Since we will be at war in a few days time...

[cthulu2016]

Last edited Mon Aug 26, 2013, 11:54 AM - Edit history (2)

I would like to say two things about the pending war...


1) The chemical weapons use "on ones own people" as casus belli struck me as insane leading up to Iraq so I am not enthused about it today. It is not that chemical weapons are not horrible. They are, indeed, horrible. But they are not all that more horrible than having most of your skin burned off by ordinary wholesome fire. There are no cute, cuddly ways of killing "your own people."

So what we will be going to war about is not about killing people. (Hell... why not bomb Egypt while we're at it? They killed a bunch of "their own people" recently.) It is about trying to draw a limiting line on a tactic (chemical weapons) independent of the moral dimension of killing innocent people in general. Killing people is not the issue. The issue is how people are killed.

It is reasonable for us to seek the limitation of chemical weapons, but it is rather odd to enter a war based on such a motive if it was not already worth entering for other reasons. (If it turned out rebels had been responsible for chemical attacks would we then enter the war on Assad's side? War on a weapon or tactic is peculiar. Also, if killing people with Tomahawk cruise missiles or drone-lunched Hellfire missiles is the *good* way to kill people, are we obliged to make those virtuous weapons available to all?)

But as a statement of future policy, it has whatever counter-proliferation benefits it has.


2) As a statement of future policy it is a statement of future policy. We will be required to bomb other people in other places, down the road, for the same offense. One could say that our line in the sand will deter future use of chemical weapons, versus just burning people alive the old-fashioned way, but it appears to have not deterred anyone in this instance. So take from that what you may.



In Summary: Having been at war with a tactic (terror) for 12 years I suppose we can be at war with anther tactic (chemical weapons) for a while. But anyone pretending there is a decisive moral imperative has an odd moral sensibility unless we plan to apply the same moral logic to dropping regular bombs on people. The argument that dropping regular bombs on people is acceptable is an odd one, but it is implicit in the policy we have carved out.

Clarifying note: Some think that the phrase "we will be at war" means WW III or something. I am referring to a US or US/UK or NATO attack on Syrian military targets. Bombing the government of a nation is, in fact, being at war. The fact that we fire missiles at targets in Yemen and Pakistan routinely, and that we have been conditioned to think that there is something normal about bombing other countries does not change what war is. When you bomb other countries you are waging war... you are at war. And they have every right to bomb you back. We have a practice of attacking only countries that are unable to bomb our cities, but that doesn't change the fact that bombing other nations is being at war. Really. It is. And Syria would be distinct because we are not bombing the current governments of Afghanistan or Yemen or Pakistan, but if we strike Syria it will be an attack on the Syrian government. And that is being at war, all day long. The fact we will do so with no risk of US casualties speaks to our superior technology, not to a notion that bombing another government's forces is anything other than being at war.

[delrem]

1. A war based on "WMD" is a war based on "WMD". The world understands what the US is doing.

[cthulu2016]

3. I do not see Iraq and Syria wars as comparable in that way.

WMD is Iraq was a pretext for a war we wanted to have no matter what.

Syria appears to be more a case of tough talk turning into more than one hoped for. We talked tough to prevent something, It didn't work. And then we have to back up our tough talk.

It's how wars not driven by imperative national interests tend to get started. Tough talk seems harmless at the time... just talk, right? But it has a way of turning into missiles and bombs.

Speak softly and carry a big stick does seem a better way to avoid domino-falling wars one wasn't seeking.

[Arctic Dave]

2. The water gets a little muddier now that the CIA

is proven to have helped Iraq gas the Iranians.

Double standard? No more then all the other atrocities the US is guilty of.

Hell, Obama has killed as many kids with drones as this attack has.

Bombs or gas, bombs or gas. Still dead either way.

Debating the morality of one over the other is absurd at best.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

12. It was already muddy.

We used chemical weapons in Iraq within the last decade.


The US used chemical weapons in Iraq - and then lied about it

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2005/nov/15/usa.iraq

Chemical hypocrites

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/apr/08/iraq.comment

[SidDithers]

4. Bookmarking...

when will the war start?

Sid

[KittyWampus]

6. I wish I had a buck for every time DU'ers said we were going to war with Iran

during the Bush years.

edit- that said, I'll be p*ssed as anyone else on DU if NATO gets involved in more than some strikes on hard targets.

[cthulu2016]

9. Strikes on hard targets are, in fact, war.

[cthulu2016]

8. 3-4 days.

Bookmark away... or just consume more news.

[AverageJoe90]

16. I'd also be watching out for a major uptick in WWIII fearmongering.....

I mean, it's kinda started already, but I'm expecting some of our more paranoid members to possibly lose their heads if Obama DOES greenlight a missile attack on gov't forces over this next week.....

[GeorgeGist]

28. Sept. 11

[msongs]

5. not we, obama will be at war backed by the MIC and its congressional stooges nt

[leveymg]

7. That's the thing about arbitrary, inconsistent rules - they can be changed at any time, even to do

the right thing. Shudder.

Which is why I think the red line may not necessarily lead to war,unless that was really the purpose to begin with that has not changed. So, if Obama really doesn't want to go to war, he'll merely shift his interpretation of what "red line" means, and he can do that easily by simply saying that since there is no definitive proof of who carried out the attack, we need not attack one side or the other.

Or, as has been suggested elsewhere tonight, we may end up bombing both the regime and its Jihadi opposition, because we don't really want either in power and in control over Syria's chemical stockpiles. If, indeed, that is the case.

We will see.

[AverageJoe90]

15. Either one of these could happen, TBH.

I think Obama realizes that some of the rebels really *don't* have altruistic motives and are themselves suspect.....I, of course, am referring to the AQ/Salafi/Muslim Brotherhood factions.

[LearningCurve]

10. I mostly agree with you in substance, but ....

Chemical weapons are indeed more horrible, and we should know

Here's a link to an article about the effects of chemical weapons used during Vietnam decades later.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/mar/29/usa.adrianlevy

[cthulu2016]

18. And the many millions of Vietnamese killed during the war suffer to this day

from the condition of remaining dead.

I ma not sating chemical weapons are not horrible, at all.

But the distinctions between conventional and chemical are not, to me, categorical differences. Being shot with a .22 is probably safer than being gassed with Sarin. Being drone-struck with a Hellfire missile is a lot more dangerous than mustard gas.

And so on.

[LearningCurve]

19. For the record, I'm in agreement with you on dead is bad

Regardless of how someone gets there. Also, I oppose intervention on that basis in Syria, and currently for any other reason as well. I posted the link to offer what a consider to be a reasonable rationale to give chemical weapons a special distinction. For those that make that distinction, I think mines should be added to that list as well.

[cthulu2016]

21. I do appreciate your point.

Personally, I consider nuclear and biological to be distinct enough to warrant hard bans. Chemical I am less convinced about in the WMD hierarchy.

But you are right that there is a real case to be made.

Part of the problem I have comes from strategic bombing, which is clearly worse than chemical weapons in historical practice, but was our primary method for much of WWI and Vietnam, and would have been eventually so in Iraq if Iraq had had any real prolonged ability to resist invasion with conventional military force.

I am willing to concede that chemical weapons are attention getting in their novelty, and in an age of smarter and smarter weapons their somewhat arbitrary dispersal marks them more and more as anti-civilian weapons, like cluster bombs and indiscriminate mining

(Though Iraq made effective battlefield tactical use of chems vs. Iran. So they are not only anti-populace, ven in post WWI settings.)

[LearningCurve]

27. And I always appreciate your posts

You are one of the people that someone can have a discussion and exchange of ideas with, as well as providing well-thought out posts that are informative. I always give your posts more than the average amount of consideration.

[cherokeeprogressive]

11. If the United States Military lashes out at ANYONE in Syria for using chemical weapons it will be

President Obama's War.

Wholly, and COMPLETELY.

It's reasoning will be as CLEAR AS MUD.

INNOCENT PEOPLE WILL DIE.

Gee...

Where have I heard this one before?

[KittyWampus]

13. Libya?

[cherokeeprogressive]

17. I'll put you down as "gung ho".

[The Straight Story]

20. And if we do nothing and more people are gassed (reminds me of the 1940's)

More and More innocent people will die and it will add up.

Not in a hurry to go to war. My son could well be called up so I have a personal stake in the game.

But how many times have I heard in my life "If I could go back and stop X from doing Y I would"?

There are over 1 million refugee children so far there. Yeah, I know they are not American kids, or Jewish, not white, etc. Mostly Muslim kids.

The children's ordeals are not over once they escape Syria, said Antonio Guterres, the head of the Office for the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, known as UNHCR.

Guterres warned there was an "enormous risk of Syria facing a lost generation," and he called the situation "totally unacceptable."

"Even after they have crossed a border to safety, they are traumatized, depressed and in need of a reason for hope," he said.

It is a complex situation, no easy answers, but just sitting back and letting it happen when we could (and others) do something is pretty isolationist.

I hear more people around here wanting to do something about the less than 1% who own guns and use them than help out with 3 million refugees and stop chemical attacks. And they claim it is to 'save the kids' and such. Well, here is a real chance to actually save some people and give them aid.

Obama is not bush on everything and I would trust him more to step in in a more humanitarian way to help out and assist in stopping this atrocity (and again, so should other nations).

But hey, they are just a bunch of people we don't know so why should we care about their plight and our ability to help them? Let's just go back to watching Breaking Bad and complaining about other dems and their choices and how crappy our internet service is. Not like they are human beings or anything, just some pictures on the news.

And NO it does not have to be war, troops on the ground, just us alone. But it would be nice if we talked about it, looked for solutions, ways to intervene and help the many masses affected - especially given we probably had a hand in the long term getting them to that point via past policies and our tax dollars.

I am wary to be sure, but open minded enough to know that there are real people being killed there, mass of refugees, and sitting around on our asses is not saving anyone.

With great power comes great responsibility. And we have great power.

[cherokeeprogressive]

22. I have a great respect for you, always have.

At this moment in time, I cannot in good faith say I know who gassed who, so I can't say who I'd direct an attack at.

This could be Assad or not.

Tomorrow's wrong move would cause ripples in the pond whose reflection and return we could never predict. I wish I had an answer.

I think the better answer would be to say we're coming with tanks, planes, and APC's but no rounds in the chambers.... in numbers greater than Assad could EVER fight against... backed by the UN. Yeah, I don't know what good it would do, and it won't bring back the dead, but WTF... enough war is enough.

What if it WAS the rebels that gassed their own in a FALSE FLAG kind of attack and we brought down hellfire on the wrong people?

[The Straight Story]

23. Well I am in no rush as I said

But I think we could be doing more right now to help the people in danger (refugees).

As far as the chemical attack thing is concerned, I don't have enough data myself of course to know who did it and who we should retaliate against (and using chemical weapons should be a no-no for anyone).

I am catching reports coming in right now of an explosion in Damascus not far from where the inspectors were/are staying (trying to verify, though one source claims cnn is a source).

26 August 2013, 06:28 CNN: A huge explosion rocked Damascus. (according to http://www.naharnet.com/ )

I also follow #Syria on twitter (lots of folks on there right now).

I abhor war, getting our people into one, having my son leave his family again and head off to such a thing. I didn't think the Iraq war was justified (we propped up saddam, we took him down when done with him, etc). Not in favor of a war with Iran, and I don't always trust Israel and their input on Syria on either.

I am in favor of taking out leaders, whether rebel or not, who use chemical weapons. Also in favor of using our resources and aid, as well as influence, in helping out countries like this where there are so many refugees.

Wary of false flag ops as well since I don't fully trust a lot of governments in this world.

There is a major human tragedy going on there (and elsewhere) that I think we could be helping to avert or at least alleviate. Yet the US and UN seem to be sitting on their asses waiting on it all to get worse for some reason. And we have seen how that turns out time and time again.

[cherokeeprogressive]

25. Your posts on all issues are always ones I open. I wish I had answers.

Would that there were answers we could all agree upon.

There are heavy sighs coming from the other room signaling my Better Half's unhappiness with my absence in the marital bed. Best I should go there.

I can only hope there is an answer that limits the violence and death I know will follow. We can only hope that what tomorrow brings will be cooler heads though I believe we both know that moment is on the other side of more suffering.

I will keep your Son in my thoughts.

Thanks for all you do here.

Chris

[The Straight Story]

26. And thanks for an adult discussion on the matter

Heading to bed soon, but hoping my #syria reading slows down...always grabs me back in

[The Straight Story]

24. One update:

Agence France-Presse ‏@AFP 4m

#BREAKING Turkey says will join coalition against Syria even without UN consensus

http://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/Europe/Turkey-would-join-coalition-against-Syria-says-foreign-minister/Article1-1113057.aspx

[GeorgeGist]

29. It's interesting to me that there's no red line ...

Where Syrian refugees are concerned.

[AverageJoe90]

14. Some good thoughts here.

I'm not exactly gung-ho for direct intervention myself; clearly, the Al-Assad regime has been more than willing to use chemical weapons on those they deem to be their enemies.....but then again, the same may very well hold true for the Islamists as well.

Frankly, if worst came to worst, I'd be willing to go with support for NATO if they decide to more directly intervene, but no further than that.

[Javaman]

30. we are told there are chems being used...

but who are the ones telling us?

we have been lied to many times before in regards to one reason or another as to why we need to go to war.

So far there is no direct evidence as to chems being used. on supposition and accusations.

oddly, the rebels already have stated that if they had chems, they would use them too.

So what if the rebels have used them or do use them?

then what? Bomb them?

[JoeyT]

31. The idea that chemical weapons are somehow worse than conventional has always puzzled me too.

"Can we shoot people?" "Sure!" "Can we set them on fire?" "Yep!" "Can we blow them up?" "Absolutely!" "Can we use mines?" "Sure can!" "What about cluster mines?" "All you want!" "Shrapnel? Can we use shrapnel?" "Yeah, it's the best isn't it!?" "Can we suffocate them?" "It works like a charm!" "Can we poison them?" "Nope. Can't do that.".*

*"Nope, can't do that." comes with the caveat that you can't poison them intentionally. You can still use things that will poison them later or poison them if they fail to ignite or will blow things up that will poison them.

I have no idea why people think dying from Sarin or VX exposure is worse than dying over days or weeks from third degree burns or festering shrapnel wounds. It isn't that you can't control who dies from them: Cluster mines work the same way. We have no real issues with killing civilians anyway. I have no idea.