The Syrian Affair

For a long time, I didn't understand this distinction, either -- for years, we've heard things along the lines of "X used chemical weapons *on his own people*." The implication always seemed to be that we should feel sorry for those people, and isn't it terrible that they are so oppressed and live under this terrible government that would do this sort of thing to them.

But, that 's not it at all.

The issue with chemical weapons is that they cause significantly greater casualties on civilian populations than other types of weapons. Their effects are far more reaching, and there are higher 'external costs,' or 'collateral damage.' They were used in WWI, and it was thought that they were so terrible not only in how they killed people, but in how they killed lots of additional people - more even than bombs, who weren't targets of the killing. So they were outlawed, world-wide, whether the country was at war or not.

So, when we are told that someone used the chemical weapons 'against his own people,' what they are saying is that the person used the chemical weapons, despite this international ban and agreement not to use them. And if that leader is willing to use them against his own people, then there is no reason that he would refrain from using them against other people, whom he deems his enemies. And then, of course, you add in the slippery slope that if any of these enemies think that chemical weapons will be used against them, then they may as well use them against this leader, either preemptively or eye for an eye kind of justification.

I've long been skeptical that any power-hungry, psychologically disturbed person bent on inciting war would feel morally bound to respect any so-called rules of war. But the only way to prevent the international ban on chemical weapons from becoming completely obliterated is to have some sort of retaliation against any regime that violates the ban.

Personally, I'm conflicted about the proper response. I really don't want us to engage in another war, and I vastly favor some sort of international response, rather than something just from the U.S. Yet, I see the argument for trying to prevent the widespread use of chemical weapons for as long as we can, even though I think the ban on them is not likely to be adhered to indefinitely.

 

RE the evidence: Democracy Now is presenting questions about the evidence and they cited Kerry citing Doctors Without Borders as a source of information (not the only source) and that agency posting a disclaimer on their website.

So I looked. The agency did indeed report being informed (so they were not direct witnesses):

Their objection to Kerry's statements were about the specificity cited and it's no wonder given their political predicament and the need to not be seen taking sides in these kinds of conflicts. Here's the disclaimer they subsequently posted on their website:

It should be taken with a grain of salt if a news agency reports that Kerry somehow misled people about the evidence when the reality was, MSF simply took a political position (however rightfully so) of neutrality.

 

I thought this was an interesting article: http://conservativesonfire.wordpress.com/2013/08/28/kosovo-and-syria-two-convenient-lies-an-essay-by-norma-brown/

Talking about the recent discussions, comparisons and reasons, from the pen of the former US State Department Foreign Service Officer.

 

I will keep an open mind as far as motives go, but I'm not convinced concerns about Russia and a cold war mentality is an accurate assessment. Especially when I read this nonsense:

Started with Bill Clinton? Seriously? That is so ludicrous. Does the author know nothing of Reagan's ventures? The US's long history intervening in Latin America? Allende anyone? Kissinger saying the death squads in Argentina were an unfortunate necessity? Wilson's interventions in dozens of countries? Mosaddegh?

So what exactly started with Clinton, sending in cruise missiles? That's a purposefully chosen use of an arbitrary dividing point.

 

I agree, that one paragraph is the most emotionally worded and I don't necesserily agree with that type of journalism, but this is serious stuff and it's not easy to remain cool if you think your country is heading down a very dangerous path. I do not think that is the only paragraph worth reading, though.

I think Clinton was the first to carry out "humanitarian bombing" travesty which is currently the main excuse NATO has to start and perpetuate variety of world conflicts. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Also, the comparison between illegal bombing of Serbia and proposed illegal action on Syria has been made by the White House itself, so the exploration of facts is called for, in my opinion.

 

test, having trouble with server error

I can't tell what the problem is in my reply. I seem unable to post it.

 

Partial reply to Jazzabel:

Not exactly what the paragraph says, and it depends on how you define humanitarian, again selectively drawing a distinction one could also call arbitrary.

The bulk of US interventions under the claim of preventing communism amounted to protecting corporate interests where democratically elected governments were threatening to nationalize some corporate asset.

Then there is the issue of the world pressuring the US (so it seems) to intervene in some humanitarian crisis. It's not that such intervention is the actual reason we do, look at Darfur for example.

For some bizarre reason I can't include a couple sentences on Reagan's interfering in Nicaragua which he claimed was siding with Freedom Fighters. They weren't they were murderous thugs, I saw them first hand.

 

Fair enough, I believe you, you don't need to link it. Personally, I am not a huge fan of compulsive quoting every time we want to make a statement about something I suppose the article is written by a conservative, and there's so much bile against Democrats in those circles. I am inherently a liberal person, and I really wanted to believe in US Democrats, especially Obama, I cried when a black person finally attained that symbol of equality, but after 20 years, I cannot support them anymore. I do not support conservatives either, for variety of reasons, but what I noticed over the years, is that the two don't differ too much, except in rhetoric designed to help them win the next election.

