Message for Gob

[Andrew D]

... we have lost. The only achievement of the Obama administration in the Syrian crisis so far has been to eliminate the humanitarian motive from American foreign policy. We have lost. After Syria, the argument about rescue and responsibility, about the uses of American power, will have to begin again. For Assad's gassing of children has been a dazzling career move. His most recent, and most brazen, use of chemical weapons has not imperiled him. Quite the contrary. The dead of Ghouta have saved him. ...

* * *

Obama, Putin, and Assad each had a problem. Obama's problem was that Congress was about to humiliate him and his presidency, as a consequence of his bizarre decision to crowd-source his responsibilities as commander-in-chief. Putin's problem was that American military action was about to damage -- and, depending on the American target list, since "we don't do pinpricks," help to depose -- his only client in the Middle East. Assad's problem was that the fundamental strategic assumption of his war on his country -- that the Americans will not come -- was about to be falsified. ... Unfortunately, the solution to Obama's, Putin's, and Assad's problems is not the solution to Syria's the Middle East's, and America's problems. On the other hand, it suits Iran fine. And when the Kerry-Lavrov plan turns out to be impracticable, and Assad turns out to be lying and stalling, what then? We are being played for fools. Worse, we are willingly being played for fools.

We are also becoming heartless. In the name of "nation-building at home," we are learning to be unmoved by evil. ... [ I]t has been obvious for many decades that the repetition of atrocity dulls the conscience instead of stimulating it. ...

Whether or not we intervene in Syria, we must not become an uncompassionate people. But when the president wrenchingly describes the murder of children to the nation and then flinches at the prospect of doing something about it, he dulls the moral sensitivities of the nation. ... So have no fear. We don't do pinpricks even. ... The responsibility to protect is so twentieth century ... [so] we will be the world's superpower bystander. Those who believe that 2013 is 2003 are winning. There is a consensus. If only popular meant just or true.

(Leon Wieseltier, "Unbelievably Small," The New Republic (7 October 2013) p. 63.)

[Sue U]

Why do you keep trying to make Syria America's problem? Are there no other nations on earth whose people have compassion for the victims of civil war? Must America be the sole policeman of the world, inserting itself into the domestic strife of other nations regardless of whether there is any actual US national interest at stake?

Yes, the civil war in Syria is terrible. Yes, the use of poison gas is criminal. But so are all the massacres and other daily atrocities that have been occurring in this conflict. Punishment of the Assad regime by a necessarily limited strike will not stop the war or even solve the problem; unless it can totally obliterate the leadership and cripple its military capability, it will be seen as a victory for Assad.

From one perspective, it may not even be in the interests of the US or the world at large to actually do anything that might hasten resolution of the Syrian civil war. As long as radicalized fighters are engaged there, and draining resources and attention from their sponsor states, they are less likely to be making mischief elsewhere in the world. And if Hezbollah and al-Qaeda want to fight each other to the death in Syria, I am inclined to stand back and let them.

The US need not and more importantly should not play a leading role in Syria. If military force is needed to contain or intervene in the conflict, it should be because the Arab League and Turkey request UN and/or NATO assistance, and US support should be limited.

The most pressing diplomatic need at the moment is to get Iran to disengage from Syria and provide cover for its exit.

[Andrew D]

I have no interest in making Syria the US's problem. And I said so more than a month ago:

What happens in Syria is of only secondary importance. It's a Middle-East problem; let the Middle East clean it up.

* * *

The message should be simple: Except in extraordinary circumstances, we are not going to intervene in your civil wars; we don't understand most of them anyway. But there are limits, and the use of chemical weapons against civilians goes beyond those limits.

(Emphasis added.)

Or, as I put it even more directly on the same day:

We should do what we can to annihilate the Assad regime. Not regime change; regime obliteration.

We should not do that because it will advance some material interest of ours. We should do it to give teeth to a straightforward proposition: If you use chemical weapons against civilians, you die.

(Emphasis added.)

I wouldn't give a rat's ass who won Syria's civil war, if Assad had not used chemical weapons against civilians. And I still don't give a rat's ass who wins; I care only that Assad loses. After all, the obliteration of what passes for Assad's government would not dictate who won Syria's civil war: The opposition is united only in being against Assad.

And if Hezbollah and al-Qaeda want to fight each other to the death in Syria, I am inclined to stand back and let them.

Works for me.

The use of chemical weapons against civilians, not Syria's civil war, is the problem that demands intervention. And it is not peculiarly the US's problem. It is everyone's problem.

The UN, NATO, the Arab League, Turkey -- none of them has demonstrated any resolve to implement the punitive-deterrent measures necessary to announce to the world the one proposition that matters most in this whole mess:

If you use chemical weapons against civilians, you die.

If the US must be the world's sole policeman -- not a role we should relish, but a role forced upon us by the inability or unwillingness of the "international community" to fulfill its responsibilities -- then so be it. We are, after all, the world's sole superpower.

