I'm having trouble finding anyone in South Dakota to tell me that throwing our military might at Syria is a good idea.
Former Senator Jim Abourezk spoke forcefully on SDPB yesterday noon against U.S. military intervention in Syria. Abourezk's wife was born and raised in Syria. The Abourezks have family in Syria. They have Christian cousins who had to leave Damascus for Beirut to get away from the violence of Syria's civil war.
Abourezk says the U.S. has no business bombing Syria. He says Syria poses no threat to the U.S. He says Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is likely to undertake reforms if he can outlast the rebels, but a U.S. attack that weakens Assad will put al-Qaeda in charge of Syria, and al-Qaeda has a less impressive record on political reform. Abourezk says that instead of escalating the conflict and boosting sales for the military-industrial complex, we could end the Syrian conflict sooner by cutting off the flow of arms to both sides.
Aspiring Senator Stace Nelson agrees. Rapping out a truncated Facebook version of the Powell Doctrine, Nelson sees no clear U.S. national interest, no clear objectives, no strong public support, and no evidence that we've exhausted all means short of deadly military force. Since yesterday noon, 126 people have hit "Like" on Nelson's Facebook post.
Rep. Kristi Noem joins Nelson this morning, saying she's "not supporting the President's plan." That's a slyly partisan statement, not a categorical rejection of military action, but Noem adds that "Less than 1 percent of the people who contacted us have been in favor of taking action."
I hope Kristi is mis-summarizing the 99%'s inclinations. Total inaction may be as bad as muddled-headed military action. More on that at the bottom.
P&R Miscellany calls President Barack Obama a moral coward for asking Congress to exercise its Constitutional authority to declare war (well, kinda sorta, because the President isn't asking for a declaration of war, is he?). More compellingly, P&R puts the lie to the chemical weapons red line, contending that our stance against chemical weapons is based on military practicality, not enlightened morality. We get all indignant about chemical weapons largely because we haven't made them a key part of our military strategy (well, at least not since Vietnam, where, Jim Abourezk reminded us yesterday, we poured on the Agent Orange and napalm). But we still keep a planet-busting stockpile of nuclear weapons, and we take crap from no one about that.
David Newquist responds with some skepticism to various Republicans' newfound dovishness. At the same time, he points to Democratic dove Dennis Kucinich's principled and consistent skepticism of the Obama Administration's claims that the Assad regime has used chemical weapons. Newquist says we should be concerned about the slaughter of innocents by any means, but he says we should use the tools of diplomacy, the United Nations, and the International Criminal Court to stop that slaughter and bring Syria's war criminals to justice.
My friends at the South Dakota Peace and Justice Center are calling for a forceful yet peaceful response in Syria. So is progressive Christian activist Jim Wallis. So is the Pope, who is crying out, "War never again! Never again war!" (Yeah, go ahead: call Pope Francis a weak, flower-waving hippie.) In his Angelus audience in St. Peter's Square last Sunday, Pope Francis said, "Never has the use of violence brought peace in its wake. War begets war, violence begets violence." What's his counterplan?
With all my strength, I ask each party in this conflict to listen to the voice of their own conscience, not to close themselves in solely on their own interests, but rather to look at each other as brothers and decisively and courageously to follow the path of encounter and negotiation, and so overcome blind conflict. With similar vigour I exhort the international community to make every effort to promote clear proposals for peace in that country without further delay, a peace based on dialogue and negotiation, for the good of the entire Syrian people.
May no effort be spared in guaranteeing humanitarian assistance to those wounded by this terrible conflict, in particular those forced to flee and the many refugees in nearby countries. May humanitarian workers, charged with the task of alleviating the sufferings of these people, be granted access so as to provide the necessary aid [Pope Francis, Angelus, St. Peter's Square, 2013.09.01].
Pope Francis also invites everyone, even us atheists of good will, to join him for a peace vigil in St. Peter's Square Saturday evening (7 p.m. to midnight... but the Vatican is seven hours ahead of Sioux Falls, so you don't even have to miss the premiere of White Wall Sessions).
We can lob a few missiles at selected targets to ease our consciences and soothe concerns about our national credibility. Or we can get serious about doing real good in the face of evil.
One Tomahawk missile costs $1.4 million. For that same price, we could provide sleeping mats, kitchen tools, stoves, and tents to over 2,200 refugee families in the camps of Jordan, Lebanon, Iraq, Kurdistan, and Turkey. And sleeping mats, pots and pans, stoves, and tents are reusable, with far fewer civilian casualties, not to mention better Middle East PR from the big "From Your Friends in America" stamped on their sides.
Pretty much every moral system requires a response to the violence against civilians in Syria. But South Dakotans don't appear to favor responding with guns and bombs. Let's see if they'll support responding with butter and bread.
I totally agree with David Newquist when he said in is blog and I quote:
"But this time those folks who were so rabid about invading Iraq and plastered decals on their cars in support of that war are inveighing against Obama for wanting to take action against Syria. For many of the opponents, it is not a matter of responding to an atrocity that is clearly a holocaust-style war crime but a matter of venting hatred against Obama. The Obama derangement syndrome overrules any concern about the mass killing of the innocent. "
David hits the nail on the head. In my opinion this is exactly why the far right is against going to war. It's not that they care about the people of Syria, it's that they hate Obama that much.
I wonder how many of these same people were against going to war in Iraq?
At least the liberals are consistent. But as far as Iraq there were Democrats who voted to go to war. They're only excuse for doing so was Bush and his people lied to congress and the senate.
I'm reluctantly for bombing Assad's capability to use chemical weapons. I do not want to go to war, nor do I forget our own use of napalm years ago. I'm old enough to remember that and to remember my horror once I understood what we were doing.
We have no justifiable cause to involve ourselves in Syria's civil war. But we cannot fail to act when chemical weapons are used against innocents.
It sticks in my mind as this. If I saw two adults in a knifefight, I would not intervene but would call the police. If I saw an adult about to stab a child with a knife, I would step in without thinking. That's the difference between civil war and chemical annihilation of children.
"There ain't nothing about this that doesn't stink." Toby Ziegler
Jessie: does your willingness to intervene in an adult's knife attack on a child entail a response to Assad's use of bullets and bombs on children? to the rebels' of those same weapons against children?
I'm probably in the minority with having conflicted feelings about Syria. The pros and cons are out there and it will soon be decision time.
At the outset of the Syrian crisis I said what ever President Obama does, teapublicans will be against it. Thus it is more about Republican politics than it is about Syria.
Senator Jeff Flake, R-Ariz, was on FOX this morning (I look over there once in awhile until they make me sick) criticizing President Obama for asking for Congressional approval for an attack, he is one of the same flakes that were demanding congressional approval for an attack.
It appears to me that Republicans want the attack, but at the same time don't want the responsibility for it.
Cory,
I don't have a good answer for that. In war, civilians including children get killed. What is it about chemical weapons that makes them over the line in terms in terms of horror? You can't dodge, you can't hide, you can't predict where they will be, you can't survive the internal wounds they cause.
It is all of it sickening, just at different levels of heartache and outrage. And my stockpile of outrage is woefully depleted these days, so all I have left is the profound sadness.
Jessie
Children have a tough time dodging, hiding from, and surviving wounds from guns, bombs... and U.S. cruise missiles that miss their target.
Dead is dead and if it is not US citizens its not our fight. Think that is the lesson that constant war since 1991 has finally taught the American people.
Joseph g thompson
Like I said, Cory, I don't have a good answer for that. And have no sky-god to pray to for it to end.
I'm a dove on most military interventions. We certainly should not be involved in the Syrian civil war. However, when it comes to genocide, as in Kosovo, or use of chemical weapons, as in Syria, I think we have to respond.
Really, the US should not be the one to respond. Our history on chemical weapons is not clean. The Reagan and Bush 41 administrations actively helped Saddam Hussein acquire and use chemical weapons. In my mind, we are as guilty as Saddam. The Bush 43 administration lied us into a war based on a false charge of possession of chemical weapons. I think our use of napalm and Agent Orange violated the spirit, if not the letter, of the Geneva Convention. The international community should have held the US responsible for violations, and it should now join with the US to sanction Syria's use.
Still, the international community, as of today, has not been willing or able to enforce the norms against chemical weapons use. An effort to sanction use of chemical weapons has been long needed. And if the US can get the attention of the international community by doing a limited intervention, I'm all for it.
As an American taxpayer I'm sick and tired of running up deficits to support the military industrial complex and to start and prosecute foreign wars. If Syria is a problem, it is a problem for Europe. It is a problem for Asia. It is a problem for the world. I said "if." Maybe a civil war is just a civil war and not a world war. But if it's a problem for the world to address, then it's somebody else's turn to pony up money and/or troops to address it. We have done our share.
I'm not saying what to do, but somewhere today I read that the threat of American action is taking a toll of Assad's forces. They are bailing out on him. So maybe he's not as strong as we think. And a couple days ago someone said the real reason Assad has used the chemical weapons is to cement internal support, because if they were to fail now, there will be huge repercussions, so this will make them fight harder to the end.
The Arab League needs to be the political body that responds to this. It's their neighborhood. Too bad some of their own members seem to be behind much of it.
'War is God's way of teaching Americans geography.'
Ambrose Bierce - 1898
In recent years, there has been an extraordinary outpouring of literature and films examining what the German people were doing as the Jews were rounded up and herded into the death camps. My correspondent Anne was a high school student at a U.S military school in Germany when her German peers were beginning to grapple with the denial that their elders mounted when the question was raised about what they thought were happening to the Jews. For a half century, the western world was adamant and active about never letting such a holocaust happen again. We used that vow to intervene in Bosnia and Kosovo. We went into the slough of guilt when we failed to act in Rwanda. But now, we, too, have retreated into the it's-not-our-business-let-someone-else-do-it and the these-things-happen stances.
A military strike does not seem like much of a solution. A massive diplomatic and humanitarian campaign, such as Cory suggests, is a solution more in keeping with what our nation purportedly represents. Rather than merely protesting a strike with weapons, we should be advocating for a way to help those people who are gasping for breaths of air with sarin-scorched lungs.
The Hague should be the clearinghouse for criminals like Assad and Bush/Cheney: just say now.
This is Israel's war: let her and AIPAC suffer the consequences. Draft Dan Lederman and Stan Adelstein to go fight.
Good comment, Mr. Newquist. I noticed that you mentioned the western world. The problem I see with the "western world" when it comes to matters like this is that every country wrings their hands and says "we should do something" but nobody wants to take the lead, and nobody wants to pay for anything. They all just expect the US taxpayers and military to incur all of the costs while they share in the benefits. Everybody wants to be a free rider, and it's time for the US to quit picking up the "western world's" tab for everything. Time for the rest of the "western world" to pay their fare or get the hell off the bus. Time for us to quit organizing excursions and incursions everywhere. Time to turn our guns to butter, our swords to plowshares.
Are we to believe that Assad is so interested in fair law that he would make changes if he won. He is from a family of dictators that use violence against peaceful protest. He disobeys international law with the use of chemical weapons. Why waste our time having international laws if we ignore when they are blatantly disobeyed.
No use to intervene.Asad will go any way.Kurdish tribes will invade the Northern part of Syria. While Israel is determined to have the sea side of Syria up to Turkey,because,the oil field is at the bottom of Mediterranean Sea from Syria to Cyprus.Arabs will go on killing each other endlessly. Some Christians are up to die during this mess.The voice of Iran might rise,pay no attention.Russians are too far away.Turkey will increase its population with Arab immigrants and wait for the few blankets sent from USA.UN,NATO,EU?Did some thing happen in Syria?
Owen, your opening quote is totally self-contradictory.
1) As one who was very lonely when I opposed going into Iraq and have supported pulling out of Afghanistan for years, "principled liberals" joined me only when it became an opportunity to smear Bush. I wouldn't be so quick to claim liberals are righteous.
2) If liberals who supported going into Iraq "are consistent," they would also support going into Syria. The rational (WMD's) is the same. The intelligence is from someone they believe. Buckle up and let's start the bombing.
3) If we find out the release of the sarin gas was done by a rebel group as a ruse to get the US to intervene, will you say Obama lied?
My position: This tyrant will not respond to any pressure (military, diplomatic, economic). The US sanctimoniously cut off the head of the regime's in Iraq, Libya, & Egypt and to get a lesser monster we have to spend a half trillion dollars. Aren't these three disasters enough lesson? Do we really need another?
The Cheney/Rumsfeld/Bush adventurism which seduced a 9/11 alarmed and grieving public into their blood-thirsty exploits is a ridiculous comparison with the present situation. For the pure comedy of handing this horrid burden onto a purposefully disfunctional Congress, I applaud President Obama. Those boobs really deserve to be forced to choke on a real dilemma and suffer the fallout. It might shake them up enough to start doing their jobs after nearly five years of jeering from the back bleechers.
The bottom line, as most are saying here, is there is no adequate or useful solution to respond to a chronic murderer who commands an army to suppress his people. Indeed, violence will beget more violence, especially when Assad crawls out of his bunker after the bombing stops and goes back to murdering citizens by the thousands.
The American people are war weary. More than that, presidents have become seen as the boys who cry wolf too often, especially when it involves yet another civil war and there is no sensible, peaceful and sustainable outcome envisioned: Korea, Vietnam, Nicaragua, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Egypt.
Troy is right that we don't need another lesson. Yet, we do have the tools to respond, such as with economic sanctions and boycotts, against Assad and nations which have chosen to be his allies. A military strike is an over-reach for the US to do it unilaterally. For now, sanctions to be the only sensible response to sarin gas to murder innocents. But keep in mind that tomorrow brings new opportunities to whack that bastard and his international allies. Things always change.
With all we've seen in recent years (misguided wars, self-serving gridlock, lies about wiretapping) we should be extremely skeptical. Pretty disturbing we can't trust our government with either party in power. This morning's news said France is the only country in support of Obama's intentions. Does world opinion mean anything?
"If liberals who supported going into Iraq "are consistent," they would also support going into Syria. The rational (WMD's) is the same. The intelligence is from someone they believe. Buckle up and let's start the bombing."
You're right Troy that some liberals voted to go to war. But the information they got from the Bush administration was a lie. They were guilty of believing Bush. There were a few that were against it anyway.
There is even more prove today that chemical weapons were used in Syria but its the Republicans who are against going to war because of their hatred of Obama.
If the rebels were the ones who used chemical weapon then I'd want to know if the intel the President received was faulty before I'd call him a liar.
There are plenty of Democrats that don't support Obama. We need good decisions rather than party line politics. The 2 party, us versus them system is not working.
I agree John. I'm against going to war. I hope the President doesn't do it
Owen:
You have a dual standard: Bad intel on Iraq makes Bush a liar. Bad intel on Syria would make Obama justifiably mistaken. You have the same "hatred" of Bush you are criticizing Republicans of having.
While I disagree with McCain on his position here, he and those like him are the only intellectually consistent in this whole mess.
The question is simple: Why should we do this? Period.
As of now, all I can discern is two justifications:
1) America is the world's policeman and we must act against this crime against humanity.
2) The President drew a red line in the sand that was crossed and our national standing is on the line.
Neither are persuasive to me so I stand in opposition.
Troy:
1.) There is probable cause for Israel to attack Syria.
2.) This is Bibi's red line not ours.
"What shall we do?" Nothing. Eight times the warmongers pleaded with President Eisenhower to go to war and 8 times he refused. When weaker, feckless men occupied the White House the cascading of America's losing interventions began . . . and continues.
The Syrian war is not about using human insecticide on 1,400 unfortunates; for if it were we would have declared war years ago on Union Carbide (Bhopal, India) or W. R. Grace (Libby, MT).
It's about picking winners. It's about intervention. It's about meddling. It's about hydrocarbons. The Saudis and Qatar bankrolled the Syrian opposition to the tune of over $3 billion. One of their goals is to build the Islamic pipeline through Syria over a competing route in order to supply natural gas to Europe - displacing the current supplier Gazprom (Russia). There is also oil along the Syrian coast and Golan Heights.
When one glances at regional maps of the likely adversaries one comes away with a measure of how complex and mired a Syrian-initiated regional war may become. The US's best strategy is staying out of it - that the entire mess mires in a stalemate. Consider the maps:
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2013/09/mccain-proposes-military-aid-to-al.html
http://www.indiandefencereview.com/news/attack-on-syria-competitive-shia-sunni-gas-pipelines-politics/
http://ftmdaily.com/what-jerry-thinks/why-syria/
And consider: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/may/13/1
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/10266957/Saudis-offer-Russia-secret-oil-deal-if-it-drops-Syria.html
This is the President's "red line."
President Obama, August 20, 2012: "“We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus. That would change my equation.”
Presidential Spokesman, Joel Earnest the next day: “As the President said yesterday in terms of Syria, we’re watching very closely the stockpile of Syrian chemical weapons; that any use or proliferation of efforts related to those chemical weapons is something that would be very serious and it would be a grave mistake.
“There are important international obligations that the Syrian regime must live up to in terms of the handling of their chemical weapons. And the officials who have that responsibility will be held accountable for their actions and will be held accountable for living up to those international obligations.”
White House Legislative Affairs Director Miguel Rodriquez in letter to Congress: “Because of our concern about the deteriorating situation in Syria, the president has made it clear that the use of chemical weapons -- or transfer of chemical weapons to terrorist groups -- is a red line for the United States of America. The Obama administration has communicated that message publicly and privately to governments around the world, including the Assad regime.”
Troy: had your guy become the decider you would be lining up on his rear goading the military to invade Syria. Hypocritheocracy by any other name.
IP, I supported pulling out of Afghanistan after the initial incursion beat back the Taliban and didn't find Bin Laden.
ip is not engaged in ad hominem attacks on you at dwc, troy.