However, democrat/republican aside, the all out world policing that US is involved in now is blatant and humongous in scale compared to the 80s. But I am not an expert on US foreign policy by no means, so I might be wrong.

 

ok the following is an imaginary conversation but smacks of truth

David Cameron, "We know you gassed your people!"
Assad, "Err, whatever gives you that idea?"
David Cameron, "'cause we err, sold it to you!"

There are tons of links to the selling of nerve agents by Britain to Syria and large parts of the Middle East but I thought I'd leave a UK source here http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/revealed-uk-government-let-british-company-export-nerve-gas-chemicals-to-syria-8793642.html

What else is nerve gas used for? I mean what legitimate, good use does it have or is it solely used for war/population control?

@GingerCoffee - thanks for the welcome back, I wondered the difference too between bombing kids and gassing them but I suppose gas can lead to problems in generations to come from survivors of such attacks.

We have to remember there are at least 9 factions within the 'rebels'. 7 of which are on International wanted lists for terrorism offences including America's. They are butchers and cannibals. Before this civil war, all 9 were happy to kill each other, now they've all come together on the side of the West to fight the boogeyman of the US, UK, and France - you really have to wonder what the hell is going on.

 

I agree.

The claim is this was a neighborhood the government had had particular trouble ousting a rebel stronghold from.

The debate has begun, it's the vote that is scheduled for the 9th. One would hope the goal would be to make Assad blink.

Obama has made me nervous since he didn't seek to prosecute any people responsible for the economic collapse and since he filled his admin with people close to the culprits (like Geithner), but I digress.

Playing devil's advocate, as far as this action is concerned the one devious possibility on Obama's part could be to make it harder for the Tea Party Republicans to refuse to raise the debt ceiling in an upcoming vote. I do hope that is not the underlying motive.

I don't have a problem with the delay, or with the discussion, both on the national and on the world stage. I don't know if action should be taken, or if it will be effective, or if not taking military action will be worse. The only thing I'm sure of is I'm not willing to put this action or anything else Obama has done in the same category as the mindless warring GW Bush and his ilk undertook.

 

This was interesting: MoveOn’s 8 Million Members Vote Overwhelmingly to Oppose Military Action in Syria

That will put pressure on some Democratic members of Congress.

 

Depleted uranium bombs have caused up to 400% increase in many different types of cancer (all radiation related) and the effect only becomes apparent 8 years after the fact, but the uranium remains in the soil, this continuing to poison people, for millennia. Using depleted uranium to bomb people IS genocide, albeit a never seen before form of it. But as always, legislature lags behind technological progress.

 

What? There's a problem in the middle East? Next, you're going to tell me that a bunch of WASPs divided up an empire according to their own personal interests with little regard to the indigenous peoples and also forced some of those peoples out of their land in order to create a new country.

Also, I remember my grandfather telling me a story where one country was going to attack another and Russia said stop. Next thing you know, the whole world is at war.

Sarcasm aside; the Middle East has always been in turmoil. It is also evident through history that they don't really appreciate Western influences. What if they were left alone to figure out their own problems and we only attacked when missiles or gas left desert airspace?

 

One more link, this time an interview with Assad for French paper 'Le Figaro'. Perhaps it's useful to hear things from the horses' mouth, so to say.
http://sana.sy/eng/21/2013/09/03/500561.htm

 

Thanks for the link Jazz - not too fond of the French is he?

Very interesting and some very diplomatic words yet also a little chilling - a true politician. Good to see his side though as the Western 'News' channels won't show it.

 

On the contrary, NPR here in the U.S. went over that interview with Le Figaro in detail.

 

Even CNN let the Syrian Ambassador speak freely, MSNBC hasn't exactly been Obama friendly, and then there is the coverage that's been on Democracy Now.

 

I just read that John Kerry stated that Americans shouldn't worry about the cost of the war because Qatar and Saudi Arabia offered to finance it fully. Wtf?

 

There are people who believe that the Saudi's are behind many of the West's interventions into the Arab states.
Here are just a few articles on Syria and Saudi:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/syria-the-saudi-connection-the-prince-with-close-ties-to-washington-at-the-heart-of-the-push-for-war-8785049.html

http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/politics/2013/04/saudi-arabia-qatar-vie-influence-syria.html

http://world.time.com/2013/05/24/the-shadow-war-behind-syrias-rebellion-foreign-backers-jockey-for-influence-in-turkey/

and here is a NY Times article from 2007 on Saudi interference in Iraq
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/27/world/middleeast/27saudi.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Edit.
And this from the Washington Post Nov 2011:
"For Saudi watchers, this change is striking. The kingdom’s old practice was to keep its head down, spread money to radical groups to try to buy peace, and rely on a U.S. military umbrella. Now, Riyadh is more open and vocal in pressing its interests — especially in challenging Iran.