Although if France wants to take the lead, that's fine with me. Somebody needs to do it; it needs to be the US only if no one else with the wherewithal to get it done will step up.

But that does not mean that the US should always be "inserting itself into the domestic strife of other nations". If the children in the sandbox want to keep throwing sand in each other's faces, that is not our problem. But when one of them tries to poke out another's eyes with a sharp stick, then, yes, we have an obligation to intervene.

The Syrian civil war is a humanitarian disaster, and we should do what we can to alleviate the suffering. But that does not mean that we should intervene in its or any other country's civil war. Civil wars are nasty, brutish things, and civilians die. If the US has learned nothing else from its own history, it surely should have learned that.

But the use of chemical weapons against civilians is a matter of a different order. It is not merely yet another example of our species's inability to resolve disputes without resort to mass murder. It is a holocaust in miniature.

That is why the Convention on Chemical Weapons prohibits their use against civilians "under any circumstances". (It also prohibits a host of other activities, but those are not germane to the present problem.)

Nothing justifies the use of chemical weapons against civilians except, perhaps, averting the potential destruction of the entire human species. Other than that, nothing. Period.

If we let Assad get away with using chemical weapons against civilians -- which is exactly what we are now in the process of doing -- every other regime, would-be regime, insurgent force, terrorist organization, etc., will consider itself free to do the same with impunity.

And that would be a whole lot worse than the adverse consequences of our bombing Assad's "government" until it ceases to exist.

[MajGenl.Meade]

I don't necessarily disagree Andrew but am I correct in thinking that you believe the use of chemical weapons against people is somehow "wrong"? (I shall forego asking 'why?' for obvious reasons)

In your opinion, is a dead person more (or less) dead because they were killed by a chemical weapon vs. a bomb? And do you think they care?

Finally, why is it that person A killing person B (by any means but apparently chemicals get your goat) is much more 'wrong' than you killing person A (by any means short of chemicals presumably)?

Second finally, are you stating that the use of chemical weapons is perfectly acceptable as long as the goal is to kill all humans rather than just a small percentage of us?

Meade (not Gob) (oh damn I not only read your thread for Gob but actually posted in it)

[Gob]

How about fixing the terrible strife in Iraq first, these's as many dea t hs there daily as in Syria. You know the place, the lazt great Team America World Police attempt to bomb a country into democracy.

[Gob]

How about fixing the terrible strife in Iraq first, these's as many dea t hs there daily as in Syria. You know the place, the lazt great Team America World Police attempt to bomb a country into democracy.

[Crackpot]

No the last place was Libya

[Lord Jim]

Meade (not Gob) (oh damn I not only read your thread for Gob but actually posted in it)

Shame on you Meade...

Gentlemen don't read other gentlemen's mail....

[MajGenl.Meade]

Well that settles you and me then!

[Big RR]

Andrew--while I disagree with what you propose re unilateral action, I appreciate your genuine concern re use of chemical weapons against civilians. But I will ask you, is this concern limited only to chemical weapons, or are there other weapons whose use against civilians must/should be met with the same response (even unilaterally)? I am trying to assess the scope of responsibility you are saying the US must assume to make war somehow more civil.

[Andrew D]

I have no interest in "bomb[ing Syria] into democracy." On the contrary, as I have clearly posted, "I have no interest in involving the US in Syria's civil war." The Syrian civil war is "a Middle-East problem; let the Middle East clean it up." I do not how to express my position on the US's involving itself in Syria's civil war more clearly than:

The message should be simple: Except in extraordinary circumstances, we are not going to intervene in your civil wars; we don't understand most of them anyway. But there are limits, and the use of chemical weapons against civilians goes beyond those limits.

Gob can go on pretending that I am advocating some neo-con intervention in Syria's civil war. It was false the first time he said it, it is false now, and it will be false the last time -- assuming that there will someday be a last time -- he says it.

[Crackpot]

I'm sure he'll die someday....

THough the bastard will probably have it etched on his tombstone.

[Gob]

If we do not take out Assad, the Muslim Brotherhood still might take over Syria.

If we do take out Assad, the Muslim Brotherhood still might not take over Syria.

Syria is in the midst of a civil war in which many factions are fighting the Assad regime. And some of those factions have almost nothing in common with each other except their desire to be rid of the Assad regime.

We have no way of knowing what will happen when -- and it appears to be when rather than if -- the Assad regime goes. We have no way of knowing whether our taking out the Assad regime will help or hurt any of those factions, let alone which one(s) might be helped and which one(s) might be hurt.

But we do know one thing: If we take out the Assad regime, other regimes tempted to use chemical weapons against civilians will have good reason to think twice.

So Andrew isn't interested in involving the us in syria, but t hinks "we" should "obliterate the Assad regime", how?

[Andrew D]

(1) We locate Assad and as many of the (officially or unofficially) high-ranking members of his regime as we can, and we kill them.

(2) We take out the key components of the Assad regime's command and control infrastructure.

