remember the video, a few months ago, of the rebel commander cutting the heart out of a soldier and eating it?

Remember the summary executions of civilians who 'offend Islam', including a 14-year-old boy who made a joke? He was a fruit seller. A man walked up and asked for some fruit for free. The boy laughed: "Not if the Prophet himself came back!" For that, he was executed.

As they say in Africa:

"Government is bad. Rebels are worse."

And it is really unclear what weapons the rebels have.

They have the head of John the Baptist.

lqarl

Iraq war continues: http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/08/201382863027871209.html

#15,

The desirability of the rebels as allies really has nothing to with what the US should be doing about Syria, at least from a military standpoint, which is nothing. We should be doing what we can to alleviate the suffering of those Syrians who have fled from the country and to try and get the two sides to come to an agreement to at least stop the fighting, but beyond that we should butt out.

Syria is a strategic backwater for the US, so who controls it is of little concern to us provided its military and chemical weapons don't fall into the hands of some al-Qaida--inspired group.

>20 Bretzky1: Well, you're right that the U.S. and other countries should stay out of it. But for those who are pro-intervention, I just wanted to point out that there are no 'good guys' here. Basically, it's just a civil war with one ethnic/sectarian group fighting against another.

>20 Bretzky1:

'Syria is a strategic backwater for the US, so who controls it is of little concern to us provided its military and chemical weapons don't fall into the hands of some al-Qaida--inspired group.'

I don't think the US has any strategic backwaters on the planet. They want badly to intervene, as they normally do, because they then feel they have the right to post-war amenities. As someone else pointed out, they surely will go in if they think it will be like Libya, but the same person did not point out that the Benghazi attack was generated by the fact that the US always goes in, one way or another. So 'some al-Qaeda-inspired group' has already been given impetus by US behaviour throughout the ME, central Asia, and northern Africa. The odd thing here is Assad is no Saddam who the US supported intensively for years. He is not even like Gaddafi in that he was careful not to provoke the US and NATO countries. But he is a sworn enemy of Israel and that puts the US on the side of the more 'Islamist' rebels than the more secular regime. The US has no good choice here, speaking strictly in terms of military strategy.

#22

I would add the caveat that the U.S. goes in only when it doesn't perceive any serious consequences ('blowback') for doing so. (e.g. the U.S. isn't contemplating liberating Tibet any time soon, or (I hope) launching a special forces op to get Snowden.)

Of course, the U.S. is rarely correct that there are no consequences; merely that there are no immediate consequences.

Other than that, you are basically correct. It's always possible to find a reason to intervene if you want to, and the U.S. certainly seems to want to intervene anywhere it can.

the U.S. certainly seems to want to intervene anywhere it can.

Not so much: Reuters/Ipsos poll

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/25/us-syria-crisis-usa-poll-idUSBRE97O00E...

from it: “ About 60 percent of Americans surveyed said the United States should not intervene in Syria's civil war, while just 9 percent thought President Barack Obama should act.

>24 enevada: That's beside the point, isn't it? The point is what the government does, not what people want them to do.

The U.S. government always acts in the best interests of its citizens, even when those interests are contrary to the citizens' inclination.

Big Brother knows best, after all.

The Brit Parliament just rejected a proposal on military intervention. So much for #25.

Was 25 about Britain?

I suspect House Republicans will tie support for military intervention to the repeal of Obamacare. The peoples' will will be done!

#9 Historically the US has had five pillars to its grand strategy: 1) expand to the widest territorial extent possible, 2) maintain military and political hegemony in the Western Hemisphere, 3) ensure the free navigation of the seas and the free flow of trade between the US and other states, 4) ensure an adequate amount of energy supplies, and 5) ensure that no state or combination of states comes to dominate the Eurasian landmass.

Britain's strategic interests are very similar, which is why Britain and the U.S. have been allies (often unofficially) since the early 19th Century. The Monroe Doctrine (#2) was encouraged by the British, as they were interested in trade with the newly-independent countries, and didn't want Spain re-establishing its empire, or other European countries trying to grab new colonies. Free navigation of the seas (#3) was vital to the British Empire. And Britain always sought a 'balance of power' in Europe (#5), where no one country dominated the continent. That's why Britain opposed Napoleon, and later Germany.

Of course, we are getting a bit off topic here...

Historically the US has had five pillars to its grand strategy: 1) expand to the widest territorial extent possible ... Britain's strategic interests are very similar ... which is why Britain and the U.S. have been allies (often unofficially) since the early 19th Century

Historically, the US has avoided expansion outside of its continental core. When Britain and France went hog-wild taking over huge swaths of territory in the 19th century, America largely stayed put. The acquisition of tiny Hawaii was controversial and took time to work out; similar acquisitions by European powers was much more straightforward. Our only serious colonial experience was in the Philippines, but we got in there rather uncertainly and we were on our way out within decades. It doesn't compare to European colonialism--which the US criticized throughout the period.

Now, you can say what you want about US actions in Nicaragua or whatever--you can argue we were largely virtual colonialists, content with friendly governments, not direct administration--but if "expand to the widest territorial extent possible" is to have a normal human meaning, we simply didn't do that. The British and the French did that. We could have. We did not.

Of course, we are getting a bit off topic here...

No, we're on topic. The topic is that when nasty governments gas their own civilians, it's time to turn attention to the evils of US foreign policy.

The British Parliament has rejected quick action on Syria. Cameron has indicated that he will not take action without legislative approval.

I'm so wary of the US marching in to save the day with bombs and bullets. But then I think about Rwanda, and how the international community stood by. And Kosovo, where Western intervention saved lives. There's never a simple solution.

I did hear a suggestion that the US take the money that drone strikes or whatever would cost and use that money to improving the conditions of the Syrian refugees. Of course, our legislature would never approve that.

The Savage Wars of Peace: Small Wars and the Rise of American Power is an interesting overview of US adventures offshore. Mexicans, Canadians, and Native People certainly didn't find Americans of the day ungrasping!

Interesting that very little US commemoration this year of 1812/13, except for Admiral Perry's wins on Lake Erie. Fishermen would be well advised to keep their heads down this weekend!!

Why would the US want to commemorate a war that they lost? Although, my AP history teacher said it was pretty much a tie, my Canadian history classes saw it somewhat differently.

http://news.wypr.org/post/who-won-war-1812
http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/11/27/canada-won-the-war-of-1812-u-s-historian...

While the winners might be disputed (because the US always wins?), the losers of the war are clear -- the Native Peoples of both countries.

PBS has very good documentary on war of 1812. For once, Native historians' perspectives are included. One can certainly see in e Ontario, that 19th c was spent preparing defenses against a second US invasion that never came: Ft Henry, martellos, canals to supply Ottawa & Toronto, selection of inland capital (Ottawa), even Confederation.

Syrian strike sounds like another chapter for update of The Savage Wars of Peace: Small Wars and the Rise of American Power... Still, having established red line, US has to respond somehow to retain credibility and perhaps to prevent Israel from acting?

Should Obama have so explicitly established red line? Did it become a challenge Assad needed to cross for his own domestic cred? (Remember Saddam Hussein never admitted to not having any more chemical weapons in his arsenal.) I've heard, though, that Assad had been unable to dislodge armed opposition through traditional arms, and, having not provoked US response to earlier, smaller use of chemical weapons, tapped his chemical arsenal. Maybe mistake was not rapping knuckles for first use? US might have shot across bow at that point--now real damage is needed?

Much as I like Obama, I can't help thinking his initial handling of chemical question wasn't particularly deft.

#32,

The US isn't contemplating intervening in Syria in any way that might actually stop the civil war. All that Obama is contemplating is launching a series of punitive strikes on Syria's chemical weapons infrastructure and command and control facilities (à la the US response to Libya in 1986 over the West Berlin attack). If we effectively shut down Syria's resort to chemical weapons, the killing will still go on; they'll just go back to using bullets and regular bombs.

#31,

Now, you can say what you want about US actions in Nicaragua or whatever--you can argue we were largely virtual colonialists, content with friendly governments, not direct administration--but if "expand to the widest territorial extent possible" is to have a normal human meaning, we simply didn't do that. The British and the French did that. We could have. We did not.

"Widest extent possible" was meant in the context of contiguous territorial expansion. Following the settling of the Oregon crisis and the end of the Mexican War, further expansion of contiguous US territory was effectively blocked (notwithstanding the Gadsden Purchase) due to a combination of military and political factors. Britain's control of Canada rendered that territory nearly off limits, and any move to take any more Mexican territory would have been extremely controversial in the US prior to the Civil War as it would have been seen by Northern states as an effort by the Southern states to expand the footprint of slavery (though California came in without slavery, Texas and the New Mexico Territory were both brought in as slave lands), not to mention that the Mexican War itself was a more closely run thing than most Americans now know. And after the Civil War the American people were in no mood for any kind of military adventure, especially of the kind that would have been required to wrest more land from Mexico. It took a few decades before the horrors of the Civil War were largely wiped from the country's experience and by that point the threat to the US that encouraged such territorial expansion (some European power or combination thereof carving up the country) was no longer realistic.

>36 Bretzky1:

All things being equal, this might not be so bad. Chemical weapons have gone unused for so long in part because countries believed they couldn't do so without attracting massive international disapproval and probably action. Not punishing Iraq weakened this. Not punishing Syria would end the principle. I tend to agree that Syria is a total mess. If we wanted to choose sides, we should have done so early, before it became such a charnel house. It may be that nothing we could do would improve the eventual outcome. But punishing Syria severely for breaking the chemical-weapons consensus will insure that they don't do it again during this conflict, and that five years from now we don't see chemical weapons stockpiling and use across the world.

>38 timspalding: . Not punishing Iraq weakened (countries' belief) believed they couldn't do so without attracting massive international disapproval and probably action.

Wasn't a no-fly zone established that in the end resulted in a largely independent Iraqi Kurdistan? Not a tactic that would work in Syria, I suppose.

I think the real question here is, 'will the good (if any) of intervention outweigh the bad'?

I suspect not.

I suppose there are worse things than the indiscriminate use of chemical weapons.

#40: Most people suspect not.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/08/barack-obama-the-lonely-president-96064.ht...

#40,

That's my concern here as well.

There's also the consideration of punishing "Syria" versus punishing Assad. If you don't punish the people who are actually responsible for using the weapons, which in this case would be Assad and his immediate circle of advisers, what message are you really sending.

The attack on Libya worked (for a while anyway) because Qaddafi was actually made to fear for his safety as a result of that attack (we did, after all, send a few bombs into one of his palace compounds). He took the message as being "stop or we'll target you next time." It's doubtful that Obama is planning any such similar attack on Assad or his immediate circle. The US had the fudge available in Libya that Qaddafi maintained a training facility in the palace compound for a military unit that was trained in terrorist tactics and operations. I doubt Assad would be stupid enough to do the same, especially considering these are chemical weapons we're talking about.

Unless you do something to weaken Assad's power or to actually endanger his position in the civil war, you aren't going to deter others from using chemical weapons in a similar situation, let alone Assad. He and future people in his position will just view such attacks as a price of survival against the bigger threat: the rebellion looking to topple him from power.

Lots of insanity here, beginning with the usual US expansion marked from today's borders and forgetting the most horrific genocide in human history. And of course the US colonial model is more sophisticated as it had to be to succeed so no need to take the Congo, just kill off the local favorite and put our Stalin in, just as we had done in Iran...and then, 50 or 60 years later speak as if we should all have gotten over it.

And shit like this re chemical weapons: 'Not punishing Iraq weakened this.' As if Rumsfeld had not approved it. So what, the Soviets should have punished Iraq?

If it is symbolic action we’re going for, why not follow Jimmy Carter’s advice?

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/08/jimmy-carter-syria-peace-summit-96087.html...

There's also the consideration of punishing "Syria" versus punishing Assad. If you don't punish the people who are actually responsible for using the weapons, which in this case would be Assad and his immediate circle of advisers, what message are you really sending.

Syria is not a nice government with a nasty head of state. Assad stands atop a large, tightly organized and responsible military apparatus which has been guilty of numerous crimes in this war. While terror is an important factor keeping the regime in line, there have also been many defections by military officers and men, seeking to absolve themselves of the state's actions and take part in its overthrow. Armies are responsible entities. It is, of course, important to minimize civilian casualties in any attack, but it's perfectly moral to attack Assad's military for the military's actions.

That said, I think we should hit "command and control" above all—everywhere we think Assad and his inner circle work or might be—and specifically target the units that were involved. If a commander knows that obeying a chemical weapons order will end in his own and his mens' destruction, he may think twice.

forgetting the most horrific genocide in human history

Can you discuss some rational metrics by which United States government actions against our native Americans can be described as "the most horrific genocide in human history"?

If it is symbolic action we’re going for, why not follow Jimmy Carter’s advice?

Because nothing will come of it. The UN won't do anything about Syria. Hoping that Iran and the Russians will agree with us is fruitless, because they're not led by Carter but by statesmen who look to rational self-interest for their countries. They might agree with Carter in "condemning the use of chemical weapons in Syria," but only so far as they can claim that the attacks were carried out by rebels, not the state. That's a fantasy, and an injustice. Lying about genocide does not bring about peace. It encourages genocide.

Syria is a mess. We should have been supplying the rebels long ago, before the whole thing turned into a charnel house. Our unwillingness to stand up for a rebellion against a monster—not to mention a monster whose state was one of our countries chief strategic adversaries!—has reaped its reward. Now we're down to the lesser questions. Will the United States make it clear that when it publicly declares something a "red line" it is merely bluffing? And will we declare that using chemical weapons is okay again?

The US should stay out of the Syrian Conflict. It is a civil war! Let the middle east discover how it wants to go; either democratic or the same old same ways. We should only intervene if there is a direct effect upon America and its economy. We have had enough of Obama Wars, America is in economic turmoil and sinking fast.

