sass

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

well, an over reach. But Assads use of gas was in no way indiscriminate if the evidence presented so far is to believed. The neighborhoods were specifically targeted without regard to the presence of non-combatants. and especially without regard to the presence of children.
The intention was to destroy the civilians...

Thanks for the interesting article Rudewalrus.

I am very disappointed in Obama for shifting this decision from the realm of moral quandry to that of partisan politics.

For my money his tactic is a 2016 election stunt with a dash of revenge for his poor treatment at the hands of Congress.

Couple that with the fact that he knows he's in a no win situation and you get....

1. if green light, Congress takes the blame alongside you when things go wrong and they will go wrong. This way you safeguard the party in 2016 for shouldering the blame for what will of course become a quagmire costing more billions.

2. if red light, you point to Congress as inept and wash you hands of the whole thing setting up the Dems to be in position to play the blame game in 2016.

My vote for this thread, allow France to take the lead and offer support behind the scenes as best we can. Let France do the punishing and kick this can down the road. Save our tommahawk missiles for Iran's nuke sites.

No Ricky, there really isn't any comparison with Hitler that can be made. The Holocaust was a systematic attempt to kill a particular race of people using mass slaughter on an epic scale. Assad simply fired off some nasty weapons into a residential area. There's really no comparison between the two. Using gas doesn't make you into a baby Hitler.

While there are some comparisons that can be made to Hitler, it is a lazy one to make. All too often we have seen various tin-pot dictators described in such terms (usually as a prelude to arguing for military action). It demeans the argument and trivialises the monstrous reality of what Hitler did.

And people wonder at the idea of 'war-weariness' over the Middle East?

(Sass, the holocaust did not affect 'a particular race', it took in Gypsies, the mentally and physicaly disabled, political opponents and other groups as well as the Jews)

Danivon:

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

The U.S. executive has ordered the sending of a lot of cruise missiles without congressional authorization. In fact, Per Wikipedia we have had 125 conflicts that have not been authorized (including Kosovo). The War Powers Act prescribes what the President can do simply by notifying Congress. What's being contemplated (and recommended by me) is relatively limited and within the WPA. The constitutional scholars can have a heated debate on all of this. I think that wherever you come out on the legal complexities, there is a lot of legal space for Obama to do something quick in Syria.

I'm concerned about what Israel and Iran think only because foreign policy is all about signals amongst different cultures. You have to consider how your actions will be interpreted. I believe that both Israel and Iran will interpret this as weakness; as a result if will lead them both to be more aggressive. You've been very concerned about the unintended consequences of an Israeli strike. I would think this would enter into your calculation of how the U.S. should proceed.

As you rightly point out I am wary of the unintended consequences of an Israeli airstrike on Iran. Similarly, and not coincidentally, I am wary of the unintended consequences of a US airstrike on Syria.

While the WPA does not limit an airstrike or cruise missile attack, it does limit wider conflict. It seems reasonable to have a discussion and debate about quite how far the executive can go. With or without a yes from Congress a limited action can be undertaken (but without one, especially after a no, there are political risks). With a yes, which allows a wider remit, then ther is scop for more.

For example, under the WPA there is a sortie of flights into Syrian airspace (for recon, to support an ally or to launch a limited strike. A US plane is shot down. Is retaliation limited by the WPA?

What if Syria's response is to threaten a third party (Turkey, Israel, Lebanon, Jordan)?

Because of the unpredictability of conflict, and because of mission creep (which we have seen before), it does not seem to me to be unreasonable to get approval from Congress. If they cannot be persuaded, it may be because the case isn't very good (or because as in Cameron's case, it is presented poorly).

dag hammarsjkold wrote:Thanks for the interesting article Rudewalrus.

I am very disappointed in Obama for shifting this decision from the realm of moral quandry to that of partisan politics.

For my money his tactic is a 2016 election stunt with a dash of revenge for his poor treatment at the hands of Congress.

Couple that with the fact that he knows he's in a no win situation and you get....

1. if green light, Congress takes the blame alongside you when things go wrong and they will go wrong. This way you safeguard the party in 2016 for shouldering the blame for what will of course become a quagmire costing more billions.

2. if red light, you point to Congress as inept and wash you hands of the whole thing setting up the Dems to be in position to play the blame game in 2016.

Sadly, I have to agree.

Look, I don't want us to intervene. However, as an American, the worst possible outcome is the President looking like a noodle. Sorry, but he does.

If he had bombed soon after the attack, I would not have liked it, but there would be reason for criminal regimes to fear. Instead, they're laughing. That is not good for my country nor is it good for the world.

I am (obviously) not an Obama fan, acolyte, or even non-opponent. However, there can be no explanation for his sudden discovery of the limits of executive power except politics. That is weak sauce.

Sass

Ricky, there really isn't any comparison with Hitler that can be made.

Kerry said the use of chemical weapons puts Syrian President Bashar Assad in the same category as the world's most bloody dictators.
"Bashar Assad now joins the list of Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein [who] have used these weapons in time of war," he said.

http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/20 ... sarin?lite

I'm not alone is seeing similarities..

This is a moral question Its the age old question of standing by while a great evil is committed, and not responding. It happens with individuals and it happens with nation states.
I don't think the timing is all that crucial. In fact, the idea that the US can act at any time, at its leisure, without concern of what Syria can do, and still act to punish those responsible .... may make the case for a measured response even stronger. "look Assad, three's no way to get away from our response when we decide to take a response. ." And frankly the considered response (cruise misssiles on specific targets) is indefensible by the Syrians and will have their physcological effect no matter when they come ...
There has been expressed a great fear of the unintended and, lets face it, largely unknowable "unintended consequence".
But the consequence of not responding is knowable... Every time the world has stood by and watched as a genocide was committed, the villains continued carrying out their acts ...
It was argued that bombing the Serbs would not end the genocidal acts in the former Yugoslavia. And yet, the results were different.
It was argued that there could be no intervention in Cambodia, but when the Vietnamese finally intervened, the Killing Fields were closed...
I get why Obama has called Congress. He doesn't have public support yet, and needs both the time and full debate to make the moral case. And many of his critics have demanded Congress be called ... so he takes that weapon away from that group. And yes, his party does gain political cover for the lack of action if Assad carries on with impunity And political cover if the decision is to act and their are negative ramifications. (Which I doubt.)
By taking time, and having a full debate everyone will own the decision and the results. There won't be the kind of fence sittting and hair splitting that politicians can be capable of ...eventually finding themselves on the right side when the right side finally becomes clear..

Here's an example :

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) said military action “taken simply to send a message or save face” does not meet his standard of using military force only when there are “clear and attainable” national security goals. He also wrote last week that failing to act would “further embolden Assad . . . leaving the impression that the United States is feckless and weak.”

As for the consequences with Iran... Why would Iran listen to any threats from the US or the West if their clients in Syria can gas their own citizens with impunity? What consequences are they being conditioned to expect?
If no one acts in response to Assad's actions .... they'll be encouraged in their nuclear weapons building ...if thats what they are doing...

rickyp wrote:Sass

Ricky, there really isn't any comparison with Hitler that can be made.

Kerry said the use of chemical weapons puts Syrian President Bashar Assad in the same category as the world's most bloody dictators.
"Bashar Assad now joins the list of Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein [who] have used these weapons in time of war," he said.

http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/20 ... sarin?lite

I'm not alone is seeing similarities..

I just hate the comparison.

Someone on FB recently made it with regard to Germany's suppression of homeschooling. I agree with the man in principle, but posted my utter disbelief in the Nazi death camp comparison he made. There was none to be made.

Same thing here. Assad is evil. Hitler is evil. That doesn't mean Assad = Hitler. I don't think that's a reasonable comparison. Auschwitz, Buchenwald, Dachau . . . by comparison, Assad is an amateur.

Kerry did it because his case is weak.

This is a moral question Its the age old question of standing by while a great evil is committed, and not responding. It happens with individuals and it happens with nation states.

Agreed. And, if we went around the world and righted every wrong, this would be a valid concern. However, we don't. Darfur? North Korea? The list is long.

If we are the World's Cop, let's dissolve the UN, beef up our military and get busy. Of course, we'll go broke, but we will have morality on our side!

rickyp wrote:

Kerry said the use of chemical weapons puts Syrian President Bashar Assad in the same category as the world's most bloody dictators.
"Bashar Assad now joins the list of Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein [who] have used these weapons in time of war," he said.

And Winston Churchill's government used it in a time of peace, resulting in the death of Ronald Maddison in 1953. The US created stockpiles of it during the 1950s, which were maintained until 1970.

Of course I am sure that we never ever intended to actually use any of it...

As DF says, it's a comparison best seldom made. It's easy to do. Some people get into the habit of such things, you know... "Bus(h)itler" or "Obama is to the left of Mao". Kerry's statement is not as bad as those, but it's not helpful. We should take each case as it comes.

The vital thing is it establish the truth, not to act with haste.

Meanwhile, anyone want to argue for the effectiveness and cohesion of Obama's Syria policy?

Doctor Fate wrote:Meanwhile, anyone want to argue for the effectiveness and cohesion of Obama's Syria policy?

No.

You really have to view it as part of his wider Middle East policy, including our relations with Iran, Egypt, Iraq, and Israel, etc..

