Cutting to the Chase

[Andrew D]

There have been numerous postings about the US's potential military action against the Assad regime in Syria. Many of those postings have raised sensible points on both -- or, perhaps better, all -- sides of the issue.

But at least to me, much of that carefully nuanced discussion, erudite as it may be, misses the fundamental point.

To me, the fundamental point is the exercise of US power.

The US is not reasonably disputably the world's supreme power. No navy stands a chance against ours. The combined navies of the rest of the world stand no chance against ours. Ditto for air power.

The question becomes what we should do with all that power.

My answer is Pax Americanus.

People all over the world are going to have conflicts of all sorts. We (the US) should generally avoid interfering in those conflicts.

But unless we are going to surrender ourselves to a regime of "he who has the nastiest weapons wins," we need to interfere when people step over the lines that the nations of the world have collectively drawn.

The US is, whether we Americans or the peoples of other nations like it or not, the power that can step in and enforce the rules that purportedly govern everyone.

When the children are fighting in the sandbox, and one throws sand into the other's eyes, we can turn away: Kids fight; that's the way of the world; and these things happen.

But when kids are fighting in the sandbox, and one gouges out the other's eye with a pointed stick, we cannot turn away. Yes, kids fight, but there are limits to what kinds of fighting we are willing to tolerate.

For those who may question whether I am advocating that the US set itself up as the final arbiter of what is and what is not permissible, let me cut to the chase: Yes.

In the current global situation, somebody has to do it. And the US has found itself thrust into being that somebody.

We did not ask to be the world's greatest power. (Although once there, we have done many things, some of which we should not have done, to maintain that position.) We are stuck with being the world's greatest power -- which is a hugely expensive and not profitable role -- and we are stuck with the obligations that come with that status.

Well, now that we are the world's greatest power, we should use our power against, among other things, international crimes of the highest order.

Or, if we are unwilling to do that, we should hang out a shingle that says "Sorry. Your shit is not our problem." And then we can bear the consequences of that ill-advised decision.

[Rick]

Hmmmm I agree

[Joe Guy]

I believe the majority of us are just tired of watching our young men & women dropping bombs on other countries that are no direct threat to us. Syria is a country that is destroying itself and now one side apparently broke the rules of war.

So dropping bombs on them does exactly what?

Maybe if we were told what we hope to accomplish some of us might agree with the decision to bomb them.

I listen to a lot of talk shows and hear a lot of people who believe this will escalate into something much bigger and draw the U.S. into the conflict even more. I've also heard that Israel's people are preparing themselves for being attacked because they know they are the closest and likeliest target for Iran or Syria to make their own point.

This is the oddest pre-attack scenario I've ever heard of. We sit over here and casually debate whether to launch missiles at a country that it has been alleged has done something bad to its people.

If we, the U.S., need to attack every leader of every country that perpetrates crimes against their own people, we would need a lot more bombs and a larger army.

My guess is that our representatives in Washington will either not truly represent what the majority of people want (not) done and they will vote to bomb Syria. Either that or they will vote against it and we will bomb Syria anyway.

I can't support the bombing without a better explanation from our President and I can't imagine what that could be.

[Gob]

Joe nailed it.

America...
America...
America, FUCK YEAH!
Coming again, to save the mother fucking day yeah,
America, FUCK YEAH!
Freedom is the only way yeah,
Terrorist your game is through cause now you have to answer too,
America, FUCK YEAH!
So lick my butt, and suck on my balls,
America, FUCK YEAH!
What you going to do when we come for you now,
it’s the dream that we all share; it’s the hope for tomorrow

FUCK YEAH!

McDonalds, FUCK YEAH!
Wal-Mart, FUCK YEAH!
The Gap, FUCK YEAH!
Baseball, FUCK YEAH!
NFL, FUCK, YEAH!
Rock and roll, FUCK YEAH!
The Internet, FUCK YEAH!
Slavery, FUCK YEAH!

FUCK YEAH!