>46 timspalding: Metrics: How about numbers and territory?

from an article in al jazeera: 'In 1988, the US supplied Iraqi officials with the location of Iranian troops with full knowledge that the Iraqis would use the information to launch nerve gas attacks.' http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/08/2013830132737713325.html

If we are to talk numbers, we'd look at events like the Trail of Tears and the Indian Wars. The Trail of Tears killed perhaps 60,000. The Indian Wars were not dissimilar in size. They were terrible events. Many could accurately be described as ethnic cleansing, some as genocides. But even if we are to lump events together that took place over almost 150 years, we're simply not getting to the sorts of numbers that would rival the Nazi Holocaust, or those of Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and you can forget the Mongols! The United States did not have six million indians in it—let alone Stalin's ten or twenty million, or the Mongols' 50+ million—when the United States was founded, nor did we kill them all.

One could agglomerate all new-world atrocities and tragedies in all regions and involving all governments between 1492 and today, but that is something quite different from the actions of the United States government. And if we're to lump everyone from Custer to Pizarro together as a single historical event, we'd be just as well to lump Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and many others as one--victims of the modern "total" state.

Good lord, what astonishing willful tripe. Think percentages.

But if we skip to paragraph two, with its lumpages, don't forget to include the US in your list of modern ''''''total'''''' states.

#46

And that's another problem with President Obama. If you make a bold statement, then you shouldn't be surprised if someone calls you on it. Now the President is on the spot. He can either unilaterally take some ineffective action, or show that he wasn't really willing to back up his firm statements.

I'm betting on the ineffective use of force, followed by a declaration of success and a quick distraction. (There is one good thing about all this for the POTUS; it's pushed the domestic spying issue towards the back for a bit.)

Because unless we are willing to actually go ahead and kill Assad, he'll keep doing whatever HE thinks it will take to retain power. Even if that means wiping out half or more of his own people.

52 Isn-t strange that one fellow-s statement can be made to represent a nation. Badly put...Strange that it has the appearance of mano a mano...

#46,

I don't doubt the morality of targeting Syria's military in reprisal for using chemical weapons; I doubt the efficacy of such an act if the purpose of doing so is to put the chemical-weapons genie back in the bottle. And forget about targeting Assad and his top advisers directly. Obama isn't going to order that.

If it comes down to a choice between follow orders and face a small possibility of being killed in an American air or missile strike months later and don't follow orders and face near certain death by firing squad days or hours later, I know which option the military leadership will go for almost every time. There are some brave and decent sorts who might say no, but they were likely to have said no anyway or to have deserted by now or most likely never would have joined Assad's military in the first place.

Even regimes as nasty as Assad's only resort to chemical weapons when they are in dire straits to begin with. An American attack at this point simply isn't going to change the end result of a similar regime's decision when in the same situation that Assad and his cronies currently find themselves. The only thing that would change that calculation is if the US got deeply militarily involved in Syria to the point that the rebellion was practically guaranteed to succeed. And as I stated before, the US should stay out of Syria militarily.

Edited because I have no idea why I wrote "desire" straits.

If the US President were to pickup the redphone to call de Bono how would that conversation go?

We should have been supplying the rebels long ago, before the whole thing turned into a charnel house.

Why? Why should you have been supplying the rebels exactly? And which ones? All of them? Specific ones? Again, which ones and why exactly? With what end goal? Realistically--what would have been the goal here? Humanitarianism, moral outrage over "monsters"? When's your big showdown in North Korea scheduled for? How about your pals, the Saudis--you know, the people who actually did something to take a bite out of your hide? Not monstrous enough, or too close to your heart?

But I don't see how humanitarianism meshes with your declared stance about the collateral whatchamacallits thingies in Iraq. Those unnumbered, not-bothered-about, couldn't-give-a flying-fuck-about, quarter of a million about (conservative estimate)--deaths, deaths provoked by the violence you visited on them--and not counting the refugees, the dispossessed, the crippled, the terminally immiserated.

So, what then? Could it be... a squinty-eyed desire to see Syria blown up into pieces so that Israel can "feel safe"?

Israel will never be safe. And speaking of nasty governments, a nasty little theocratic racist apartheid state doesn't deserve safety.

You got yer good Arabs and yer bad Arabs...

>56 LolaWalser:

I'm an interventionist. I think a rational examination of past interventions shows that early and strong support for one side can shorten a conflict and bring about a better end. I don't believe "let them kill each other" is always a better choice, especially as our non-intervention tends to prompt intervention from the worst actors out there. And I think that, in conflicts with a strong moral dimension--rebels against a monstrous dictatorship (Syria), a civilian population resisting ethnic cleansing (Bosnia)--we have a responsibility to help, if we can reasonably expect our help will not be fruitless.

Syria was a better case before. Like the Bosnian defenders, Syrian rebels didn't need American troops; they were willing to do the fighting themselves--as they demonstrated fighting with AKs against one of the better-equipped armies of the region. They made rapid gains, and were in a position to topple the regime. A convincing intervention by the world's most powerful country in these critical early months could have turned the tide, and before the divisive logic of civil war made everything worse.

Non-intervention has given us 100,000 dead, massive displacements, and, well, intervention—but by Iran, Russia, Hezbollah, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and others instead. Intervention by Iran, Russia and Hezbollah have propped up the regime, and, because Iran and Hezbollah are who they are, stoked sectarian tensions within the country. They have also brought regional powers closer to conflict, and bolstered the prestige and power of these anti-American actors. On the other side, non-intervention has forced the gulf states to step into the breach, but their supplies have been largely funneled to the worst of the rebels. Starved of any support, with the Jihadists getting all the guns and food, Syria's secular rebels--the guys we's like to see win--have been weakened and pushed aside. A rapid, large, even-handed intervention by an outside power like the United States could have toppled the government quickly. The alternative has been a slow, tearing-apart of Syria, as partisan interventions and the logic of war in a multi-ethic and multi-confessional state have done their worst.

A case could certainly be made that Syria was never going to end well. Assad's state was built on a small but cohesive group, the Alawites, given power and success by Assad, and who knew they were in for it the moment their protector fell. It drew further support from Syria's other ethnic and religious minorities, also bound to the regime by fear of the majority and of what the majority would do to them when their monster went away. If Assad had fallen rapidly, Syria would still have had to work all this, much as Iraq did. There might well have been a violent reckoning. But there are better and worse "fallouts."

Non-intervention hasn't saved us from the consequences of Assad's brutal ethnic and religious logic. Rather, it's happened anyway, and in the worst way imaginable. Syria's groups have more reason to hate each other than ever, and now they're effectively organized, armed and supplied by outside powers, and licensed by the logic of wholesale conflict to do their worst. And 100,000 have died already, with no end in sight. An early, rapid and powerful intervention would scarcely have produced worse.

Israel will never be safe. And speaking of nasty governments, a nasty little theocratic racist apartheid state doesn't deserve safety.

Syria isn't about loving or hating Jews so much for me. YMMV.

I doubt the efficacy of such an act if the purpose of doing so is to put the chemical-weapons genie back in the bottle.

Chemical weapons were in the bottle for a long time. You don't think responding against Syria despite the obvious futility at this point, won't help keep them there for others? As for Syria itself, they're winning anyway. They don't need them, they just used them because they figured they could do so without repercussions--indeed, they had, and we ignored it until there were lots of YouTube videos. The next time they're tempted to use them, they're going to have to weigh that against the cost of a US attack.

And forget about targeting Assad and his top advisers directly. Obama isn't going to order that.

Of course he is. You call it "command and control." We've done it in every recent war. We're unlikely to hit them, but we'll try. Wanna bet $5 we don't hit the major military and government command structures?

Chemical weapons were in the bottle for a long time. You don't think responding against Syria despite the obvious futility at this point, won't help keep them there for others?

No, not when you consider the situation that Assad is in. Assad isn't "winning." What Syria is in is a stalemate. In fact, some rebel groups were threatening Latakia around the same time as this chemical-weapons attack. Latakia is a very important piece of geography for Assad because: 1) it's the main city of the Alawite areas of Syria and 2) it's the primary port through which Russian equipment flows. Put aside for a second the fact that Damascus itself is far from secure, if Assad were to lose Latakia, even for only a few months, his war effort would be seriously undermined, so if Assad can't keep even Latakia perfectly safe from rebel threat, what does that tell you about how the overall war effort is going for him.

Of course he is. You call it "command and control." We've done it in every recent war.

Command and control facility strikes are purely on military facilities. Folks like Assad have gotten smart over the years and started placing civilian command centers far away from military targets so they don't become "collateral" damage of the attacks on the military facilities.

Beyond that the question arises of: So what if our non-intervention "tends to prompt intervention from the worst actors out there"? There's nothing special about them that dictates they'll come to a better outcome than the disastrous interventions we've had over the last 50 years. Let Iran and Hezbollah bleed themselves dry in Syria.

The US military should never be used for purely humanitarian intervention. Unless there is a strong national interest at stake, our assistance in a humanitarian crisis should be limited to aid and advice.

'I'm an interventionist'. So go back to Vietnam and win.

The debate in Congress will be fascinating. In the Senate, the Tea Party/Libertarian faction (Cruz, Paul, Lee) faces off against the Establishment Hawks (McCain, Graham, McConnell). In the House, the Tea Party/Rodeo Clown faction faces off against reality.

61> "The debate in Congress will be fascinating."

Ain't that the truth. I never saw any good military options, especially lacking UN and Arab League backing, but it felt like Obama had gotten himself cornered and was going to have to do something pretty butch and I didn't see that turning out well at all.

Now, with Congress making the decision (presumably Obama will comply) not only is the authority for waging war where it's supposed to be, but we also get to see if these people we've elected, and who we distrust, can get their shit wired tight enough to actually govern.

Well put 61 and 62.

Off topic maybe a bit but this professional military thing doesn't work for me. The sons of billionaires, millionaires, congressmen and senators and politicians and influential people of variable stripes for the much, much greater part are never going to do their fair share and risk getting caught in the cross hairs of someone else's rifle sights. These do gooders are more than willing though to correct things with someone else's kids. Then they're risk takers.

I really don't understand this shit with the middle east. I have no problem with people deposing their dictators but as in Egypt you really never know what you're going to get afterwards and the other part of that is our own country trying to influence the outcome towards its own economic policies. It never works out well and we'll be lucky if we don't get something blown back in our faces. We're only a few months away from the Marathon bombings. It's about time we just left them alone to figure out how they want to do things for themselves. No doubt there are atrocities but none of this is worth a drop of an American soldier's blood. There's no real threat to the United States.

Is that off topic? Not really, for it applies to all the US slaughters as well, for every human slaughter without the least risk to those who perpetrate the slaughter, who decide on the slaughter.

Stay tuned for live reports from Dien Bien Phu.

Intervention is like much else in politics—extremists think only in extremes. US intervention in Vietnam consumed more than 500,000 American troops, trillions of dollars and 58,000 dead. Supporting the Syrian rebels with supplies and arms, or sending a few dozen cruise missiles at them from hundreds of miles away, is not the same thing. Arguments can, of course, be raised for why the US should not intervene. It may well be a bad idea. It may have a high chance of leading to a deeper engagement too. But if any talk of intervention causes you to start raving about Vietnam, well, I'm afraid I don't think you're view is wrong so much as irrational.

Raving?

Irrational? Do you have any idea what, for one instance, a cruise missile can do to people and the structures about them? The cruise missile itself is, in my view, irrational in the sense that it is made by humans to kill humans, which is as irrational as it gets.

That said, and I don't expect you to re-think this in terms of human tragedy and gore, I responded with Vietnam because of the, to me, grotesque self-labeling of yourself as an 'interventionist'. I did not know they existed. I think what disturbs me most about your posts is that they are so mechanical--what are the metrics on that particular slaughter?--so lacking in any redolence of the humane.

>67 RickHarsch:

I think one can be rational about war. All wars involve death and destruction, but some wars are worth fighting--the Revolutionary War, World War II, Korea. Some are not—Vietnam for starters. Ditto "interventions." Some are worth it, like helping Britain before Hitler declared war on us, helping the Greeks defeat the communists, or helping the Bosnians avoid further genocide. I don't think a policy of "clean hands" is enough.

I think the situation may well have soured to such an extent that intervening on behalf of the Syrian rebels may not help much. But it's worth it to hit some Syrian military installations with cruise missiles, if we can deter the Syrians from continuing to kill thousands of its own civilians, including children, with nerve agents, and reestablish the global consensus against chemical weapons—a consensus that has saved the world from endless repetitions of the horror of World War One.

>68 timspalding: All wars involve death and destruction, but some wars are worth fighting

Typically, we only know if a war was "worth fighting" in hindsight, after we've won it.

I think we can have a good idea. And the same can be said of non-intervention too. If we'd been more vigorous in Bosnia, Serbian forces wouldn't have thought they could get away with overrunning Srebrenica, disregarding the UN presence, and shooting all males above puberty. If Europe had confronted Germany early—when Germany acted to rearm, for example--they might have saved 60 million lives. The world is uncertain. That's not a good excuse for do anything when Assad treats his own city like Verdun.

I noticed that even Soldier of Fortune magazine has run an article against warring on Syria (current issue). (I had thought that they never met a war they didnʻt like.) Perhaps they think that if
Obama is its commander in chief, it canʻt be good.

"There is a time for peace; I swear it's not too late."
Pete Seeger/The Byrds, 1965

Unfortunately I never have enough time to read everybody's stuff above but I'll say this anyway: I think the admin has made a decent case for "striking" at the Assad regime but interestingly the reflexive response from Republicans is suddenly "If Obama wants it, it must be wrong," something they wouldn't be saying if McCain or Romney were prez.

At the same time Obama has to say what happens post strike eh, IF the Syrians do "X," "Y" or "Z" huh. McCain is even asserting that HE will vote "No" if the O doesn't come up with some big battle plan to blast Assad outta the place altogether.

I think by the way that the Assad guys DID use chemical weapons -- I don't believe they were employed as a "false flag" operation by the Free Syrian Army or by al Qaeda hmm.

