Brent Nyitray
Fairlington Blade
Let the mutherfuker burn!
jnc4p
Kevin S. Willis
Michigoose
lmsinca
markinaustin
Arcanaut
novahockey
quarterback
ScottC
yellojktI’m no foreign policy expert and I’ve probably spent more time and effort protesting wars than really understanding the reasons justifying our involvement, or believing them. I was just as shocked as anyone on 9/11 though and remember how revenge caused me to ignore my normal, anti-war, gut reaction that I’ve harbored since Vietnam. I suspended my inclination to distrust our government in matters of foreign policy and kept an open mind regarding Iraq and Saddam Hussein and Bush’s case for invasion. Colin Powel’s presentation went a long way towards keeping me, if not acquiescent, at least open-minded.
I remember going to a family gathering with a lot of conservatives in attendance and listening to them talk about a friend of a friend of a friend supposedly living in Iraq celebrating the end to Hussein’s reign and how women were going to be free and the warring religious sects were going to make peace………..or something like that. I was pretty skeptical but kept my mouth shut, obviously hoping their enthusiasm was justified. Not long after that we began to get wind of disturbing news regarding our justifications and our questionable treatment of prisoners. Eventually, I joined the war protest movement locally. I really did feel a level of betrayal that reminded me why my natural inclinations against aggressive and war-like solutions to international problems had been justified. That’s not to say however, that we are never justified. I couldn’t have been any happier when OBL got what he deserved.
Americans of all political stripes don’t like the idea that citizens are being killed or slaughtered by their country’s own government and so we are torn between wanting to punish someone for that and knowing that our interference may just make things worse. Involving ourselves in another ME civil war seems like a recipe for disaster and I don’t support the strikes. Having said that though I think we, as a country, should be looking at ways to make Assad pay for what he’s done, assuming he or his government are actually responsible.
Obama is planning to make his case this week to the American people and Congress but I’m not really impressed when I read this , he’s expecting us to believe air strikes are the only solution. I read somewhere that the WH is responsible for releasing a tape showing the aftermath of a sarin attack, I haven’t seen it yet but I’m sure it’s awful.
In his radio address, Obama said failing to respond to the attack would threaten U.S. national security by increasing the chance of future chemical attacks from the Syrian government, terrorist groups, or other nations. The United States said more than 1,400 people were killed, including hundreds of children.
“We are the United States of America. We cannot turn a blind eye to images like the ones we’ve seen out of Syria,” he said.
Why does our response automatically mean strikes against the Assad regime that may unleash a worse rebel faction associated with Al Qaeda or possibly even cause more harm to Syrian innocents. It seems to me there are alternatives that we should be exploring first, assuming I’m not just being completely naive and none of these ideas will work.
1. Bring those guilty of atrocities to justice
2. Call for a United Nations embargo on arms, military supplies, and logistical support for both Damascus and opposition forces
3. The U.N. Security Council should hold an international peace conference
4. Offer aid and support to the nonviolent movements within Syria
5. Provide the humanitarian aid desperately needed by the millions of displaced people
6. Force the hand of Russia and China in the Security Council
I don’t really know how feasible all of this is but based upon the more detailed explanations of each suggestion in the piece at Common Dreams doesn’t it seem like we should at least try other options before just beating the war drums? It seems to me there’s an awful lot at stake here, much more than our President’s reputation. I mention that because I believe there are Democrats in the Senate and the House who are possibly supporting Obama simply because he’s their leader rather than listening to either their constituents or their conscience.
And I don’t know how many of you might have seen this piece but there’s an “unholy alliance” of sorts forming in Congress. (semi-corked by JNC)
At a town hall meeting with tea party supporters, somebody had asked Yoho about a rumor. Was it true that he — a conservative veterinarian in his first term who loudly opposes any compromise with the White House — was working with Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.), Congress’s leading liberal loudmouth?
“I wish I could tell you it wasn’t true,” Yoho recounted saying. “But it is true.” There were gasps, he said.
Yoho and Grayson are among a group of unlikely allies in Congress: liberal Democrats and libertarian Republicans, united by their opposition to a military strike against Syria.
