A question for all those who favor some sort of military strike at Syria

[thucythucy]

in response to what is alleged to be the Syrian government's use of chemical weapons against its civilian population.

What happens if we make air and drone attacks, announcing to the world that this is "sending a signal" that such behavior "will not be tolerated," and the regime counters by doubling down and attacking twice as many civilians using twice as much chemical weaponry?

What should our response be to that?

Just so folks know, this isn't a hit and run OP. I WILL be getting back on this, but not for the next few hours. But I seriously do want to know what people are thinking about this, and to see what kind of discussion ensues.

Thanks all.

[Glorfindel]

1. What I'm thinking: "Syria is not worth one drop of American blood or one cent of American money"

Neither was Kosovo or Bosnia or Iraq. What did we get for our sacrifice of blood and money in these places? More hatred of Americans. Crushing national debt. Dead and mutilated and emotionally-damaged soldiers, sailors, and marines.

Driving the Taliban out of Afghanistan was worth the effort, if only in revenge for 9/11, but we should have got the hell out after one year at the most.

We have nothing to gain and everything to lose by intervening in Syria.

[TreasonousBastard]

2. What if they don't?

[thucythucy]

3. Not too much by way of any replies.

Ah well.

I hope somebody somewhere is asking and answering the various questions that need to be asked.

[leftstreet]

4. What if that's what they want?

What happens if we make air and drone attacks, announcing to the world that this is "sending a signal" that such behavior "will not be tolerated," and the regime counters by doubling down and attacking twice as many civilians using twice as much chemical weaponry?

What if that's actually the goal? How does one easily talk about that here at DU while people are busy posturing their patriotism and bloody-redness and prepping to hail Obama as a great military leader making somber, somber soundbites.

[thucythucy]

5. I hope that's NOT the goal,

but I suppose there are at least some people who might actually want such a scenario.

I posed this question after re-reading a hunk of David Halberstam's "The Best and the Brightest." LBJ's advisors told him bombing North Vietnam would "send a message" to the Communists that they can't fuck with Uncle Sam, and they'd have to stop supplying the insurgents in "South Vietnam." Instead of getting the message, and rolling over, the NVA actually upped their supplies to the south.

The response of course was more bombing. And then troops to protect the air fields from which the bombers were flying. And then more troops to protect those troops... and on and on and on.

If it makes us look "weak" not to bomb after a chemical weapons attack, won't it make us look even "weaker" if we bomb, and whoever is doing the gassing does it again?

What then?

Assuming President Obama doesn't want to spend his second term waging yet another war in the Middle East--and yes, for the moment I'm making this assumption--I hope there's somebody in the room asking these sorts of questions.