Strike On Syria?

[Era Might]

of course, we should be concerned about all kinds of genocide and ethnic cleansing. like the type that will likely take place if the Syrian rebels are allowed to take control of Syria, as a large number of those groups have vowed ethnic cleansing against the Alawites and have already engaged in pogroms against the Christians.

but yes, by all means, let's pick one group of atrocities against the other based on the unverified claims that the Syrian government suddenly made a ridiculously stupid miscalculation in a war they were winning by conventional means and had no reason to turn towards chemical weapons in (in the chemical weapons strike, cui bono? unquestionably the rebels and terrorists), let's take sides to extend this bloody war by attacking the Syrian government to ensure that the rebel groups' terrorist campaigns can continue, rather than trying to help work towards a ceasefire for both despicable sides.

 

Those aren't equivalent because Assad is the leader of a recognized government subject to international law. Everyone is subject to international law, but he is a head of state, not an independent group. Putting aside whether chemical weapons should be a "red line," assuming that they are (as the U.S. does), then must there not be international enforcement of that norm? IOW, atrocities by a recognized power is in a different category, because they are a recognized power.

 

Also, I don't think the cui bono argument is a good one. Leaders don't always act rationally (or what we think is rational). And they sometimes act recklessly on purpose.

Edited August 30, 2013 by Era Might

[EmilyAnn]

That's not very Christian, emilyann.

 

Yeah, not supporting an unjust action is just sooooo unChristian of me. 

[Aloysius]

well, until now, Bashar Al Assad has been pretty rational in his own self interest... it would be colossally out of character for the way he has executed this war so far.  cui bono is just one argument among a number of converging arguments that suggest Assad did not do it--add that to the video evidence that shows Syrian rebels are in possession of chemical weapons, the experts who have argued that the behavior in the videos of the victims is inconsistent with an attack from something in Bashar Al Assad's more sophisticated arsenal, and then there's the recent admission from rebels to an AP reporter which actually contradicts the idea that the rebels did it on purpose, suggesting it may have been a mistake, though that should be taken with a grain of salt so far:

http://beforeitsnews.com/middle-east/2013/08/syrian-rebels-admit-chemical-attack-to-associated-press-reporter-2453884.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=feed

 

anyway, it's ludicrous to suggest that it's at all a good idea to make the President of the United States judge, jury, and executioner to any state we suspect of committing crimes against international law.  States are subject to international law vis a vis the UN Security Council.  the only justification for a state attacking a sovereign nation without the UN Security Council, in actual international law not la-la land USA where international law is what we say it is, is self defense.  I could maybe imagine a scenario in which groups of nations could act without UN Security Council approval, if there was enough consensus and irrefutable evidence I'd consider some kind of action potentially like a sort of unofficial over-ride of one of the permanent members' veto (honestly there really should be some kind of official avenue possible to over-ride a permanent member veto)...but that is not this case.  Not even the UK is on our side now, and there is by no means any kind of evidence beyond reasonable doubt to suggest that Assad was the perpetrator in this instance.

 

moreover, how dare we suggest that we can lob in some tomahawk missiles to "punish" someone for committing a crime without any kind of calculation as to what is best for Syria.  Bashar al Assad may be convictable some day by the International Criminal Court for war crimes, but so are a lot of heads of state, before you attack a nation you need to calculate what is best for that nation.  And guess what: strengthening the genocidal maniacs that are the Syrian Rebels is NOT in the best interests of Syria or the region... weakening the Syrian government while it is winning the war in order to extend this bloody conflict by providing cover so that the terrorist rebels can strengthen is NOT in the best interests of Syria or the region.  The idea of attacking Syria to "punish Assad" is completely despicable in my opinion... and of course it has nothing to do with the real interests of those who want to attack Syria, it's just the wording they use to justify it.

 

in short: it's impossible to "punish" Assad without, at the same time, strengthening the genocidal terrorists that are fighting him, and it is absolutely morally untenable to support those groups.  all we could ever do, justly, in this bloody conflict, is to offer avenues for the negotiation of a ceasefire... because honestly, the only thing worse than Assad in charge of Syria, would be the genocidal Syrian Rebels being in charge of Syria.

[Aloysius]

btw I'm not suggesting that rebel crimes are equivalent, I agree that existing states can and should be held to higher standards;  the point is that we cannot morally take their side.

[add]

Violence begets violence, Military intervention by the United States will only escalate the suffering killing and the horrors of war.
The only solution is to turn the other cheek is Jesus taught us...

[add]

Violence begets violence, Military intervention by the United States will only escalate the suffering killing and the horrors of war.
The only solution is to turn the other cheek as Jesus taught us...

[4588686]

Free screenings of Hotel Rwanda at my house. Come refresh y'alls memory.

