Strike On Syria?

[Era Might]

"this is the business we've chosen."  -- Hyman Roth, The Godfather Part II

 

The Godfather, the answer to all questions in life, foreign and domestic.

 

Michael Corleone: I saw a strange thing today. Some rebels were being arrested. One of them pulled the pin on a grenade. He took himself and the captain of the command with him. Now, soldiers are paid to fight; the rebels aren't.

Hyman Roth: What does that tell you?

Michael Corleone: They could win.

[Era Might]

Fredo Corleone: I'm your older brother, Mike, and I was stepped over!

Michael Corleone: That's the way Pop wanted it.

Fredo Corleone: It ain't the way I wanted it! I can handle things! I'm smart! Not like everybody says... like dumb... I'm smart and I want respect!

[Lilllabettt]

that's NOT the job he signed up for, he signed up to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies foreign and domestic, to defend his country and his home... not to go off fighting in totally unrelated conflicts

 

Actually, they sign up to obey the orders of the President of the United States. We have a civilian controlled military, which means it is a politician who defines who is a threat to "our country and our home." Perhaps you have not been paying attention ---  they have expanded those definitions repeatedly, for um ....  several decades. I daresay everyone who signs up with the military is aware of that.

 

SemperCatholic for example, signed up with the marines after we were several years into the Iraq War. I think its an insult to his, and every member of the military's intelligence to suggest that they sign up for the armed forces unaware of what it might involve.

 

There are a lot of benefits for military service (they are not just for war veterans btw; all military veterans get them.) The drawback is that one day you may have to leave your family, work where people are trying to kill or maim you, possibly kill some of them, all for a project a bunch of politicians have decided is worth undertaking. And the mission will not be neat and clear (it never is) and the conditions will be inhumane and miserable (they always are.) I'd never want to do that job. So I don't sign up for it. Some people in the military never get sent to war, but the reality is war-making is their job. Its the business they have chosen.

Edited August 31, 2013 by Lilllabettt

[Semper Catholic]

Actually, they sign up to obey the orders of the President of the United States. We have a civilian controlled military, which means it is a politician who defines who is a threat to "our country and our home." Perhaps you have not been paying attention ---  they have expanded those definitions repeatedly, for um ....  several decades. I daresay everyone who signs up with the military is aware of that.

 

SemperCatholic for example, signed up with the marines after we were several years into the Iraq War. I think its an insult to his, and every member of the military's intelligence to suggest that they sign up for the armed forces unaware of what it might involve.

 

There are a lot of benefits for military service (they are not just for war veterans btw; all military veterans get them.) The drawback is that one day you may have to leave your family, work where people are trying to kill or maim you, possibly kill some of them, all for a project a bunch of politicians have decided is worth undertaking. And the mission will not be neat and clear (it never is) and the conditions will be inhumane and miserable (they always are.) I'd never want to do that job. So I don't sign up for it. Some people in the military never get sent to war, but the reality is war-making is their job. Its the business they have chosen.

 

This is the general attitude of the Rush Limbaugh/Glenn Beck fueled political plebes, that the military is just a lapdog for whomever is in power and that it's ok to put them in harm's way because "America, Toby Keith, and Freedom."

 

As easy as it is to dismiss the military as pimply faced kids who boarded a bus right of high school, I'm always blown away at how well they can smell elderberries from a mile away.

 

If we learned anything from Iraq it's that sending the military in with no clear plan or Commander's Intent leads to a terrible situation. I highly doubt anyone on the democrat side of things is chomping at the bit to become the next Paul Bremer, trying to decide who to help while being dropped into a Civil War.

 

Don't worry though, that's the cool thing about the military, no matter what decision Obama decides, good or bad, the military will be there to pick up the Check.

[add]

 for more than two years of conflict which hundred of thousand people died,  it seems that Mr. Obama sets side, provides support to the Muslim extremists, with al quada terrorists, those created chaos in the region.
Mr. Obama! better you go home, set the red line for your country to stop killing their own children in the abortion, then come here to teach us how to kill people

[4588686]

well I dealt with the "punitive" idea earlier, I think it's absurd and untenable.  it helps the rebels, which we shouldn't be doing, thereby prolonging the war, which we shouldn't be doing; and, by the way, I see no moral argument that justifies "oh, yeah, we have no intention to participate in this conflict, to end it in any way, but one side did something bad therefore we will launch tomahawk missiles at them and feel self-righteous about it".

 

no, there has to be a calculation that you are bettering the situation somehow, that you are taking a side or doing something productive.  since we can't pick a side that we want to be with, there's no moral justification for going into the war.  if a scenario ever arises in which somehow, somewhere, someway Bashar Al Assad could be tried in the International Criminal Court for war crimes and punished, then that'd be great.  to just throw missiles around as punishments, with the President deciding as judge, jury, and executioner, I am totally unequivocally against that.  It's insane, it's callous, it's completely non-justifiable morally IMO.