What strikes me is that Obama's more conciliatory approach (starting with the Cairo speech) has not been successful in either furthering our interests or furthering democracy as far as I can tell. I also think that Bush's muscular approach was a disaster in Iraq. Neither of these guys is/was up to the task. I don't think there is a magic solution, but the U.S. can certainly do better in the region.

sass

Agreed. And, if we went around the world and righted every wrong, this would be a valid concern. However, we don't. Darfur? North Korea? The list is long.

If not getting involved in Darfur justifies not getting involved anywhere ...
Does the succeessful intervention in Kosovo justify getting involved everywhere?
Inability or ineffectiveness in one instance does not excuse standing aside in all cases...
Nor does a past success mean that every problem has to be dealt with directly.

There are judgements to be made about the type of response and the ability to get a desired result... I've argued that striking in a targeted way at Assads forces would give him pause when considering the use of gas again... Thats about as much as one can hope for in this situation ...

sass

I just hate the comparison

I've admitted it was an over reach... I'll apologize for it now.

Ray

I don't think there is a magic solution, but the U.S. can certainly do better in the region.

Why?
The US has limited options and limited ability to sway either the entrenched dictatorships or the nascent democratic movements ... The history of Iraqis - US relations has as much to do with the lack of credibility in the region as anything. Arabs don't forget that the US first backed Saddam (while he gassed Khurds) then invaded despite the successful implementation of a no fly zone that had brought fitful peace to the region...
Although there were winners from the Iraq invasion (The Khurds and Iraqis Shia) the results for the region were mostly negative...
Without the willingness to committ a major occupation for 20 years .... the liklihood of anything the US does having a dominant effect is zero. Arabs will have to sort things out for themselves ...
There may be other instances like Libya where air power can be used to effect. the way it succeeeded in Libya ...although i can't imagine one now.

.. but in the case of Syria the best one should hope for is that Assad be convinced that the use of gas is a bad idea...
The US has little to no soft power in the region .... anymore. History has eroded what there was... The Saudis have more money, and the use of military power has been shown to have its limits.

Ray Jay wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Meanwhile, anyone want to argue for the effectiveness and cohesion of Obama's Syria policy?

No.

Same here.

You really have to view it as part of his wider Middle East policy, including our relations with Iran, Egypt, Iraq, and Israel, etc..

What strikes me is that Obama's more conciliatory approach (starting with the Cairo speech) has not been successful in either furthering our interests or furthering democracy as far as I can tell. I also think that Bush's muscular approach was a disaster in Iraq. Neither of these guys is/was up to the task.

Has any US President got it right? Over time we've seen escalations of violence, increasing extremism, more anti-Western sentiment...

Carter helped broker the Egypt-Israel treaty in 1978. Other than that the Camp David accords were a bust. Reagan pulled out of Lebanon. Bush I invaded Iraq over Kuwait but after that little happened. Clinton tried twice, with Oslo and at Camp David to push the I/P process along. Bush II came iup with a 'road map' for the Middle East, but nothing came out of that - meanwhile the invasion and occupation of Iraq continue to have consequences. It's hardly a roll of honour.

I don't think there is a magic solution, but the U.S. can certainly do better in the region.

But there are going to be limits to what the US can do, and what it is prepared to do. More crucially, the US is not the only player, and the effects of US policy are also not clear cut. Could do better is tge story of the last few decades, really.

Danivon:

Carter helped broker the Egypt-Israel treaty in 1978. Other than that the Camp David accords were a bust. Reagan pulled out of Lebanon. Bush I invaded Iraq over Kuwait but after that little happened. Clinton tried twice, with Oslo and at Camp David to push the I/P process along. Bush II came iup with a 'road map' for the Middle East, but nothing came out of that - meanwhile the invasion and occupation of Iraq continue to have consequences. It's hardly a roll of honour.

That sounds fair. I think that Carter gets credit for Camp David and GHWB gets credit for liberating Kuwait, but other than that there's really not much praise to go around.

A couple of thoughts have crystalized for me:

Given what's going on in Egypt, Syria, Libya, and Iraq, it's hard for me to imagine that solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the key to solving the Middle East. It's clear to me that the fundamental problem is within the Arab world. Certainly the West has some culpability. But fundamentally does anyone really believe that Israel is the reason why so many Middle Eastern countries are dysfunctional? I'm not saying that Israel is perfect or necessarily taking a position on the I/P conflict. I'm just saying that it is not driving the latest round of violence in Syria or Egypt.

Second, I think that the U.S. has to be involved or the ME gets worse. We cannot change our past policies; however, going forward my sense is that the region unravels dangerously with a U.S. vacuum. I don't know whether the danger is in Syria, or Iraq, or Egypt, or Yemen, etc., but I don't see how we can ignore it and assume that it will not have repercussions. I appreciate the pithiness of Palin's recent comment: "Let Allah sort it out", but I think that approach is too dangerous for too many innocents in the ME, and potentially will result in the eventual use of WMD somewhere, sometime.