Lawmakers who were briefed on the Syria intelligence by the administration this afternoon did not come away clamoring for war. They did, on the whole, seem convinced that the Assad regime is guilty of launching the attack, and that’s important and significant. Many, quite wisely, insisted that the proposed language authorizing force be further limited to prevent the administration from using a supposedly narrow authority to carry out a broader campaign.
But the main thing is that they saw the evidence and now face the same conundrum faced by the administration. In addition, they have to decide if they want to undercut the president even if doing so could have a deleterious effect of the nation’s ability to deter rogue nations from committing serious human rights violations or proliferating weapons of mass destruction.
At the same time, they are put in the position of policy makers and asked to use their best judgment about whether a limited punitive strike will create more problems than it solves. And the public has no appetite for a new front in the Middle East, which complicates their decision making.
Not an easy vote by any means. In some ways, the way the debate is being framed is downright bizarre. President Obama has already made the decision to arm at least some of the rebels in pursuit of a policy of regime change, yet he is insisting on carrying out a strike that will not be related to that policy but will instead be purely to maintain the taboo on using chemical weapons by any and all nations. This is the rub. I don’t think anyone really can separate the two issues in their minds.
For many, the whole idea seems to be to get us into the fight so we will feel compelled to see it through to the end. Why else would the Israelis be so furious about the delay? Why are the rebels so disappointed with the delay? They thought they had us on the hook, and the president wiggled away.
But, perhaps the disambiguation of the two issues (limited punitive strikes vs. proxy warfare in pursuit of regime change) can be furthered by having Congress severely limit what is authorized, allowing the president to plausibly claim victory for a strike that will do nothing to advance the overall Syria policy.
What a mess.
The critical question. How many of the 535 attended? What was the breakdown by party and caucus? Some of the confirmed know-nothings insulate themselves through non-attendance at briefings.
In addition, they have to decide if they want to undercut the president even if doing so could have a deleterious effect of the nation’s ability to deter rogue nations from committing serious human rights violations or proliferating weapons of mass destruction.
Rogue nations and human rights violators? Ask Maher Arar about that. Ask Shaker Aamer about that.
“It’s interesting that the president hasn’t made Congress relevant at all in his administration until now. So if we don’t approve it he might consider us irrelevant again and do what he wants to do,” Ross said.
Hasn’t the House made itself irrelevant for the last 5 years without any assistance from the president?
It is arguable that Mussolini’s invasion of fellow League of Nations member Abyssinia had by 1936 exposed considerable vacillation by the supposed guarantors of “collective security” on behalf of the League, specifically Britain and France. Largely as a consequence of their unwillingness to impose so much as a stern oil sanction on Italy, never mind contemplate a preventative war, Mussolini correctly concluded that there was no serious impediment to his ambition.
It also seems to have set a precedent in European diplomacy very quickly exploited by Germany. It may be worth examining the deliberations of the leadership and public of France and Britain at that time; the majorities of both likely considered the decision prudent. History’s verdict is less sanguine.
Before the cheer-leading commences for the presumed defeat of Obama’s measure in Congress we should consider what effect we expect it might have on the resolve of the coalition whom have successfully prosecuted the scheme of punitive sanctions against Iran in response to their uranium enrichment program; and on the nations like Russia and China whom have resisted them.
You do of course realize that Assad is in no way threatening his neighbors save by a collapse of his regime, right?
That wasn’t my point. At all.
No I do not realize that. Syria has been in a constant official state of war with Israel since June 1967.
Israel is a neighbor of Syria.
Are you Syrias?
You think right here, right now, Assad is suddenly more threatening to Israel than it’s been since 1967?
I don’t think it is asking too much to stick to factually accurate claims. To suggest Syria under the Assad dynasty is of no threat to her neighbors is simply untrue.
Besides her war with Israel, Syria has invaded and occupied Lebanon for roughly 30 years. Some would argue Syria still treats Lebanon as a vassal state.
Let’s not paint the Assads’ Syria as some sort of Norway.
Would it be far to say that Israel is a threat to its neighbors? Or is it just a one way thing?
P.S.
Syria actually entered Lebanon in 1976 under a UN mandate. They have long since left.
Israel’s purposes would be much better served by a coalition of largely unknown, demonstrably unpredictable clearly Salafist actors, with links to the most extreme players in the Gulf, and a recrudescence of the Lebanese civil war, than with an Assad regime, no matter how badly distracted, they’ve dealt with for 50 years.
