Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
My response to Jim Dean/DFA survey question about action against Syria
Their question:
Based on the current situation, do you support U.S. military intervention in Syria?
My response:
Not sure
Please take a moment to tell us why or explain your position.
My response:
1) The evidence is overwhelming that chemical weapons were used in Syria -- even the Russians and the Syrians accept this fact.
2) It is not clear who fired those weapons or why.
3) An anonymous source in Israel has reportedly claimed that an intercepted phone call had a high Syrian military official in "panic" about the firing of chemical weapons. This is NOT reliable evidence by any means, and anyway wouldn't really establish who fired the weapons, even if it were reliable.
4) On the other hand, the Assad government has not made much of an effort to prove that they were somehow entrapped by some other party trying to make it look like they fired weapons. Thus, they are acting more like they were responsible and are just issuing denials and accusations to cloud up the issue.
5) In a very general sense, the Assad government bears responsibility in any case, since it is highly unlikely that anyone would have been able to and/or would have fired chemical weapons absent the reality that the Assad government has stockpiles of chemical weapons and apparently even has those in the field of combat, rather than securely locked up.
Thus my position is that
a) Chemical weapons were certainly used
b) It has NOT been established by whom or why those were used
c) The Assad government has acted and is acting in an unconscionable manner concerning their chemical weapons.
So, I will support action against the Assad government when and if evidence has been revealed that CLEARLY shows their responsibility for the use of chemical weapons. In addition, I continue to support the resistance against Assad, since I believe he has behaved consistently in a vicious and criminal manner.
2) It is not clear who fired those weapons or why.
3) An anonymous source in Israel has reportedly claimed that an intercepted phone call had a high Syrian military official in "panic" about the firing of chemical weapons. This is NOT reliable evidence by any means, and anyway wouldn't really establish who fired the weapons, even if it were reliable.
4) On the other hand, the Assad government has not made much of an effort to prove that they were somehow entrapped by some other party trying to make it look like they fired weapons. Thus, they are acting more like they were responsible and are just issuing denials and accusations to cloud up the issue.
5) In a very general sense, the Assad government bears responsibility in any case, since it is highly unlikely that anyone would have been able to and/or would have fired chemical weapons absent the reality that the Assad government has stockpiles of chemical weapons and apparently even has those in the field of combat, rather than securely locked up.
Thus my position is that
a) Chemical weapons were certainly used
b) It has NOT been established by whom or why those were used
c) The Assad government has acted and is acting in an unconscionable manner concerning their chemical weapons.
So, I will support action against the Assad government when and if evidence has been revealed that CLEARLY shows their responsibility for the use of chemical weapons. In addition, I continue to support the resistance against Assad, since I believe he has behaved consistently in a vicious and criminal manner.
Their next question:
Do you have any other thoughts on Syria you'd like to share?
My response:
If in fact the US has intelligence that proves culpability on the part of the Assad government, they need to release that intelligence. The canard that they have to protect sources is, to use a technical term, bullshit. In an event of this magnitude (the large-scale use of chemical weapons and the threat of an escalating war in the Middle East), sources can be sacrificed.
Perhaps it is also time for the US to simply support the rebels without attempting to control all elements of the resistance.
Finally, I would like to say that, although it is fun to score political points, this is really a very difficult and serious situation. On the one hand, it would be a very dangerous precedent to just walk away from blatant war crimes (use of chemical weapons). On the other hand, intervention in the Middle East, particularly in the absence of complete international support and lacking clear evidence of responsibility, is also a dangerous move.
Perhaps it is also time for the US to simply support the rebels without attempting to control all elements of the resistance.
Finally, I would like to say that, although it is fun to score political points, this is really a very difficult and serious situation. On the one hand, it would be a very dangerous precedent to just walk away from blatant war crimes (use of chemical weapons). On the other hand, intervention in the Middle East, particularly in the absence of complete international support and lacking clear evidence of responsibility, is also a dangerous move.