UPDATE ON "RED LINE IN THE SAND" BELOW:
that is the question. Should we take up arms against this new sea of troubles?
Both parties are divided on what to do:
"Some Democrats, haunted by Iraq, are staunchly anti-intervention, while others, haunted by Rwanda, are strongly in favor; some Republicans, inspired by former Representative Ron Paul, decry military adventurism, while others, in the mode of the George W. Bush Administration, see a need to act against a rogue regime." --Molly Ball, The Atlantic
I would err on the side of NO intervention and put pressure on Syria's neighbors to oust Assad. But then who would take his place? That, of course, won't happen, and neither will international peace talks, as some have suggested.
There really aren't any good choices in this mess, and I have no idea what the intelligence on what is really going on is. I supported going after al-Qaeda, the group that planned and carried out the attacks on America on 9/11, but I did not support the Iraq invasion, since I saw no connection between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein.
A good analysis on the situation that explains the positions of the non-interventionists and interventionists in both parties is here:
And here:
UPDATE:
Via Talking Points Memo
"Dan Senor, former foreign policy adviser to George W. Bush and Mitt Romney took on his own party Wednesday over the resolution to authorize military action in Syria, pointing out that Republicans never cried foul when President Barack Obama first said the Assad regime's use of chemical weapons would be a "red line."
Dan Senor told the panel on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" that he's as "frustrated as any congressional Republican" with Obama's approach to Syria. "But guess what? At the end of the day, right now, you are expressing a frustrated sentiment. A sentiment is not a policy," Senor said.
" 'We have a policy debate right now about what to do about a rogue nation that is bogged down in civil war that is experimenting with chemical weapons. Forget about if the president drew the red line or not. Imagine the president didn't draw the red line.'
Senor contended that Obama's declaration of a 'red line' on chemical weapons, which some Republicans have now used to criticize the administration, drew no opposition from the GOP at the time.
'And by the way, when the president did draw it, it's not like congressional Republicans were opposed to it,' Senor continued.
'No congressional Republican was saying, 'Don't draw that red line.' They were never criticizing President Obama for doing too much. They were criticizing him for doing too little. So now he wants to do something.' "
20 comments:
Like you, I was against attacking Iraq, not because I didn't believe they had nuclear weapons but because I don't believe we are the world police force and Iraq did not invade the US.
Syria is a no win situation for everyone. We have no clear objective and very little support. Even GB doesn't support us in this action.
It is up to the surrounding countries to police their region, not us. Attacking Syria will only inflame the Anti-American attitude in that region.
I'm sorry, but while I feel great pity for the benighted populations of the Middle East, I cannot take the way we are approaching this politically motivated crisis the least bit syriasly.
I believe our constant military intervention in places that pose no threat to our national safety, our territorial integrity or our best economic interests abroad has proved to be a tragic historical error.
We do not have enough money or enough manpower to play the role thrust on us by our decisive victory over The Axis Powers in World War Two.
I have come -- very sadly -- to believe the true motivation for our participation in all these violent regional conflicts has been to line the pockets of International Bankers, the Owners and Suppliers of Raw Materials and the Manufacturers of War Materiel and other Products vital to the sustained performance of violent conflict with ever-increasing amounts of gold.
I also believe to a large extent that we have permitted ourselves to be used as a cat's paw to protect the interests of ISRAEL, which we have been systematically deceived into believing are synonymous with our own.
Surely you've noticed we haven't won a single decisive, clear-cut victory, gained any territory, acquired greater access to natural resources or improved the prospects of any native population with whom we've interfered since Nuremberg? Yet we keep on invading, killing and dying.
WHY?
I think I know, but what do YOU think? What could be the TRUE motivation behind these endless wars?
The Arab league wants action... let them act!
"What could be the TRUE motivation behind these endless wars?"
Oil.
Syria has very little oil and attacking them would result in more destabilization in the area.