 

 

You're distorting the rational.  Asaad does not want the US to seriously intervene militarily in the conflict because he does not want lose the war.  The rationale for punishing him by launching some missiles at some of his military assets is to discourage his from allowing his regime from using those weapons against a civilian population again.  The idea being to provide an incentive for the regime to keep the conflict between itself and the rebel forces.  If you don't see a moral component to that then it's because you don't want to for ideological reasons.  

 

I don't know how I feel about that idea.  But at least engage with it and stop distorting the rationale.  

Edited August 31, 2013 by Hasan

[4588686]

. And the mission will not be neat and clear (it never is) and the conditions will be inhumane and miserable (they always are.) I'd never want to do that job. So I don't sign up for it. Some people in the military never get sent to war, but the reality is war-making is their job. Its the business they have chosen.

 

 

Your transactional description of military service is kind of silly given how bad the VA has been with actually supporting veterans and how much shit veterans have to deal with that isn't in any contract.  For example, I don't know how many people sign up for PTSD.  Probably about half the men in my family are still suffering from some war they fought in years or even decades ago.  Nor is there anything about serving if you President commits treason (hey look, Nixon again) or is a lying, manipulative piece of shit (hey there, Bush) or decides to ramp of a war that he probably doesn't, deep down, really believe can be won (hey there, Obama and Johnson).  

[Aloysius]

oh come on, I understand the rationale perfectly well, it's still illegal under international law and at the end of the day serves no purpose in saving any lives or defending any people, everything I said about it still applies completely.

 

it's like if two guys (who are both bad guys) are engaged in a vicious fight against each other, and some innocent bystanders got in the way and get killed.  one of the two guys is injured to the point where the other guy has the clear advantage so that the other guy should really just give up and run away, so you go in and you shoot the other guy in the foot to even up the fight, and then you leave, and you call that justice, and suggest you've done a great deed to make sure no more innocent bystanders get killed between their fight.  

 

and anyway the rationale is much more about not being okay with Assad staying in power because we want to weaken Iran in the Middle East... it is most certainly in their reasoning that they want to weaken the Assad government so that the fight can continue.  the talk of deterring future chemical attacks is just that--talk--now, maybe President Obama believes it, but if he does, I am sure the people advising him to do it have convinced him of that because they have done their calculations on the geopolitics and want him to attack the Assad government for entirely different rationale.  I have a feeling Mr. Obama's in on it too, he's a smart guy, maybe he believes some convergence of the two things and also really does believe it's a deterrent for chemical weapons, but the other calculation is far more likely to play into the decision making process I suspect.

 

the fact of the matter is that bombing the Syrian government aids the rebel forces.  to pretend that it doesn't, to pretend that we can do it for some pure motivation of a chemical weapons punishment and deterrent, it's just not tenable.  you have to look at the effect you're having on the war--the effect of bombing the Syrian government is to benefit the rebels and prolong the war.

[Lilllabettt]

This is the general attitude of the Rush Limbaugh/Glenn Beck fueled political plebes, that the military is just a lapdog for whomever is in power and that it's ok to put them in harm's way because "America, Toby Keith, and Freedom."

 

As easy as it is to dismiss the military as pimply faced kids who boarded a bus right of high school, I'm always blown away at how well they can smell elderberries from a mile away.

 

If we learned anything from Iraq it's that sending the military in with no clear plan or Commander's Intent leads to a terrible situation. I highly doubt anyone on the democrat side of things is chomping at the bit to become the next Paul Bremer, trying to decide who to help while being dropped into a Civil War.

 

Don't worry though, that's the cool thing about the military, no matter what decision Obama decides, good or bad, the military will be there to pick up the Check.

 

Actually no. Rush Limbaugh/Glenn Beck plebes canonize members of the American military as individuals who disinterestedly sacrifice for the ideals of liberty, freedom, etc. When the reality is military people have made a rational, self-interested choice of profession. It can be a very noble profession, sure. But it is a job.

 

Yes, the military is the lapdog of whatever politician is in power. This is not Egypt, where the military is enrobed with mystical moral authority. (Although Glenn Beck might prefer it were that way.) Here the President says jump and the military says "how high, sir?" That's an oath that is taken as part of the job description.

 

"No clear plan."  Gulf War II, Afghanistan, Kosovo, Gulf War I, Vietnam, Korea, in WWII they had no clue what the goal was in Japan. Here the goal might be: Neutralize the ability of combatants to use chemical weapons.  Or: establish and defend a safe zone for Syrian civilians. 

 

During the Rwandan genocide, we refused to intervene because we considered Africa a political tar-baby, we could not be sure who we would be helping (Hutu and Tutsi people look the same), helping civilians would indirectly aid the Tutsi rebels, whom we did not like, we did not want to take sides in a civil war without a goal (end the war? prop up Tutsi leadership? Occupy? what?)  History condemns us for that. When kids learn about it in school they are disgusted. President Clinton describes it as the deepest failure of his presidency.

 

Parliament did not vote down action because they think it will make it worse for Syrian civilians. They were worried about British skin; about getting entangled in the mess "those people" have "over there." And we have Dick Cheney of all people wondering aloud if the use of chemical weapons has anything to do with the national interest.

[Lilllabettt]

Your transactional description of military service is kind of silly given how bad the VA has been with actually supporting veterans and how much poo veterans have to deal with that isn't in any contract.  For example, I don't know how many people sign up for PTSD.  Probably about half the men in my family are still suffering from some war they fought in years or even decades ago.  Nor is there anything about serving if you President commits treason (hey look, Nixon again) or is a lying, manipulative piece of poo (hey there, Bush) or decides to ramp of a war that he probably doesn't, deep down, really believe can be won (hey there, Obama and Johnson).  

 

 

Teachers, cops, firemen, lawyers, doctors all run the risk of PTSD. It is called an "occupational hazard."  People who sign up for the military realize it comes with a high risk of PTSD. They choose to go into the profession anyway. In their analysis the rewards out weigh the risks. They choose to roll the dice, and sometimes they get lucky. There was a 20 year stretch where the vast majority of American military people never saw a day in combat. And they got their veterans benefits all the same. It's

different when there's a draft. When you take some guy who is a plumber, give him a gun and 3 weeks of training and send him into a war zone. But there is no draft.

 

Everyone I know in the military loves America. None of them signed up to for the military "because America and freedom and the flag."  Once again, that is Glenn Beck myth-making. Most people I know in the military are initially attracted by the education benefits, or the training. A couple joined because they just wanted to leave home and they needed a job to do it. My best friend liked the structure of the military, how it is run as an organization. 

[4588686]

 

"No clear plan."  Gulf War II, Afghanistan, Kosovo, Gulf War I, Vietnam, Korea, in WWII they had no clue what the goal was in Japan. Here the goal might be: Neutralize the ability of combatants to use chemical weapons.  Or: establish and defend a safe zone for Syrian civilians. 

 

 

And Gulf War II, Afghanistan, Vietnam, and Korea were/are abject failures.  No clear plan is what got my Uncle George and the men he was commanding as an Infantry Officer cut off and surrounded by Chinese soldiers at Chosin Reservoir.    

 

American military personnel have a legal obligation to fight in whatever awful campaign the latest dip shit in office commands.  You're just stating a fact that nobody disputes.  The issue, however, should be that in a representative form of government, as ours is supposed to be, an active citizenry should be engaged in which conflicts and under what circumstances those military personnel are being put in harms way.  And as citizens we have a duty to be engaged and critical so that our fellow citizens who are in the military aren't sent into a pointless meat-grinder like Iraq, or Vietnam, or Korea.  

[Ice_nine]

I'm not asking this to be snarky but other than betching on the interwebs is there anything we can do either way?

 

I appreciate the discussion, am learning a lot, but what the hell influence does the average American citizen have in this situation? I've seen petitions and such but those are typically based on emotional persuasion rather than educating the public. And I have to trust the reports of people who potentially have a lot to gain and/or lose.

 

I'm too stupid to contribute anything else. There's too many moving parts and too many people getting caught in the gears.

[Lilllabettt]

And Gulf War II, Afghanistan, Vietnam, and Korea were/are abject failures.

 

I'll give you Vietnam. The others - no. I don't see any point in even arguing about South Korea; they are much better off. I think the jury is still out in the Gulf. The qol of Afghanistan has risen so quickly in the years since the invasion that some experts cast doubt on the statistics. Life expectancy, infant mortality, literacy rates, access to clean water, by every measure things have improved, especially for women. Afghanistan is experiencing more peace and productivity than it has in 3 decades.

 

I measure success a certain way though. If your idea of success is annihilating the enemy, than yes, they have all been failures.

 

 

 No clear plan is what got my Uncle George and the men he was commanding as an Infantry Officer cut off and surrounded by Chinese soldiers at Chosin Reservoir.    

 

That is what war is. It doesn't matter how good your "plan" is.

[Era Might]

WASHINGTON — President Obama said on Saturday that he was ready to take military action against Syrian President Bashar Assad, but that he will seek the approval of Congress before carrying out any military strike.

 

Obama says congressional leaders have agreed to schedule a debate and vote when they return to session. They are scheduled to return from their summer recess on Sept. 9.

 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/08/31/obama-makes-statement-on-syria/2751085/

[4588686]

 I think the jury is still out in the Gulf.

 

 

How in the world is the jury still out on Iraq?  The president of the United State's administration manipulated the American people into a completely unnecessary war.  Said war cost hundred of thousands of people their lives and scores more were seriously maimed or injured.  And now we have an authoritarian Shia government in control rather than an Authoritarian Baathist regime.  

 

Unless by 'the jury is still out' you mean 'why haven't members of the Bush Administration been tried at the Hague,' which is a great question.