The Democrats in the group have lost faith in war. The Republicans have lost faith (or never had it) in President Obama. In this case, — as Obama seeks approval for a limited kind of warmaking — their doubts aligned.
The result was an ad hoc coalition of Congress’s unwilling.
This group has become the core of a surprising backlash in the House. At least for now, it appears that more than half of representatives are ready to defy both a Republican speaker and a Democratic president, and vote against a military strike.
I signed their petition yesterday, for what it’s worth.
Filed under: SYRIA |
All Things in Moderation 
Why was Obama elected (not by me) if not to be the Anti-Bush?
If the above bid true, why should any Democrat trust any promise made by a Democrat primary presidential candidate? The same is true of the R candidates as well.
Finally, if we didn’t punish Iraq for chemical weapons use at the time and they haven’t been used since then, is there really a threat that its now anything goes?
How is this not Obama risking lives for his big mouth?
LikeLike
This is a very, what I categorize as, breathless piece. It covers a lot of ground, not all of it substantiated I don’t think, but there are a lot of links to follow, some of which make good arguments against strikes against Syria. Read with skepticism though. I thought it was worth posting if only for the links.
http://www.alternet.org/activism/public-has-never-stopped-president-going-war-might-be-about-change-syria?page=0%2C0
UPDATE: I haven’t read all the links in the above piece and won’t until later so please don’t blame me if some of them are too partisan or the framing is suspect. Okay………thanks.
LikeLike
Good question by York.
http://m.washingtonexaminer.com/why-dont-syria-intervention-critics-talk-about-libya/article/2535371
I’m assuming because, well, because Iraq was Bush, therefore bad and Libya was Obama/Clinton therefore, “look, we tried.” Is there any other plausible explanation?
Who will credibly run on Hillary’s left and why should they be believed?
2016 will be interesting though we’re fucked regardless. Monetized debt, Obamacare and a flatlined economy. It’s like a flat spin, no possible recovery. Better yet, the Kobyashi Maru.
LikeLike
I guess everyone’s out enjoying the last days of summer. Here are Booman’s thoughts for Dems who are torn between supporting Obama and listening to their little inner voices.
Democrats can’t concern themselves with how opposing strikes against Syria might harm the president. Nothing harms a president more than embroiling this country in a foreign conflict that we cannot resolve satisfactorily. It’s a mistake to think too hard about what a ‘no’ vote will mean for the president or the country or for future presidents. If we don’t intervene in Syria, we will have made an incredibly smart choice and we will reap benefits from that choice every single day. Should we discover that Iran is making a nuclear weapon, it will be easier to deal with it if we don’t have troops dedicated to Syria. If we refrain from taking a unilateral action now that has little international support, we will have more capital to take such an action, if needed, in the future.
If your friend promises to jump off a bridge, no one says that they’re worse off when you talk them out of it because their credibility has been damaged. Everyone knows that they are better off.
The exact same thing is true with this situation.
Wish I knew how the rest of y’all feel about all of this. Maybe tomorrow. At this rate I may need to find another political outlet.
LikeLike
lms:
Wish I knew how the rest of y’all feel about all of this.
I think I’ve mentioned this before, but I can’t think of any reason to support a strike that seems deliberately designed to have no effect whatsoever on the situation. One might still oppose a strike even if it was designed to accomplish some tangible goal like regime change, but at least that would be a serious goal worth considering. This idea of “sending a message”, particularly so for someone like Obama, strikes me as absurd. It seems to me that the very “message” one would want to send with a limited strike is that, hey, this is just a small taste of what will happen to you if you use chemical weapons again. But who sensibly believes O would ever take major military steps against Syria after his rhetoric against Bush’s decision to invade Iraq? O himself has essentially rendered the kind of “message” he now ostensibly wants to send to be not credible.
LikeLike
When the author addresses the President, I hear her end each sentence with “boy.”
LikeLike
Thanks for the response you guys…………I think. Something I’ve been thinking about for awhile is how we as Americans undermine our own political system here and abroad by the way we frame our political differences here. Obama’s no worse and no better really than those who came before him and yet we’re so polarized by our political differences that I believe we’re actually weakening our standing in the world. The opposing party seems to have no interest whatsoever in forming a united front to the rest of the international community. I think whomever is president next, be it an R or a D will suffer the same burden and hence will appear weak.