Drawing a line in the sand should not be a reason to attack with no international support. It does appear Iran is just waiting for any excuse to invade Israel and this would gain support for the remainder of the region.
The Arab league seems to be fine with doing nothing and that is just what we should do.
If we do decide to attack there will be a lot of congressmen who were for it before they were against it.
Is there any clear indication that a strike would even seriously weaken Assad? Apparently, no.
Are we even certain Syria would be more stable and less violent without Assad? Sadly again, no.
Is Iraq a success? Yeah, the surge worked (LMAO) and the same group of poltroons that pushed militarism as a solution are at it again. "Knuckles" McCain won't quit but we seem to have stopped listening to him, thankfully.
Every time we gt involved in the region the tug of war between Iran and our allies (LMAO) the Saudis gets more violent.
Here's a link that gives an entirely different slant:
http://theeconomiccollapseblog.com/archives/is-the-united-states-going-to-go-to-war-with-syria-over-a-natural-gas-pipeline
This involves competitive tensions between Quatar, Syria and Saudi Arabia each of which has its own agenda.
____________________
Ms Shaw, "Oil" is always the quick and easy answer -- the one that seems on the surface to make the most sense. HOWEVER, since we have accomplished absolutely nothing but an exacerbation of regional tensions accompanied by an escalation of death and destruction with our ill-conceived, ill-fated military forays in the Middle East, the idea that somehow we have increased our own supply of [relatively cheap] oil in the process is ludicrous.
What we have done has wound up COSTING us far more than we could ever hope to regain.
If we were REALLY serious about increasing our supply of fossil fuels at lowered cost -- and NOT merely trying to BANKRUPT ourselves in the fulfillment of the aims and ambition of nefarious forces who have no discernible allegiance to OUR country -- we would long ago have busily engaged ourselves in developing the plentiful natural resources that lie in and around the North American Continent.
I sense a distinct -- and to me distinctly evil -- purpose behind our apparent idiocy. There's a method in our madness, and I don't think anyone will like it once its purpose is finally unveiled.
FT said... "We do not have enough money or enough manpower to play the role thrust on us by our decisive victory over The Axis Powers in World War Two."
I do not agree with the above. This nation, and it's politicians RELISHED the idea of being the world's policeman.
AND, the fledgling Military Industrial Complex salivated at the very idea of such a thing happening. It spelled BIG MONEY for the defense (war machine) contractors.
This nation have NEVER STOOD DOWN flowing WW II, and in reality has FOUND a multitude of reasons to keep the nation on a MILITARY footing and has had no difficulty in finding conflicts around the world to intervene in.
Perhaps if this nation had, after helping Europe and Japan rebuild, adopted a rational DEFENSE policy and consistently stuck by it the geopolitical realities would be vastly different today. IMNHO it would be superior to what we have now.
Other than Afghanistan following 9/11 I can think of no intervention that has made long germ sense for the nation For the MIC where BIG MONEY was to be made that is.
"I believe our constant military intervention in places that pose no threat to our national safety, our territorial integrity or our best economic interests abroad has proved to be a tragic historical error."
Isn't it interesting that no conservative/Republican spoke up and said the above when GWB was selling his WMD lie to the nation as an excuse to invade Iraq.
It's amazing to read how diligent the cons are about pushing this now that a Democrat is looking to intervene in the M.E.
When the anti-war people took to the streets to oppose intervention in Iraq, the righties in this country called them traitors.
This nation has NEVER STOOD DOWN following WW II. In reality it has FOUND a multitude of reasons to keep the nation on a MILITARY footing and has had no difficulty in finding conflicts around the world to intervene in.
Other than Afghanistan following 9/11 I can think of no intervention that has made long term sense for the nation, other than for the MIC where BIG MONEY was to be made that is.
There, fixed them.
_________ Is It Worth Dying? _________
Is there anything worth dying for, I ask?
Show me why I should give up my life.
