Syria's chemical arsenal is less of a threat to the US than the arsenals of other despots around the world. Saddam gassed the Kurds, but we didn't launch the Iraq war for that reason.Slippery slope: "The bottom line, as Kerry outlined in his speech, is that the White House believes inaction, after conclusively determining that Bashar al-Assad’s regime is behind the Aug. 21 chemical weapons attack in Damascus, would open the possibility of other countries or groups concluding that they could use such weapons in the future without fear of retribution."
National security: (There is no alternative): “Make no mistake, in an increasingly complicated world of sectarian and religious extremist violence, what we choose to do or not do matters in real ways to our own security. Some site the risk of doing things. But we need to ask, ‘What is the risk of doing nothing?’,” Kerry said.
WMD!: “Our high confidence assessment is the strongest position that the U.S. Intelligence Community can take short of confirmation,” the government said in the brief.
The plan: The White House is reportedly considering limited air strikes on military targets as retaliation for the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons. Senior administration officials also repeated that the administration is not aiming to achieve a regime change in Syria.
Kerry makes much of the children who were killed by gas, but what of children killed in drone attacks? We're to weep over pictures of children killed by gas, but we never see the pictures of children blown apart by drone missiles. The airstrikes will almost certainly cause collateral damage (the ultimate euphemism for dead and wounded people!), which will include children and other innocents. I weep for all the children.
What if Assad continues his defiance after we flex our muscles with the limited airstrikes? What do we do next?
I'm not buying Kerry's argument. I've heard it all before when we have undertaken deadly, misbegotten military adventures. Obama and Kerry have pretty well boxed themselves in with their chest-thumping and red line on Assad's use of gas, but I hope and pray the president will have the courage and humility to turn away from inflicting more violence on the Syrian people, who are already suffering.
Quotes above from Talking Points Memo.
What they (not we, not we - those who "solve" problems with violence do not represent me - I do not consent to this no matter who got elected) do next is posture and puff and talk themselves into another war, another round of war profits, more continuing conflict-based wealth for a very few who need more and more "crisis" to maintain their "credibility" ... I note with dismay this argument about American credibility and say, well what of the North Koreans or the Iranians? Are we to actually believe they would be so "emboldened" as to attack us directly without expecting a catastrophic response? Nonsense. The real point is that if "we" don't play world police "we" don't seem to be the ones in charge of all things economic, moral, leader-ish. If Assad is the bad guy, attack him if you must slap someone on the wrist and call it punishment for killing children while pretending not to get involved in a war that is all about feeding the beast of the conflict industry and stop pretending you're worried about who will take control in that power vacuum ... the war has gone on in the Middle East for millenia and will continue for more of the same as long as the men in charge continue to convince themselves that violence works (hint: it doesn't - it just creates a fresh new generation of vengeance based violence, and that is the lesson of history that is too inconvenient for any of these people to actually learn) ... and there will be ever more dead children to put on the emotional placards to incite anger and restart the cycle of profit by destruction.
ReplyDeleteOh, how I wish Pres. Obama would be truly courageous and say, "No. No we will not kill more people just to appear credible or strong. The message is: killing is wrong, no matter how you 'package' the excuse for doing it. We will not be sucked into another pointless conflict. Period.
Mr President, step back from the red line and out of the box and think seriously about what you plan to do. Obama is was supposed to speak to the nation at 1:15, and it is now 1:47. The word is that the address is delayed because he had to take a phone call. Let's hope whoever is on the other end of the phone will talk sense into him.
DeleteObviously we never learn our lesson.
ReplyDeleteWe dodged a bullet today, but I fear the delay is only temporary.
DeleteThe president wants Congress to vote on this. That's the way it should be and also a brilliant move. The vast majority of Americans are against this and now the congress critters have to put their money where their mouth is. What do you bet a vote never happens?
ReplyDeleteCongress should vote on the plan. Anyway, it's time for the holiday to be over and fore them to get back to work. I would not bet against you.
DeleteWithout a UN Security Council resolution, which will not happen, or otherwise massive international support, I hope we will not do the airstrikes. I'm weary of the unwise Lone Ranger approach to military intervention.
It would be nice if the US had some genuine left wingers, instead of the centre-right crowd that passes for left wing in Washington. Mind you, I said the same thing about Tony Blair and New Labour.
ReplyDeleteWouldn't that be loverly, Tim? We can dream, can't we?
DeleteI agree that it's an excellent idea to let Congress thrash it out and take a vote. I suspect this will bring much to light about both Syria and about our elected representatives that has not yet seen the light of day, and that can only be a good thing.
ReplyDeleteI am as yet still undecided one way or the other - a compelling argument can be made both ways on Syria, and as I noted on my own blog today, I think more highly of the intelligence and integrity of Obama and his advisors than I ever did of Bush & Co.
Still, that's no guarantee that Team O can't be wrong. And actually, as sometimes happens in our own individual lives, it may be that both choices will be wrong, and the only thing to do is to go with the lesser of two evils.
I do appreciate your point, which had occurred to me also: what about the kids (and grown-ups) killed by drones? And indeed, by ordinary bullets and bombs? But of course that is not the way the world works. Bad men will always kill to get their way, and good men must always oppose them - and here the masculine includes the feminine - but where and how and how much, those are the vexing questions, always.
FYI, if you search for "children killed by drone strikes" on Google Images, you will find plenty of pictures, more horrific than of those killed by gas in Syria.
Russ, I know the pictures of children killed by drone attacks are on the internet, but you won't see the administration highlight them. I believe the drone killings are immoral, and I don't want them done in my name. Unfortunately, I don't get to have a say.
DeleteBy mere chance, yesterday I was looking something unrelated up for a friend, and happened to find this page (http://myarmybenefits.us.army.mil/Home/Benefit_Library/Federal_Benefits_Page/Bonuses.html?serv=147) detailing the critical skills that our Army pays retention bonuses for - among them, the chilling item "Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Operator."
ReplyDeleteA sign of the times, alas.
Alas...
Delete