Ricky:

Perhaps a genocide can be avoided if the strikes take way the regimes abilities, or scare them into avoiding the repeated use of chemical weapons...
But its not at all likely that enough damage can be done to weaken Assads' regime to the point where the diverse opposition can achieve military victory...
If the goal is to ensure that Assad knows he cannot use chemical weapons with impunity , then I say go ahead... If the goals are greater ....and intervention depends upon greater goals ..then its unwise...

I mostly agree; this also seems to be what the U.S. Administration is telegraphing.

freeman3 wrote:I don't think we have had this kind of response to a topic for a long time...With regard to the topic of intervention itself what criteria what are using to intervene? I am not really seeing a vital strategic interest here. From what I understand that by getting rid of Assad we may be allowing people to come to power that are more anti-western, anti-Israel than Assad is (interestingly enough one of the attorneys in my firm is Armenian and her sister is a paralegal and they are from Aleppo with some relatives still there and they are very much against the rebellion)
It seems to me that we basically have humanitarian reasons for getting involved. France would seemingly have historical reasons for getting involved that might warrant greater involvement. To me intervention for humanitarian reasons means any involvement should be low risk and low cost. (btw I am with Sass and not wanting militarily intervention just because Obama has drawn a line in the sand--I am more inclined to pass on this one if that is the justification and wait until Iran tries us to show we're tough).

Shockingly, I agree with everything you said here.

Theorectically, the response should be from the international community but since Russia will not allow that I guess we should do something... I guess ultimately I agree with RJ (and Defiant?)that some kind of air/missile strikes are called for...

Sadly, I can't agree here. Why should we "do something?"

If upwards of 100,000 Syrians have been killed, do a few hundred caused by WMD warrant us entering?

If our enemies (Syria is a client of Iran and supplies/supports Hezbollah) are shooting each other, should we interject a few missiles or planes? What will that do? The other side (the rebels) are hardly "freedom fighters." We've been down this road a few times now--haven't we learned anything?

But they must sting and there is the promise of more if Assad persists in not following the Marquess of Queenbury's rules...

The rebels are really not "good guys."

And, what if there are indirect consequences? Iran decides to fire up a Hezbollah missile campaign against Israel, or whatever. We cannot expect "nothing" to happen.

What will such a strike accomplish? Will it kill more civilians?

I get where Defiant is coming from but I don't think the leader of the free world should start pinching pennies--when that happens it is time to pass the baton

I think we err if we try to be the World's Beat Cop. We can't respond to every crisis--and we haven't. There have been many slaughters we've ignored. What makes this one unique?

And, again: there does not appear to be a Pro-Western side to take. So, are we going to stay there and try to preserve life until . . .

This is probably going to happen and if it does it will not have a good result over time. It may or may not be received well immediately, but it will not work because it's not supposed to. It's "a shot across the bow" of a guy who we've been warning for a few years now. This will have no effect on Assad. None.

Well, I am lukewarm about this but I think it is important not to let chemical weapons be used without a response. I think we have an interest in not allowing the use of WMDs. And I suspect that we can deter Assad from further use of WMDs. Assad after sort of a shot across the bow would use chemical weapons again? I don't think he wants to be watching out for drones and Tomahawks on a daily basis. We just need to do enough so that he knows we are serious, but not enough to change the strategic balance in Syria.

Part of the calculation has to be how both Iran and Israel will perceive Obama not backing up his own red line. Iran will perceive it as an O.K. to keep going with nuclear weapon development since that is also an Obama red line. Israel will perceive it similarly and be more likely to take out the Iranian developments earlier. Both of them would perceive it as Obama/Congress/the U.S. not having the stomach for a fight. Not doing anything is ironically the most dangerous thing we can do.

Worth considering:

http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/ ... syria-8981

[Disclosure: Tim Hoyt is a former grad-school classmate, and was Best Man at my wedding.
(He notes that the article title is not his.)]

Ray Jay wrote:Part of the calculation has to be how both Iran and Israel will perceive Obama not backing up his own red line.

I just can't agree with that. Yes, he is the President. However, this is not "the United States of Obama." He should not have made that statement.

Further, this is the man who ran against the Bush record on doing exactly this. Well, except Bush actually had allies who went to war with him.

The objection from supporters of the President will be, "But, this is not a war." It's not? So, can we just travel around the world lobbing cruise missiles at various countries?

