Should the US use military force in Syria?

[GGT]

Taking this out of the existing Syrian thread....to get a clearer picture about personal opinions, and how folks are making up their minds.

[wiggin]

I go for 'why do we need another thread for this'?

[Loki]

I'm torn. On the one hand, the attacks probably won't do anything, might slightly erode international support for international law, and perhaps weaken our ability to negotiate with Iran (I don't believe that Syria will substantially retaliate). On the other hand, it hurts America's credibility to draw a firm red line and then do nothing when it's crossed. It's also possible that a limited response now will make Assad think a little harder about doing something similar in the future. Either way, I think the effect will be minimal.

[RandBlade]

Yes. I think the UK should too but Parliament has voted (narrowly) so democracy means we won't. Though I found the partisan politics involved in that deplorable.

[GGT]

I'm torn, too. US "credibility" and trust is already pretty low, internationally and domestically. There's blow-back and public resentment from the Iraq debacle, for sure. But also CIA drone attacks that exacerbated tensions in the region, recent Intelligence failures in foreign embassies/consulates (Benghazi), and Surveillance issues involving the public (NSA and FISA courts).

I'm also not convinced we've exhausted "non-military" options. If the Syrian Electronic Army can hack and disrupt western news sites and social media outlets....could we do the same to disrupt Syrian airports and communications, without resorting to missile sorties?

[Loki]

You're assuming we're not already doing that.

[GGT]

Well, if we're already doing that....and removing their capability to disseminate chemical weapons via planes, or importing munitions from Russia via planes....what's the point of bombing their airports or planes?

[Loki]

How does disrupting some of their communications prevent them from using chemical weapons?

[GGT]

By knocking out their radar, radio, cell towers, GPS, computer systems, electricity etc. wouldn't that ground their planes, and keep them from using chemical bombs or missiles? Didn't they used air space to do the dirty deed, with sophisticated technology that depends on those things?

Things in the US get messed up when electrical grids go down, with computer and cell communications close behind...that shut down airports and have a domino effect that's fairly crippling. I figured since we're concerned about 'attacks' on our digital infrastructure, Syria would be vulnerable the same way?

[Hazir]

As far as I am concerned a military intervention by either the US or 'the West' will amount to pouring oil on the fire. Nothing good can come of it.

[Steely Glint]

I would like to know:

a) What objective do we hope to achieve by military action against Syria?
b) How and in what ways will military action achieve those objectives?

[GGT]

I would like to know:

a) What objective do we hope to achieve by military action against Syria?
b) How and in what ways will military action achieve those objectives?

Good questions.

Military action risks making things worse, with Syrians flooding border states for safe refuge. Jordan is already overwhelmed by streams of refugees. That cancels out any "Humanitarian" objective being used to gain support.

The objective of "Stabilizing the region" doesn't fly, either. The middle east has been a violent hotbed for years, decades, centuries. Once-stable Egypt is dealing with their own crisis. Libya, Iraq, and Yemen are a mess. And no one knows what Iran has up their sleeve.

If the objective is punitive, to "punish" Assad's regime for using chemical weapons....how does a military strike have 'higher moral ground' when it kills innocent civilians and children in the process? And what would we do if Syria responds by using chemical weapons again? It wouldn't necessarily come from Assad's orders, his brother sounds like a maniac within the regime.

Israel is on high alert and dispensing gas masks, in case Iran or Hezbollah or Syrian Al Qaeda (or whoever the hell) retaliates. The Arab League hasn't 'approved' military action. Saudi Arabia and Qatar and UAE are straddling the fence, condemning the US while asking for help, as usual. The UK has decided to step away. US Congress and Senate leaders aren't calling representatives to end their August vacations, return to DC straight away, and fulfill their constitutional duties. And POTUS is playing golf.

[Hazir]

I would like to know:

a) What objective do we hope to achieve by military action against Syria?
b) How and in what ways will military action achieve those objectives?

Hope to achieve by military action? You'd have to be hopelessly optimistic to believe anything will be achieved by a limited military strike against the Syrian regime.

[RandBlade]

I would like to know:

a) What objective do we hope to achieve by military action against Syria?
b) How and in what ways will military action achieve those objectives?

A) Respect and enforce the principle since 1920 that chemical warfare is never tolerated.
B) By using military force in response to the use of chemical weapons.


So it seems Obama has decided he will use military force but not without Congressional approval and he won't recall Congress. So he's announcing to Assad that he'll take action but not for another two weeks.


