Understand that bombing Syria is just a bad idea, no matter how you feel about chemical attacks

[bigtree]

Greg Sargent is confused. He's having a hard time understanding folks who can't find anything righteous about bombing Syria, yet, refuse to buy into the fiction that there's some looming diplomatic settlement being orchestrated by Russia's Putin which Washington will accept as an averting of war.

here's Sargent:

I continue to be puzzled by an enormous imbalance we’ve seen in much of the commentary — from neutral analysts and Republican lawmakers alike — about Obama’s handling of Syria. On the one hand, the basic take has been that Obama’s handling of the process has shown him to be weak and inconsistent. He changed his mind on whether to go to Congress. But Congress rebuffed him. He changed his mind again on using military force, instead opting to pursue a diplomatic solution when the possibility presented itself. But he’s failed to get what he wanted from Putin. This sends a message of weakness and vacillation abroad that diminishes the credibility of the commander in chief and the United States.

By contrast, few of those making the above arguments have been willing to say whether they agree with the objectives of his decisions. They won’t say whether they think going to Congress and pursuing a diplomatic solution were the right things for the President to do, given the circumstances. This is separate from asking whether Obama’s motives in doing these things were pure. Many have argued Obama only went to Congress for political reasons, to give it partial ownership of the decision to bomb. But still, Members of Congress asked Obama to come to them. Regardless of motive, wasn’t going to Congress the right thing to do, and wasn’t that preferable to him bombing without Congress?

Similarly, many have argued Obama took the diplomatic route merely as an escape hatch, because he knew Congress would vote No to force. Yet many of these critics won’t say whether they think exploring the possibility of a diplomatic solution was the right thing to do given that this possibility arose. This is particularly jarring when it comes from those who also say they can’t support war . . .

What Sargent and other folks arguing persistently to 'do something' about Syria's chemical attacks fail to understand is that the administration and its war supporters have utterly failed to demonstrate how the threat of military force, or actually bombing Syria, will do ANYTHING substantive to end the possibility that chemical weapons are used again in their civil war.

Those folks out here who don't believe in either bombing or buy into the pantomime of diplomacy that Russia has cynically initiated; or buy into the administration's cynical embrace of the Russian initiative as a back door out of their dead end run through Congress; are told that their disbelief in the fiction of the successes of gunboat diplomacy against a nation which has not threatened us is really an outright rejection of diplomacy itself - as if this one opportunistic ploy by the Russians and Syria to forestall U.S. attacks is the end-all, beat-all of diplomacy regarding Syria.

Truth is, there aren't any folks out here opposing U.S. military intervention in Syria who don't welcome ANY pause or halt to the administration's deliberate and insistent march to war. It isn't as if there's some solid comfort zone that opponents of military strikes can relax and rely on watching this kabuki dance between U.S. and Russian officials.

President Obama has insisted all along that he has the authority to strike Syria without pre-approval from Congress, and, there are more than a handful of Democrats in the congressional and Senate leadership who have echoed the administration's insistence that this lull in their initial rush to war with Syria that they won't wait indefinitely before launching their military response.

Kerry initially gave the wait-and-see period before brushing the Russian diplomacy aside no more than a week. Democratic leader Steny Hoyer offered that he expects to have exhausted his patience in withholding support for military action 'no more than weeks' from now. Hoyer says the President already has authority to strike Syria, without his legislative body's approval.

That question is always answered by the level of support or opposition Congress manages in response to the autocratic decisions presidents make under the War Powers Act to declare adversaries a 'threat' and initiate their own unilateral militarism by reasoning that it's a defense of our national security.

To folks out here who have opposed previous administrations' exercise of that dubious and subjective 'authority' that president's sometimes assume, President Obama's invoking of that power in regard to Syria looks to be a distortion of what constitutes a threat to our nation and are not convinced that allowing military strikes would be a defense of our national security from a technical definition of a threat to our security or national interest.

That national interest is best defined when expressed by our legislature as a whole; not as a unilateral declaration from the chief Executive. It's not enough for the administration to have convinced itself of the efficacy of military force against a country which hasn't even threatened us. Nation's go to war; not administrations.

There may well be some merit in employing the resources and manpower of our nation's defenses in some humanitarian pursuit. Yet, the risks and consequences of lobbing missiles across sovereign borders for a dubious defense of morality and humanity is not a decision that should lie solely in the hands of one man.

If the Obama administration believes so strongly in the Russian diplomatic initiative, they should be prepared to see that process through; whether it takes weeks or months to resolve. That would be the commitment to diplomacy that proponents of military action chide the anti-war contingent for not caring about when they point to the obvious self-interest Russia and Syria have in promising anything to forestall U.S. attacks.

That insincerity on Russia's part - and the cynical embrace of that Russian initiative by the Obama administration's faltering rush to war - doesn't necessarily have to be the last word in diplomacy regarding Syria. The administration and their supporters would have you believe that, though.

The entire embrace of the Russian plan by the administration has been a hollow exercise to show Congress' recalcitrant members that the administration has 'exhausted' every option short of military strikes; a ridiculous and opportunistic view which ignores their own pivot away from a failed resolution in Congress toward this dubious, but diplomatic initiative; even after they had declared before the world at the UN that diplomacy with Syria was dead.

If the Obama administration is serious in securing an agreement with Russia and Syria, perhaps they should consider the conditions that their adversaries have offered. One important one for Russia and Syria is their insistence of the removal of the threat of military action by the U.S. before agreeing to secure their chemical weapon stockpile.

Conversely, the administration insists that it is that very threat of force which is their only motivator to an agreement. Without that threat of force, the administration and supporters insist, Syria would not be compelled to do anything.

Problem is, that's not diplomacy; it's outright coercion. That may well be an effective cudgel against those who fail to live up to our nation's expectation for them, but, it's also the mark of an arrogant nation and an arrogant administration which doesn't respect the primacy of Americans in deciding whether to employ our nation's defenses in such a dubious manner; so unrelated to our actual security.

Perhaps, it wouldn't be such a blatant course if the administration was content to rest with the judgment of Congress that they should exercise restraint and not lead with their militarism. Perhaps it would be a more convincing demonstration of their own commitment to diplomacy if they didn't insist - even as they appeal to the UN to adjudicate the Russian proposal - that they have the right to press ahead of the American people and launch military strikes against Syria whenever they feel they've had enough with diplomacy.

For those of us out here who have come to grips with the limitations and counterproductive nature of our military forces to effect these dubious goals of politics and humanitarianism toward nations who don't directly threaten us, there's isn't a point in this confrontation with Syria where we feel diplomacy dies and the military option progressively takes its place.

We believe that the introduction of U.S. military force in Syria will effectively place our nation in the role of the Syrian regime's primary adversary; instead of the Syrian resistance which our government has been so careful to distance itself from because of associations of elements of our nemesis, al-Qaeda. Yet, our nation isn't yet at war with Syria. It's hard to imagine though, how anyone would be able to credibly claim that distinction after a U.S. launch of destabilizing missile strikes which would serve to advantage one side of that civil war against the other.

Either the Obama administration is committed to war with Syria; or, they're committed to diplomacy. they can't have it both ways; they can't claim that gunboat diplomacy against a nation which hasn't threatened us is anything more than an outright provocation to war.

It's not for opponents of military intervention with Syria to prove that they can move mountains in Syria and force the regime to relinquish and renounce their chemical weapons with diplomacy. That burden is on those who are telling us that military strikes are the inevitable option after they've decided that waiting for a diplomatic solution isn't in their interest.

That burden is on proponents of war on Syria to demonstrate to the American people just how their militarism will effect ANY of their goals to restrain or eliminate the use of chemical warfare in Syria. So far, they just haven't made the case.

[Little Star]

1. "So far, they just haven't made the case"....

and that's the problem.

[bigtree]

7. definitely the problem, Little Star

. . . most of the targets suggested publicly have suggested they're more about regime-change than retaliation or securing the chemical arsenal. Indeed, military officials have pointed to the folly and danger of striking the chemical depots directly.

The admin says they want to keep from creating a military or political vacuum where unwanted elements of the resistance can advantage themselves. They've also talked endlessly about their ambition that Assad be removed from power. It's hard to see what 'limited' military strikes do, except for aggravating those conditions, complicating their own ambitions, and exacerbating the plights of the people in the way of all of the militarism.

[judy]

2. Post is too long, I don't have time to read it...however...

It is not rocket science to imagine the consequences of such a bombing:

Collateral damage
Possible global catastrophe if chemical stockpiles are hit
Russian retaliation
Arab retaliation on Israel
Israel retaliation with nukes, and voila! WWIII
Assad remains in power.

But the problem here is not Assad...the problem is the accepted belief that violence, revenge and retaliation are heroic. What is the difference between children killed by sarin gas, and children killed by missiles, drones, white phosphorus or dioxin? Is there a more moral way of killing children, Mr. Obama???

Assad believes, as many Americans believe, (some of them in power) that torturing and killing are tools to achieve political power. If kids get killed in the process, well, so be it.

If this was not so tragic, it would be tiresome and laughable. In this 21st Century, the human experience is seen as limited to killing or doing nothing.
Whatever happened to the power of imagination, commitment to peace, etc.? What makes the US exceptional? Their commitment to a moral foreign policy? Their conduct of democracy at home?
I am sorry, but my political heart is broken (I even helped with the Obama campaign. No regrets, but a huge disappointment).
If I hear Obama ever again mentioning MLK Jr or Gandhi, I think I will throw up...