Of course it's war! The issue is whether or not President Obama should unilaterally strike against Syria because they violated a red line (allegedly) that he unilaterally instituted. What kind of foreign policy is that?

Sudan. Mexico. North Korea.

Tens of thousands dead. But . . . no chemical weapons were used and Obama didn't warn them, so it's okay?

This is an ego war. Everything that was said about Bush and Iraq, "it's about Saddam trying to kill his father," etc. is true about this war. We have no compelling national interest. Syria is no threat to us. There is no strategic value in us getting involved. The only motivation is President Obama's prestige.

Iran will perceive it as an O.K. to keep going with nuclear weapon development since that is also an Obama red line.

They have perceived it as "O.K." anyway. They've only been slowed by clandestine methods. Nothing the President has said or threatened has meant anything to them.

Israel will perceive it similarly and be more likely to take out the Iranian developments earlier. Both of them would perceive it as Obama/Congress/the U.S. not having the stomach for a fight. Not doing anything is ironically the most dangerous thing we can do.

I disagree. Allowing the ego of one man to overrule the national sentiment, the national interest, and common sense is the most dangerous thing we can do. President Obama ran as the anti-Bush. He's turning into Bush on steroids.

If Israel has to protect itself, she should. Obama is not going to do it anyway. He's shown he is all bark and no bite. This attack, if it takes place, will be no different. It will have zero impact and there is a downside: what happens if it is laughed off? Do we have to attack until the President's ego is restored?

Interesting article - I agree (and would have suggested myself) that as we agree that use of chemical weapons is a war crime, whether the target is military ot not, we should be gatherin evidence to make charges against whoever is responsible (up to including Assad if it were tge Syrian military).

One niggle I have is that a strike could make it harder to pursue such a charge. Especially onedirected (per Hoyt's article) at the unit itself. The best witnesses against the peope who did it will be those around them. So, if it was that unit, attacking it would risk killing those witnesses or discouraging them from coming forward. Or destroying other tracing evidence of the chain of decision.

What has emerged over the last couple of days - Israeli Intelligence sourced evidence that the Syrian Defence Ministry was in contact after the event - does add credence to the accusation that Syria did it. Whether Israel would release that evidence to War Crimes prosecutors in a way that it could be used in court is a different matter (I have no idea, but it may be that proving how tgey obtained the information might entail revealing methods or operations that Israel would not want to for obvious security reasons).

Even just raising war crimes investigations (which would already be in order as it seems civilians have been indiscriminately targeted with 'conventional' weapons previously), is "doing something". It may not be as immediate, or as destructive, but it is not doing nothing. It is also the bare minimum that I think we should do.

fate

So, can we just travel around the world lobbing cruise missiles at various countries?

But its been a proud tradition since 1993...


fate

We cannot expect "nothing" to happen.

But Assad should expect nothing to happen?

One can never predict 100% the consequences of an action like that being contemplated in Sysria... However one can predict reasonably well that unless there are consequences for the use of chemical weapons they will be used again.
The threat of war crimes trials is not much of a deterrent. Asad and his gang have to figure that they won't live in custody any more than Ghaddaffi did if they lose power...
So immediate consequence is essential if out siders are serious about deterring repeated use of the weapon....
All the dire predictions about Libya, and the restricted intervention there turned out to be wrong. I suspect that the kind of narrowly targeted attack considered in the article quoted will prove to make Assad (it was his brother who planned and ordered the attack according to reports I read this morning) reconsider the use of the weapons again.
And that everyone watching (Iran, Russia, China etc) will continue to watch.
Unfortunately it probably won't do much to shorten the Syrian civil war .

rickyp wrote:fate

So, can we just travel around the world lobbing cruise missiles at various countries?

But its been a proud tradition since 1993... .

Setting aside the "pride," is it a valuable tradition? Does it have a positive effect?

fate

We cannot expect "nothing" to happen.

But Assad should expect nothing to happen?

One can never predict 100% the consequences of an action like that being contemplated in Sysria... However one can predict reasonably well that unless there are consequences for the use of chemical weapons they will be used again.

Let's consider this.

The Administration (Kerry and Obama) have described the US as "war weary."

The Administration has said there will be "no boots on the ground."

The Administration has said the effort will last "a few days."

