JOHN KERRY MAKES THE CASE FOR MISSILE STRIKES

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.

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.

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.

THIS IS NOT GOOD

President Barack Obama’s decision to authorize lethal aid to Syrian rebels marks a deepening of U.S. involvement in the two-year civil war. But U.S. officials are still grappling with what type and how much weaponry to send the opposition forces and how to ensure it stays out of the hands of extremists battling for control of Syria.

U.S. officials confirmed Obama’s authorization Thursday after the White House announced it had conclusive evidence that Syrian President Bashar Assad’s regime used chemical weapons against opposition forces. Obama has said the use of chemical weapons would cross a “red line,” suggesting greater American intervention.

Sending lethal weapons to rebels in an already violent country will not help end the civil war in Syria.  Not everyone agrees with the decision to arm the rebels nor with the assessment by the White House on the use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime.  I'm getting flashbacks to the pre-Iraq war period.  Why do we persist in thinking that our weapons and military interventions will benefit the people in the countries in the Middle East?  Look at Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan post-intervention by the US?  Can we claim success in even one of the countries?

The rebels don't even want our light weapons.

Initial consignments are expected to consist of small arms and ammunition, which the rebel Free Syrian Army said on Friday would be largely “meaningless.” The Syrian Opposition Coalition called for “strategic and decisive” support.

I'd hoped Obama would resist the pressure to intervene in Syria with military aid. No good will come of this.  When will the citizens of the US have a say in our military interventions abroad?

UPDATE: This morning, I wrote to President Obama of my sadness that he had decided to send weapons to Syria and requested a reply.  This afternoon, I received a reply which included the following:

Dear June:

Thank you for writing.  I have heard from many Americans about issues affecting seniors.  Today’s economic climate further intensifies the unique challenges they face, and I appreciate your perspective.
 
My Administration continues to support older Americans encountering unfair treatment, financial hardship, or difficulty obtaining health care.  The historic Affordable Care Act strengthens Medicare by not only preserving but also expanding benefits for Americans who depend on Medicare every day.  The law has helped more than five million seniors and people with disabilities save an average of over $600 on prescription drugs in the “donut hole” in Medicare coverage.  Additionally, in 2011, more than 32 million seniors received 1 or more free preventive services, including the new Annual Wellness Visit.  To learn about help available through the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, visit www.CMS.gov.
 ....

Thank you, again, for being in touch.

Sincerely,

Barack Obama

Blah, blah, blah, with nothing about the subject of my message.  Is this the best the White House staff can do?  Better no reply, n'est-ce pas?

UPDATE 2:  You may want to check Andrew Sullivan's post on sending arms to the Syrian rebels.