Don’t forget the (31st in production, tied with Australia!) oil, either.
Please pay attention to your use of terms.
Please!!!
“Rogue nations?” Deterred from “…committing serious human rights violations or proliferating weapons of mass destruction?”
The U.S. has been the championship rogue nation of the earth at least since the Vietnam War if not before (on bodycount alone, disregarding all other crimes), and as far as “proliferating weapons of mass destruction,” what nation has “proliferated” more WMDs than the U.S. since say 1944? “Serious human rights violations?” Have you visited an inner city ghetto recently? We don’t even have our own system under control.
How can you ignore these truths, Booman?
How?
It’s beyond me.
Really.
AG
B-O-R-I-N-G!!
Is it possible for you to read my plain english in the terms in which it is presented?
I am describing the decision tree facing lawmakers who have to take a vote. Part of that decision tree involves the consequences (real or potential) of taking away the president’s freedom of action and undercutting his decision to enforce the taboo on using chemical weapons on the battle field.
You can see how awesome Russia and China are at enforcing such things, yet you insist on labeling American the world’s greatest malefactor.
Because in terms of damage done to the cause, the US may well be the world’s greatest malefactor. Every time we torture someone, every time we use landmines or WP, or ignore the UN, hold people without charge, etc. the world gets to see the supposed “champion of rights” is in fact, merely a champion of making others follow rules when it sees no need to do so because power. Everyone knows China and Russia are cruel scum but American violations are a betrayal. This might not specifically deal with chemical weapons, but the general point is one worth making and a general assault upon international norms makes all international norms weaker including this one.
One I have to once again add, that Syria never acceded to.
Here’s how to see some photos of the humanitarian accomplishments undertaken international kitten, Putin’s Russia.
Type “grozny battle aftermath” into your search engine and click on Images.
Probably not safe for work.
Hows ’bout checking “burning of Atalanta?” Or Wacko if that was too long ago. Or Maybe Fallujah. Or Belgrade. Or Baghdad. Or Hanoi. Or Hiroshima. Or Nagasaki. Do I need to go on?
Careful, lots of people here don’t consider Nagasaki and Hiroshima to be mistakes. I caught a lot of shit last time.
Fuck ’em, seabe. The U.S. could just as easily and just as effectively dropped an atom bomb on some uninhabited atoll or mountaintop to get the attention of the Japanese. It would have worked. They were beaten already.
Overkill.
It’s what’s for American dinner.
AG
If that’s the standard then I bet you a lot of Russians don’t consider Grozny a mistake either.
Of course Hiroshima and Nagasaki were a mistake. Hell, the bombings were a travesty (propaganda to the contrary be damned). Of course enough ink has been spilled over the years regarding how close the US came to unleashing even more of those terrible bombs in the years afterward.
I have been a consistent critic of U.S. foreign policy for the entire time this blog has existed, but it seems like a cruel farce to argue that the norms you extol would stand a chance if the U.S. didn’t promote them.
I know full well how we have betrayed our principles and weakened international cooperation and collective security. Why do you think I went nuts during the Bush years?
I know how badly damaged our credibility is. Why do you think I am braying at the administration to do more and do better?
But if you care about human rights and anti-proliferation, you better hope that America doesn’t give up on the project it started in 1945. Because France and Britain aren’t going to be able to carry that rock, and Russia and China were never interested.
Oh please!
Uncle Sam was never interested in those principles either, unless they were of political value. My only issue with some of the previous posts is that one doesn’t need to go all the way back to Vietnam or earlier to see that in terms of mass murder, the US has by far been the most destructive power on Earth.
I’d like to add that all the pearl-clutching over the alleged use of “chemical weapons” is almost funny, considering that almost all weapons are “chemical” in some way. I also find it puzzling why being sprayed with the human equivalent of bugspray (if this actually happened) is in any way worse than being burned alive with White Phosphorous, a weapon favored by the US and its client states.
Yes, I know bringing this up means I’m not a Serious person.
The unfunny aspect of chemical weapons as prohibited by international convention is that a single warhead of, say, a medium range ballistic missile could carry tens or hundreds of thousands of lethal doses; though your characterisation of them as human ‘bug-spray’ is technically quite accurate.
