Taking this out of the existing Syrian thread....to get a clearer picture about personal opinions, and how folks are making up their minds.
Definitely Yes
Definitely No
Maybe, with these (named) limitations
Maybe, depending on these (named) scenarios
Not Sure/No opinion to date
I am a US voting citizen
Should the US use military force in Syria?
Taking this out of the existing Syrian thread....to get a clearer picture about personal opinions, and how folks are making up their minds.
Last edited by GGT; 08-30-2013 at 09:28 PM.
I go for 'why do we need another thread for this'?
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.
Hope is the denial of reality
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.
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
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?
Last edited by GGT; 08-30-2013 at 09:57 PM.
You're assuming we're not already doing that.
Hope is the denial of reality
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?
How does disrupting some of their communications prevent them from using chemical weapons?
Hope is the denial of reality
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?
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.
Congratulations America
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?
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
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.
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.
Congratulations America
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'.
Congratulations America
If you're referring to Syria, the past incidents kills a handful of people. This one killed 1,500...
Hope is the denial of reality
We told them not to and they did it anyway - justification enough for action.
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.
I'm having some right now along with my freedom toast and my freedom-press coffee. Don't mess with America, bitches.In other news, I'm wondering how Americans are enjoying their freedom fries at the moment.
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.
Congratulations America
I thought the Republic de la Freedom was the last ally standing right next to 'The White House' rattling its little sabre?
Congratulations America
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.
Hope is the denial of reality
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.
Congratulations America
Context matters. It was always clear that the US wouldn't intervene because of a handful of casualties.
You might as well say that Israel would be viewed as an honest broker.Seriously, Syria's regime loathes the US. There's no chance in hell the US would be considered an honest broker. It would either be some neutral European state or some country in the Gulf that's not all in with the rebels.
Hope is the denial of reality
Context matters, indeed. That's why thousands upon thousands of people are discussing the context. And that's also why your remark is a bit off here at this point.
Which brings us back to the fact that neither poison attacks nor huge numbers of deaths was considered enough to merit military action from outside. Which makes this particular 'crossing' a bit of a random basis for policies.
As for the 'Syrian regime loathing the US'; I am pretty certain that loathing can be evened out if the USA can play a constructive role in any peace talks. Such a role is less likely after bombing the Assad loyalists.
I remain staunchly against any military intervention in Syria. Nothing good can or will come of it.
Congratulations America
What do you think will be the consequences of a limited bombing campaign?
Hope is the denial of reality
But that principle has been "tolerated" at least a few times since. Including during Viet Nam when the US used Agent Orange and napalm, and Saddam gassing thousands of civilians (during Reagan/Thatcher administrations). It seems to be a "principle" that's not consistently "enforced", and doesn't have clear guidelines for which military force is supposed to respond.
House and Senate leaders can call members back from recess for an emergency session, an Executive Order isn't needed. The dithering farce would be congress continuing their "vacations" and fund raising, running down the clock, and wimping out on their Constitutional duties (while criticizing the Executive). Those who sent letters of approval or dissent were trying to have their cake and eat it, too -- hoping to avoid an open floor debate and official vote that might hurt their re-elections.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.
I'm glad Obama called their bluff, and was consistent with his Senatorial (and campaign) position on congressional approval for large scale military attacks like this. It remains to be seen how Sept. 9 hearings will pan out, or what Obama would do if votes turn out like UK's Parliament did.
Define limited bombing campaign. Does that mean limited by time or scope? Two days, in-and-out?Nothing harming civilians, or taking out "regime facilities"?
If you mean in this conflict I don't think that's been considered proven until now. If you mean decades ago then two wrongs don't make a right.
Exactly. If you say "don't do this or I'll do that" and they do this then you simply MUST do that. Or your word is totally discredited and void.
Never ever make a threat unless you're prepared to follow through.
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.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
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.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote