Credibility has nothing to do with voters. If we say Country X can't use Weapon Y, and they do it, and we do nothing, how do you think that affects Iran or North Korea and their future actions in a brinksmanship situation? Meanwhile, if we say the same and then bomb the hell out of Country X, how do you think that affects the future choices of Iran or North Korea?
Oh, some of them probably know. And it would be used against him in the future. That's the sort of spinelessness that comes back to haunt you. I think at this point the Russians, Chinese, Iranians, and everyone else who matters already have POTUS's measure and know he is a weak leader where foreign policy is concerned (they have all been able to hoodwink him repeatedly) and likely have little to no respect for him as a leader. But POTUS probably feels that he can change that perception with a little toughguy action. I suspect that is the thought process here.
as someone mentioned above, the rebels, at least the strongest faction, are not the good guys here, at least not now. that wasn't the case when this thing started however, and Obama's ineffectual dithering has left him, and the US, and the vast majority of the Syrian people with no good options. not unlike Egypt. lofty (if anodyne) rhetoric is no substitute for policy, or strategy. now that we're here, however, the debate might be summed up by this bit in the NewYorker: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2013/08/the-debate-over-intervention-in-syria.html also useful to recall Joe Biden's thoughts on unilateral military action, in a not dissimilar context: PORTSMOUTH — Presidential hopeful Delaware Sen. Joe Biden stated unequivocally that he will move to impeach President Bush if he bombs Iran without first gaining congressional approval.
So far 28-5 for no action. I suspect that national polls will roughly mirror these results shortly. Right now intervening in Syria is even less popular than Congress is. That is hard to do... http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/08/26/new-poll-syria-intervention-even-less-popular-than-congress/ POTUS is really stepping in it if something goes wrong.
Given the situation in Syria, I think it is safe to say something has already gone wrong. We are talking 100k estimated deaths. This will likely play out like Libya rather than Iraq.
I mean wrong on our end. If we start taking casualties this is going to sink POTUS. I wouldn't count on this playing out like Libya. Assad is no Khadaffi. Assad also has Hizbollah right next door assisting, Iran actively engaged in the fight, and the financial and military support of Russia, with a smaller assist from China. Khadaffi had... nothing. Anyone who thinks we are going to swiftly and easily topple Assad from 30,000 feet is delusional.
Bad guys fighting bad guys with children in the middle -- it's a no win situation for the kids over there.
I don't think we're toppling anything either. I am not even sure if that's the goal at this point, which is ridiculous. This is Operation Desert Fox all over again. My instinct tells me this is serving a point to distract the public from the NSA fallout.
total arrogance <blockquote class="twitter-tweet"><p>White House <a href="https://twitter.com/PressSec">@PressSec</a> on <a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=%23Syria&src=hash">#Syria</a>: "Members of Congress with a particular interest in this matter have been consulted." You're joking, right?</p>— Justin Amash (@repjustinamash) <a href="https://twitter.com/repjustinamash/statuses/372510462350331904">August 28, 2013</a></blockquote> <script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Don't be naive. The reason the U.S. did not want to get involved like it did in Libya was because no matter how you sliced it elements of extremists would gain power.
Have to feel very sad about that. The kids who live thru it may very well end up being just as bad as those killing them now. They may be forced to pick sides, be "recruited", etc.
I don't see the point in attaching a country to "teach them a lesson". We're not going to change anything with a missile strike just to show the world, yeah, we get tough on chemical weapons genocidal maniacs. Syria is a quagmire - any country with a massive sunni majority population with a well back ****e population is going to be a mess. Military action isn't the right route here since it's just a waste of money and lives. We should find other means to put pressure on the leadership to end this war. That is the right approach. Obama is caving in to conservatives here. What a shame. If we've learned anything is that military action rarely leads to any kind of positive result.
Iraq 1 and Bosnia say hello. Military action doesn't always solve problems, but it is certainly one tool in an array of policy tools. I don't see where the "costing lives" thing is coming in. No one has remotely suggested that boots will be on the ground anywhere in this. It's missile strikes - and that's it. Nothing else is being considered. They may or may not be helpful or useful, but what we're really talking about is spending money, not lives.
Wow, do you [really believe that Obama is going to cave in to McCain and Graham?!? I suspect there is something else going on here.
Most likely, yes. There is always the possibility of mission creep, however. War is a Pandora's Box - you never know what you are going to unleash until you do it. What if Hizbollah and Iran activate their operatives here? Awhile back it was estimated that they may have as many as 2K of them inside of the US. I don't think that's likely, but... Once the missiles start flying you never know what is going to happen. I said it before. We need to tread very lightly here.
The idea is that chemical weapons are ultra bad because they ultimately are terror weapons. High explosives and guns can be pointed at an enemy, chemical weapons really can't. They really aren't that useful a weapon due to the severe hazards of using them unless your objective is to do nothing more than spread terror. In that regard, I'm somewhat sympathetic to the idea that stopping the side that uses chemical weapons is a good thing, but honestly, what's going on in Syria right now is pretty good for the US. Two of its enemies are in a fight to the death, and it'll also weaken Iran's already shaky economy given that they can't afford to lose Syria. In that regard, I wouldn't mind a missile or two if Assad actually is winning to ensure that the fight is prolonged, but not really anything more.
Bosnia was a fairly robust attack designed to tip the war to the rebels favor. This time, we aren't doing that. We don't want to tip the war to anyone's side. So action will continue the bloodshed, pointless. And you think there will not be collateral damage in any military action? You think one of those missiles isn't going to kill a single civilian? Come on. What will these strikes accomplish except to be a spanking and saying "bad boy Syria, very bad boy, don't use big old chemical weapons, ok? Now get back to killing thousands with bullets and bombs!" Give me a break.
Syrians have lives. The missile strike will mainly kill civilians, burn their houses and if you are not sure it is helpful or not, DO NOT fire missile into someone else's country. Killing people is not a game. One military action usually kill way more children than the terrorists or any dictator did in 100 years. Stop the war crime. Stop supporting the war crime.