As far as lethality for bulk they are pretty much in a class by themselves. Horrible stuff like white phosphorous, napalm and even depleted uranium, while nasty in their ways, aren’t really in the same class when it comes to immediate and widespread fatalities.
You ask:
Well, Booman…
I used to think that it was because the American Permanent Government was making error after error both in its foreign policies and domestically as well, but since a Democratic president has been in the White House and you have consistently supported him while he has been making similar errors…making those errors so much more efficiently and thus with less possible blame because he’s such a nice, intelligent fella and kinda brownish as well…I have to come to believe that you are simply another leftiness lockstepper.
Sorry, but there it is.
Too bad.
You coulda been a contender, but now you have become just another contractor.
Deal wid it.
AG
If you insist on being a fucktard, I can’t change that.
If you look around the world at the countries that are really serious about international law, collective security, and human rights, all those countries were our allies during the Cold War or immediately embraced us once allowed to do so when the Cold War ended. We built that culture even if we never fully embraced it ourselves because of right-wing cranks like the John Birch Society that have now taken over half the Republican Party and other right-wing cranks like the neo-conservatives who live on permanent warfare.
But you think we can fend those folks off with nothing but a Ron Paul bumper sticker. Grow the fuck up.
Rome Statute.
Only those countries that have signed and ratified it can be considered “serious about international law.” The US was right in there with Russia as having signed but not ratified it but we, along with Israel and Sudan, have since differentiated ourselves from those countries by declaring that we will not ratify it.
Yes, but the ICC would not exist if not for the U.S.’s leadership. That’s the irony that is so often missed.
And with our current situation with the Assad regime, the ICC is powerless, as is the UN Security Council, as would we be if we signed on to the ICC.
We have powerful reasons not to act in this particular case, but they have nothing to do with the principle of the thing.
If we create a system in which a country can use WMD on it’s own people with impunity if only one member of the UNSC gives their blessing, then we have a toothless system.
If we could replace Russia and China on the security council with Australia and Canada or even India and Brazil, maybe we’d have a system that could function effectively without the U.S. operating outside the system. But that isn’t going to happen.
IOW – if Russia and China followed the rules that the US constructed then we wouldn’t have invaded or facilitated the toppling of governments in various sovereign nations over the last three decades. And we wonder why the world thinks were nuts.
So what’s a functioning plan?
You know what’s even worse than doing nothing, doing something ineffectual. Because so far I’ve seen nothing on the table that would achieve any kind of measurable effect.
Also let me add, as Drum points out:
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/09/syria-obama-republicans-putin-saudi
So even if you could come up with a plan that would meaningfully hurt Assad’s ability to use chemical weapons no one would take that lessen and the norm would not be strengthened save among those nations who actually believe in the norm (which means it doesn’t need strengthening among them).
I do not see the difference between killing and maiming people with bullets or bombs or doing so by any oother means. Dead is dead no matter how it is accomplished. The U.S. is at the very least no better than Russia and China in these matters. In terms of numbers of human lives lost since we entered Vietnam…lost on the battlefield and lost as “collateral damage” (one of the most disgusting phrases ever to come out of the American Permanent Government’s doublethink playbook in my opinion)…I believe that we are much worse than those two powers. By the numbers.
The only legitimate “decision tree” (More PermaGov gobbleygook talking point shit, this time from our lovely academic/”think tank” assholes) facing our so-called elected officials is how to best limit the rapidly metastasizing cancer of the permanent war state. All else is just more smoke and mirrors. Great Britain’s legislators finally found some cojones and told Cameron to fuck off. I sincerely hope that we are next.
But I doubt it.
If they do so and Obama goes on with his plan to bomb Syria, then his true alliances will finally be plain for all to see.
Except possibly for people like you. True leftiness believers.
Wake the fuck up.
He’s just another PermaGov front man. Better than most. More intelligent and therefore more dangerous.
Wake the fuck up.
AG
P.S. If only about 9% of the electorate believes that entering into the possibility of another Iraq/Afghanistan-style war (or worse) is any kind of a good idea, why would these legislators climb that decision tree and come back down with a war apple? Is this a representative democracy? If not, then why pretend that it is?
As punishment for this tripe, I sentence you to shadowbox the apocalypse.
Are you tone deaf to the cries of the people maimed and killed by the U.S. as well?
Osama bin laden…or whatever construct used that name…wrote the following words:
Take this a little further.