Starbucks, FUCK YEAH!
Disney world, FUCK YEAH!
Porno, FUCK YEAH!
Valium, FUCK YEAH!
Reeboks, FUCK YEAH!
Fake Tits, FUCK YEAH!
Sushi, FUCK YEAH!
Taco Bell, FUCK YEAH!
Rodeos, FUCK YEAH!
Bed bath and beyond (Fuck yeah, Fuck yeah)

Liberty, FUCK YEAH!
White Slips, FUCK YEAH!
The Alamo, FUCK YEAH!
Band-aids, FUCK YEAH!
Las Vegas, FUCK YEAH!
Christmas, FUCK YEAH!
Immigrants, FUCK YEAH!
Popeye, FUCK YEAH!
Democrats, FUCK YEAH!
Republicans (republicans)
(fuck yeah, fuck yeah)
Sportsmanship
Books

[Sean]

The US is not reasonably disputably the world's supreme power. No navy stands a chance against ours. The combined navies of the rest of the world stand no chance against ours. Ditto for air power.

That's quite a chest-thumping delusion you've got there Andrew. Have you read Ozymandias?

[Andrew D]

Yes, Sean I have read Ozymandias. (Hasn't everyone?)

And it may well be that a time will come for the US to despair.

But that time is not today.

[Rick]

A poem about a Middle Eastern leader and his inevitable downfall

[Andrew D]

So dropping bombs on them does exactly what?

Obliterating the Assad regime tells the rest of the unruly children that there are limits. And using chemical weapons against civilians is one of them.

The issue is not getting into Syria's civil war. The issue is not what Iran or Israel or anyone else might do.

The issue is straightforward: Will the US -- the most powerful nation the world has ever seen, a nation whose power makes the Roman Empire and the British Empire and all the other empires look like inhabitants of the Forbidden City waving paper dragons in the face of heavy artillery -- step in to enforce a rule that has been agreed to by the overwhelming majority of the international community?

Or will the mightiest power in human history invite utter chaos -- and the needless deaths of millions, deaths which we could prevent by acting rather than whimpering -- by turning its back on the problem?

[Gob]

Will Team America World Police create yet another flourishing, peaceful, western loving democracy, just like it has in Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Cuba....

Latest incident
Jun 18: One by bomb which exploded as car was passing in Dijail, 120 km south of Tikrit Details

Recent events
Saturday 7 September: 12 killed

Shirqat: 3 policemen by IED.
Taji: 2 policemen by suicide bomber.
Mosul: 2 by IED, gunfire.
Tuz Khurmato: 1 by gunfire.
Baquba: 1 district chief by gunfire.
Falluja: 1 mukhtar by gunfire.
Mussayab: 1 Dawa Party member by AED.
Baghdad: 1 by IED.


September casualties so far: 248 civilians killed.

[liberty]

Well we could always respond by helping the rebels more. Give them leap "frog" anti-tank missiles to deal with the tanks and rockets to deal with the artillery. Syrian are smart people they have people that can use the weapons with limited training. And to help insure the weapons go where they are supposed to go we could send escorts and observers to keep control of the weapons until they are used. Now we can’t be sending US troops on to Syrian soil, but there once was a reliable company that could be hired to so such things. I believe that it was called “Air America”.

[Big RR]

Andrew--you're assuming our actions could prevent deaths; I think recent history has shown us is all they do is cause more deaths.

And FWIW, let's say we do succeed somehow stop or obliterate Asaad--do we want those same weapons in the hands of Al Qaeda--a fairly probably outcome?

Finally, re

enforce the rules that purportedly govern everyone.

; I guess that's unless you're our friend at (or the enemy of our enemy) the time, like Saddam not all that long ago.

What you are proposing could have positive outcomes if we act with prudence and evenhandedness, two things we really haven't done in the past and recently. One nation own acts in it own self interest; the only way enforcement of "internationally recognized" rules can be accomplished (if at all) is by multilateral action.

[dgs49]

As Dennis Miller has observed (more or less) we are the only nation that sends out a "Save the Date" card when we plan to attack someone.

It now comes to light that the Administration has no actual evidence that the Assad regime mounted this attack. They merely used their deductive reasoning to conclude that they did. Oddly, others have logically concluded that it was the rebel forces, trying to force Obama's hand w/r/t the infamous "red line." Go figure.

And the Administration has acknowledged that Syria (even if "guilty") did not violat international "law," merely international conventions. Good heavens, should we attack England for driving on the wrong side of the fucking road?

[Big RR]

To be fair Dave, this sort of convention is far more than a preference; it is a course of conduct agreed upon between a broad base of nations (much like a treaty which is usually agreed upon between a more limited number of nations. here are very few truly international laws, treaties and conventions govern the relationships among nations and generally respected within each nation. Conventions can cover things as far reaching as international business relationships, intellectual property, treatment of POWs (the "Geneva convention", e.g.), and accepted practices in wars that have the significance that the signator nations place on them as a body. it's far more than driving on the left or right.