I have to say I was surprised by the British parliament's "reaction" but then that was one might say "W's legacy," not to mention Tony Blair's.

WILL the US congress reject? I think the house will as a number of Demos will join the Repubs in voting against. And the senate? Close, very close.

THEN -- will Obama "go" after all? Should he?...

Consider Iraq. After the first war, Cheney defended the decision not to topple Saddam Hussein. Next time around pretty much the scenario he laid out is what happened and is still happening. That war is correctly and widely perceived as an insidious invasion based on lies and begun by giving the UN the finger.

As for the just wars and all that, I wonder precisely why the US had to help the Greeks defeat the communists, who were immensely popular and I wonder if Spalding knows the history of Greece since that intervention. I wonder if a man whose spiritual godfather is Henry Kissinger really believes the 'humanitarian' arguments he is making. I wonder why he is so righteous about countries that kill their own people as opposed to the main country involved in killing other people (though Obama has started killing US citizens).

Yes the "slippery slope" argument has real validity. Re the Greek civil war the US wasn't about to have Greece go "communist" but sure the "results" as per Iran and Guatemala later are not exactly uh "sterling."

The "dilemma" is whether Assad ought to be left to do, well, whatever he wants eh without "consequences." If the US doesn't "strike" the Israelis won't -- unless they fear that Hezbollah might decide to lob a few "rockets" with chems into THEIR little piece of the mideast.

Interestingly (ironically?) BOTH the rebel Syrians AND the Israelis are decrying Obama's decision to "wait," complaining albeit a bit melodramatically that they've been abandoned, are going it "alone" and the US is willing to let Assad do that "whatever he wants" for another month or so while Obama argues it out with the congress.

I also wonder IF that resolution the O never wanted in the first place, but was forced to by of all things the BRITISH parliament, IS defeated -- and I think it will be in the house and possibly in the senate -- will the O "go" nonetheless and then there WILL BE, have no doubt, a SERIOUS call (by Rand Paul certainly) to impeach.

Will a "constitutional crisis" be the result?

Stay tuned!...

Advantages of drawing out decision--world and Syrian regime are focussed on the question and the possibility of US (and French?) action. International and national positions become clear. UN might authorize as evidence is produced?

Disadvantages: Russians have opportunity to move assets into area. Israelis will act?

And if Assad fires off another chemical weapon, Obama would act, Congress or no?

Meanwhile, US has lost opportunity to maybe cut a deal with Iran?

The Israelis WANT "US" to strike; they fear that if "nothing" happens Hezbollah will decide a few rockets aimed at hmmm --. Well! And if the US DOES, Hez might lob a few anyway huh.

Iran doesn't want a "deal"; it wants Assad in power and the US out. A diminished American power would suit them just fine; ironically the Republican sequester has aided in that.

The Russians simply fear Islamists because they have a much larger and closer Muslim population; they want Assad to smash the rebels among whom are al Qaeda operatives and cetera. Putin will block ANY UN resolution.

What Obama will "do" WITHOUT congress is as they used to say "the 64 thousand dollar question"?...

I thought that Congress has the power to declare war, not the president.

When we start moving troops around in hostile countries and lobbing missiles around without declaring war, bad things start to happen. Very bad things.

And I actually thought that we'd had enough of war for awhile, right. Doesn't anyone remember that?

And I know that you expert guys read about Syria all the time and it all sounds important or whatever, but I just don't think that anyone really wants it happen in this country. Haven't we had enough already?

I mean, in all seriousness, having to deal with *another* war is just not a reasonable expectation to have of this country at this point.

Wouldn't it be nice if the United States was just another country like Canada or Norway instead of the world's fucking policeman? There's more than just a little bit of arrogance that comes with straightening out everyone else's problems for the good of the whole world. Who really believes this malarkey anyway? We elect ourselves for all this--no one else does. Speaking of which we can go all over the world fixing shit with our military--we can hardly keep a good % of our kids educated and the idea of covering everyone with health care--like Canada or Norway is anathema. WTF!

After the 'weapons of mass destruction' lie that was used as an excuse for the Iraq war, I think no-one is buying the Obama Administration line of "They used sarin gas. We have evidence. Trust us." Nope. Not this time. Let's see that so-called "evidence" and it better be good!

Even if Assad used poison gas, I'm not sure blowing up things in Syria (which will result in hundreds, if not thousands, of more deaths) is going to solve anything. And you know, one of those 'smart bombs' is going to go off target and hit a hospital or kindergarten- they always do.

Once you start an 'intervention' there's no telling how it will turn out: fortunately, like Libya, or disastrously, like most of the other ones. And don't forget, the war in Vietnam didn't start with 500,000 U.S. troops. It started with a handful of 'advisers'.

#79,

Although I am against launching an attack on Syria, in fairness to President Obama, he did say on Saturday that whatever action he authorizes against Syria will not involve an intervention with ground troops. And I seriously doubt that we'll even send planes into Syria because Syria has some rather sophisticated anti-aircraft defenses. At most what you are likely to see is 50 to 100 cruise missiles launched over the course of three or four days.

Our dear leader Tim is a known pro-Israel circumcisionist that position by definition intervenes.

>82 Bretzky1:

1 cruise missile = $1.4 million. $1.4M x 100 = $140 million.

1 cruise missile = how many dead? x100?

Just some quick arithmetic of war.

"Pro-Israel Circumcisionist"? What a despicable instance of antisemitism. Needless to say, nobody else will call you on it.

>83 vy0123:/85 I'm not sure what a "circumcisionist" is. Or what it has to do with this discussion...

#83

I'm not sure that's a coherent sentence...

Maybe vy0123 is tremendously anti-circumcision? Like Samson's hair, vy's power resides in his foreskin?

At this point, it's like watching a cat with a laser pointer. The Republicans automatically oppose everything the Obama Administration suggests. They were braying for intervention until Obama agreed and now it's unthinkable. Do you think that if he started making speeches asking for the repeal of the ACA, that they'd all of a sudden defend it?

The question is whether the international community cares that people uninvolved in the civil war in Syria are being killed in especially agonizing ways. If pictures of American bombs gone astray in the Iraq War are horrifying, shouldn't those recent pictures of dead civilians in Syria also cause dismay? Do we care if the child killed is in Syria rather than Montana? I really have no idea how to best stop the Assad government from gassing its own people, but I do think that the international community has to do something, whether diplomatic or violent.

re 83: I read it as a clumsy semi-pun, a bit too off-the-wall to be proper anti-semitism

Back to chemical weapons: does anyone recall the Israelis using white phosphorous in Gaza? Remember the US using it in Fallujah?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/toxic-legacy-of-us-assault-o...

From the article: 'British officers were appalled by the lack of concern for civilian casualties.'

88> "The question is whether the international community cares that people uninvolved in the civil war in Syria are being killed in especially agonizing ways."

Maybe a better question is whether or not there is anything effective the international community can do? The Arab League and China insist any action against Syria be taken within the provisions of the UN charter and because of Russia's veto nothing is going to happen within those provisions. Action by any single state would be throwing gasoline on a fire, the US is the only state showing interest in unilateral action (with France on the sidelines cheering) and I don't think it's likely that the US Congress is capable of the deliberations necessary for creating or expressing a national will to act.

My sense is that the Syrians are just going to keep killing each other, however they find to do it.

Congress, despite agitating for quick action earlier, have now issued a statement that they will consider the issue on or after Sept. 9. There seems to be some desire for Obama to not put them on the spot like that -- if they vote for action and things go badly, they won't be able to blame the President. If it's up to Congress to make the decision, Assad can sleep comfortably for some months yet.

#88,

At this point, it's like watching a cat with a laser pointer. The Republicans automatically oppose everything the Obama Administration suggests. They were braying for intervention until Obama agreed and now it's unthinkable.

To be fair, the possible opposition to the authorization coming from the McCain-wing of the Republican Party doesn't derive from their opposition to an attack, but from their fear that by voting for such an authorization, the Congress would effectively be giving Obama cover to not do anything more than that. McCain and his like-minded colleagues want a much greater reaction than what Obama is contemplating, and they are hoping to prod him into it. They fear that if this authorization passes, then Obama might wash his hands of Syria once the attacks are carried out.

#80: Wouldn't it be nice if the United States was just another country like Canada or Norway instead of the world's fucking policeman?

You mean like Norway who was the puppet of Germany when they attacked? You mean like Norway who could have done nothing to stop the Soviet Union from taking control of them? Why don't you ask the Taiwanese or the South Koreans how they feel about the United States becoming just another country?

We are the third largest nation in the world by population. We have almost (or more than, depending on source) twice the GDP of the second highest nation by GDP, China. Norway is 118th and 23 (25th), respectively. Somehow, I think we're going to be a little different from them.

Moreover, why does Norway and Canada get to be Norway and Canada? It's because the UK won the Falklands War. It's because Norway and Canada have allies that are willing to fuck up anyone who wants to mess with Norway and Canada. It's because they and Canada have been part of NATO, currently 70% of the world's military funding, since NATO's founding.

(Which, BTW, means they were part of the Bosnia War and the '99 bombing of Yugoslavia. They trained security forces in Iraq, intervened against piracy in the Gulf of Aden and enforced the no-fly zone in Libya.)

I always find it interesting how often complaints about the world's policemen align with complaints about what happens in foreign countries to make products that we buy. If we're not the policemen, if we can't intervene when Syria is killing its kids with poisonous chemicals, then why should we care if a country decides to let children work with poisonous chemicals for 10 cents an hour to build industry?

"Norway and Canada get to be Norway and Canada . . . because the UK won the Falklands War. . ."

This is pretty far-fetched. I suppose the parallel is that, without the NATO presence,
Russia could seize Norway as
easily as the Argentines temporarily (04/83) seized the Falklands? (NATO, b t w,
except for its UK component, stayed out* of the Falklands War). And Britain was able to regain control only by introducing an occupation force about twice the size of the islandsʻ population.
Throughout the Cold War era up until 04/83, wherever there was no
clear alliance with World Communism, claimants did
escape unscathed with territory that had been claimed by a NATO country:
France lost Algeria to --well, to the Algerians -- after claiming that Algeria was not a colony but was just as French as Languedoc or Bordeaux; they were no more impressed by ALgeriaʻs Arab population that the Argentine oligarchy was by
the Falklandsʻ English/Scottish population.
Portugal lost Goa to India;
the Netherlands lost West Irian to Indonesia. Because NATO was clearly an anti-Communist, not an all-purpose anti-aggression alliance, the members could not realistically expect help from NATO against any but a COmmunist aggressor.

*So did all of South America, although all of it, except Chile and Colombia, were diplomatically for Argentina.

>94 prosfilaes: Moreover, why does Norway and Canada get to be Norway and Canada? It's because the UK won the Falklands War.

What??! The Falklands are a long way from Canada or Norway. And if the UK had lost... we Canadians wouldn't much give a damn. Of course, I can't speak for the Norwegians, but I don't see why they would give a damn, either. (If your implication is that Britain defends Canada, it's been the other way around since 1914, at least.)

It may seem like Canada and Norway don't spend much on defense-- but only in comparison with the U.S., which spends as much as the rest of the world combined (almost). Maybe the problem is not that other countries are spending too little, but that the U.S. is spending too much. The Cold War is over- long over. Stop making new enemies, and maybe you won't need such a large military.

#95: This is pretty far-fetched.

It wasn't literal. It was an expression of English military power.

France lost Algeria to --well, to the Algerians -- after claiming that Algeria was not a colony but was just as French as Languedoc or Bordeaux;

"Well, to the Algerians" is not a sidenote; it seems like the main reason why NATO did not get involved.

Because NATO was clearly an anti-Communist, not an all-purpose anti-aggression alliance, the members could not realistically expect help from NATO against any but a COmmunist aggressor.

Actually, no. The treaty says "The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all" (Article 5). Nothing about communism there.

#95: It may seem like Canada and Norway don't spend much on defense-- but only in comparison with the U.S.,

Could they have liberated Kuwait? Or does "not being the world's policemen" mean that we should all stand by and watch dictators eat up smaller countries? (Except, again, Norway, which signed a treaty that said that other countries must come to its defense.)

Stop making new enemies, and maybe you won't need such a large military.

And how do you propose we do that? It's 1979; how do you propose we respond to Afghanistan so that they don't permit terrorist acts to originate from their soil 20 years later? Do you think throwing them to the wolves would have made them friendlier? It's 1990; how do you propose we respond to Iraq's invasion of Kuwait such that we don't make enemies of anyone?

Maybe we can reduce our military. But that's not what the complaint says. And if you don't think that the US has a right to get involved in wars around the world, get out of the treaty with the US that says that the US has the responsibility to get involved in your wars.

I always find it interesting how often complaints about the world's policemen align with complaints about what happens in foreign countries to make products that we buy. If we're not the policemen, if we can't intervene when Syria is killing its kids with poisonous chemicals, then why should we care if a country decides to let children work with poisonous chemicals for 10 cents an hour to build industry?

I find it interesting that no one replied to this. If we're not policemen, then all the complaints about how we don't police the world go away, right?

It wasn't literal. It was an expression of English military power.

I found it funny they all pounced on your for this, as if your point wasn't general. It's really quite desperate.

And Britain was able to regain control only by introducing an occupation force about twice the size of the islandsʻ population

This is stupid and clumsy lying. The population of the Falklands was and is staunchly in favor of remaining British. The last time they voted it was 1,513 to 3. The British were forced to send a large force to retake the island--and a large force is, of course, going to be large compared to the island's inhabitants. Maybe too the Falklands should be in Argentine hands even though the population is completely united in opposing any move in that direction. But the whole flavor of "an occupation force about twice the size of the islandsʻ population" is absurd.

>97 prosfilaes: get out of the treaty with the US that says that the US has the responsibility to get involved in your wars.

'Our wars'? What wars? Canada has never started a war with another country. And the United States has never come to Canada's defense. (They did try to invade us- twice.) Our treaty with the U.S. (and Britain, France, Norway and other NATO members) is for mutual assistance. Which is why we had bases in Europe during the Cold War. And why we supported the Americans in their adventure in Afghanistan.