By saying that, I’m not absolving Obama of his mistakes, I wouldn’t do that for Bush either, but there’s something missing in America right now that I’m trying to put my finger on.
I’m thinking of quitting political commentary and activism because of it. I haven’t decided yet but I’m beginning to believe the internet is making things, as far as polarization and resentment, worse for all of us. Most of us (generally) don’t even bother to find common ground or purpose.
LikeLike
I think the reduction of American hegemony is inevitable. It’s based on out inability to pay for a military that can enforce it. There will be wars and genocide because of it.
There are fundamental differences between the parties insofar as each party’s base is driving different priorities. R base wants less and D base wants more. These ideas are irreconcilable. The world will go on but out place and influence in it will be reduced.
LikeLike
Hi LMS .. just saw your post.
I may have posted this before, but i don’t remember — I have a friend who is ethnically Syrian and orthodox Christian (at least, his family is). About a year ago, he showed some photos and videos from family back home that were … disturbing. Also, his family was trying to arrange a marriage for him with a young woman who is somehow related to the regime. We advised him to stay clear. he did this during one of our quarterly poker games. stunned silence. dude, you can’t marry a girl related to a dictator.
I don’t see how we resolve this problem absent a full on invasion and subsequent occupation.
LikeLike
Nova
I don’t see how we resolve this problem absent a full on invasion and subsequent occupation
I agree which is why we can’t really do anything other than apply pressure through the International community I don’t think. Doubtful he will respond to any of that either. I read some of the transcript from the interview Assad did with Charlie Rose………what an asshole.
My point though is that if McWing is correct that our differences are irreconcilable, and Scott is right that Obama is as weak as he claims, I suppose our country will be relegated to the back bench going forward. I don’t think Obama is any weaker than any other President in the last couple of decades, I think we’re making them weak by our divisions. That’s where I’m getting hung up I guess. Replace Obama with any other contemporary politician and I don’t see much improvement.
We have the largest, most well trained and well funded military in the world still, so why do we allow ourselves to be perceived as weak?
LikeLike
lms:
I don’t think Obama is any weaker than any other President in the last couple of decades, I think we’re making them weak by our divisions.
I’m not sure what you mean by “weak”. My view of Obama is simply that he is not a credible voice with regard to the projection of US military power. Whether you approved of Bush’s foreign policy or not, I think it’s a tough argument to make that he wasn’t credible when threatening to use US military power to advance his goals.
And Obama’s “weakness” in this regard is primarily his own doing, not anyone else’s.
LikeLike
Lms, you have to actually use the military to project strength, and use it in an effective way. One benefit of Iraq was Qadaffi’s capitulation. Obama frittered that away. If you want to convince someone of your sincerity, you act on it. On the other hand, Iran does not believe that the US will ever act to stop its nuke program. If Bush didn’t, no one will, except the Israeli’s.
LikeLike
over at PL, i picked on a suggestion and said we should do Operation Catholic Guilt — overwhelming humanitarian aid and shaming.
LikeLike
That doesn’t make sense to me McWing. Qadaffi is dead because the US intervened in Libya. We’ve been in virtual perpetual war in a part of the world where we can’t really win but even that isn’t my point. I guess you don’t agree that our divisions at home make us weak, not how or if we engage in battle. I guess I’m not explaining myself very well. Most people would probably say that Bush frittered away some of our projection of strength as well so I think singling Obama out is strictly a partisan comment.
I’m trying to get beyond that but I guess it’s just impossible.
For example, let’s say Congress votes no on a Syrian strike and Obama heeds their wishes and apparently that of the American people as well. Will the meme be that he’s weak and couldn’t make the case or that the American people spoke and our politicians listened?
LikeLike
I oppose the bombing of Syria. I think it’s a bad idea in general, and the policy that’s been articulated is a joke even if you support intervention. I’ve been out of town. I’ll post a more substantive response later.
LikeLike
For example, let’s say Congress votes no on a Syrian strike and Obama heeds their wishes and apparently that of the American people as well. Will the meme be that he’s weak and couldn’t make the case or that the American people spoke and our politicians listened?