By what school [of thought] is blood shed by our so-called enemies…you know, people like Assad who are allied with competing superpowers in the resource wars…worse than blood shed by the U.S.?
By what school of thought?
By the University of Realpolitik, Booman.
Chancellor Emeritus of this school?
Bet on it.
Nice alliances, Booman.
Nice.
WTFU.
AG
Am sure it was as compelling as the presentation to Congress in 2002 that Iraq had WMD.
You’ve go to take these events on a case-by-case basis and weigh the evidence without prejudice.
I didn’t believe the WMD presentation in 2002– anyone with eyes could see that it was load of crap. But the evidence in this instance is fairly conclusive. And in the coming days I predict it will become more so as the UN teams weigh in and more evidence leaks out from the administration.
So the only important question to me is : are we going to stand up for the ban on chemical weapons or are we going to ignore a huge breach in the international conventions against the use of these weapons because the price of doing this particular “right thing” is too high?
I actually don’t know what the best course is. The Assad regime needs to be slapped down for this: justice for the dead demands it; and we must try to stop Assad from using these weapons again. It would be best if the UN took the lead, but China and Russia aren’t going to allow that.
First it isn’t known what chemical agent was released. Even less known is who is responsible for the release. The case for the latter is based on speculation and trust from sources with an interest in the US bombing Syria.
The world is now so awash in so many horrific weapons that to single out CW for special attention may no longer be warranted.
It beats me why the human race would abandon what has been established as a perfectly useful prohibition of immensely lethal weapons on the basis of such doubtful reasoning.
Ask yourself a simple question. Why haven’t nukes been banned? For lethality and horrendous deaths and injuries, CW is but a cousin of nukes.
Are you intentionally ignoring the non-proliferation treaty? But your comment misses my point entirely; the chemical weapons prohibition is useful. So why say “to single out CW for special attention may no longer be warranted?”
It seems complete bollocks; like arguing that because running a red light caused an accident that singling out traffic signals for special attention may no longer be warranted because there are so many other causes of accidents. Why not just prosecute the driver?
I think your argument makes no sense because you are really trying to argue something else; perhaps that the US is evil which is a different subject.
You’ve got it exactly backwards. The reason that the signatories of the Chemical Weapons Convention is seven nations short of being universal is that most nations have figured out that chemical weapons of the sort that are banned are pretty militarily useless with the current style of warfare.
Banning nuclear weapons entirely depends on two things: (1) the US and Russia continuing to diminish their stocks of nuclear weapons and curtailing the strategic doctrine that nuclear weapons are useful and (2) continuing to limit the possession of nuclear weapons to the states that currently have them until those states can be involved in negotiations.
In this, the US Congress for the past two decades has been a huge stumbling block. Ratifying SALT treaties with Russia should not be controversial, but Republicans seek to expand not curtail nuclear weapons. And Russia has reciprocated this distrust, making each round of negotiations more difficult instead of less difficult. Until the US and Russia reduce their levels to those approaching China’s inventory, no new nations will be involved in nuclear weapons talks because they see the US and Russia holding a double standard: nukes for me but not for thee.
I’ve seen that “chemical weapons of the sort that are banned are pretty militarily useless” notion mentioned a lot lately and while that might have applied to mustard, phosgene and chlorine back in 1925 the nerve agents we are talking about in this context are so deadly that their military usefulness is largely undermined by the risk of incurring friendly casualties if the wind shifts. And even so both adversaries in the Cold War expended considerable resources on producing and deploying them at one time or another.
But it is their effectiveness as a low bulk but high lethality payload for, say, a medium range ballistic missile targeting a population centre that poses the real concern. Not to mention the scope for low technology delivery to urban targets.
Sorry, but if they have real evidence, they are going to have to present it in public. If they don’t, then there is no evidence. Persuading a couple of congressmen isn’t going to cut it. The reasons for suspecting the ‘rebels’ has already been mentioned. But there are historical reasons too:
3)Iraqis did NOT throw Kuwaiti babies out of incubators.
6 (going really, really back) The Mexicans did not cross the Rio Grand to attack an army post in Texas.
Is anyone else beginning to see a pattern here?