It's 1979; how do you propose we respond to Afghanistan so that they don't permit terrorist acts to originate from their soil 20 years later?

Why did the Russians invade Afghanistan in the first place? Here's Jimmy Carter's National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, on what really happened there:

http://www.counterpunch.org/1998/01/15/how-jimmy-carter-and-i-started-the-mujahi...

An excerpt:

Q: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs "From the Shadows", that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?

Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

The United States has had its finger in so many pies, for so long, it's hard to say when American 'intervention' really began in some places.

Canada has never started a war with another country. And the United States has never come to Canada's defense.

Worse, Canada "interfered" in that European war against Hitler. What did Hitler ever do to Canada anyway? Why did you guys create enemies? Are you the world's policeman?

>100 timspalding: Yeah. Well, we had an alliance with Britain... our allies always drag us into these messes.

But we managed to say "no" to Iraq, and we're going to say "no" to Syria too (I hope).

>101 madpoet:

So, to be clear, World War II was a mess and Canada shouldn't have been dragged into it?

#99: 'Our wars'? What wars?

Anybody that attacks you. If you think it's immoral for us to get involved in that war, you should argue that Canada should leave the treaty that forces us to.

Our treaty with the U.S. (and Britain, France, Norway and other NATO members) is for mutual assistance.

So what? Are you saying that it was immoral to come to Kuwait's assistance, but had they made a mutual assistance pact, that would have changed everything?

Why did the Russians invade Afghanistan in the first place?

Because, by hook or by crook, they wanted control of Afghanistan. The president of Afghanistan went to Moscow on March 20, 1979 and had already got military advisors and equipment.

The United States has had its finger in so many pies, for so long, it's hard to say when American 'intervention' really began in some places.

As is true for France, the UK, Russia, China, any other large enough world power.

". . . .stupid and clumsy lying (about the UKʻs Falklands forces)

Well, that word "lying" made
me expect to see some statistics that would give the (as known to you) truth about the occupation.

In the absence of those, Iʻll just say that I wasnʻt saying the UK shouldnʻt occupy, nor that the population didnʻt want them (In fact I was surprised to see that as
"many" as 3 voted against staying with the UK!"

The post was merely about what
NATO was (un)willing to do
for those thorny situations
which keep happening, cold war or no cold war, but when
its help is not being called for against a clearly Cold War enemy.

#104: its help is not being called for against a clearly Cold War enemy.

And as I pointed out above, it's not about Cold War enemies, it's about Europe and North America.

#103 Anybody that attacks you. If you think it's immoral for us to get involved in that war, you should argue that Canada should leave the treaty that forces us to.

You do realize that the same treaty 'forces' Canada to defend the United States? That if we hadn't let you put bases at Alert, or build the DEW line across Canada, you wouldn't have had any early warning (or defense against) an attack by the Soviets.

Canada didn't join NATO so that the U.S. would protect us. We joined to help protect Europe, which we had just spent billions of dollars and lost thousands of lives liberating from NAZI Germany. We formed NATO in solidarity with Western European countries and the U.S. as partners, with the third most powerful military in the alliance, at the time.

This is uncharacteristically naive from Prosfilaes:

'Because NATO was clearly an anti-Communist, not an all-purpose anti-aggression alliance, the members could not realistically expect help from NATO against any but a COmmunist aggressor.

Actually, no. The treaty says "The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all" (Article 5). Nothing about communism there.'

As if there WOULD be something about communism there.

This one is more difficult:

'I always find it interesting how often complaints about the world's policemen align with complaints about what happens in foreign countries to make products that we buy. If we're not the policemen, if we can't intervene when Syria is killing its kids with poisonous chemicals, then why should we care if a country decides to let children work with poisonous chemicals for 10 cents an hour to build industry?

I find it interesting that no one replied to this. If we're not policemen, then all the complaints about how we don't police the world go away, right?'

The first sentence is tough on the eyes, but I think I get the point. (Though if I'm wrong, please intervene.) The point is that we (US) have the right to invade or intervene in any country whose products we (again, US) buy?
If the US is not the policeman, yes, I stop complaining if they do not police; as the US is not the policeman I complain often about its acts of imposture.

Oh, about getting no response...happens quite often to me.

#94--the point is the United States decides what is right or wrong simply because it is the most powerful country militarily. Canada--Norway don't. They more than less concern themselves with internal affairs and diplomacy. The United States has elected itself judge, jury and policeman over recalcitrant nations of the world--what gives it the right?

It's structured in as an economic imperative.

#95: It may seem like Canada and Norway don't spend much on defense-- but only in comparison with the U.S.

Actually Canada spent a ton of money on defense in WW II--for longer than the US and more per capita? By the end of the War, it had the third largest navy after the US and Britain. (Canada has roughly 10% of the US's population.) One of my dad's first assignments as a young recruit was patrolling the coast of Nova Scotia for German U-boats--on a Harley Davidson in blackouts (no lights).

Increasingly though, it reduced defense spending to spend on domestic priorities such as healthcare. In 1957, PM Pearson created the UN Emergency Force for peacekeeping. (My dad served in first two multinational peacekeeping forces: Egypt and Cyprus.) There's been an uptick in defense spending recently as Canada prepares to defend its interests in the north (ice-free shipping lanes, oil, etc.)

Interesting is Canada's ability to redirect and sustain its "peace dividend" after WW II and Korean War. (As a career officer, I remember my dad was not happy about it.) Here in US, we had great hopes for peace dividend after the Cold War, but somehow the system could not sustain its redirection to domestic priorities. In The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers, Paul Kennedy suggests that excess spending on defense relative to domestic investment has lead to fall of great powers in the past.

At the risk of actually moving this discussion back on topic, Ed Husain posted a good opinion piece at CNN.com on Friday regarding why the West should steer clear of Syria.

Though Husain is right about the dangers of intervention, even with just cruise missiles, there are two things about this piece that I have to quibble with. First, the non-intervention of regional states in Syria has a very good answer that doesn't necessarily apply to the US: they are afraid of starting a regional war. Iran and Hezbollah are already heavily invested in Syria. If Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and other Sunni states (it's laughable to think of Israel intervening on its own, let alone in concert with other regional states) were to intervene as well, the risk of a wider regional war would increase substantially, which is a far greater risk than those states are likely willing to run. Second, Husain's belief that Assad is winning isn't warranted by the facts on the ground. The regime is ahead, and might be considered to be winning simply because it isn't in near-term danger of being ousted. But Assad is far from being able to end the rebellion. He'll likely need greater assistance from Iran before that can happen, perhaps even a couple divisions-worth of assistance. At the very least he'll have to figure out some way to regain control over Syria's borders so that he can stop the flow of arms and money to the rebels.

>109 lriley:
"The United States has elected itself judge, jury and policeman over recalcitrant nations of the world--what gives it the right?"

We have the biggest guns ! Isn't that what it is all about ? American gun culture is more than our internal problem with the damn things.....we use our might to make things "right". This is called "freedom" !

It is rather simple !

McCain is almost wetting his pants thinking of using our "might" to do what is "right".

Apparently yesterday McCain and Lindsey Graham said that they will vote for the authorization of force against Syria. I guess the meeting that Obama had with McCain worked.

>113 faceinbook:
I wonder how Obama really feels about this ? Not Obama the President....Obama the man. Would be interesting to know.

Well, that word "lying" made me expect to see some statistics that would give the (as known to you) truth about the occupation

That was the point of the vote, which demonstrates they are wanted. One would not say Britain is "occupying" Bermuda. They have troops there, but the people want them.

The post was merely about what NATO was (un)willing to do for those thorny situations which keep happening, cold war or no cold war, but when its help is not being called for against a clearly Cold War enemy.

Britain didn't invoke Article Five, so NATO never considered the question. Britain could have, but like the US during the Pueblo incident and a number of other attacks on NATO members and sticky situations (eg., the Suez Crisis) they chose not to. The answer is generally sought in the fact that Britain wanted to demonstrate it was still capable of defending itself, and because they knew it put the US in a bad diplomatic situation, as the rest of Latin America swiftly rallied to the Argentine side. As it was, the US was cool to British action. Article Five has only been invoked once—in September 2001, when it meant that NATO forces briefly stepped it up to allow US fighters to patrol over US territory--and there were even a few non-US NATO planes flying over the US.

I wonder how Obama really feels about this ? Not Obama the President....Obama the man. Would be interesting to know.

This is an interesting variation on "If the Czar only knew!" Obama's internal Obama.

At this point, it's like watching a cat with a laser pointer. The Republicans automatically oppose everything the Obama Administration suggests.

There's much truth to this. It always happens this way--Republican OR Democrat. That said, Republicans may well form the core of Obama's vote on this.

#116: Republicans may well form the core of Obama's vote on this.

He’s got Cantor and Boehner already:

http://majorityleader.gov/blog/2013/09/leader-cantor-statement-on-syria-and-regi...

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/boehner-says-he-supports-obama-syria

I think that it's important to realize that *not every war is like WWII*. Canada is actually not a bad example-- they *did* fight in WWII, and they *did not* fight in Vietnam. It's not all the same. I think it's easy to get caught up in this, Well, what about WWII? I just think it sounds like a sounder argument that it really is, IMO.

Incidentally, I also don't think that the Soviet Union really possessed the cartoon-villain aggression that they are often portrayed as having. That doesn't mean that there aren't any countries which are kooky aggressive, but I'm not sure the USSR was one of those countries. I suppose I'll get flamed for saying that. I mean, they basically saved the world from evil during WWII, although of course they had to do that-- they had to defend themselves or they would have gotten annihilated. After the war they wanted to make sure that that would never happen again, and so they had to de-nazify Eastern Europe, since countries, like Hungary, had been fascist. But despite that, they still didn't form the Warsaw Pact until several years after NATO. Their official doctrine of "Socialism in one country" meant that they wanted socialism in *their* country, not, you know, every other one. And the Red Army didn't really fight wars as often as NATO did, I think-- inbetween 1945 and 1979 they were essentially at peace, while the US fought at least two major wars in that period. (And I don't think that the longest we've gone between major wars has been that long.) That's my perspective, at least. The Red Army's job was to protect the USSR; if they had been half as interventionist as the West, it would have been, you know-- cartoon evil!

Anyway, I don't expect everybody to agree with me on this one, but I just don't think that 'intervention' usually makes that much sense, or that foreign rivals are always as malevolent as they might be made out to be. Maybe that's the honest perception of some people, but then, they might not necessarily understand other parts of the world.

And as for civil wars, like the one in Syria, I think that's a little different from stopping an invasion, from that sort of war. One or both sides in a civil war may be genuinely malevolent, but that doesn't necessarily mean that foreigners are going to be able to do something constructive about it. It's one thing to stop an invasion. If two sides are fighting inside that country itself, about how to form a government that isn't malevolent, in the long run it mostly depends on the sort of society which the whole thing is resting on anyway, about what you're really working with. And historical comparisons can be a little facile, but I'm not sure that foreign intervention in the US Civil War would have really been that beneficial, despite the fact that the Confederacy had genuine issues, you know. And actually they were the side that the British were considering supporting. So, I guess sometimes, you have to 'first do no harm'. Sometimes you just got to walk away. After all, having a powerful military isn't the same as being able to really change a society-- I think that rarely works. It's certainly different from stopping an invasion.

Stalin wasn't pretty, but it has been pointed out that he was, immediately after WWII, up against the most aggressively expansionist empire in history.

(I think it was in this book: Harry S. Truman: Fair Dealer and Cold Warrior (1989) by William E. Pemberton)

#118

I think the motivation of the USSR was to protect its own existence. Unfortunately, the conclusion was that the best way to do this was to grab as many buffer states as possible between it and possible aggressors. Which meant a serious expansionistic state, even if Rick might argue that it wasn't the MOST expansionistic. Just ask those in Eastern Europe.

And there is the minor fact that Stalin was well aware that the West had 'intervened' in the Russian Civil War. On behalf of the Czarists. Something that the West tried to forget about, since they'd lost.

Both sides fought a lot of proxy wars with each other post WW II; again, most of them are forgotten (except by the survivors). Although it can be argued that the USSR wasn't nearly as evil as Western propaganda painted them, they weren't exactly nice people, either.

In Syria, neither side is particularly sympathetic. Who ever wins, they aren't going to be our friends. So, why waste resources?

119> "... the most aggressively expansionist empire in history"? By what metric? Rome or the British empire might be better contenders for this title.

"(Obama's) got Cantor and Boehner already"

Raises the question: "Who's 'got' who?"
As has been noted in this thread, the
Republicans were clamoring for intervention
--until they relaized that Obama, asa Commander-
in-CHief woul d be presiding over it.

So is the current Boehner-Cantor stance
anything more than a return to their
original stance? If it's taken to be
a concession, when it's really what they
wanted anyway, will they attach a
"NOW you OWE us!" message to it?

Re: 121 The British weren't Nazis. Stalin wasn't Hitler; the British weren't Hitler; Hitler was Hitler.

#106: We joined to help protect Europe

Saying it's okay to protect Europe but not to protect anyone else in the world is racist. NATO is okay because it protects white parts of the world, but Kuwait shouldn't get protection?

#109: the point is the United States decides what is right or wrong simply because it is the most powerful country militarily.

You'll note that Iran decides what is right and wrong simply because it has one of the largest militaries in the area and is willing to to use it. You'll note that whenever the global powers stay out, it just means the local people with the most powerful military and willingness to use it go in.

#116: There's much truth to this. It always happens this way--Republican OR Democrat.

It seems to vary a lot on president. I'd like to see hard numbers on this; Obama I believe has gotten terrible resistance (including the absurd House massively-repeated repeal of Obamacare) and Clinton got impeached, but I don't believe that GWB got much love in office, at least in his second session.