 

 

Asaad isn't engaging in genocide and we're not engaging in strikes that are designed to seriously push the balance of power in favor of the rebels.  I'm honestly ok with this.  Limited punitive strikes designed to deter the Asaad regime from bombing civilian centers with chemical weapons seem to me to be a measured response to what occurred. 

 

That being said, I don't know if this is a situation we want to get seriously involved in.  Russia isn't going to just stand by and give up their access to the Black Sea and Iran isn't going to just lose their proxy state and the rebels are a mixed bag.  It's not clear what would happen to the Alawite and Christian populations if certain factions of the rebels got into power.  

[4588686]

Violence begets violence, Military intervention by the United States will only escalate the suffering killing and the horrors of war.

The only solution is to turn the other cheek as Jesus taught us...

 

 

Sometimes violence works.  It worked in Bosnia.  It's rare but it happens.  

[Era Might]

well, until now, Bashar Al Assad has been pretty rational in his own self interest... it would be colossally out of character for the way he has executed this war so far.  cui bono is just one argument among a number of converging arguments that suggest Assad did not do it--add that to the video evidence that shows Syrian rebels are in possession of chemical weapons, the experts who have argued that the behavior in the videos of the victims is inconsistent with an attack from something in Bashar Al Assad's more sophisticated arsenal, and then there's the recent admission from rebels to an AP reporter which actually contradicts the idea that the rebels did it on purpose, suggesting it may have been a mistake, though that should be taken with a grain of salt so far:

http://beforeitsnews.com/middle-east/2013/08/syrian-rebels-admit-chemical-attack-to-associated-press-reporter-2453884.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=feed

 

anyway, it's ludicrous to suggest that it's at all a good idea to make the President of the United States judge, jury, and executioner to any state we suspect of committing crimes against international law.  States are subject to international law vis a vis the UN Security Council.  the only justification for a state attacking a sovereign nation without the UN Security Council, in actual international law not la-la land USA where international law is what we say it is, is self defense.  I could maybe imagine a scenario in which groups of nations could act without UN Security Council approval, if there was enough consensus and irrefutable evidence I'd consider some kind of action potentially like a sort of unofficial over-ride of one of the permanent members' veto (honestly there really should be some kind of official avenue possible to over-ride a permanent member veto)...but that is not this case.  Not even the UK is on our side now, and there is by no means any kind of evidence beyond reasonable doubt to suggest that Assad was the perpetrator in this instance.

 

moreover, how dare we suggest that we can lob in some tomahawk missiles to "punish" someone for committing a crime without any kind of calculation as to what is best for Syria.  Bashar al Assad may be convictable some day by the International Criminal Court for war crimes, but so are a lot of heads of state, before you attack a nation you need to calculate what is best for that nation.  And guess what: strengthening the genocidal maniacs that are the Syrian Rebels is NOT in the best interests of Syria or the region... weakening the Syrian government while it is winning the war in order to extend this bloody conflict by providing cover so that the terrorist rebels can strengthen is NOT in the best interests of Syria or the region.  The idea of attacking Syria to "punish Assad" is completely despicable in my opinion... and of course it has nothing to do with the real interests of those who want to attack Syria, it's just the wording they use to justify it.

 

in short: it's impossible to "punish" Assad without, at the same time, strengthening the genocidal terrorists that are fighting him, and it is absolutely morally untenable to support those groups.  all we could ever do, justly, in this bloody conflict, is to offer avenues for the negotiation of a ceasefire... because honestly, the only thing worse than Assad in charge of Syria, would be the genocidal Syrian Rebels being in charge of Syria.

 

What if a ceasefire is not realistically possible? Just let the fighting keep going on, and let Assad do whatever he wants? Cui bono in that case? It seems that this is already a proxy war, with at least Russia and Iran involved. I wouldn't say it is outside of American interests. British parliament voted against it (narrowly), but Cameron was for it, and France is still in it. I don't think it's *simply* about punishing Assad, but also about maintaining American balance in the proxy war, as well as taking a stand right now that chemical weapons won't be tolerated.

 

As for the intelligence question, I'm no intelligence analyst and won't try to be, but unless there is clear evidence that the U.S. is wrong (e.g., the UN contradicts the U.S. or something along those lines), then that wouldn't make me any more qualified to say one way or the other, but it would frame the public discussion differently, I think.

[4588686]

because honestly, the only thing worse than Assad in charge of Syria, would be the genocidal Syrian Rebels being in charge of Syria.

Scattered murders do not constitute a genocide.  

 

It's just ironic that you urge pretty extreme caution regarding assigning blame for the use of chemical weapons but have announced the disjointed and heterogeneous rebels as 'genocidal.'

[Aloysius]

http://opiniojuris.org/2013/05/28/rebels-in-syria-threaten-genocide-against-the-shia/

 

and unlike the Ahmadinijad Iran/Israel comments, it's pretty clear this use of the term "wiped off the map" literally refers to wiping those villages completely out.  of course that particular threat was specifically saying it would be revenge if they lost a city, not the goal if they won, but there's plenty of statements suggesting an ethnic cleansing is in the plans after victory... at the very least most experts very much expect that would happen if the rebels took control.