I feel this Gift from God is like a cask
That too soon emptied functions like a wife
Who pledges love, then treats it like a task,
Or welches on an honorable bet ––
Reneging, shameless, insolent to bask
Truculent –– a Booby Trap to Let.
How ironic to be born just to regret
Duty’s dreary dictates spelling Doom ––
Years of preparation to beget
Impossible demands shrouded in gloom.
No innocence should be required to cede
Great future hopes to selfish monsters’ greed.
~ FreeThinke
RN brings up some good points... all very valid.
Anon, you too are correct in that during past dustups, the GOP/conservatives were all for war, until Obama is in charge.
Ron Paul, a libertarian has consistently been against this type of war mongering...
Now as for Obama, here's where I stand...
Obama never should have used the "line in the sand" rhetoric unless he was willing to act as the CIC and respond.
Clearly it appears that he would rather not respond.
His initial steps to attack, in spite of the views of the American people and his inability to make the case for possible American deaths only add to the mess.
But perhaps his biggest gaffe is to set up a defacto vote of confidence in his leadership.
Tell me, if he loses the vote, will we still go in? And if he does, why the vote?
And again, if he loses, what becomes of his presidency?
It is possible that his vacillations could produce a real crisis of leadership for the US...
Dave, here's another point of view from a commenter on Andrew Sullivan's blog:
"Enough with the war hysteria. We did not accidentally get drawn into either Iraq or Afghanistan; we went in quite deliberately. So the apt comparison here is not with either of those wars but with Libya, where despite your overblown concerns, we got through it with the loss of four people. That’s a tragedy, but it isn’t exactly Antietam.
The object of a punitive strike is to dis-incentivize the use of chemical weapons. That’s it. Now, as it happens, I oppose this action. But opposing it does not require me to rend my clothing and tear out my hair. We are a superpower proposing to fire some cruise missiles at a vicious little thug who violated international norms by using chemical weapons. That’s it. It’s the kind of thing the Royal Navy used to do on the authority of a given ship’s captain back in the 19th century. It is really not that big a deal. Really. Obama has already proved he can strike without getting entangled. He’s not George W. Bush. And this is not Iraq or World War 3."
As for me, I have no idea on what motivated President Obama on his line in the sand comment and where he intended to go after it.
RN: There, fixed them.
"Flowing WWII" and "germ sense" sound like examples of RN word salads... but I'm sure he will say they were "typos"... although with these "typos" he didn't get misspelled words, but words spelled correctly (just not the right words)... which would fit with the definition of "word salad".
Also, I strongly disagree that our being in Afghanistan "long term" makes sense... a position, BTW, your buddy Will would agree with.
FT: the idea that somehow we have increased our own supply of [relatively cheap] oil in the process is ludicrous.
That is what the naysayers always say about the reality of the oil that was paid for with the blood of our soldiers. But it was NEVER intended for us. That oil went to *drum roll* the world's oil companies (including a company known as Halliburton)... and that was ALWAYS the plan.
Although I'd say it wasn't a part of the plan that China got so much. Apparently the reason is that "China is more interested in energy to fuel its economy than profits to enrich its oil giants".
The "red line" comment was, I thought a vocalization of how the WORLD viewed the use of chemical weapons, not a threat from the President. That is how I took it, and that is what Obama is saying now...
The president: "I didn't set a red line". ... "The world set a red line". ... "My credibility's not on the line. The international community's credibility is on the line. And America and Congress's credibility is on the line".
I agree with Andrew Sullivan, no reason to get hysterical over this (as some commenters on RN's blog are doing).
Stuff it Dervie.
"The Pentagon has estimated that it would take over 75,000 troops to neutralize the chemical weapons."
Page 5 here, reported by CNN a while back:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/R42848.pdf
Please keep on topic and not attack one another. Thanks.
I have yet to see where it is in our national interest to attack Syria.
Post a Comment