#118: It's not all the same. I think it's easy to get caught up in this, Well, what about WWII? I just think it sounds like a sounder argument that it really is, IMO.

I keep mentioning Kuwait, when the 4th largest military in the world invaded a small defenseless neighbor. No one seems to want to respond to it.

Incidentally, I also don't think that the Soviet Union really possessed the cartoon-villain aggression that they are often portrayed as having.

I think that the post-WWII estimates of how aggressive the Soviet Union was were over-high, but you're missing some things.

I mean, they basically saved the world from evil during WWII, although of course they had to do that--

Whoa. No. The Soviets allied themselves to the Nazis with the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact; they started WWII, at least the western part. Under civil law if they were a person, the Soviet Union would be a co-conspirator and up for murder charges on every person Nazi Germany killed, at least between 1939 and 1941. Go ask the Finns who was evil in WWII; their personal animosity is likely to be targeted at the country that invaded them.

so they had to de-nazify Eastern Europe, since countries, like Hungary, had been fascist.

Which is a cute way of saying they had to occupy the nations for the next 45 years. I'm pretty sure Poland wasn't fascist until the Soviets turned half of it over to the Nazis.

But despite that, they still didn't form the Warsaw Pact until several years after NATO.

After they asked to join NATO and were rejected. Which brings up a terribly interesting, if unlikely, alternate history.

Their official doctrine of "Socialism in one country" meant that they wanted socialism in *their* country, not, you know, every other one.

Actually what it meant was "stop whining about principles, we'll sign treaties with the Nazis if we think it will be good for us." (And sell through non-union dockworkers, IIRC, and other things that frustrated their more principled fellow ideologues.)

And the Red Army didn't really fight wars as often as NATO did, I think-- inbetween 1945 and 1979 they were essentially at peace, while the US fought at least two major wars in that period.

A quick check of Wikipedia shows Ili Rebellion (1944-1949), Hungarian Revolution of 1956, Warsaw Pact invasion of Czechoslovakia (1968), Sino-Soviet border conflict (1969) and the Afghanistan (1979) for boots-down wars by the Soviets.

if they had been half as interventionist as the West, it would have been, you know-- cartoon evil!

Really? Because that was a list of the wars, not interventions. Military advisors and supplies ended up in way more wars then just that list. I suspect just about every war between 1945 and 1989 had some support from the West and some support from the East.

123> Mr Harsch wasn't referring to Hitler. Neither was I.

#123: No, Stalin wasn't Hitler. Stalin was Hitler's would-be buddy and co-conspirator.

I still put Stalin up as the most evil man of the 20th century. Hitler was more racist, but Stalin killed more people and had a longer legacy of evil.

#126

Mao and Pol Pot are also in the running, but I have to agree, Stalin certainly out-ranks Hitler by a wide margin.

>125 theoria: for that I will pretend I haven't seen the word 'metrics' today
>120 BruceCoulson: as Prosfilaes suggests in 124, the occupation of Poland and such was hideous...I don't compare the US and USSR happily. Something like a cavil, though I have yet to properly identify a cavil, though my wife once spotted one near the Nigerian coast, is that Stalin was a known entity to Churchill, who was probably the one person who could have prevented the post-war set-up. So save a little disgust for Winston, who decided Poland hadn't been fucked enough yet (costing the US a valuable ally for a long, long time).

What about Tom Bosley?

Here is Chomsky's take: http://www.alternet.org/world/noam-chomsky-syria-attack

Re: 124 It's not like I haven't heard about the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, it's just that I have a different opinion of it than you. The USSR didn't want to go to war against Germany in 1939-- at least not alone. They tried to form an alliance with Britain and France, who snubbed them because they assumed that their military was weak. They wanted to buy themselves some time-- delay the inevitable onslaught so they'd have some time to prepare. Even when it did happen, they weren't ready for it yet. But the Soviets didn't treat with the Nazis because they liked them. Stalin was colored; he probably didn't like Hitler's racial theories all that much. The Nazis considered all of the races of the East, including the Russians, to be inferior. They weren't buddies, you know.

And the Russians beat the crap out of the Germans when Hitler did get around to trying to annihilate them. It was hellish at first, but they survived, and finally won. Great Britain made great contributions to the war, especially given its small size. The United States had plentiful resources that benefited all of the nations of the anti-Nazi alliance. But it was the Soviet Union that struck the killing blows.

Also, Poland is a pretty good example. Studying the history of Poland would be a way to see the difference between Germany and the Soviet Union. Germany colonized Poland, going back to Bismark at least. They tried to ethnically cleanse it-- get rid of all the Poles and flood it with Germans. And then, under Hitler-- well, the Holocaust happened largely in Poland: German-occupied Poland. The Nazis wanted to make the Poles a slave race, along with many other races. But when the Soviets kicked out the Germans, the Poles got to move back into the lands that the Germans had tried to colonize, but which were properly part of Poland. I'm not sure how to explain it any better-- Poland certainly did not receive the same treatment from the Russians as from the Germans.

Also, I know that those little rebellions happened, but they're more like the invasion of Grenada, or something, on scale, than something that actually gets remembered. They got played up to make the Soviets look aggressive. Take Hungary. It had been pro-fascist, pro-Hitler, during WWII. Then Hitler loses the war. A few years later, they are "freedom fighters". But how many of them were just fascists, unhappy about the inferior races, etc.? I don't think that gets considered, because we were all, you know-- biased against Russians, basically, I think. Also, at that exact time, Britain and France were attacking Egypt, in a straight-forward little colonial adventure. So I guess they were too busy with colonialism to worry about fascists. Also, even if you took 1968 specifically, when the Soviets got into a little war in Prague, there were still more battles being fought by the Americans in Vietnam, even just in that year, nevermind that the war started before that, and ended much later. I think the West did alot more fighting than the Soviets, at least during the 50s and 60s, and before the Afghanistan thing, which actually was a long, destructive war.

And I definitely don't think that it's all the same-- certainly the Nazis and the Soviets aren't the same, and especially not in Eastern Europe. Often Soviet influence rubbed the Poles the wrong way; sometimes Moscow would ease up on them to make it not seem like Russian dominance over non-Russians, but it still rubbed the Poles the wrong way, sure. But Hitler would have wanted to totally destroy Poland and the Polish race, and make it filled only with Germans. But in the Soviet Union, the idea of one race hurting another was definitely taboo, and they made some efforts not to have ethnic oppression take place-- especially in the 20s, when they made a big effort to bring back local languages that had been damaged by Russification policies under the Czars. But the Nazis bragged about the hurt they could bring to other races-- it was the whole bloody point.

Also, Britain didn't try to wipe out whole races either, although they did set themselves up as the 'tutor' or something, of superior wisdom, etc. Not really very good, although it could be worse.

Re: 126 Stalin did not kill more people than Hitler. More people died "under Stalin's reign" in the Soviet Union, than the Nazis killed in Poland. However, this is just another way of saying, that the Nazis killed more people in the Soviet Union, than they did in Poland.

It sounds like some little point, but we're talking about millions of people killed, attributed to one guy killing them, when it was really the other guy, his enemy. I don't know how to explain it better.

And yes, Hitler was far, far more racist. If you were only German, then you were okay. If not....

Stalin killed people if he thought they were traitors, or fascists. It didn't matter if they were black (like him) or white (like Molotov). And he killed an order of magnitude less than people think, because most of the people who died in Russia were killed by Hitler.

And surely, in a non-racist society, it makes some difference who was racist and who wasn't.

>131 fearless2012: '... the Poles got to move back into the lands that the Germans had tried to colonize...' The Soviets kicked the Poles from Lvov all the way to Wroclav.

132> When people talk about Stalin killing millions of people they're talking about actions that Stalin himself took that had nothing to do with WWII, stuff like forced labor, deportation, famine, and massacres.

ETA: http://www.historyplace.com/worldhistory/genocide/stalin.htm

Re: 134 It's true that the Soviet Union was trying to rapidly industrialize in order to not get destroyed by the Nazis at some point in the future. Moscow wanted lots of grain out of the Ukraine to feed industrial workers. They were pushing them to the very edge, so I'm sure there was some suffering, like when soldiers are on a forced march, some of them collapse. It wasn't pleasant or easy.

But I'm not sure that I buy that it happened out of malice. Was it all a big plot to hurt Ukraine? Did they hate Ukraine? I'm not sure they did. During the Czarist period, they tried to "Russify" areas that were not Russian. I'm not sure if they ever manufactured a famine, or something, but they wanted to impress Russianness on everything. But that wasn't the policy under the USSR-- which even had a non-Russian leader, Stalin. He was actually Lenin's old Commissar for Nationalities-- his job at that point was to make communist rule not something that Russians pushed on non-Russians, but something that non-Russians would support. So I'm not sure he went out of his way to kill Ukrainians for not being Russians; Ukrainians are actually more similar to Russians than Georgians, where he came from. So I'm not really sure if the idea of this suffering coming from malice on the part of the government makes any sense.

Also, there's the issue that if a terrible famine makes the Soviets just like the Nazis, then how the British not like the Nazis for the famine in Ireland? And yet the British aren't the Nazis; they didn't try to exterminate anybody. Some people claimed that the British wanted it to not rain, for the famine to come, for the Irish to die-- but I'm not so sure that's true. Did the government order the famine? I'm not sure that makes sense-- in either situation. That's my reading of it.

>134 jjwilson61: Ugly reading, but it's good to stick your nose back in it now and then. Thanks for the reference.

>135 fearless2012: as far as I can tell, the article posted in 134 is basically accurate and relatively thorough for a short piece. It should answer some of your questions.

As for the Irish famine, the British are accused of not coming to the aid of the Irish. I would be surprised if this were not true, but I know little about it.

>124 prosfilaes: Prosfilaes, I never said that Kuwait 'didn't deserve protection' or that the first Gulf War was unjustified. Some international interventions may be necessary. (Even if it is to defend an autocratic little petro-state.) But there must be an international consensus: it can't be one country appointing itself judge, jury and executioner.

>135 fearless2012: Most historians see the famines in Ukraine as not caused by mother nature, but rather created and manipulated by Stalin to destroy resistance to his regime-- resistance which was especially strong in the Ukraine.

The fact that the Germans were welcomed as 'liberators' (at first) by many in Ukraine and other parts of the Soviet Union (even parts of Russia!) shows how horrible Stalin's rule was.

That's not to excuse the British for their (in)action during the Irish famine. While Britain didn't create the Great Famine, British policies exacerbated it. But that's a whole other issue.

The Soviets didn't want to go to war against Germany, so they attacked Finland, which would have almost certainly stayed neutral given a choice. Right. Not to mention that the Soviet Union was strangely unprepared for invasion by the Nazis, which they shouldn't have been--well, ever, but especially if the Soviets were eager to fight with the British against the Nazis.

Poland certainly did not receive the same treatment from the Russians as from the Germans.

No, but that doesn't mean that the Polish were in love with the treatment they received from the Russians. It doesn't mean Soviet Union had a right to invade Poland.

But how many of them were just fascists, unhappy about the inferior races, etc.?

A simple smear, ignorant of history. The Hungarian Revolution was led by Imre Nagy, a stanch Marxist. The Prague Spring was started and vaguely controlled by Alexander Dubček, who believed the revolution of 1989 would be a chance to get back to the Communist system he was trying to build 20 years earlier.

they're more like the invasion of Grenada, or something, on scale,

Hungary has 10 million people; Grenada, 100,000. These are simple things to check.

I think the West did alot more fighting than the Soviets, at least during the 50s and 60s

You'll note that I mentioned the West versus the East above. If you're lumping the West together, then we get to lump China and Cuba in with the Soviet Union, which adds quite a few wars to the list including the Vietnam war. And while we're complaining about colonialism, let's note the Sino-Soviet border conflict. The Indo-Chinese war wasn't exactly a great war of communism versus capitalism, either.

#132: It didn't matter if they were black (like him) or white (like Molotov).

What? Stalin was Georgian. There's all sorts of racial divisions, but I don't know of any that considered Georgian's black. Christoph Meiners would have considered Stalin Caucasian and Molotov Mongoloid.

And surely, in a non-racist society, it makes some difference who was racist and who wasn't.

Some, maybe, but I'm not sure the dead care whether they were killed by a racist or a psychopath or a paranoiac.

Have you ever read about the White Sea Canal? The Soviets admit 12,000 died working on it; some figure it was more like 25,000. For all those bodies, it's pretty much been a complete failure; it was never deep enough or well-constructed enough to carry most ships. Marshall Berman blames Stalin directly: "Stalin seems to have been so intent on creating a highly visible symbol of development that he pushed and squeezed the project in ways that only retarded the reality of development. Thus the workers and engineers were never allowed the time, money or equipment necessary to build a canal that would be deep enough and safe enough to carry twentieth-century cargoes; consequently, the canal has never played any significant role in Soviet commerce or industry."

#135: if a terrible famine makes the Soviets just like the Nazis, then how the British not like the Nazis for the famine in Ireland? And yet the British aren't the Nazis; they didn't try to exterminate anybody.

That's a mass of false comparison. The British were exporting potatoes from Ireland at the high point of the famine. British attitudes certainly ran between depraved indifference and willful extermination. Comparisons to the Nazis are irrelevant.

138> But there must be an international consensus: it can't be one country appointing itself judge, jury and executioner

What kind of international consensus? The UN is broken. The Russians are never going to give up their client states and the Chinese believe that there are no situations in which it is justifiable to interfere with a gov'ts internal affairs.

Is it enough to get NATO behind you then. If you got a majority of democratic gov't behind an action would that make it ok?

>141 jjwilson61: Well, the Arab League, for starters. They backed action against Libya, but are opposed to an attack on Syria. Syria's neighbours don't seem to gung-ho about international intervention, and they are the ones who would suffer the worst consequences, aside from Syria itself.

There isn't even agreement in NATO about what to do with Syria. The public in most western countries (including the U.S.) is opposed to intervention. In fact, outside of Washington and Paris, nobody really wants this war.

