Did Anyone Hear Kerry Speak?

[Lord Jim]

"Why the hell should we declare war on Germany over Poland? Poland's on the other side of Europe fercrissakes, it's nothing to do with us. Besides we don't even know for a fact the Germans started it. The Germans have released pictures showing that the Poles attacked a German border station. How do we know Germany fired first? Where's the proof?

On top of that, our leaders have had dinner with Hitler."

Wasn't that what the USA said at the start of WWII?

A lot of American's did, (so did a lot of Brits..there was a lot of opposition in the UK to Chamberlain's decision to declare war after the invasion of Poland)

But unlike you I wouldn't have been one of them....

Jim--do you honestly believe we should act unilaterally, without the support and endorsement of the international community, to enforce what you say are international prohibitions?

I get asked so many difficult questions, I really like it when I get asked an easy one....

Yes.

[Gob]

Jim, if your next door neighbour threatens to come and punch your nose in, I'd see that as endangering you. I don't see it as much of a threat to me though.

[Lord Jim]

It will embolden rogue nations to believe they can act with impunity, which includes engaging in actions that endanger western nations.



Oh I'd agree totally on that Jim, but I do not see it as a "threat".

Is Great Britain no longer a Western nation?

[Lord Jim]

I'll say one thing, this has really created some strange bedfellows...

Me, rube, and CP lined up on one side, Dave, Strop and Big RR on the other....

You don't see that every day....

[rubato]

So let the world respond in a concerted way rubato, let's not act unilaterally just to show we have "balls". Face it, Assad's not stupid--he knows we could destroy Syria thousands of times over if we wanted to; which is why he's not directly taking us on. We don't need to bomb Syria to show we have balls; if the international community wants to respond to this breach of international law and standards, by all means let's participate in that; but there's not enough of a threat to us to act unilaterally.

You promote the worst and most morally repugnant aspects of 'realpolitik' very accurately. According to you, we were right not to intervene in Rwanda.

NATO will only act if there is consensus. The UN can be blocked by even 1 member of the security council.

Someone needs to exert moral leadership and we are the one country who can do so.



yrs,
rubato

[Sue U]

I've been listening to a lot of postulating on the pros and cons of a US attack and the 8-dimensional chess game of various national and subnational interests ostensibly involved. I think it's pretty clear that the Assad regime has violated international norms even in terms of a civil war and should probably be eliminated. But I don't see the urgency of immediate unilateral military action on the part of the U.S., and although a politically shrewd move, I think Obama is wrong to be laying this at the feet of Congress.

The "red line" of chemical weapons is an arbitrary and frankly hypocritical limitation; other states in the region -- including Egypt and Iraq -- have used chemical weapons with nary a peep from the international community, and Assad (like his father before him) has certainly proven adept at the mass murder of fellow Syrians using "conventional" means as well. But it does provide a convenient excuse for action.

Instead of going to Congress, Obama should be demanding that the Arab League take the lead and take aggressive action to police one of its own, which it has already suspended for atrocities in oppressing its people. (The Arab League has already petitioned the UN to take action against Syria.) There is a good case to make that the Arab League should get support in its efforts from NATO, since the Syrian civil war is at least arguably a direct threat to Turkey. The US has an important organizing and supporting role to play, but it need not be rushed into unilateral action that would ultimately be useless without the support and participation of Syria's neighbors, which should step up for the sake of their own regional stability and security.

In some very significant respects, Syria represents a proxy war between Iran and its Shiite clientele (i.e. Hezbollah) supporting Assad on the one side and Sunni states and organizations (including particularly Saudi Arabia, the Muslim Brotherhood and al-Qaeda) supporting the rebels on the other. There should be no illusions that, from our perspective, there are any "good guys" in this conflict, nor any "good" outcome likely from any intervention, at least in the near term. But while we may be justifiably outraged by the slaughter, this should not be primarily our responsibility.

[Gob]

The Independent reports:

The Government was accused of “breathtaking laxity” in its arms controls last night after it emerged that officials authorised the export to Syria of two chemicals capable of being used to make a nerve agent such as sarin a year ago.

What, exactly, are those two dangerous chemicals that need to be controlled via “arms control” regulations? You won’t believe me when I tell you. They are:

• sodium fluoride
• potassium fluoride

[Gob]

It will embolden rogue nations to believe they can act with impunity, which includes engaging in actions that endanger western nations.



Oh I'd agree totally on that Jim, but I do not see it as a "threat".

Is Great Britain no longer a Western nation?

Not one "under threat" no. Which 'western nations" are under threat Jim?

Oh, stranger bedfellows, me and CSM.

But since the case that's being made is one built around chemical weapons, it seems that the first order of business is getting the facts straight, and presenting the evidence for those facts in a clear and convincing manner. The discussion around the wisdom of acting will continue, but if this is about defending US credibility, a full accounting of the cause for war will need to be made.

[Lord Jim]

Not one "under threat" no. Which 'western nations" are under threat Jim?

The ones that you "agree totally" are endangered...

[Big RR]

Someone needs to exert moral leadership and we are the one country who can do so.

so we should become the lone ranger or a superhero and swoop in to save the world from immorality it refuses to recognize? I don't buy it, nor do I buy that we are the only country that can do it. We are hardly a moral beacon ourselves (hell, we openly keep political prisoners without charge or trial) and our foreign policy has allied us with leaders who have done the same things (Saddam) and worse without us raising a peep. And we hold ourselves out to be defenders of morality? Not a chance, we are defenders of our self interest, just like every other country is.

And that's the difference; single countries defend their own interests, not international ones. Countries acting in concert may (but do not always) act in the collective interest of the international community. Otherwise, we're just like the posse in a bad western (or even a good one) setting out to subdue an evil doer "because the sheriff won't", substituting our judgment for that of the persons (or in this case countries) charged with enforcing the law. If the countries (or a majority of them) that promulgated the standard don't see this act as something meriting a response, it is not our place to act in their place.