My point re Qaddafi is that the Iraq invasion scared him and he gave up his WMD’s and seemingly behaved. For reasons unknown, Obama/Clinton/Powers helped overthrow someone who was no longer a threat. That’s just stupidity.
Obama is the second, and perhaps the weakest President since Carter
LikeLike
“Will the meme be that he’s weak and couldn’t make the case or that the American people spoke and our politicians listened?”
both. depending on who you are.
LikeLike
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/09/08/china-sending-warship-to-syrian-coast/
also, the Chinese are sending a warship to the area.
edit: and the Russians.
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/09/04/russian-carrier-scheduled-to-sail-to-syrian-coast.html
from the Hunt for Red October: “It would be well for your government to consider that having your ships and ours, your aircraft and ours, in such proximity… is inherently DANGEROUS. Wars have begun that way, Mr. Ambassador.”
LikeLike
both. depending on who you are.
Hah, my point exactly. And isn’t that really predictable as well? I’m beginning to wonder what happened to honesty, not you guys, but in general.
I don’t think we should strike Syria, for a lot of reasons, but what if Obama overrides our lack of enthusiasm, and what some people are calling the legalities of doing so, and does it anyway………………..is he still weak, or just stupid? Is there any case to made at all for doing it? What about those in Congress who support it?
LikeLike
” Is there any case to made at all for doing it? What about those in Congress who support it?”
I haven’t been able to figure out what “it” is .. the goal of the potential mission.
punish, but not regime change, but tipping the scales to the rebel (or not). so, what’s the goal exactly? the talking points from the WH have been all over the place.
I also think the “opposition b/c it’s Obama” is overstated. but that’s just me. as you noted, it’s that unholy alliance that’s pushing the opposition.
LikeLike
Its’ deja vu all over again.
Kerry to Syria: Turn over Chem Weapons or face attack
The US secretary of state has said that President Bashar al-Assad has one week to hand over his entire stock of chemical weapons to avoid a military attack. But John Kerry added that he had no expectation that the Syrian leader would comply.
Kerry also said he had no doubt that Assad was responsible for the chemical weapons attack in east Damascus on 21 August, saying that only three people are responsible for the chemical weapons inside Syria – Assad, one of his brothers and a senior general. He said the entire US intelligence community was united in believing Assad was responsible.
LikeLike
More from the article linked below. The State Department has to clarify Kerry’s ultimatum.
The US state department stressed that Kerry was making a rhetorical argument about the one-week deadline and unlikelihood of Assad turning over Syria’s chemical weapons stockpile. In a statement, the department added: “His point was that this brutal dictator with a history of playing fast and loose with the facts cannot be trusted to turn over chemical weapons, otherwise he would have done so long ago. That’s why the world faces this moment.”
And then this:
Kerry said the Americans were planning an “unbelievably small” attack on Syria.
That’ll strike fear into Assad, for sure.
Maybe the State Department ought to start sponsoring an open mic night for Sec State. It can’t get more amateurish than this, can it?
LikeLike
“I don’t think we should strike Syria, for a lot of reasons, but what if Obama overrides our lack of enthusiasm, and what some people are calling the legalities of doing so, and does it anyway………………..is he still weak, or just stupid? ”
Depends on if it achieves his stated objectives.
“Just muscular enough not to be mocked” doesn’t strike me as the overwhelming force needed to change Assad’s behavior or the outcome of the civil war.
LikeLike
Now I remember why I didn’t vote for Kerry when he ran for President.
LikeLike
My God, he is a disaster. What’s that say about who appointed him?
LikeLike
I don’t suppose Syria is actually afraid of a “smallish” attack?
MOSCOW — Syria’s foreign minister says his country welcomes Russia’s proposal for it to place its chemical weapons under international control and then dismantle them quickly to avert U.S. strikes.
The statement from Walid al-Moallem came a few hours after U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said Syrian President Bashar Assad could resolve the crisis surrounding the alleged use of chemical weapons by his forces by surrendering control of “every single bit” of his arsenal to the international community by the end of the week.
Hours after Kerry’s statement, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said Moscow would urge Syria to quickly put its chemical weapons under international control, then dismantle them.