[oldr_n_wsr]

trying to force Obama's hand w/r/t the infamous "red line." Go figure.

But Obama said it wasn't his red line.

[Grim Reaper]

Obliterating the Assad regime tells the rest of the unruly children that there are limits. And using chemical weapons against civilians is one of them.

The issue is not getting into Syria's civil war. The issue is not what Iran or Israel or anyone else might do.

The issue is straightforward: Will the US -- the most powerful nation the world has ever seen, a nation whose power makes the Roman Empire and the British Empire and all the other empires look like inhabitants of the Forbidden City waving paper dragons in the face of heavy artillery -- step in to enforce a rule that has been agreed to by the overwhelming majority of the international community?

Or will the mightiest power in human history invite utter chaos -- and the needless deaths of millions, deaths which we could prevent by acting rather than whimpering -- by turning its back on the problem?

Yeah, lets bomb Syria for using chemical weapons. Then we can start investigating our own government for aiding Iraq, even though we knew they had chemical weapons. We really don't have a lot of room to act all high and mighty. Which is why interfering with another nation like this will only cause more trouble for us down the road. We interfered with Afghanistan, and that bit us in the ass. We interfered with Iraq, and that bit us in the ass.

If you're really concerned with saving millions of lives, then we need to start fixing our own country first. We can either work on being a great power, or we can become a bully arbitrarily enforcing conventions on other nations.

[Rick]

I don't look like it's gonna happen anyway.

Plus the dead are dead, I figgered it would be more of a punitive measure than a life saver.

I'm sure targets would have been command and control centers along with many if not all of Assad's personal assets maybe a few Rusky installation for good measure, not unlike Caddafi and Lybia way back when.

But that's just me

[Andrew D]

Well, it now seems that the US is going to hold off, at least for the moment.

Putting Assad's chemical weapons under international control is better than leaving them in his hands. Unless, of course, putting them under "international control" leaves them in his hands. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

Someone mentioned Israel. Israel has a lot more to be scared of if the US does not follow through on its word than if it does. If Assad can cross a "red line," and nothing happens, then Israel has no reason to believe the US when the US says that it will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.

And if Israel does not believe that the US will stop that from happening, then Israel's other option is to take out Iran's nuclear facilities itself. And that means war in the Middle East.

Does anyone here consider that a positive outcome?

[Andrew D]

People have brought up the US's role in Iraq's chemical weapons.

I agree that Ronald Reagan's selling chemical weapons to Iraq was a bad thing. (Emphasis added by way of reminder to the Reagan-lovers.)

So what?

Should the US decide, today, that slavery is OK because the US was once (and profited handsomely from being) a nation that permitted slavery?

I think not.

[Andrew D]

Responding to other statements:

No serious person suggests that obliterating the Assad regime, taking a limited military action against the Assad regime, or putting Assad's chemical weapons under international control will "create ... [a] flourishing, peaceful, western loving democracy". That is just silliness, and it is entirely beside the point.

It is possible -- indeed, it is probable -- that obliterating the Assad regime would cause more deaths than have been caused by the Assad regime's use of chemical weapons. But it is also probable that if the US uses its overwhelming power to teach nations that they cannot use chemical weapons against civilians without paying a fatal price, that will, in the long run, save more lives than the lesson will cost.

I agree that the best way to enforce international rules of behavior is by international action. But if international action cannot be brought about, is it better for the US to do nothing? or to use its power unilaterally? The unilateral exercise of power is far from the most desirable thing, but it seems to me better than no one's doing anything.

An international covenant is a contract. Contract is what covenant means. That is why the Chemical Weapons Convention says that "The States Parties to this Convention ... Have agreed ...."

Being a great power and enforcing international conventions against other countries are not mutually exclusive. On the contrary, the former requires the latter. If a so-called power does not exercise its power, then it is not a power at all. It is just a munitions warehouse.

[Sean]

Should the US decide, today, that slavery is OK because the US was once (and profited handsomely from being) a nation that permitted slavery?

I think not.

You see, nobody has suggested that the US should do anything of the sort with regards to chemical weapons Andrew. You're twisting things a little here.

All that has been suggested is that if you are going to set yourself up as the world's moral compass you should make sure that your own moral compass points north first!