[Crackpot]

I think he was speaking in terms of logistics RR.

[Big RR]

If it's just logistics, Israel could do it far more easily.

[Crackpot]

they have all the equipment? and the ability to not provoke a counter-attack?

[Big RR]

Equipment? I would think so; Israel has a fairly competent air force and plenty of bombs, missiles, etc. Not provoking a counter attack? Who can do that? Granted, I would bet the US mainland would not be attacked, but a counter attack on US interests in reprisal wouldn't surprise me.

[Sue U]

A sensible view from an op-ed in Haaretz (an Israeli daily newspaper) a few months ago, by Moshe Ma'oz, a guy who knows a little bit about the subject:

***
From the regional perspective, Assad’s regime is an important link in the radical Shi’ite axis led by Iran (and with the participation of Hezbollah). This is our most dangerous enemy, and as well as that of Sunni Muslim countries like Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and some of the Gulf states. Like those countries, the government of Israel should publicly express support for the Free Syrian Army and the civil leadership of the mainstream Muslim rebels, both secular and religious (including the Muslim Brotherhood), with whom it is also possible to conduct negotiations when they come into power. In this way Israel would signal to the Sunni rebels and countries that it wants to join a regional strategic alliance, which will act to topple the Assad regime and will also weaken Iran and Hezbollah.

However, to advance this alliance Israel will have to accept the principles of the 2002 Arab League peace initiative, which was recently ratified in a more moderate version and most of the Sunni countries are supporting. Such a step could help to integrate Israel into a new regional strategic lineup, under the umbrella of the United States.

It is true that the Free Syrian Army is not sufficiently consolidated and strong enough and that the rebels also include fighters from Al-Qaida and other extremist Salafi groups. However, despite these groups’ radical motivation and ideology, they account for only a few thousand of the fighters. Most of them are not Syrians and they do not represent the mainstream Sunni Muslim population of Syria.

In a joint and systematic effort with Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Jordan, and with massive help from the U.S. and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, it is possible to strengthen and consolidate the Free Syrian Army (which currently numbers about 50,000 fighters), create a wide buffer zone inside Syria’s northern border and prevent the Syrian army from acting in this area. Clearly Iran and Russia will object to such Arab-Western moves and will continue to support Bashar’s regime and block American influence in the region. The international summit on the issue (which was supposed to have convened at the beginning of this month) will not solve the problem, but will only prolong Bashar’s rule.

As in Kosovo, NATO and the U.S. must undertake military intervention to prevent the slaughter of civilians, break the alliance between Bashar and Iran and help representatives of the Sunni majority (70 percent) take over the regime in Damascus. Israel does not need, of course, to participate in direct military involvement in Syria, but it can help clandestinely with precise intelligence about Assad’s military situation, and it can also increase the humanitarian aid to Syrian refugees and casualties. Israel must use its good ties with the U.S. to persuade it to give strategic military support to the rebels in Syria.

Prof. Ma'oz is an expert on Syria from the Hebrew University and Mitvim - The Israeli Institute for Regional Foreign Policies. He has published books and papers about Syria, among them “Syria, to Arabism and Back” and “Syria and Israel: From War to Peacemaking.”

Source: http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.529402

[Crackpot]

Equipment? I would think so; Israel has a fairly competent air force and plenty of bombs, missiles, etc. Not provoking a counter attack? Who can do that? Granted, I would bet the US mainland would not be attacked, but a counter attack on US interests in reprisal wouldn't surprise me.

Such a reprisal would be problematic. And any such act would constitute a direct act of war on whatever country those intrests resided in. Syrians allies couldn't even shield them from the shit storm that would produce.

[Big RR]

True, but now we're entering the realm of politics, not logistics.

[Lord Jim]

Otherwise, we're just like the posse in a bad western (or even a good one) setting out to subdue an evil doer "because the sheriff won't", substituting our judgment for that of the persons (or in this case countries) charged with enforcing the law.

Yeah, but what do you do if the sheriff is an old drunken coward in the pocket of the local mining baron?

You need a Pale Rider to come along and bring justice... (To follow your analogy... )

But seriously folks...

Big RR, your argument seems to boil down to, "because no one else is willing to do the right thing, we shouldn't either"....

I don't find that argument particularly persuasive....

[Lord Jim]

The fact of the matter is, given the nature of how limited this strike is, we don't need a whole lot of partners from a military strike stand point....(with what we've got on station, we have the capacity to launch about 400 cruise missiles all by ourselves) But expressions of support and approval would be nice...

Oh look, here's one ally that's met that bar:

Australia offers support for US strike in Syria

Australia is offering moral support for a U.S. military strike in Syria while New Zealand said on Monday it needs more information after U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry personally called each country's Foreign Minister.

Mr. Kerry has been trying to secure at least some international support for a potential U.S. strike after accusing the Syrian government of launching a chemical weapons attack.

Australian Foreign Minister Bob Carr's spokesman Patrick Low said on Monday that Mr. Kerry called last week and that Australia supports the U.S. taking action.

Nevetheless, the failure of the Brits to join with us (at least so far) remains a sad moment in Anglo-American relations...Especially when the French are all-in...

One has to go back all the way to The American Revolution to find a time when the French were better allies than the Brits...

Perhaps I should stop proudly flying the Union Jack along with the Stars and Stripes outside my home, and replace it with The French Tricolour...

No more God Save The Queen...

Perhaps it's time to teach my children....

La Marseillaise:



Viva la France!

[Lord Jim]

We once had "freedom fries" to replace "French fries"...

Perhaps now we should have "freedom muffins" rather than "English muffins"...