Lavrov, who held talks with al-Moallem in Moscow earlier in the day, said he expected a quick positive answer from Damascus.
Al-Moallem, however, wouldn’t give any further details in his brief statement and didn’t take any questions.
THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP’s earlier story is below.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/09/russia-syria-chemical-weapons-international-control_n_3893951.html
LikeLike
My God, he is a disaster. What’s that say about who appointed him?
Wasn’t Kerry forced on Obama by the rabid crowd that had deep-sixed any chances Susan Rice ever had? There was some weird backstage maneuvering going on there.
LikeLike
yello:
Wasn’t Kerry forced on Obama by the rabid crowd that had deep-sixed any chances Susan Rice ever had?
I think that is right. If I remember Kerry and Rice were the only two people in all of America available for the job, and the rabid crowd made its choice. Obama had no choice in the matter.
LikeLike
Sarcasm aside, Kerry was openly lobbying for the job and had a lot of backing among Republicans who vote (or filibuster) on Senate confirmations, large and small. They saw fobbing him off on the Executive Branch as a great way to get another bite at the Massachusetts senate seat, not that that turned out so well for them.
Like I said, there was a lot of Machiavellian maneuvering going on. On paper he is highly qualified having sat on the Foreign Relations Committee. Besides, Kerry was once considered qualified enough to be President by the Democratic Party. Who could have predicted he would be such a dud.
LikeLike
yello:
ike I said, there was a lot of Machiavellian maneuvering going on.
I’m sure there was. I guess I just never cease to be amazed at the degree to which O never seems to be to blame for his misjudgments.
LikeLike
It’s amateur hour.
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/3893594?1378735014
To quote Tuco from The Good, The Bad and The Ugly: “If you’re gonna shoot someone, shoot, don’t talk.”
LikeLike
When you’ve lost Sully, it’s time to pack up and go home.
Perhaps this is all 13-dimensional chess to make Hillary look like presidential timbre.
LikeLike
so the “red line” was off script and now Kerry is off scrip.
perhaps there is no script.
LikeLike
It’s almost as if these people have no idea what they’re doing.
LikeLike
I just never cease to be amazed at the degree to which O never seems to be to blame for his misjudgments.
At this point he is well into “damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t” territory. Short of a miraculous outbreak of universal peace in the Middle East, I don’t see the exit strategy for this quagmire.
While the Red Line comment was a bad gaffe, with all the humanitarian focus now being brought to bear, I’m not sure it matters all that much any more.We are well beyond that. The Do Something, Anything forces seem determined to carry the day.
LikeLike
yello:
At this point he is well into “damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t” territory.
Yes, but that is entirely of his own making, due both to his own ill-considered and insincere red-line drawing and his politically opportunistic but ultimately unserious past foreign policy critique of his predecessor.
LikeLike
O never seems to be to blame for his misjudgments.
perhaps there is no script.
It’s almost as if these people have no idea what they’re doing.
It’s unanimous. Obama is a fuck-up with no clue. Glad we got that finally resolved.
LikeLike
It’s unanimous. Obama is a fuck-up with no clue
I give these guys an opening and they take a mile. So much for my being honest anyway. I’m going with eleventy dimensional chess now and stick with that……..lol
What’s funny is Kerry’s gaffe may have saved the day, thanks to Putin…………..that’s weird.
LikeLike
lms:
I give these guys an opening and they take a mile. So much for my being honest anyway.
I don’t understand.
What’s funny is Kerry’s gaffe may have saved the day, thanks to Putin…………..that’s weird.
I find it highly unlikely that Russia’s offer has anything to do with the promise that any strike would be “unbelievably small”.
LikeLike
lms:
What’s funny is Kerry’s gaffe may have saved the day, thanks to Putin…………..that’s weird.
I just realized maybe you were talking about a different “gaffe”, not the “unbelievably small” one. If you meant his offhand comment about handing over all his chemical weapons, I actually didn’t consider that a “gaffe”. I was just struck by how eerily similar it was to the whole run-up to Iraq.
It could, however, lead to a face-saving way out of this for Obama. If he can credibly portray Syria as cooperating with international efforts to get rid of the chem weapons, it will give him a way out of his current predicament.