(3) If the Assad regime or what's left of it or what succeeds it is foolish enough to try to fight back against US air power, we annihilate Syria's air defenses.

What are the alternatives?

We can engage the Assad regime diplomatically, as in the Kerry-Lavrov plan referred to in the opening posting. At least two problems: First, the likelihood that it will "work" is virtually nil. Second, even in the extremely unlikely event that it does "work," Assad will lose nothing by having used chemical weapons against civilians. Which means that no one else will be deterred from doing -- indeed, some people might be encouraged to do -- the same thing.

We can arm the opposition. At least three problems: First, arming the rebels while leaving the Assad regime intact is as likely to increase and prolong the bloodshed as to decrease and shorten it. Second, arming the rebels means, in effect, arming a bunch of al-Qaeda jihadists who want to kill us. Third, the punitive effect on Assad -- and, therefore, the deterrent effect on others -- will be vanishingly small.

So engaging the Assad regime diplomatically is a poor solution even if it "works," which it almost certainly will not. And arming the opposition will probably do more harm than good, as well as being an at least equally poor solution even if, as seems likely, the opposition ultimately prevails.

I'm all for some deus ex machine solution that will make the whole problem go away. But I don't see one in the offing.

P.S.: The phrase "isn't interested in involving the us in Syria" is verbal sleight of hand. Of course the US's taking action -- any action, even diplomatic action -- against the Assad regime is "involving the US in Syria". But it is not engaging the US in Syria's civil war. It is simply enforcing a peremptory norm of international law whose violation happens to have been perpetrated by the Syrian "government".

[Gob]

Gob can go on pretending that I am advocating some neo-con intervention in Syria's civil war. It was false the first time he said it, it is false now, and it will be false the last time -- assuming that there will someday be a last time -- he says it.

(1) We locate Assad and as many of the (officially or unofficially) high-ranking members of his regime as we can, and we kill them.

(2) We take out the key components of the Assad regime's command and control infrastructure.

(3) If the Assad regime or what's left of it

Not got the hang of quoting on this damn phone yet, but what you are advocating sure sounds like you want Team AmericaWorld Police buggering about in Syria to me Andrew.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Gob (sigh) it's neo-con if a neo-con advocates it. If Andrew advocates it, it's probably just naked aggression.


barenakedislam aggression?

[Andrew D]

The neo-cons wanted (and apparently still want) to turn Iraq and Afghanistan into thriving democracies at least sympathetic to the US. That was what their "regime change" was all about, and they want the same thing for Syria.

I harbor no such dreams about Syria. As far as I can tell, there is no substantial unity among Syrians as to what they want. Even setting aside the pro-Assad Syrians, the anti-Assad Syrians appear to be divided among those who favor some sort of representative democracy, those who favor a theocracy tilted in one direction, those who favor a theocracy tilted in another direction, those who favor things which I do not even understand, etc., etc., etc.

Unlike the neo-cons, I do not favor the US's attempting to force any particular resolution of those disputes among Syrians. I simply favor doing something effective about an international crime of the highest order.

Am I advocating "naked aggression"? When a police officer steps in to prevent an irate wife from caving her husband's skull in with a chapati pan, is she engaging in "naked aggression"? If she drags the wife off to jail after, lamentably, the wife has already caved in her husband's skull, is she engaging in "naked aggression"? I think not.

And the police officer's intervention to prevent or to see to the punishment of that cranium crushing -- better the former than the latter, but life does not always work out in optimal ways -- does not obligate her to attempt to resolve the couple's marital disputes. The couple's marriage is in the shitter, and that is neither the police officer's fault nor the police officer's problem.

[Andrew D]

Let me be more succinct.

Neo-cons: fundamental purpose is to create a US-sympathetic representative democracy in Syria; means to that end include favoring one faction or some factions of the opposition as against another faction or some other factions of the opposition; fundamental purpose requires long-term US engagement in Syrian civil war.

Andrew: fundamental purpose is to punish Assad regime for using, and thereby deter others from using, chemical weapons against civilians; means to that end do not include favoring one faction or some factions of the opposition as against another faction or some other factions of the opposition; fundamental purpose does not require long-term US engagement in Syrian civil war.

Some people may choose to lump both of those under "buggering about in Syria," but to me, (a) favoring vs. not favoring and (b) long-term US engagement vs. no long-term US engagement are essential distinctions.

[Andrew D]

Of course I do not believe that "a dead person [is] more (or less) dead because they were killed by a chemical weapon vs. a bomb". Nor is a person struck by lightning or taken by cancer any more (or less) dead than either of the others.

As to whether I "think they care," that question is better directed to MajGenl.Meade himself. He apparently has greater knowledge of the afterlife than do I.

[Andrew D]

Second finally, are you stating that the use of chemical weapons is perfectly acceptable as long as the goal is to kill all humans rather than just a small percentage of us?

I have added "adverting" to my second posting in this thread to clear up any such possible misunderstanding.