Some predictions about an attack using cruise missiles (the likely American/French action), especially if it lasts for an extended period of time:

1) There will be 'collateral damage'. Innocent people-- hundreds if not thousands-- will die. Probably far more than died from the chemical attacks. Including children.

2) No one will be grateful to the U.S.-- not even the opposition to Assad. Anti-Americanism will increase, not decrease, as a result.

3) It will probably not stop Assad from releasing chemical weapons again (assuming he was responsible for the last attack). In fact, destroying his conventional weapons will likely make him more desperate, and more likely to resort to chemical weapons.

4) It will probably not lead to peace.

5) If the opposition to Assad wins, it is just the beginning of the West's troubles, not the end. Assad is bad. The opposition is worse. What do you think the jihadists will do with the chemical weapons if/when they get their hands on them?

something completely different from John Cleese: http://21stcenturywire.com/2013/06/02/john-cleese-syria-and-alert-to-threats-in-...

It may be a great way to distract things for our undercover quasi CIA agents here but I don't really see what fucking WWII has to do with any of this or anymore than say WWI or the Franco Prussian War. In any case 'we did this because so and so did that'--if you have to go back to WWII--we sold the Brits old WWI destroyers and such and other armaments to the point where they were pretty much on the verge of bankruptcy before Japan attacked us at Pearl Harbor--only then did we get into the war and seriously Syria's civil war has an extremely low % of odds of spilling over so many borders that it's going to eventually reach us. The differences are pretty clear. The United States back in 1940 was very reluctant to enter into a mostly European war because there was no real threat to its own security. But we didn't have a CIA back then either. These days we lead the charge--entering even into the internal affairs of civil wars an Atlantic Ocean and a Mediterranean Sea away. It should be ridiculous from the perspective of an individual living in this country of ours but it's not to so many who have fooled themselves into thinking we are Superman and Britain (or in this case France--remember freedom fries) is Lois Lane. Some people want to believe this horseshit for something other than what it is.

Iriley--excellent demi-rant!

#145--what makes it a demi-rant instead of just a rant?

And McCain is out again.

>147 Bretzky1: He's as reliable as a heroin addict, that one.

I think that it's important to realize that *not every war is like WWII*.

Agreed, and every intervention is not Vietnam. I would note, however, that WWII was only cited as an example of a principle--that wars and interventions can be just--not as a prediction. It would be absurd if someone were to say "We should hit Syria, it will be like WWII." It is equally absurd to say "It's going to be like Vietnam." Only the latter is ever said.

Stalin wasn't pretty, but it has been pointed out that he was, immediately after WWII, up against the most aggressively expansionist empire in history.

At the risk of provoking you, what are the metrics here? I ask you not because I'm bloodless and care about metrics, not people, but because your assessment is--to my mind--a fantasy. At some point fantasy must meet reality. I'm asking you to shake its hand.

Well, the Arab League, for starters. They backed action against Libya, but are opposed to an attack on Syria. Syria's neighbours don't seem to gung-ho about international intervention, and they are the ones who would suffer the worst consequences, aside from Syria itself.

Actually, the Arab League approved UN action in Syria--a no-fly zone--and then vigorously protested when that zone was used for a more extensive bombing campaign ( http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2011-03-20/world/35260239_1_arab-league-amr-m... ). Everyone knew that it would be used that way, and most of the governments wanted Gadaffi dead, but what they say in private is always different from what they say in public.

The Mid-East (and Syria), summed up:

"Iran is backing Assad. Gulf states are against Assad!

Assad is against Muslim Brotherhood. Muslim Brotherhood and Obama are against General Sisi.

But Gulf states are pro-Sisi! Which means they are against Muslim Brotherhood!

Iran is pro-Hamas, but Hamas is backing Muslim Brotherhood!

Obama is backing Muslim Brotherhood, yet Hamas is against the U.S.!

Gulf states are pro-U.S. But Turkey is with Gulf states against Assad; yet Turkey is pro-Muslim Brotherhood against General Sisi. And General Sisi is being backed by the Gulf states!

Welcome to the Middle East and have a nice day."

142> "Syria's neighbours don't seem to gung-ho about international intervention..."

Turkey (a NATO member, let's remember) has said they will join any international coalition against the Assad regime in response to CW attacks, but they want a response to be sufficient to force the Assad regime to negotiate with the opposition(s). They, the Turks, face increased risk if Assad is antagonized without being pummeled.

As a general example of how muddled the entire region is (in addition to the quote in #150), consider this from an analyst at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (quoted here.)

"There's a valid argument to be made that U.S. inaction in Syria will embolden Iran to move forward with its nuclear ambitions. There's an equally valid argument that if the U.S. attacks Syria, Iran will feel an even greater need for a nuclear deterrent."

If you don't know if your military operations will help or hinder your strategic objectives, and that's the broad case here, you don't conduct them. Killing a few people to maintain credibility is repugnant.

And just 'cause I'm thinking about it, it's not ridiculous to think that Assad didn't order the use of CW -- the army could have done it on their own for purely military reasons, without clearance from the national command authority. Assad's brother commands the military units suspected in the attack, or at least the units towards which the public evidence points, and he likely exercises considerable tactical

I'm Canadian and I'm against any intervention in Syria by my government for a couple of reasons:

1- I don't believe "proofs" by US gov. I still remember the lies in Iraq.
2- Syria uses chemical warfare against some people and now we need to intervene. Too much convenient...
3- Generally speaking, I think my country should not messed up in any other internal conflict

>150 BruceCoulson:

Just to add: that was a letter to the Financial Times a few days back attributed to K. N. Al-Sabah, who is apparently also the Egyptian blogger known as "The Big Pharoah".

#153

Thanks for attribution; I forgot where the quote originally came from.

" It is equally absurd to say "It's going to be like Vietnam." Only the latter is ever said."

We do not need to use Vietnam any longer...we can call on the Iraq war for an example of useless death and crippling costs. We are not even HOME from there yet. Had we NOT been so stupid as to grab our drums and guns and marched off for Cheney's oil fields, the question of what to do today regarding Syria would be totally different. Using Vietnam is tip toeing around the fact that we did it a second time ...... and very few people other than McCain seem to have a desire to have a third go at it.

We put ourselves in a very shitty position......I hope I live long enough to see how the history books are going to deal with the years 2000 thru 2008. Should read like a comedy of errors.....followed by a black President presiding over no win situations. So easy to squander ..... so hard to recover !

Again I'm way behind and can't possibly read all above but I'm going to say (some may be disappointed in me for it) that I support an attack on Assad as a way of degrading his capability and enhancing the opposition -- in other words I agree with John McCain! which I rarely do but there's a time for "everything" (under the sun) I'm told (by The Byrds).

I DO NOT favor "boots on the ground" (neither does the prez nor McCain by the way) but I believe that the Assad people used chemical weapons and will use them again if nothing is done. I also think it's "US" who have to do it -- the French I suppose will help so now are "freedom fries" FRENCH fries again?

I opposed the BushwarS and I thought Obama was correct to be wary of intervention in Libya and then in Syria but now I think "enough is enough" and I just don't "buy" the "false flag" operation promoted by the Russians as well as the Syrian government and by the "legendary" Chip DeNure.

I don't consider myself a reflexive "hawk" but I can't be in the Rand Paul camp of "let 'em eat sarin."

Sorry...

>144 lriley: I think partly length, but also cadence--cadence is interrupted by specific facts, which can at times clutter a rant when they should be taken as givens so that the language can go from river to torrent.

>149 timspalding: 'At the risk of provoking you, what are the metrics here?' I like a joke, thank you.

I have had a beautiful day, filled with heroics of various kinds: I mailed something I was a month late on, the Pirates won their 81st with McCutchen hitting his 100th homer, and my son starred McCutchen like in a thrilling victory in Italy--hitting, getting hit, stealing the winning run, pitching the last inning...

SO, starting from the little boy scout camps on the east coast they blazed across a continent and claimed a hemisphere and spread clients further afield and in more fields and fucked more good native leaders from lumumba to mossadegh to retain their segments of empire...I think you get the point and if you disagree, see it differently and want to call it fantasy, i suppose i would imagine you simply are fantasizing, so what's the point. Play ball.

>156 Michael_Welch: Michael, you don't disappoint me, but I think you're way off, something is changing in you again, who knows, but what has your life been if not a wandering intellectual/political trip.

#157--rhythm and speed--kind of like a good punk rock song.

Well I've become a "liberal" I guess; it's the "best" I think "we" can do. I don't romanticize the US (as I do some other things, granted) but "it" is not ALWAYS "wrong" and everyone else is not ALWAYS "innocent."

Curious: do you believe the Assad folks used chemical weapons on the rebels? And what should be done if so?...

I have not 'investigated'. I think the excuse that the UN is powerless needs to be rectified, for one thing. The SC should be disbanded or reformed. Given US approved chemical warfare, and US stockpiles, I believe there is no 'moral' standing for the US, no 'right' for them to involve themselves. Of course it is complicated and my views are more complicated than I want to express right now (past midnight here), but i think you get enough of the picture.

followed by a black President presiding over no win situations

Was it necessary to say his race?

I don't mean to keep you up; perhaps in the morning you could say whether you think Assad USED the stuff. I don't disagree re the security council but we don't have a "reformed" situation RIGHT NOW.

As for "moral standing" the "genocide" re the American Indians (it was more an attempt at cultural genocide I'd say but that's not SO much "better" and then there's what happened to the California tribes, true) occurred before Hitler attempted his. Whether the US had "moral standing" during WWII seems questionable from an absolutist view; neither did say Soviet Russia but Churchill remarked that he'd "ally with the devil" to defeat Hitler and allying with Stalin he -- "we" -- certainly did eh. But I don't regret it.

I no longer ask for "purity"; "clarity" I TRY for. I don't "like" this situation but I feel Obama et. al., are correct whereas Bush & company were wrong a decade ago. No it isn't that Obama's "perfeck" (I eschew perfection too) but that he's been uh "smarter" for lack of a better word.

I still flinch from drones; still cheer Bradley/Chelsea and Eddie Snow and wish them all well but I believe that even McCain can be, as per William Buckley re FDR, i. e., "even stopped clock is right twice a day!"

And I STILL love you Rick -- though Chip now hates me...

Chip sucks eggs. I'm not one for the genocide arguments and who was the worst...

As for Assad, I really don't know. For one thing, a civil war in Syria, say the Damascus 'front', is beyond my ken. I cannot imagine it. I don't know how it was supposed to have worked, what the strategic thinking was. I need to spend a little time reading someone I trust on it--some time finding someone I trust on it. Then I need to reiterate that I don't think it is up to the US to settle it.

I'll be looking forward to hearing more from you when you're ready. Thank you...

what's a little chemistry amongst friends?

I'm glad we can remain "friends"; indeed if we could while I plumped for Reagan I don't see why we can't now...

#151: it's not ridiculous to think that Assad didn't order the use of CW -- the army could have done it on their own for purely military reasons, without clearance from the national command authority.

Irrelevant. If Assad had tried to distance himself from them, it might be relevant. Maybe. The possession of chemical weapons where they could be easily used by the military is bad enough that I don't see any way for Assad to evade responsibility even if he claimed that.

163
Indeed it is important to acknowledge Obama's racial orientation, since it is my belief that many of the situations Obama is faced with are unwinable precisely because he is Black. Most of the stuff going on makes no sense what so ever unless viewed through the lens of racism. Including the Republican concept of health care which once it became Obama care has been voted on adnausium. If there is another reason, I would like to hear it. Or Syria.....the Right is totally messed up about the situation. While I respect those who honestly oppose....many are simply against it because of the black man in charge.

Obama's color is key to what is going on in our Congress. Failing to mention his ethinticity would be remiss on my part.

#151: it's not ridiculous to think that Assad didn't order the use of CW -- the army could have done it on their own for purely military reasons, without clearance from the national command authority.

I find it hard to believe a state that murders bloggers and tortures their families is going to take it lightly when a commander risks turning a civil war into a conflict with the world's largest superpower.

Indeed it is important to acknowledge Obama's racial orientation, since it is my belief that many of the situations Obama is faced with are unwinable precisely because he is Black. Most of the stuff going on makes no sense what so ever unless viewed through the lens of racism. Including the Republican concept of health care which once it became Obama care has been voted on adnausium. If there is another reason, I would like to hear it. Or Syria.....the Right is totally messed up about the situation. While I respect those who honestly oppose....many are simply against it because of the black man in charge.

Obama's color is key to what is going on in our Congress. Failing to mention his ethinticity would be remiss on my part.

Im curious. Your view is that, if Obama weren't black, he'd face no opposition from the right on Syria? This seems to conflict with what we saw with Clinton, for starters.

171
Please do not change what I am saying...think you are smarter than that.
I did not say that he wouldn't face opposition regarding Syria......but I don't believe that those who were formally in favor of military action in Syria, (when Obama didn't want to get involved) would be opposing him now . I would expect opposition on both sides of the isle, this is a nasty decision.... Just not the amount of flip flopping about that seems to be taking place by some on the Right.....Heck one lawmaker brought up Benghazi, the IRS , and the entire security phone spying operation......what the heck ? The guy obviously can not think straight.

Please don't tell me you are going to deny that racism doesn't have a whole lot to do with the actions of our Republican lawmakers.....

Obama is Black
Obama is our first Black President
The Right is so flamuxed by these two facts they forgot how to govern.
Hence we have a whole lot of unsolvable situations.
Heck the Black man can't even appoint a cabinet with out a flurry of filibusters , even if the appointees are Republican.
What do YOU call such nonsense ?

Resistance to Obama and resistance to Clinton have been of different magnitudes. And DO compare acquiescence to Bush as well.

Heck the Black man can't even appoint a cabinet with out a flurry of filibusters , even if the appointees are Republican. What do YOU call such nonsense ?