[bigtree]

3. some things can't be expressed in sound bites

. . .but I appreciate the sentiments you've offered, anyway.

Hope you find time to read!

[judy]

14. I hope so too...

And my remark was not a criticism of your post, but a lament of what it takes to keep a job these days

[Grey]

4. Right on all counts, Judy.

Well said.

[geek tragedy]

5. People on both sides have missed the mark on that.

Some bombing opponents have gotten sucked into Putin and Assad's denialism and pointing fingers at the rebels.

Larger point is: bombing will accomplish nothing good for the USA.

[bigtree]

6. 'bombing will accomplish nothing good for the USA'

. . quite right, geek tragedy.

Moreover, it augers to have counterproductive and escalating effects, as well.

[bigtree]

8. .

[jeff47]

9. Uh....not sure what you're finding so hard to understand.

What Sargent and other folks arguing persistently to 'do something' about Syria's chemical attacks fail to understand is that the administration and its war supporters have utterly failed to demonstrate how the threat of military force, or actually bombing Syria, will do ANYTHING substantive to end the possibility that chemical weapons are used again in their civil war.

Chemical weapons are terrible at killing soldiers. Soldiers are equipped with protective equipment. Chemical weapons are really only good for killing civilians. That's why the US abandoned our chemical weapons program in the 50s. Our other major WMD program - nukes - can actually hurt an opposing army.

So the first step is to stop thinking of chemical weapons as weapons of war. They're for killing civilians. That's it.

As a result, there needs to be major disincentives to prevent people from using chemical weapons. If gassing people has no real consequences, then there will be more gassings.

Which gets us to the bombing. Contrary to your argument, the goal is not to topple Assad, or otherwise fight a long-term battle. The goal is to hurt the Syrian government to provide that disincentive. The equivalent of slapping Syria and saying "Don't do that again". If international law was at all mature, we would have other options. But international law more-or-less does not exist. So we're left with violence.

As for this:

That burden is on proponents of war on Syria to demonstrate to the American people just how their militarism will effect ANY of their goals to restrain or eliminate the use of chemical warfare in Syria.

If chemical weapons use results in bombing, why would they keep using chemical weapons? If you touch a hot pan, do you grab a hold of it again?

And much more importantly, what is your proposal for convincing Syria to not use chemical weapons again?

ETA: The best result would be for Syria to turn over it's chemical weapons. But that's only possible now due to the threat of violence. If they do turn them over, then there's no need to bomb.

[bigtree]

10. I don't need to provide you a proposal to convince Syria to stop using chemical weapons

The president has proposed military strikes and insists that he's bound to follow his own decision that they are a 'threat' and that his strikes would be a defense of OUR national security, not Syrias, or Syrians.

No president can initiate war on the premise that he's defending Syrians against other Syrians. The question is directly on the president's determination for the use of our military forces.

'Slapping Syria?'

'hurt the Syrian government ?'

Where are these mandated in our law?

There is no proof that ANY of what you describe is going to influence Assad to abandon his arsenal. It's just some narrative made up to justify 'doing something' and deciding that each and every blocked road leads you back to this notion that our military forces are there for presidents to 'slap' around other countries which haven't actually threatened us at all.

Bully nation . . .

[jeff47]

12. You do if your goal is to show there's a workable alternative to bombing.

You want us to not bomb them.

So how do you plan to stop Syria from using chemical weapons again? Or are Syrian lives just not important enough? How about every other country in the world with chemical weapons who will realize they can gas people at will?

No president can initiate war on the premise that he's defending Syrians against other Syrians.

Sure he can. Reagan invaded Granada to protect the Granada-ians from themselves. Didn't even ask for Congressional authorization. Remember all the repercussions he faced? Oh wait, there weren't any.

Obama's running the plan by Congress. Which means he could initiate war on any premise as long as they agree.

Where are these mandated in our law?

In several treaties we signed.

There is no proof that ANY of what you describe is going to influence Assad to abandon his arsenal.

Except for the whole thing of Syria offering to abandon their arsenal to avoid the attack. You know, that diplomatic solution we are now pursuing with Russia's help?

And again, the goal of a bombing is not to get Syria to give up their chemical weapons. The goal is to make use of those weapons hurt, so that Syria won't use them again.

Bully nation . . .

And your counter-proposal? Should we follow the path we did with Rwanda and just ignore the war crime? Boy, that sure stopped that genocide!

Using chemical weapons really is that bad.

[bigtree]

13. no I don't

The president has unilaterally decided for me.

Presidents must make a determination that their initiating of war is in our national security interest, not Rwandans' or any other country's which isn't an ally.

Syria isn't Rwanda.

No treaty mandates that we bomb Syria. It's a choice . . . a bad one.

[bigtree]

11. .