I know.
well, a blogger said: one SCUD missile carrying Sarin costs easily $100,000. orangewithagreentop. So it would seem the 1.4mil tomahawk, well targeted, could save some lives. I am a dove but perhaps Obama knows what he is doing to take out every locatable Syrian SCUD except the ones parked next to schools ect. Curious what Jim Ab said about gassing his wife's people. will look it up next.--"take it back rick!"
Gotta think Dan Lederman is having a stroke right now trying pick ALEC's pockets fast enough to fund AIPAC's pawing of President Obama.
Principles? They're for the other guy.
Abourezk sounded more concerned that the al-Qaeda-dominated rebels would harm his relatives in Syria sooner than would a chemical weapon from Assad.
Abourezk's brain must be in a world of conflict. When in the Senate, he was pretty much detested by the Israel-Lobby. I thought he made a lot of sense when I heard him. Abourezk is not a bullshitter. As far as I could tell, he couldn't put up with the political hypocrisy and when he left the Senate, called it a "chicken-shit" organization. I think it and the House are even worse since then.
Something not being talked about much is the bad effects of military spending on the economy. It pulls money out of the civilian economy to produce weapons which can't be purchased by consumers. It thus both stifles useful industry and increases inflation. At some point the "benefits" of military interventionism must be weighed against the devastating social and economic consequences.
The best US policy on Syria is a US policy to make us energy independent of any Islamic country. Solar, wind, water, and Thorium nuclear, and better sensible conservation stimulus are in the best interest of US domestic and international interest.
It is a good idea!Why do you find the Word "Islamic"necessary?Do religions affect your decisions so much?
Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons to kill his own citizens, somewhere between 50,000 and 250,000 depending on source but Iraq was a mistake? (It was)
Assad (maybe) uses them and we're supposed to run off and impale the Islamic Hordes on our shinning bayonets?
It is correct to assume some of the opposition to this fandango might be partisan politics but if that is the case, then couldn't the thin and watery support for it be construed in the same light?
One very good reason to avoid these kinds of adventures is we are broke. We are already "printing" money like it was toilet paper and borrowing 40% of what we spend.
Monsanto, Syngenta and Dow use chemical weapons against the US every day yet the little resistance to the deaths caused by their ecoterrorism is branded liberal hysteria.
Charlie Rose interviewed Assad. It will air tomorrow. Here Charlie talks about the interview: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/08/charlie-rose-bashar-al-assad_n_3890294.html
Putin to the rescue. Put chemical weapons under international control. Everyone saves face (like that's real important) but maybe a way out: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/09/russia-syria-chemical-weapons-international-control_n_3893951.html
I think we should all be thankful we have Obama and his team leading this effort, rather than the neocons. What's exceptional about America is that we sometimes elect leaders who are strong enough and smart enough to help solve intractable problems. Obama's threatened use of force combined with the "rope-a-dope" strategy (going to Congress for enough delay to get Putin to re-think things) has been able to move the international community toward taking this use of chemical weapons seriously. It has moved Russia and China off their obstructionist path, and onto a path that could lead to solving the Syrian chemical weapons issue.
That's a good point, Donald. Whatever the merits of a U.S. military strike on Syria, President Obama is not so full of machismo that he feels he has to plow ahead with violent action to prove his toughness. If the mere threat worked, that's a plus.
Obama made a sophomore mistake by drawing a line in sand but his arrogance wouldn't allow him to admit it. Even with repetition we don't learn despite the loss of live.
It is not a good idea to intervene in a civil war concerning more than 2 sides.In Syria,there are about 17 sides who don't mind killing others. French have their own reasons to enter Syria.Mr.Kerry seems to be affected by Mr.Fabius,the French minister of external affairs.Obama does not want to enter any war.But,when he listens to Mr.Kerry,he feels obliged to be on the side of French allies.If,the important reason to make war is the gas used in Syria,Russian solution is the best way out.If,the main reason is to let Israel occupy the sea side of Syria so that they can have the promised land than bombing Syria will be of great importance.
President Obama appears to agree that intervention in a civil war is a bad idea. If chemical weapons use is the red line, then requiring Syria to surrender its chemical weapons solves most of the problem. But is that surrender of materiel sufficient punishment for the war crime committed?
I am old school, every time I see "red line" I shift. President Obama did just exactly that and for his being a gearhead, we will avoid American troop getting killed or maimed. You can call it what you will, I call it non-involvement and for that America can breathe a sigh of relief. Now, to get those chemicals under control so the Syrians can do the same.