I don’t post here very often, but is anyone here considering the possibility that the ‘rebels’ staged the attack on purpose to get the US to save them as they are in the process of loosing? It’s not like they wouldn’t do such a thing. A thousand youtube videos of beheadings, mass executions and cannibalism attest to that. And I definitely don’t buy that they can’t. A crazy cult in Japan managed that in the 1990s, so why not a heavily armed rebel group with contacts in many countries (Turkey, KSA, and, dare I say it? Israel) who have shown a very keen interest in getting the US to attack Syria.
Also, are we considering the possibility that there are people in the highest levels of the US government who KNOW that Assad didn’t do it but would latch on any excuse to start a war? I’m just sayin’
A lot of us, including Booman, have looked at that possibility. I don’t think striking would be advantageous even if Assad did launch the attacks, as I’m sure you don’t see the advantages either.
Anyway, as far as the facts are concerned, I’m waiting for the UN. As far as a solution, or even an attempt, Patrick Cockburn seems to be the best of very bad options:
In Syria, it’s a case of all or nothing
Ok, good. Now do you think that maybe people in government may know this and don’t care? That the key is to destroy Syria…and make no mistake, when they say ‘get rid of Assad,’ that’s exactly what they mean, to break down Syria into several small warring factions that are easily pummeled or manipulated by Israel.
And that neocons may consider blaming Assad for something the rebels did a noble lie?
Cockburn’s piece is very solid.
And it demonstrates what I am talking about very clearly. The idea that we might strike Syria for reasons unrelated to our overall position in this conflict (with Russia, Iran, and Hizbollah) never enters his head. It just doesn’t seem plausible enough for Cockburn to even bother addressing it.
It’s certainly possible. Look at the supposed payload used to deliver the chemical weapons. Not exactly the kind of thing Assad’s troops fire off every day. And the troops that were supposedly preparing them for launch weren’t exactly properly dressed for handling chemical weapons. If some of the videos are to be believed.
Possibly only those that back in 2002 considered the possibility that Saddam didn’t have any WMD. And that whatever he had before two major wars had been degraded and that the subsequent decade of severe economic sanctions precluded replacement. IOW only the “nuts” back then got it right.
Might lead to a new revenue source for US lawyers. From the NYT For Some Afghans, Cost of Doing Business Includes U.S. Lawyers
Presenting cherry picked data from unknown “intelligence sources” is worthless. Remember that the the “intelligence source” that provided the basis for the attack on Iraq was actually Ahmed Chalabi, who made it all up in a bid to become ruler of Iraq. Please, Booman, do not revert to the child-like faith in our FBI and CIA that characterized the ’50s just because it’s a Democrat in the White House and not a Republican.
The military is fraying over this decision.
Hurriyet: Photo galleray
Photos of US military from social media holding signs saying:
The dangerous thing about it is the extent to which it picks up the “Obama is a secret muslim” theme.
Then why do they join? I have no real sympathy for people who join the military (the American military) and then complain about deployment. Did they think they’d continue occupying Okinawa and harrass Japanese women? And contrary to widespread opinion, not many join for monetary reasons (though some i admit do).
My dad tried to get me to join officer training school after college as I couldn’t find a job. I’d rather be homeless than join the American military.
They joined to fight against al Quaeda. Did you miss that?
Or as another blog put it, “The enemy of your enemy might still be your enemy.”
That’s their problem. It’s a silly message regardless. Make the cuts to the military that are necessary and they won’t be going anywhere, as their job will be gone.
Al Qaeda. They aren’t. Some are. Some are also those who are truly fighting for freedom. That is one of many reasons this situation is so complicated and why anyone who refuses to acknowledge that gets little regard from me. I don’t know what the solution is here but at least I know enough to say that knee jerk reactions like America is imperialistic and bad or the rebels are noble freedom fighters or this does not concern us are exactly that – knee jerk reactions that aren’t looking at the complexity of the situation as a whole.
A bit hyperbolic don’t you think?
Google al-Nusra,
The hyperbole noted wasn’t the al Qaeda aspect, but the “military fraying” part.
fray. wear away by rubbing or overuse. (my meaning in the use of the term)
Apparently, these folks are in Turkey as the article was in Hurriyet. They are in the region and likely are hearing different information from what we are hearing.
Like “drip”, I find “fray” to be hard to characterize as hyperbole.
So the hammer complains it is a tool.
Not our job to deter rogue nations. Not what we’re paying taxes for. Anyway, not what we want to be paying taxes for.