Strike On Syria?

[CrossCuT]

Up until this morning, all Ive heard about in the last few days is Miley Cyrus. Seems like something big has been boiling and is about to spill over the edge.

I am admittedly not as tuned into political events as much as I should be (especially those concerning overseas warfare) however I felt that it was important for me to understand the situation.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23847839

 

 

Is this just? Does it satisfy the requirements of a Just war? People on facebook have been calling it WW3...  :unsure:

[CatholicsAreKewl]

2 years and a 100,000 deaths later, Obama decides this situation is starting to get out of hand. 

[arfink]

I don't understand why we're planning on invading Syria now too. It just seems like a bad idea to join yet another war.

[Era Might]

I don't think Obama is going to "invade" Syria. But he's said for a while that chemical weapon use is a "red line" that Syria better not cross, and the United States says Syrian president Assad crossed that line. It sounds like any military action will have strategic targets, not really getting involved in the civil war directly, though who knows what will happen once we get involved even strategically.

Edited August 28, 2013 by Era Might

[CrossCuT]

I dunno. All of this is just unsettling.  :(

 

[KnightofChrist]

It just seems odd to me. Assad is a dictator, but it seems strange that he would be so stupid. Why would he gas his own people with an UN inspection team on the ground in Syria and knowing that other world governments would try and take him out, regime change, if he used WMDs? Where is the solid empirical evidence that the Assad regime is behind the attacks? What good will bombing do? Will the bombs be targeted on the chemical weapons and other WMDs? What about fall out? If the Assad regime is weakened by the bombing, how can there be a guarantee that Al-Qaeda (which backs the rebels) will not be able to gain control over those WMDs? I also don't buy that regime change isn't a goal. If I recall correctly Libya wasn't suppose to be a regime change operation, but that's what happened.

 

As for WWIII I don't think it would happen, but it is none the less a possibility. The world has gone to war over much less.

[arfink]

Yeah, that the UN inspectors were ready to go and Assad was ready to let them just doesn't quite make sense. It seems quite fishy.

 

Also, I don't buy for a moment that the US is going to stop at strategically bombing them. That never happens. :P

[CrossCuT]

It just seems odd to me. Assad is a dictator, but it seems strange that he would be so stupid. Why would he gas his own people with an UN inspection team on the ground in Syria and knowing that other world governments would try and take him out, regime change, if he used WMDs? Where is the solid empirical evidence that the Assad regime is behind the attacks? What good will bombing do? Will the bombs be targeted on the chemical weapons and other WMDs? What about fall out? If the Assad regime is weakened by the bombing, how can there be a guarantee that Al-Qaeda (which backs the rebels) will not be able to gain control over those WMDs? I also don't buy that regime change isn't a goal. If I recall correctly Libya wasn't suppose to be a regime change operation, but that's what happened.

 

As for WWIII I don't think it would happen, but it is none the less a possibility. The world has gone to war over much less.

This is very similar to how I was feeling after reading the article.

There are so many ifs that I just dont feel like we should just go in and bomb the place up or whatever they are planning. 

 

I dunno. :(

I am FAR from knowledgeable on this topic but it just doesnt sit right with me.

[Era Might]

Yeah, that the UN inspectors were ready to go and Assad was ready to let them just doesn't quite make sense. It seems quite fishy.

 

Also, I don't buy for a moment that the US is going to stop at strategically bombing them. That never happens. :P

 

I don't think this is as much about the Syrian situation as about enforcing international norms about chemical weapons. John Kerry's comments the other day about the use of chemical weapons being a "moral obscenity," I think, tried to frame the issue in those terms. Of course, any military action has many considerations that we are not privy to. There are lots of strategic interests that the U.S. will be weighing, including Russia, etc. It's never just about the immediate situation.

[arfink]

Agreed Era, except that there is some concern, possibly legitimate concern, that Assad wasn't involved in those chemical weapons being used, and that this might have been set up by someone else. Otherwise, how do you explain the thing with the UN inspectors? Or was that Assad just trolling?

[Era Might]

Agreed Era, except that there is some concern, possibly legitimate concern, that Assad wasn't involved in those chemical weapons being used, and that this might have been set up by someone else. Otherwise, how do you explain the thing with the UN inspectors? Or was that Assad just trolling?

 

What purpose would the U.S. have to fabricate or get wrong who was responsible for using chemical weapons? George W. Bush and Iraq loom large over Obama, he has no interest in that kind of gamble. And the U.S. is pretty sure it's right about the chemical weapons. Here's a good article from Foreign Policy laying out the factors in play:

 

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/08/27/the_limits_of_action_barack_obama_syria

 

 

 

So if there is no clear or definitive end game, what is the president's plan? I suspect it's to try to make a difference where the United States can -- commensurate with its other priorities and obligations --on a variety of fronts: including the humanitarian side (as the largest aid contributor), the political side (as the most active Western power engaging with the Syrian opposition), the military side (by providing limited amounts of lethal assistance and facilitating more through other powers), and the diplomatic side (by continuing to pressure the Russians to leverage Assad into a political transition -- see Geneva 1.0 and maybe 2.0). Though with the cancellation of planned talks with the Russians this week, the Geneva approach seems to be all but over -- for now.

Indeed, at the end of the day, the president's bottom line is to restore some credibility when it comes to his own red lines on chemical weapons and keep on the right side of history in the face of the largest deployment of those weapons since Saddam Hussein used them against the Kurds and Iranians.

Edited August 28, 2013 by Era Might

[arfink]

And what purpose could we ascribe to myriad other abuses by our government? I apologize for assuming our government is abusive, but in a great many cases it often is, especially where lethal force in other people's countries is concerned.

[Era Might]

And what purpose could we ascribe to myriad other abuses by our government? I apologize for assuming our government is abusive, but in a great many cases it often is, especially where lethal force in other people's countries is concerned.

 

Well I guess theoretically anything is possible, who knows what is going on behind the scenes. But is there any circumstantial reason why the U.S. would want to get involved in Syria under false pretense? And is there legitimate evidence that the U.S. is wrong in its conclusions about the chemical weapons? Are you saying the U.S. may be wrong, or that it may be lying?

Edited August 28, 2013 by Era Might

[arfink]

I am saying that the US could be both wrong AND lying, and have been before, and in any case, even if they did start a war in good faith, the US has a long history of committing horrifying atrocities in war that rival the ones they claim to combat.

[KnightofChrist]

Well I guess theoretically anything is possible, who knows what is going on behind the scenes. But is there any circumstantial reason why the U.S. would want to get involved in Syria under false pretense? And is there legitimate evidence that the U.S. is wrong in its conclusions about the chemical weapons? Are you saying the U.S. may be wrong, or that it may be lying?

 

I can think of around 13,505,000,000 reasons. Before sanctions in 2011 Syria produced .4% of the worlds oil or 370,000 barrels per day, 1,35050,000 per year. Assuming a barrel of oil is worth $100 the yearly worth could be some where around $13,505,000,000.

 

The rebel groups could have done it so that the US does their work for them. It could be any number of the reasons the Left accused Bush of going into Iraq for as well.