The President described it as "a shot across the bow." That means if you don't cease and desist, worse things are coming your way . . . but, we've already told him that's not going to happen.

The Administration has given ample warning.

So, the strike happens, but Assad has already moved things about the country to lessen the impact of an attack. Will we attack again if he uses more WMD? Maybe and maybe not. What we have told Assad is that we won't get involved at a regime-change level. So, the argument could be made that we are encouraging future WMD use.

So immediate consequence is essential if out siders are serious about deterring repeated use of the weapon....

It's obviously not "immediate" and it may not be consequential.

All the dire predictions about Libya, and the restricted intervention there turned out to be wrong.

Um, what?

Tell that to Christopher Stevens and the other Americans who were killed by jihadis. Is there a real Libyan government yet? Are terrorists on the run in North Africa?

I suspect that the kind of narrowly targeted attack considered in the article quoted will prove to make Assad (it was his brother who planned and ordered the attack according to reports I read this morning) reconsider the use of the weapons again.
And that everyone watching (Iran, Russia, China etc) will continue to watch.
Unfortunately it probably won't do much to shorten the Syrian civil war

I suspect that as with the failure to cut a deal with Iraq, thus forcing us to withdraw all of our forces, the directionless policy in Egypt, the negotiations with the Taliban in Afghanistan, the failure to secure the release of Dr. Afridi in Pakistan (although he will get another trial), the constant offer of negotiation with Iran over its nuclear program, the Administration will make a hash out of Syria too. It's what they do best.

I'm scratching my head on Obama going to Congress. I appreciate the reading of the constitution, but I wonder how this will play in Iran and Israel. Will we go for approval before a surprise attack on Iran? I've got to think that Israel has no confidence in Obama's declaration that he will not allow Iran to have nuclear weapons.

What will Obama do if Congress says no?

ray

What will Obama do if Congress says no?

Folow the will of congress.. And those who voted against intervention will own the decision.
If the gas is brought out again .... the active decision to let Assad act with impunity should trouble those who oppose action. And a no vote will license Assad to use the weapons again won't it?

But the reaction, so far, by the American public and Congress does contradict Defiants' earluer assertions about the power of modern media to influence public opinion doesn't it?
The only difference between Hitler and Assad is that Hitler rounded up people and sent them to camps to be gassed. And yet the world hasn't reacted the way he predicted.

The only difference between Hitler and Assad is that Hitler rounded up people and sent them to camps to be gassed. And yet the world hasn't reacted the way he predicted.

This is a very weird thing to say. There's an enormous difference between the indiscriminate firing of chemical munitions and the systematic, industrial scale massacre of millions of people. The only similarity is the murder weapon.

Sassenach wrote:

The only difference between Hitler and Assad is that Hitler rounded up people and sent them to camps to be gassed. And yet the world hasn't reacted the way he predicted.

This is a very weird thing to say. There's an enormous difference between the indiscriminate firing of chemical munitions and the systematic, industrial scale massacre of millions of people. The only similarity is the murder weapon.

Yes, a very weird thing to say.

Ricky:

ray

What will Obama do if Congress says no?

Folow the will of congress..

I would advise Israel to take out Iran's nuclear capacity shortly thereafter. The U.S. is not a reliable ally.

Ray Jay wrote:I'm scratching my head on Obama going to Congress. I appreciate the reading of the constitution, but I wonder how this will play in Iran and Israel.

Cameron's failure to get it through the House of Commons has probably been a factor here. The British PM handled it really badly.

1) He recalled Parliament a few days early, promising to have a case
2) The case he delivered was poor, and vague, and he delivered it without conviction
3) After losing the vote, he made a definitive statement that we would not take military action (when he did not need to, he could instead have left options open)
4) Shortly after this, we find that there was stronger evidence (although not 100% definitive), which our intelligence services will have had access to for days.

The reality is that polling in the UK, USA and France (whose governments all have at some time recently been suggesting we should take military action) shows most people do not support airstrikes.

Are we supposed to forget about democratic will because of what Israel or Iran think?

Will we go for approval before a surprise attack on Iran?

Well, by definition, if it comes as a result of Congressional approval, it is not likely to be a surprise. Perhaps Congress could authorise an attack well in advance, but that sort of thing may not be a comfortable precedent.

What will Obama do if Congress says no?

What would any President do if Congress said no?