What a dithering farce. Do, or don't do. But to announce to your target you're taking action in a few weeks - what purpose does that solve? It seems there can be special sessions of Congress because a budget deadline set years ago is up and nothing's been done - but to have a recall for urgent matters of War and Peace can't be done? Odd.

[Hazir]

A) Respect and enforce the principle since 1920 that chemical warfare is never tolerated.
B) By using military force in response to the use of chemical weapons.


So it seems Obama has decided he will use military force but not without Congressional approval and he won't recall Congress. So he's announcing to Assad that he'll take action but not for another two weeks.


What a dithering farce. Do, or don't do. But to announce to your target you're taking action in a few weeks - what purpose does that solve? It seems there can be special sessions of Congress because a budget deadline set years ago is up and nothing's been done - but to have a recall for urgent matters of War and Peace can't be done? Odd.

Actually there have been several incidences of chemical weapons being used that went by unpunished. Some of them actually barely got covered by the news. So I fail to see why this particular incident should make a difference.

Especially since military intervention in Syria is not going to achieve anything that's not against the interests of 'the West'.

[Flixy]

A) Respect and enforce the principle since 1920 that chemical warfare is never tolerated.

Has that been a principle though? IIRC since 1920 it has been used by Italy, Yemen, Japan, US (Agent Orange, and on their own soldiers), Iraq, all used chemical weapons, most without consequences.

[RandBlade]

Has that been a principle though? IIRC since 1920 it has been used by Italy, Yemen, Japan, US (Agent Orange, and on their own soldiers), Iraq, all used chemical weapons, most without consequences.

Yes most definitely! The use has been very sporadic since then and even in WWII the Nazi's and Allies didn't really use them. There were a couple of suspected minor incidents and the Japanese notably did, but nothing large scale by either side. Considering the Total War nature of WWII their use might have been expected and it was considered by both the Nazi's and British amongst others but was regarded beyond the pale even in WWII and held back in case the enemy started using them.

The exception is far more than the norm and we should not tolerate it becoming a norm.

For both reasons stated force must be used for the sake of using force. It has reached the point that whether or not the use of force improves the situation sadly is no longer a sufficient reason to hold back there are serious principles to uphold and our word must be upheld or the next tinpot dictator will know that using chemical weapons on his rebels is perfectly OK.

[GGT]

a) What objective do we hope to achieve by military action against Syria?
b) How and in what ways will military action achieve those objectives?

A) Respect and enforce the principle since 1920 that chemical warfare is never tolerated.
B) By using military force in response to the use of chemical weapons.

As Steely said, (A) is a boat that sailed a long time ago. That leaves other "objectives" to sort out -- so far that means saving face, following through on threats, showing our junk now that our pants are unzipped, and other ego-driven goals. "Credibility", following "International Norms", and adhering to "Humanitarian Principles" are more conventional ways of saying the same thing, at least in how they're being used.

Using military force is an extension of that -- to prove US military might, maintain our reputation as a global superpower, with influence over international events (especially the middle east). Conventional wisdom says the best/only way to fight against despots or evil dictators (who gas their own civilians) is using legitimate counter-force, even if it will likely kill civilians....or worse, lead to a powder keg exploding.

Is that about right, in a nutshell?

If violating this International Convention is so intolerable....shouldn't other nations be willing military partners (besides France)? Since there's no real consensus from UNSC or NATO, let alone the Arab League, Saudi Arabia/Qatar/Kuwait/UAE etc....what makes the US the sole protector and enforcer of this Principle?

[Spenni]

Lets do this O: gas-masks are sitting useless in the connex right now anyway o_O

[Steely Glint]

A) Respect and enforce the principle since 1920 that chemical warfare is never tolerated.
B) By using military force in response to the use of chemical weapons.

The use has been very sporadic since then and even in WWII the Nazi's and Allies didn't really use them.

Iraq was extravagant in its use of chemical weapons in the Iran-Iraq war, their use accounted for 5% of the Iranian casualties in that 8 year long war. Since it was an ally at that time and it was using them on an enemy, nothing was done. It used them again in 98 against the kurds, killing 3-5 times as many as the attack in Syria, and by that time it wasn't an ally but an enemy. Still, nothing was done. There are also allegations of chemical weapon use by America in Vietnam (the real shit, not Agent Orange) and by the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. Though both of those strike me as somewhat dubious, and I mention them as an aside. Point is, I'm afraid A) is a boat that sailed a long time ago.