The more-assertive Saudi role has been clear in its open support for the ouster of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, who is Iran’s crucial Arab ally. The Saudis were decisive backers of last weekend’s Arab League decision to suspend Syria’s membership (though they also supported the organization’s waffling decision Wednesday to send another mediation team to Damascus)."

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2011-11-18/opinions/35282971_1_saudi-role-saudi-arabia-prince-salman-bin-abdul-aziz

 

Thanks for that @BritInFrance, that was illuminating. I won't even attempt to moralise about the sunni-shia conflict, because who am I to judge why they hate each other, but one thing strikes me. All countries NATO "liberated" in the Middle East were secular countries, much closer in ethos to Western values than all these islamic extremists that the West keeps arming, supporting and bringing to power. USA is going to be paid, like a mercenary, to attack enemies of Saudi Arabia, a country that has the most horrific human rights abuses being perpetuated towards women as a matter of law? And all this under the guise of 'bringing democracy'and 'removing tyrants and dictators'? I cannot even begin to fathom why American people are tolerating it.

 

"Missile" might be a rather strong word. I believe the projectiles under discussion are more along the lines of small (well, compared to a missile) unguided rockets fired from Soviet-era MLRS tubes.

 

@jazzabel - the political parties in the U.S. are much more alike than different, though the die-hards on either side go nuts when that point is made. The problem, ultimately, comes down to the voters, who treat political parties like sports teams that they support undyingly, no matter what. A good portion of the electorate will back anything their side wants to do, and make every excuse and justification for it, and then criticize the other side for doing the same thing.

A good example of this is the supposedly anti-war left movement in the U.S., who was loud throughout GW Bush's entire tenure but have completely disappeared from view during Obama's tenure, even though the wars are ongoing and some things like drone attacks have been stepped up. There are a few principled protestors around, but for the most part these people were political party hacks who were interested in protesting a Republican administration and nothing more. If Romney had won in 2008 and done the same thing Obama is doing, they'd still be out there vocally protesting.

Likewise, with Syria, you have Republicans who supported Bush who were initially going crazy at the idea that Obama was going to act without Congressional approval, and who are still making arguments against Obama no matter what he does. If a GOP President were in office, they'd be lining up to support whatever he was doing, but since it is Obama they're going to oppose him, regardless.

It plays out in our domestic issues as well. Take the Zimmerman case. In 99 out of 100 such cases, anyone more progressive is going to come out on acquittal in that case based on the evidence shown. Progressives tend to favor a stricter standard of proof in criminal cases, and tend to favor the defense. Likewise, most of the hardcore law-and-order Republicans would have been calling for a conviction in similar cases. In fact, if you had the exact same facts, but Zimmerman was black and Martin was white, you would have seen the exact opposite split on the issue. That's because it became politicized early on when charges were not brought in the case, and the whole debacle from that point forward was a political football first and foremost. So much for principle.

You see this play out within the ranks of the politicians themselves, but the problem lies primarily within the electorate. Too many Republicans and Democrats give a free pass to their own side, no matter what they want to do. That kind of irrational adherence to party plays right into the hands of the politicians, who seek primarily to gather and maintain power. Having the population divided along party lines and pointing fingers at one another while the politicians conduct business as usual in Washington works great for them.

I'm hopeful things will get better in coming years, both because the people might get sick of it and because the worst offenders are getting older. In my experience, among the friends I have (so this is just anecdotal), people who grew up or came of age in politics during the Viet Nam era are the worst about this kind mindless partisanship (and also the most hateful). I don't think it is any coincidence that those at the higher ranks of power right now tend to be from this same generation and that we have the level of discord and unwillingness to cooperate that we see now in Washington. Many of them seem to be stuck in the late 60s and early 70s.

I'll leave it there - that's more long-winded than I tend to be

 

Thank you so much, though, for explaining it. It seems to me that the US isn't politically mature enough to be the ethical world policeman it's claiming to be. It is this hypocrisy that causes most problems on international stage. Even the allies are discontent, and from the outside it all looks like a shotgun wedding. It seems they are still operating on an ancient system of 'divide and conquer' and it being such an old model, it's no longer producing the desired effect.

 

From where I stand, the view is quite different.

Obama pulled US troops out of Iraq. If you want to blame anyone for lack of continued protesting, you might consider the fact we get little mainstream news about US residual involvement. As for Afghanistan, like Syria, there are mixed feelings on the left about intervening. The Taliban's oppression of women before the US sent in troops had been a widespread cause celeb among the left.

I posted earlier that MoveOn polled its members and 73% were against US involvement. MSNBC, the liberal sided news, has not been unanimously supportive of Obama by any means. More than a few legislators on both sides are against military intervention, just as some on the right are for it, but some very vocally are not.

Then you have the Democratic Party members in office in 2001 who all voted for the USAPATRIOT Act and continued to support the Bush claims we needed to invade Iraq as did the news media. It wasn't until about the 2004 election that people on the left (other than the diehard war protestors you note) started to recognize they'd been duped by the evidence Bush and his administration had been spewing out.