I think there's been a general and continuing upswing in partisan paranoia, Clinton-Bush-Obama. A chart of filibusters shows something like a straight upward line. ( http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/post/the-history-of-the-filibuster-... ). I'd call that increased polarization--demonstrable in a 100 other ways--a weakening of traditional checks on the power, and an increased realization that the filibuster is powerful stuff. I don't see race in that, but YMMV.

121> Have you never heard of the Mongols?

163> "Was it necessary to say his race?"

Why not?
It is something of which to be proud.

#174--pretty much spot on. For some time now--at least since Reagan but also including Nixon every presidential administration has done their damnedest to increase the power of the Presidency--to build on what their predecessor (whether the same party or not) left behind and every one of them has succeeded to some degree. This comes pretty much at the expense of congress more than the courts and it's a funny thing but US citizens ability to have an effect on his/her government is mainly through their elected officials--whether local, state or federal--congress, senate, president. That has been curtailed. The balance of power between congress, the courts and the presidency is out of balance. Obama--different race or not has continued the trend. I expect his replacement whether democrat or republican will as well.

>177 lriley:

There's much truth to what you say, but, for what it's worth, I don't think filibusters are an appropriate way to curtail the power of the presidency. The power of the presidency has largely grown by taking everything as far as it can go--for example, taking a maximalist interpretation of the president's Constitutional war powers. Having the Congress do that too doesn't balance things out, really, it just makes everything extreme. We'd be better off it both the filibuster and the veto were rare, and kept within certain bounds of application.

Back to Syria: Brutality of Syrian Rebels Posing Dilemma in West

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/05/world/middleeast/brutality-of-syrian-rebels-po...

#178--Obama going to congress for approval on Syria is a way of getting around criticism later if things turn to shit or at least that's how I look at this maneuver. It's kind of unusual as usually the POTUS just decides on his own--and the majority of congress jumps on the bandwagon before or right after. A argument can be made that it's because of ever increasing congressional divisiveness and this is probably going to be grist for the mill in both the upcoming mid term elections and 2016 elections so no one current represenative or Senator is going to be able to say I didn't give him the go ahead when in fact they did. He's putting them on the spot too. I expect that he will get majority approval--though not as much as usually the case--there are still some anti-war democrats and numerous republicans who'd be fine with this if it were the previous administration but for various (better or worse) reasons are not fine with it now.

I don't mind the idea of the filibuster or veto. I think they have their place.

To begin to answer MWelch, I find this reasonable:

What should the US do?

First thing, stop this false dichotomy of it's either military force or nothing. The use of chemical weapons is a war crime, it is indeed what Secretary Kerry called a "moral obscenity". Whoever used such a weapon should be held accountable. So what do we do about it?

First, do no harm. Don't kill more people in the name of enforcing an international norm.
Recognise that international law requires international enforcement; no one country, not even the most powerful, has the right to act as unilateral cop. Move to support international jurisdiction and enforcement, including calling for a second UN investigation to follow-up the current weapons inspection team, this one to determine who was responsible for the attack.
Recommend that whoever is found responsible be brought to justice in The Hague at the International Criminal Court, understanding that timing of such indictments might require adjustment to take into account ceasefire negotiations in Syria.
President Obama can distinguish himself powerfully from his unilateralist predecessor by announcing an immediate campaign not only to get the Senate to ratify the International Criminal Court, but to strengthen the Court and provide it with serious global enforcement capacity.
Move urgently towards a ceasefire and arms embargo in Syria. Russia must stop, and must push Iran to stop arming and funding the Syrian regime. The US must stop, and must push Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, Jordan and others to stop arming and funding the opposition, including the extremist elements. That won't be easy - for Washington it may require telling the Saudis and Qataris that if they don't stop, we will cancel all existing weapons contracts with those countries. (As my colleague David Wildman has said, why don't we demand that the Pentagon deal with arms producers the way the Department of Agriculture deals with farmers - pay them not to produce weapons? And then the money can be used to retool their factories to produce solar panels instead of Tomahawk missiles, and the workers stay on the job….)
Stand against further escalation of the Syrian civil war by voting no on any authorisation for US military strikes.

From this article: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/09/201391142319670421.html

On a totally unrelated issue (or is it?) Republicans in the U.S. Congress have proposed cutting food stamps to the poor.

http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/08/02/19831109-republicans-to-propose-...

Interesting priorities they have. Feeding hungry families in their own country is "unbearably expensive" while getting involved in a foreign war is, well, just something they have to do.

"Sorry kids, no food tonight. But let's watch the news together. Maybe they'll show some more cruise missiles blowing things up in Syria. That should take your minds off your growling stomachs."

Bernie Sanders is making the point as loud as he can, as is Alan Grayson.

First, do no harm. Don't kill more people in the name of enforcing an international norm.

Um, why? Enforcement involves, well, force. You can't get the Germans to stop occupying France with harsh language, and you're not going to get the Syrians to stop gassing their civilians by asking Kerry to bore us all to death.

Recognise that international law requires international enforcement

Nonsense. International law includes many instances where that's never even been claimed. Every state is obligated to fight pirates wherever they are and whoever's flag they fly. Ditto those engaged in the slave trade. NATO bombed Kosovo without Security Council agreement--for the same reason: Russia. And if you made a list of states that have interfered in other states' business, well, it would be endless.

What of enforcement? When rioting crowds burn cars, smash windows and rape women we don't call it police-less-ness. We call it lawlessness. Technically, the laws still exist, but nobody's enforcing them. That's what lawlessness means. Or take the various college towns where police are instructed to stop going after marijuana smoking entirely. The laws remain on the books, but enforcement is impossible. If laws have no concrete expression--no means of enforcement--do they even really exist? Consider this a koan for enlightenment on international law and its limits. BANG! You get it.

If not, you're in a bind. If international law requires international enforcement, well, good luck enforcing it on the United States.

>183 RickHarsch: Good for them! Apparently only a minority of the members of Congress support the resolution to attack Syria, despite the President and GOP leaders' prodding.

Cutting the food stamp program probably won't be enough. The U.S. government will have to borrow more money to pay for the war-- especially if there is any escalation.

Forget vetoing the attack on Syria in the Security Council: all China has to do is refuse to lend the U.S. any more money!

>185 madpoet: Oh, we don't worry about how to pay for military involvement beforehand. Surely the Iraq war demonstrated that!

The food stamp thing is not related to how much money the US government has or doesn't have and everything to do with the growing idea that poor people are poor because they're bad and lazy. If we feed their children, we're just encouraging them. A few years ago, a Republican SC candidate for governor, compared low-income families to stray dogs. Feeding stray dogs just encourages them to stay and have more puppies, you know.

It's vile, but that is how some comfortable people think -- it's a great way to turn guilt and empathy into self-righteousness, which is an easier emotion to live with. And also means that they don't have to worry about someday joining the ranks of the disadvantaged, since they're not bad or lazy.

>184 timspalding: He who delivers koan must be without ego.

If the citizens of the United States decided to stage a revolution and it took chemical weapons to finally stop them--then chemical weapons it would be. Just saying. And we can reference back to some of the Occupy events to get some idea of that--and it won't matter much what party POTUS has allegiance to. It's not surprising at all that Assad uses what is in his arsenal. It would be surprising if he didn't. That's what dictators do but that's also what other leaders of the free world would do when faced with such a crisis. So this idea that we've some moral authority in this world strikes at least my mind as hypocritical. What we do have is real military clout. We should understand the difference between the one and the other. That military clout doesn't give you a moral edge. It's only another reason why we should avoid fixing the world for all mankind. There's basically a lot of hubris behind this kind of father figure to the rest of mankind premise of ours.

Washington Post: As Syria deteriorates, neighbors fear bioweapons threat
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/as-syria-deteriorates-neig...

If Syria has stocks of smallpox and uses them, can we hit them, or do we need to wait for Vladimir Putin to agree?

The food stamp thing is not related to how much money the US government has or doesn't have and everything to do with the growing idea that poor people are poor because they're bad and lazy.

With respect, this is not a good description of why food stamps have become a concern. The fact is that Food Stamp participation and spending have exploded in the last decade—almost five times as high as 2000, and doubling since 2008. Only part of the rise being related to the "great recession." About half can be traced to changes in eligibility. As it now stands, food stamps cover about 1 in 8 Americans and 1 in 4 children (see NYT http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/11/28/us/20091128-foodstamps.html ). In rural Maine, where I live, for example, 30-40% of children are on food stamps--and the number's almost doubled since 2007. That's pretty alarming.

Now, I SUPPORT food stamps. I think that--of all the poverty programs--food stamps are among the least problematic. That is, they help people without some of the blow-back and "trapping" that poverty programs can produce. They help the most needy (children), are difficult to misuse and do little to screw with incentives of life or social position of families. (As mentioned in another thread, it's one thing to give a mother chits to buy food for the family dinner, and another for a school to start offering dinners, disempowering the parents and breaking apart one of the unifying forces in family life.) The growth of food stamps is in part about the fact that Republicans were okay with them too.

That said, their growth has been meteoric, and shows no sign of slowing--not unlike the transformation of disability into an exceptional program for the truly disabled into a poverty program for the economically left-behind. If you believe that government should be a safety net, not a blanket, it's worrying to see almost half of all rural children enrolled in a government program, and more worrying to imagine it might one day embrace most children. Being concerned about such growth does not require "the growing idea that poor people are poor because they're bad and lazy."

188> That's all well and good, but when something like Rwanda happens the same people moan about how the West is immoral because they didn't do anything to stop it.

#191--Let them moan. The United States government if it's going to worry about anyone should worry first and foremost about improving the relative happiness of its own citizens. FWIW the tactic of teargassing or shooting rubber bullets at people a lot more than less protesting peacefully government policies is not all that far removed from what Assad's regime is doing with just a bit more force. It's a step or two removed anyway. I think it's kind of a joke that Obama can go on about the brutality of the Syrian regime using somewhat the same tactics that he was silent about American police departments using during the Wall St. commotions. I suppose there's a difference between deadly and sometimes injurious force--even so--WTF? Arguably the Arab spring got its initial impetus from what started here in the Occupy movement and for some reason he feels obliged to side with the people overseas in this case but when it comes to his own people it's different. Which is not to say someone from the right instead of Obama wouldn't have even been worse. I expect that they would have been.

FWIW the tactic of teargassing or shooting rubber bullets at people a lot more than less protesting peacefully government policies is not all that far removed from what Assad's regime is doing with just a bit more force.

100,000 people have died, most of them opposition and many before war even began--rounded up in the middle of the night to be killed. He's used sarin on civilian areas. Your post has left reality.

192> You also can't blame Obama for the actions of local police forces. The question is why the mayors of those cities, many of whom are Democrats and have the similar political views as the protestors, ordered the crackdowns. I don't believe its because the city of Oakland and the like are police states, but for the prosaic reason that the protests were costing businesses money.

> 193 'You've left reality.' For what it is worth, I find that in general Iriley is more grounded in reality than just about anyone here. Argue against him, fine--perhaps he is even wrong. But that's a cheap shot uncalled for.

(Changed to "Your post has left reality" to avoid ad hominem.)

What's happening in Syria is not just some internal disagreement. People are dying in the thousands, and it's lurching toward worse. Remember Rwanda? That was something to be ashamed of. Remember how the intervention in Kosovo saved lives (remember Srebrenica)? It's more complex than an easy "intervention is always bad" or any other absolute black and white thinking. I admire Chomsky, but I think he's wrong here.

Is intervention necessary? I think yes, although I'd like it to not be military. Does anyone think Assad would agree to sit down for a comfortable chinwag about how best to end things peacefully? Does a country have the right to murder its own citizens?

There's a reason the use of chemical weapons was declared illegal by the international community. This is actually important.

I'm sorry people's feelings were hurt in this discussion, but really the issue being discussed is more important than being offended. I'll happily buy anyone a beer, an entire liter of really good German beer, if we can take a deep breath and return to the issue at hand. Because I don't know the answer, at all, and this discussion, up until everyone got so emotional, was interesting and worthwhile. Disagreements among people who respect each other and think a bit usually are.

I can't believe I'm leaning towards Mr Spaulding's arguments here, although I don't think that the answer to the increased use of AFDC and food stamps is to cut the needy off before other provisions have been made. But that's a side issue.

I'll pass on the beer; not allowed for me, and I never liked it, anyway.

Assad will use whatever weapons he has available to retain power. He's not going to stop just because a few bombs are levied his way. The only way to stop him is to kill him, or pave the way for someone else to kill him.

The rebels are no prize either; there aren't any 'good' people in this conflict.

Will our interference do any good, in the short or long term? Are we prepared to deal with the consequences of involving ourselves in yet another Mid-East conflict?

My answer is no. We will kill a lot of people, some of whom had nothing to do with the attacks. We will anger a lot more. We may become involved in a wider conflict, and our record at 'nation building' does not inspire confidence.

To answer some specific questions: Assad won't settle for anything less than a resumption and acknowledgement of his supremacy in Syria. Are we willing to guarentee that? Would he believe us if we did? Yes, a country does have the right (or the power, if you'd prefer) to kill its own citizens. Texas does it all the time, as an example. As for using lethal (note: distinction) chemical weapons; how far are we prepared to go to punish such actions? Would we go to the mat with China if it used such weapons in Tibet?

That's the problem with intervention on moral or humanitarian grounds; it raises a lot of questions that don't really have any good answers.

#197,

The United States Armed Forces is not the International Red Cross. It should only be used to defend or further the security and interests of the United States. We were right to stay militarily out of Rwanda; the US had no interest at stake there. While it's a tragedy that so many people died there, their deaths have in no way hurt the US or its people.

There is simply no intervention short of military invasion that is going to stop the killing in Syria at this point, so talking about non-military intervention is an exercise in futility (though that doesn't necessarily mean that the US government should stop trying to get it done).

Chemical weapons are not weapons of mass destruction. They were banned not because they are more dangerous than conventional weapons (unlike biological weapons); they were banned because people were horrified by the manner in which they kill (as if using flamethrowers and grenades on the Japanese soldiers holed up in caves on Iwo Jima was somehow more humane).