[RandBlade]

Iraq was extravagant in its use of chemical weapons in the Iran-Iraq war, their use accounted for 5% of the Iranian casualties in that 8 year long war. Since it was an ally at that time and it was using them on an enemy, nothing was done. It used them again in 98 against the kurds, killing 3-5 times as many as the attack in Syria, and by that time it wasn't an ally but an enemy. Still, nothing was done. There are also allegations of chemical weapon use by America in Vietnam (the real shit, not Agent Orange) and by the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. Though both of those strike me as somewhat dubious, and I mention them as an aside. Point is, I'm afraid A) is a boat that sailed a long time ago.

As every rule there has been exceptions but they are remarkably few and far between. Regarding Iraq is it a good thing that we did nothing while those weapons were being used (leaving a humongous mess behind for over a decade and ultimately the second war)?

[Aimless]

As every rule there has been exceptions but they are remarkably few and far between. Regarding Iraq is it a good thing that we did nothing while those weapons were being used (leaving a humongous mess behind for over a decade and ultimately the second war)?

I'm not sure if you can call them exceptions unless there have clearly been many more cases where the use of chemical weapons have led to military reprisals.

[Flixy]

As every rule there has been exceptions but they are remarkably few and far between. Regarding Iraq is it a good thing that we did nothing while those weapons were being used (leaving a humongous mess behind for over a decade and ultimately the second war)?

It's more exceptions than rules, though.

[Loki]

If you're referring to Syria, the past incidents kills a handful of people. This one killed 1,500...

[Hazir]

If you're referring to Syria, the past incidents kills a handful of people. This one killed 1,500...

So tell me, what was that red line exactly? Was it killing people with chemical arms? Because that already had happened before with impunity in both Syria and Iraq. Or was it the number of people killed? Because then I have the question what exactly made this group of people killed so special after the first 100,000 deaths weren't special enough to get the US to say it had to act?

The chemical weapons incident changes exactly nothing in the mess Syria already was. A sensible person when seeing a loose-loose situation walks away from it. An idiot jumps into it feet first.

If the US stays out, it might even be able to save itself to be an honest broker at some later time when the Syrians get wary of killing fellow citizens.

[Loki]

So tell me, what was that red line exactly? Was it killing people with chemical arms? Because that already had happened before with impunity in both Syria and Iraq. Or was it the number of people killed? Because then I have the question what exactly made this group of people killed so special after the first 100,000 deaths weren't special enough to get the US to say it had to act?

The chemical weapons incident changes exactly nothing in the mess Syria already was. A sensible person when seeing a loose-loose situation walks away from it. An idiot jumps into it feet first.

If the US stays out, it might even be able to save itself to be an honest broker at some later time when the Syrians get wary of killing fellow citizens.

The red line was large-scale use of WMD. And the point of an attack wouldn't be to change the situation in Syria, but rather to deter Assad and other leaders from using WMD in the future.

Are you serious? There's no way in hell that Syria ever views the US as an honest broker. Anti-Americanism has been at the core of Syria's foreign policy for decades. It's not going to change just because the US doesn't bomb it.

[Hazir]

The red line was large-scale use of WMD. And the point of an attack wouldn't be to change the situation in Syria, but rather to deter Assad and other leaders from using WMD in the future.

Are you serious? There's no way in hell that Syria ever views the US as an honest broker. Anti-Americanism has been at the core of Syria's foreign policy for decades. It's not going to change just because the US doesn't bomb it.

President Obama in 2012 :

"A red line for us is (if) we see a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around, or being utilized. That would change my calculus” on whether a U.S. intervention is merited, the president said.

I don't see any indication that the red line was about the number of people killed in a particular use of chemical weapons. The number of people who died probably would make up no more than 3% of the casualties of the civil war since the president explained us what his red line was.

And yes I am serious about the chances for the US to be in a position to be the honest broker once this civil war calms down. The anti-Americanism of the Assad regime's foreign policy is entirely immaterial for that role. What would utterly destroy the chances of the US to be seen as one would be siding against one side by bombing its positions.

[Lewkowski]

We told them not to and they did it anyway - justification enough for action.

[Timbuk2]

And history would judge us all extraordinarily harshly if we turned a blind eye to a dictator’s wanton use of weapons of mass destruction against all warnings, against all common understanding of decency.
- John Kerry

I find myself in agreement.

~

In other news, I'm wondering how Americans are enjoying their freedom fries at the moment.

[wiggin]

In other news, I'm wondering how Americans are enjoying their freedom fries at the moment.

I'm having some right now along with my freedom toast and my freedom-press coffee. Don't mess with America, bitches.