LikeLike
so if the CW are removed, its it declare victory and call it a day?
LikeLike
I thought Obama was elected because he was smart and not susceptible to The Do Something, Anything forces seem determined to carry the day.
Is he a coward then, or stupid?
LikeLike
Is he a coward then, or stupid?
Why is it always either/or with you guys?
LikeLike
Occam’s razor.
LikeLike
This says a lot on who finances J Street.
http://freebeacon.com/j-street-under-fire-for-ducking-syria-question/
LikeLike
Well, at what time has Obama’s administration consistently demonstrated competence?
LikeLike
Lima, why should we trust the Russians or Syrians considering how weak Obama is? I certainly don’t trust them. A leader that would use these weapons isn’t very credible, no?
Bottom line, there is literally nothing we can do and Obama and his surrogates keep making things worse by talking.
LikeLike
So if they take the deal, do you get one free use of CW?
LikeLike
Scott, I don’t know how to explain your first question but it’s something I wrestle with here all the time and the second one had to do with what people elsewhere are calling Kerry’s other gaffe about Syria turning over all their CWs to international authorities and then having to walk it back, and then having Russia and Syria both say they were considering it. It’s just the comedy of errors that seem to exist in Kerry’s “foot in mouth”.
LikeLike
“Who could have predicted he would be such a dud.”
I’ll place myself in the strange position of defending Kerry. It’s not him, it’s the policy itself.
I.e. I don’t think anyone else could sell this policy either.
Edit: Having just read the Sullivan piece and the new quote along with the retraction by the State Department spokesman, I retract my comments. This is pretty absurd and does actively undermine the Administration’s case.
Unless it was 11th dimensional chess to get the Russians to play a constructive role.
LikeLike
Nova, don’t tell my husband about the free cw, he’s always threatening me with oleander leaves. 😉
LikeLike
How can anyone defend this?
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/09/09/video-wh-worried-that-syria-loss-will-cripple-obama-presidency/
LikeLike
that’s potent stuff. the wegmans here had their scented pine cones out. it was like a potpourri bomb
LikeLike
Nova, oleander is poisonous……………..lol
LikeLike
so is potpourri 🙂
LikeLike
do you get one free use of CW?
Just like nuclear weapons.
That is the problem with chemical weapons is that there is no equivalent to Mutually Assured Destruction to keep them out of the game like with nukes. The temptation is to use them until you get caught.
Which is why theater nukes were always considered a terrible idea. If you have nothing left to lose, you might as well use them.
We seemed to have scared off michi, our actual Subject Matter Expert on CW.
LikeLike
HAHA, only for pets………………….believe me I’m not one, more like a pain in the ass.
LikeLike
I took Kerry’s remark about one week to put the CW under international control as the typical Final Impossible Ultimatum just before the attacks begin so one can say, “Hey we gave them a chance and they didn’t accept our offer of surrendering immediately so we were forced to attack.”
LikeLike
I took Kerry’s remark about one week to put the CW under international control as the typical Final Impossible Ultimatum just before the attacks begin so one can say, “Hey we gave them a chance and they didn’t accept our offer of surrendering immediately so we were forced to attack.”
Smells like surrender to me, especially in light of Clinton’s position.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/09/09/hillary-clinton-syria-assad-military-strike/2787323/
On the other hand, how is this a ” strong response from the international community”?
LikeLike
Competence!
http://m.nationalreview.com/corner/357999/obama-invites-himself-gop-lunch-robert-costa
LikeLike
Tweet of the Day!
@MarkSKrikorian: Reid: “hottest places in Hell reserved for those who in times of great moral crisis maintain their neutrality” Like Markey, OFA & J Street?
Don’t forget Senator Warren.
LikeLike
Uh…
http://politix.topix.com/homepage/7768-obama-wants-a-prompt-vote-in-congress-on-syria
WTF?
http://m.nationalreview.com/corner/358029/obama-i-went-congress-slow-down-debate-andrew-johnson
I guess I just don’t understand nuance.
LikeLike
McWing:
The guy is completely shameless. I suppose that’s one reason he has been a successful politician. He’s a conscienceless liar. Having a largely compliant media is helpful, too.
LikeLike