syria

couldn't say, i frankly don't have the relevant context.

meeemories....of the wayyy we werrrrre

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BSnnm19CcAAYvCW.jpg

kaplan article fails to mention the air war in Kosovo was do-able because the russians and chinese weren't selling the bad guys sophisticated air defense tech like they have in syria.. this whole situation is bad news

Farm service agency?

"free syrian army"

"the world's most heinous weapons" ... an international poll of children finds they prefer to be blown apart with drones.

http://images.canberratimes.com.au/2012/03/19/3144987/asma-al-assad-729-2-420x0.jpg

feel like the odds of another unbelievably fucked up post-colonial exercise in making bad shit exponentially worse are shortening by the hour

Cameron's caught the Blair bug that's for sure

Simon Schama uncharacteristally hawkish on the radio just now

the list of names here more than anything else convinces me that not intervening is the right decision

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/experts-obama-here-what-do-syria_751267.html

ok "Dr. William Kristol" made me lol

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/25/opinion/sunday/in-syria-america-loses-if-either-side-wins.html

BHL signed!

Charles Pierce:

If Kerry is to be believed, the "situation on the ground" is that the Syrian regime used chemical weapons against its own people, a monstrous crime. If we aren't trying to "fundamentally alter the nature of the conflict on the ground," then why in the hell are we making war in in Syria in the first place? If we aren't trying to "topple" the Syrian president so he won't use chemical weapons on his own people again, why are we going to be firing high explosives into the country that are going to kill some of those people anyway? This is the difference between making war in a place and going to war in a place. If you're simply making war in a place, logic doesn't necessarily apply. Even a lot of the people proposing that we make war in Syria -- even a lot of the liberals proposing it -- admit freely that they don't know what will come next, or even on whose side we will be making war in Syria. This strikes me as an important thing to determine before you commit the nation to a course of action like the one proposed, but then, making war in a place enables you to do it from an antiseptic distance, to believe in the fairy-tale McNamara concept of "sending a message" by blowing stuff up, to believe that the most important thing for the World's Last Superpower to do is anything. The New York Times thinks making war in Syria will make the president a more believable president. And that, if the president decides to make war in Syria, the Iranians will wonder if they should still want a nuclear bomb.

I don't think we should intervene, but the international community can deter future use of chemical weapons from Assad without necessarily toppling him. He just needs to know that the cost for using them is higher than their value.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2013/08/the-debate-over-intervention-in-syria.html

He just needs to know that the cost for using them is higher than their value.

i don't think this is possible to demonstrate without intervention

Yes, I agree.

I have this suspicion that they'll target the 4th Armored Division's base near Al Horjelah.

Liberals endorsing "using our wonderful military"!?! Git outta town!

I guess partially I don't think our state interests align w/ an intervention in this case, I don't believe we can make a sufficient humanitarian impact (even if NATO can dissuade Assad from using chemical weapons it's not like that'll significantly limit his ability to kill civilians -- it certainly hasn't until now), and I'm not even convinced that Assad authorized the chemical weapon use. It's not that I think the rebels used them to get the West involved (like Russia has suggested), but that it's hard to imagine Assad has kept firm control of every chemical site in the country. Who knows who has control over what?

that weekly standard piece is fantastical. these people never learn.

don't go after the regime, go after the regime's weapons. oh ps is there anyone there we can give some arms to? you know, good people? can you try to find some?

"Experts"

x-post

I think all the "good" people are long gone.

My cousin: "Massive spying on US citizens, attacking whistleblowers, overuse of drones, and perhaps possibly bombing another Arab country. All Obama needs now is a 10 gallon hat and a fake Texas ranch to complete the picture."

Did we really need your cousin for that insight? Surely the wit + wisdom of Josh in Chicago was up to the task of making a Obama = Bush observation.

ugh, the conclusions in that NYT opinion piece are so dismal.

Maintaining a stalemate should be America’s objective. And the only possible method for achieving this is to arm the rebels when it seems that Mr. Assad’s forces are ascendant and to stop supplying the rebels if they actually seem to be winning.

our best option is to perpetuate a civil war!