 

when I call them genocidal, I mean that they intend to commit genocide, not that they've already committed genocide.  i base this off of statements and actions, I can point to numerous experts in the region who have predicted that a victory for the Syrian Rebels will almost certainly result in ethnic cleansing campaigns.  of course they are heterogenous, but the large convergence of the forces are groups that would like to engage in various degrees of genocide, most of them would be unified against the Alawites (note that was the FSA threatening wiping out Alawites, not one of the more extremist factions), they might be more divided as to the Christians but there's big enough groups that want to wipe out Christians also that I find it hard to imagine a scenario in which the rebels win and the Christians are safe, and no scenario I can think of in which Alawites would be safe with Syria in rebel hands.

[4588686]

http://opiniojuris.org/2013/05/28/rebels-in-syria-threaten-genocide-against-the-shia/

 

and unlike the Ahmadinijad Iran/Israel comments, it's pretty clear this use of the term "wiped off the map" literally refers to wiping those villages completely out.  of course that particular threat was specifically saying it would be revenge if they lost a city, not the goal if they won, but there's plenty of statements suggesting an ethnic cleansing is in the plans after victory... at the very least most experts very much expect that would happen if the rebels took control.

 

when I call them genocidal, I mean that they intend to commit genocide, not that they've already committed genocide.  i base this off of statements and actions, I can point to numerous experts in the region who have predicted that a victory for the Syrian Rebels will almost certainly result in ethnic cleansing campaigns.  of course they are heterogenous, but the large convergence of the forces are groups that would like to engage in various degrees of genocide, most of them would be unified against the Alawites (note that was the FSA threatening wiping out Alawites, not one of the more extremist factions), they might be more divided as to the Christians but there's big enough groups that want to wipe out Christians also that I find it hard to imagine a scenario in which the rebels win and the Christians are safe, and no scenario I can think of in which Alawites would be safe with Syria in rebel hands.

 

 

That's pretty weak.  That appears to be a prediction that genocide may occur, against the will of the FSA's command structure, if certain events occur.  Although it's pretty difficult to tell as very little context is provided.  That's pretty weak.  Particularly given, again, how heterogenous the rebels are and how little we know about what most rebel fighters and rebels think.  Some fighters are absolutely genocidal.  Some aren't.  Which side makes up the majority?  Which will take control if Asaad falls?  I don't know.  And neither do you.  Although further killings against civilian populations on both sides are almost certainly going to occur.So far, however, the largest mass slaughter of civilians seems to have been comitted by the Asaad regime.  

Edited August 31, 2013 by Hasan

[CatholicsAreKewl]

of course, we should be concerned about all kinds of genocide and ethnic cleansing. like the type that will likely take place if the Syrian rebels are allowed to take control of Syria, as a large number of those groups have vowed ethnic cleansing against the Alawites and have already engaged in pogroms against the Christians.

but yes, by all means, let's pick one group of atrocities against the other based on the unverified claims that the Syrian government suddenly made a ridiculously stupid miscalculation in a war they were winning by conventional means and had no reason to turn towards chemical weapons in (in the chemical weapons strike, cui bono? unquestionably the rebels and terrorists), let's take sides to extend this bloody war by attacking the Syrian government to ensure that the rebel groups' terrorist campaigns can continue, rather than trying to help work towards a ceasefire for both despicable sides.

 

Meh, I don't know if a ceasefire is a likely solution. I think we'll go in if other countries get involved/if Bashar has a slim chance of maintaining his rule (in an attempt to build early relations with the new government).

[Lilllabettt]

During the Rwandan genocide, a series of escalating moral outrages were perpetrated by the government against the civilian population. The West considered intervening. But the negative outcome of a previous African intervention (Mogadishu) was still fresh in the American brain. The politics were so complicated, after all. Let them figure it out themselves, people said. So they dilly-d and the dally-d and they agonized and wrung their hands. As the wheels came off completely, hundreds of thousands of civilians died. (Best estimate 900,000) And we did nothing. To our everlasting shame.

 

During the Syrian civil war, a series of escalating moral outrages were perpetrated by the government against the civilian population. The West considered intervening. But the negative outcome of a previous Middle Eastern intervention (Iraq) was still fresh in the American brain. The politics were so complicated, after all. Let them figure it out themselves, people said. People have dilly dallied, agonized and wrung their hands. Can't say hundreds of thousands of civilians have died though -- only 85000 so far.  May need more innocent death before shame kicks in.

 

Inaction is not morally "safe." Both inaction and action have moral consequences.

 

[CatholicsAreKewl]

I don't think her comment rose to the level of you needing to make the comment you did.

 

That's not very Christian, KnightofChrist.