198 '...there aren't any 'good' people in this conflict.' Or course there are, and probably most of them.

197 Changing it to 'The post has left reality' is lame. Your post is lame. I don't even like the sound of that myself. I recant. I am not saying 'your post.' More importantly, you simply disagree with Iriley. He raises good points--primarily the domestic responsibilities that war inevitably shoves aside. Otherwise, I think the only flaw is his use of 'a bit more'. At the same time, he is right about the US having become fewer steps removed from totalitarian state tactics. The post has arguable points, but is far from...'unreal?'

194 The crackdowns on the Occupy movement appeared to have been co-ordinated, but I find it highly unlikely. Of course, a threat to business was one thing, but I also think departments see what others are doing. But I think a law enforcement insider would be able to explain it all best. But if Obama can be blamed for more or less ignoring excesses, it does not seem plausible that he spent any time figuring how to 'counter' the movement.

#199: It should only be used to defend or further the security and interests of the United States. ... their deaths have in no way hurt the US or its people.

We're humans; we can't ever completely separate our interests from the rest of the people on this planet.

And more cynically, there's 20 million people in Syria. They all need laptops running Windows 8 that they can't get while this war is going; that's 200 million dollars (@ $10 a pop) you're stealing from Microsoft. Plus Coca-Colas, Ford pickup trucks. If we can stop that war in a way that leaves them at least semi-affluent capitalists, we can make billions. If you're limiting to US interest, you can't forget that the US interest is in having living people buying American products.

I'm a little disturbed by all this talk that sounds to my ears like Americans are the only people that matter.

#201,

We're humans; we can't ever completely separate our interests from the rest of the people on this planet.

We can and we do, at least as it relates to some people. Rwanda and Syria are two countries whose relationship to the US is so distant that what happens in them has practically no effect on the well-being of the United States or its people, especially Rwanda. Now, if something similar were happening in, say, Canada or Mexico or China, then we would most certainly be effected by those events and would be right to be doing everything we could to make sure that the killing stopped and stability returned.

And more cynically, there's 20 million people in Syria. They all need laptops running Windows 8 that they can't get while this war is going; that's 200 million dollars (@ $10 a pop) you're stealing from Microsoft. Plus Coca-Colas, Ford pickup trucks. If we can stop that war in a way that leaves them at least semi-affluent capitalists, we can make billions. If you're limiting to US interest, you can't forget that the US interest is in having living people buying American products.

In the grand scheme of things, Syria is insignificant as a market for US products, and not just because we have very little trade with Syria for political reasons. And economic interests alone have to be far, far greater than what's at stake in Syria for them to justify the use of American military power in another country's civil war. I'm thinking of something on the order of a civil war breaking out in Saudi Arabia that threatens to completely cut off that country's oil exports.

#202,

I'm a little disturbed by all this talk that sounds to my ears like Americans are the only people that matter.

Americans aren't the only people who matter, but they are the only people to whom the US government should be beholden and the only people in whose interest the US government should act. The people who enlist in the US military do so, at least in part, out a desire to defend the United States and its people, not to act as some other country's constabulary force.

The only way that I would be okay with the use of American military force for solely humanitarian purposes (at least if such purposes required the troops to shoot their way in or to protect themselves from any hostile fire) is if the US government established a military force completely separate from the rest of the armed forces and that was dedicated solely to humanitarian interventions and then opened it to a voluntary admissions criteria, even if a draft is ever re-instituted for the "regular" military. But even then such a humanitarian military force should only be used under the imprimatur of a UN Security Council sanctioned humanitarian operation in cooperation with other countries.

I don't like this argument that war is good for business. I've never liked it and what's more since the outsourcing of so many manufacturing and industrial jobs the relatively few Americans who benefit from any possible additional business in these places are the wealthy--a small % of the population and one that tends to come up short when our country asks its people to make sacrifices--whether it's economic (who works hardest to avoid paying taxes?--who got bailed out when the economy collapsed in '08) or even in time of war when it looks for volunteers to fight them. I fail to see how Coca Cola stock rising in value on the stock market helps most Americans.

Beyond that it's kind of creepy--people dying so our corporations can make more $.

I'm sorry people's feelings were hurt in this discussion, but really the issue being discussed is more important than being offended. I'll happily buy anyone a beer, an entire liter of really good German beer, if we can take a deep breath and return to the issue at hand. Because I don't know the answer, at all, and this discussion, up until everyone got so emotional, was interesting and worthwhile. Disagreements among people who respect each other and think a bit usually are.

Well said.

Incidentally, while I'm in favor of a punishing intervention on chemical-warfare grounds, the ugliness of the situation worries me. And at this point I'm against a general intervention for the same reasons. I'm suspicious of people who think everything's a mess--that the Bosnians and the Serbs "have been killing each other for hundreds of years," and therefore the US had no duty to protect a modern, European city from being shelled by monsters. But Syria really is a mess. I have an opinion about what we should do, but I'm not pretending it's unarguable.

Yes, a country does have the right (or the power, if you'd prefer) to kill its own citizens.

That's grotesque as morality, and false as international law.

Americans aren't the only people who matter, but they are the only people to whom the US government should be beholden and the only people in whose interest the US government should act.

Disagree. We have a moral—and indeed an international legal—duty to consider humanitarian concerns.

>205 timspalding:

"Disagree. We have a moral—and indeed an international legal—duty to consider humanitarian concerns."

Only if we apply these unilaterally and that does not appear to be the case. If we claim the "moral " high ground we ourselves have to adhere to it's dictates. (Abu Grave comes to mind) Not that humans are above mistakes, the U.S., as a country, elected a leader who is viewed, internationally, as a war criminal. We have done nothing to appease the international community on this front and merely the fact that no one else has the power to do anything about it is not an excuse to let it ride.

>197 RidgewayGirl:
I am torn on this one.....because red lines are important, I feel we should be doing something. I am disappointed in an international community that is willing to sit back and let someone else be the "stoogie" However, the U.S. has lost some of it's credibility in so far as crossing a moral "red line". I find it embarrassing, to tell the truth. The only way we could be seen as entirely credible on this front is if we had dealt with our own leaders who crossed over a few red lines themselves.

What we are seeing are the fruits of the Iraq war...the one's that were not taken into consideration by the goof balls who decided that business now was more important than the future and what it may bring.

To see someone like Senator Kerry, given his history on war and violence, so adamant that something should be done speaks volumes. Yet, how can we ? Unless we feel the rules are for everyone else, not for us.....and that those rules can be applied or overlooked depending on the situation at hand ?

Embarrassing.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/3036697/#52942848

Senator Tom Cole ! Mind bogglingly hypocritical. If for no other reason than the fact that the U.S. no longer operates on a moral compass but rather on a political "gotcha" game, of some self destructing sort, we have little authority to do anything anywhere at all.
What is WRONG with people ?

American foreign policy has a long history of looking the other way when governments it has alliances with have subjected their populations to all kinds of mass murder and atrocity. One could start by looking in the direction of Latin America but some nations in Africa and Asia have gotten similar treatment. Even today we certainly look the other way when the Saudi Arabian rulers permit all kinds of barbaric things because they are our 'friends'. Syria for some time has been influenced by the Soviets or Russians. It's no wonder that Putin is offended at us playing the holier than thou card. Thinking in cynical terms--speaking in moral terms but there's nothing really moral about what our government has in mind at all.

Beyond that generally we fuck up everything we get involved in one way or the other--whether we put troops in or not. Viet Nam, Iraq, Afghanistan have all been fucked up operations. When we help stage coups like Iran, Chile, the failed one in Venezuela it's more of the same sometimes even worse. One thing American politicians don't seem to understand very well is that other people resent occupying armies or national leaders that have been forced upon them. And all of our interventions come about drenched with our do-goodedness morality sales job to get the American public on board. We have this idea we'll fix all these problems and then we create more. Basically we're assholes but we do have a lot of firepower. We really should have an AAA equivalent to get us off this kick and stop being assholes.

Obviously Iriley does not consider Grenada an important victory.

205 Yes, fine, but let us not get too friendly before the beer. Second, the problem with the US intervention in the Balkans is that it was a European mess spurred by European corporate greed. For example, at a meeting of government experts at which the Germans were pushing for the Slovenes and Croats to declare independence, the Spanish foreign minister argued, correctly, that the Germans were being irresponsible, because if independence was declared before the problem of the Serbs in Croatia's Knin was not settle catastrophic war would be inevitable. He was right, of course, but now the Germans have more markets and raw materials and more kiss-ass republics like Slovenia getting screwed by the Euro mess. If the US were to intervene positively it would be to convince the European powers not to behave like the US.

208
You mean AA ? That would mean to admit that we have become powerless over any actions other than our own.
Can't see that happening anytime soon.

Or triple A, why not? They were the best at getting people out of trouble no questions asked.

#205,

Disagree. We have a moral—and indeed an international legal—duty to consider humanitarian concerns.

The only duty that the US government has vis-a-vis other states is to make sure they don't invade the US or do something to harm the interests of the US or its people. Everything else is optional.

Putting aside the fact that international law isn't really law and so it cannot place a duty on its subjects, there isn't even anything within the corpus of that law that would mandate a state to engage in positive action regarding another state's civil war. There is the principle of the Responsibility-to-Protect, but that is a far from universally accepted part of international law (in fact, it's a very small minority position within the international community). And even those people who support it are split on whether it authorizes the use of military force in the absence of a UN Security Council resolution, with most saying that you have to have the UN's approval.

Unfortunately Obama seems to have put himself into a position that he cannot retreat from without appearing weak. Congress at this point in time doesn't appear to share his point of view and seemingly it seems unlikely that they're going to give him the go ahead. The question is does he go ahead anyway and another question is whether Assad decides it better to fight his war the conventional way. I agree with #212--the US is not obligated to save people of other nations from themselves or their respective governments.

#209--no--Grenada did not mean a lot to me though that was a bad idea as well. The US in Lebanon was more about peacekeeping and that turned into a shit show as in Somalia. The US in what used to be Yugoslavia--after the air bombing anyway was more or less a peacekeeping with relatively few fatalities--not a good idea either--it just didn't cost us much. For some reason we skip some places like Rwanda--like East Timor. Atrocities there turn into who gives a fuck?--which is generally speaking rightly or wrongly how your average American citizen looks at most of these conflicts when they're at their drunkest and most lucid. A high % of them couldn't find Iraq even today in half an hour looking through a world atlas and for a lot of them why would they?

I'll tell you why the US skipped East Timor--they approved and funded that one.

#214--Kissinger cashing in some of his chips.

>213 lriley:
"Unfortunately Obama seems to have put himself into a position that he cannot retreat from without appearing weak."

Contrary to that thought : Sometimes the strongest thing to do is re-evaluate one's position and change one's mind. (I do not mean flap one's lips about changing position because of self interest either....the weakest of the weak seem guilty of this on a daily basis)

#216--I agree but if he does such a thing there is still going to be a large effort by the opposition (part of politics 101) and much of the media to portray him as weak.

>217 lriley:
Probably, but perhaps we should know better than to "buy" it.

#218--we have our agendas that we more or less nurture. Other people have different ones. Then there's the great mass of people who get their news from day to day just waiting around for some television news host or political hack who they just happen to be watching to tell them what's what. They like the way they dress--the way they look--a smarmy comment they make--have some intuition they're an expert on whatever and there you go. It's already set up.

I still buy the thesis that JFK's foreign policy was warped by his determination not to appear weak.

Reagan pulling the troops out of Lebanon. Shouldn't have been there in the first place and no bullets for their rifles which was just stupid but he did pull them out--then railroaded their commander. And then there's Libya, Grenada and Nicaragua and supporting Pinochet, the Argentine generals and a bunch of other horseshit. Then again when Kissinger's your Secretary of State.

The first Bush stopping short of Baghdad is another example. Again we shouldn't have been there. Enough intelligence to back out of there anyway. If only his son had a fraction of his brains. Of course that family is connected to every rich son of a bitch dictator on the planet and especially in the middle east. And then there's Panama and Somalia.

In Iraq we knew the goal was regime change. Mr Kerry has compared his former dinner companion Mr Assad to Hitler and Saddam Hussein. Does one leave Hitler in power with chemical weapons? Currently Mr Obama has not said what the goal of military action would be, regime change?? destroy WMD stockpiles??? damage Mr. Assad's army ??? Unlike Iraq we do not have allies in this such as Great Britain. Mr Assad has Russia, China and Iran in his corner. Any damage to his army and those jets, tanks, artillery destroyed by us Russia/China would replace. So what do we hope to accomplish?

#221: The first Bush stopping short of Baghdad is another example. Again we shouldn't have been there.

Shouldn't have rescued Kuwait from its invader? I suspect that our allies expect more then that from us. If being like Canada and Norway mean that dictators get to gobble up small countries, as I said, Norway sure as hell doesn't want that.

#223--so what nation is going to cross Canada's borders?

>223 prosfilaes: I've read enough to believe that Saddam was given the green light by Washington, for one thing (in 1990). For another, I think many in the region don't really believe that Kuwait is a legitimate nation. The matter is very complicated, and I admit that I am often hard put to piece together everything i have read that makes sense, especially the oil economics. But, please help me here if you can, I have the understanding that one major problem of the time was that Iraq felt it was being treated unfairly by OPEC and responded by toying with production levels, leading to destabilization in the oil market, which is intolerable to the US.

#224: Russia, perhaps. If you don't give a damn about what Iraq was doing in Kuwait, I hardly see why it's your business what the US was doing in Iraq.

#226--Really Russia is going to invade Canada? And of course you wouldn't see if I don't agree with your cut and dried assessment of the whole schlemiel of American foreign policy. It's all good right?

>226 prosfilaes: In general it is accepted that certain wars are regional. There is a qualitative difference between Iraq going into Kuwait and the US going into Iraq. I think that 1990 was the year the US should have agreed with bin Laden: look Saudis, YOU deal with it.