This strategy actually approximates the Obama administration’s policy so far. Those who condemn the president’s prudent restraint as cynical passivity must come clean with the only possible alternative: a full-scale American invasion to defeat both Mr. Assad and the extremists fighting against his regime.

or we could also blow the whole country up ourselves!

cousin = name of dog

I think all the "good" people are long gone.

― Mordy ,

yeah well, when u had jack johnson u didn't want to hear it

If we aren't trying to "fundamentally alter the nature of the conflict on the ground," then why in the hell are we making war in in Syria in the first place?

Great question. The nearest I can make out atm is that the porponents of bombing are afraid of setting a precedent, where a government may openly use nerve gas in a civil war and not suffer anything worse than being vigorously frowned upon. While at the same time, those same proponents of bombing understand that there is no faction in Syria we can realistically help.

This is, at best, extremely muddled thinking. The desire to take a principled stand against nerve gas is fine, but extending that principled stand to encompass making war requires a responsible definition of victory. Instead, these acts of war are being described as 'punishment', as if we were administering a spanking to a wayward child. The chances that a government can be deterred from following its perceived interests by a spanking are exactly nil. When a government thinks that pointless political theater is a good excuse for killing people in another country, it is a government seriously out of touch with reality.

this is my first encounter with "making war" vs "having a war"; so looking forward to it never going away

it's like "having sex" vs "making love" only with explosions and dead bodies

yeah i think aimless is otm.

with sexy results

While I don't agree with it, I don't know why trying to create deterrence from the international community for certain events is so muddled. Assuming Assad deployed chemical weapons, and did so for domestic issues (to cow the rebels, maybe; or shock havens for the resistance w/ overwhelming unconventional force), international pressure could still change that calculus. If you feel chemical weapons are a unique horror (something to which I don't subscribe, but our Secretary of State does), changing such a calculus could be worthwhile. Maybe the next time Assad wants to commit a war crime he'll lay off the chemical weapons because he knows a cruise missile from the Mediterranean will be en route.

we Americans expect our prez to be a real man and use those bombs to make his bones. (gender-neutral days coming soon I'm sure)

For instance, let's say that Assad was systemically liquidating the Sunni civilian population in Aleppo through the use of chemical weapons, mass executions, etc. Wouldn't it make sense for a NATO alliance to draw the line at genocide and fire some missiles into the royal palace to get that message across? Even if toppling Assad wasn't the end game, there are certainly actions that would presumably require some response from the West.

I don't know why trying to create deterrence from the international community for certain events is so muddled.

Because trying in this particular way will be ineffective 100% of the time.

I'm just not sure I understand why. Why won't a Western intervention, even on a limited scale, encourage Assad to stop using chemical weapons?

Maybe the next time Assad wants to commit a war crime he'll lay off the chemical weapons because he knows a cruise missile from the Mediterranean will be en route.

this presumes the cruise missile can hit anything assad can't stand to lose. i think our ability to punish or 'disincentivize' assad is nearly zero (what, a civil war in his country isn't enough?) so the whole question is moot.

By comparison, Assad has not attacked Israel despite a few Israeli air interventions on Syrian weapon stockpiles. Presumably because he knows there's no way he can beat the rebels if he's also fending off the IDF. Similarly there's no way he can beat the rebels while he's dealing with the NATO led air campaign. xp

No way - we know where a bunch of his weapons are being held. We could seriously damage his war capabilities.

Because Assad is fighting for something he values equally with his life, namely his position of power. Giving him "encouragement" to fight for his life in a particular way only works up until the moment when he thinks he needs to do it another way in order to survive.

You'd be correct if Assad believed chemical weapons were the only way he could maintain power at this point, but he has been doing an adequate job fighting the resistance without them until this point.

No way - we know where a bunch of his weapons are being held. We could seriously damage his war capabilities.

― Mordy , Tuesday, August 27, 2013 11:53 AM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

call it iraq/afghanistan fatigue but i don't believe this shit anymore

^^^

been waiting to find the congruities between the Syria and asexuality threads. thanks!

Maybe Israel will tell us where the weapon caches are, since they seem to have little problem locating them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BneI3C_F75U