[Official] Do you support military strikes against Syria?

That's great. Seriously! There are some others here who could follow your lead. -

 

Kind of, kind of not. I'm not sure why he really brings it up.

Why do we care if a bunch of (mostly shady) Arab states want us to sacrifice lives, etc, for another regime change?

 

cause they're in bed with the allies and/or they see what we want them to see? who knows? At this point it doesn't look like it matters.. we're going to stick our nose into another middle eastern country.. only this time Russia has a dog in the fight.

 

Because international support is part of the equation, and showing that countries in the region want action theoretically bolsters the case. It's why having the Arab League on board is beneficial - that was also crucial in the Libya intervention.

 

That makes sense, Major, but I guess it was just kind of careless to even mention the more full throttle option and those countries offering to pay for it. It just gave me chills.

In the end, I do believe (barely) that Assad used chemical weapons. What I'm not convinced of is that the coalition of rebel factions would not have, at least some of them, done the same thing if they had access to the same weapons. In fact, it is not clear whether or not one group or another did indeed use such.

I understand "send a message," but I hope Obama has some end game in mind that doesn't involve the escalations we've seen too many times before.

 

Escalation always happens. You vote to authorize air strikes. Once the people are ok with that, and air strikes haven't done the job, you can sell the people on more entrenched involvement as they have become pot committed to a successful mission (whatever the hell that means).

 

refman, I worry about that quite a bit.

Libya keeps getting tossed out a best case scenario, but we need to realize there's a whole range of non-Libya, and what do we do when little airstrikes, foretold and telegraphed for weeks, don't do much of anything to assad?

EDIT: your sig needs updating. Shooting Bud Adams instead of the corpse of bin Laden just doesn't have the same punch.

 

I agree with all of that. The idea that there are "good guys" here isn't so clear. This is an interesting piece from the NR about what an negotiated endgame could look like and why it's important that Assad be "weaker" than he is now in that negotiaton:

http://nationalreview.com/article/357373/strategy-syria-mario-loyola

Not sure I agree with it because it assumes you can separate the moderates from the crazies, but if ultimately there is an international convention to negotiate a peace, that substantially increases the likelihood of a non-crazy government (as opposed to one side or the other outright winning).

I think the combo of Obama, Kerry, and Hagel is as dovish a group as we've had in those positions in a long time - so they are probably as unlikely to want to escalate to anything more as any leadership we've had. With Libya, Obama was criticized for letting France take the lead - but its because he's about as minimalist as possible when it comes to foreign entanglements.

 

If you were put in a room with them today, I'm not sure you could tell which of the 3 is alive.

 

Thanks, Major. I agree with that, based on their individual political histories, so I share your hopes.

The G20 meeting may be much more important for the future of Syria than the Congressional vote for authorization of force. If you can't get Russia and China seriously involved in rebooting the Syrian government, then blargh... it will probably be rebooted eventually but without united international efforts, I would give the crazies greater odds of taking over.

 

These undecided votes make me worried. I honestly cannot believe we have come to this point.

 

Are you saying you're not sure why I brought it up, or why Kerry brought it up?

I brought it up because I thought it was bizarre that a bunch of Arab states would offer to pay for the US to be involved in another Arab affair.

I'm willing to bet Kerry brought it up in response to a question either about financing a war, or the Arabs' response to a war.

Why do we care? Because 1) they are offering to pay for war if it boils down to it, 2) it is very shady, and we should consider WHY they would do such a thing.

 

KERRY. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

 

Thought so. Like I said, not sure why those statements were made. Saw them reported on the Washington Post feed, but they didn't have more context as to what they were in response to.

It's troubling, considering the Senate passed a resolution authorizing the use of ground troops if necessary. Not sure what the time frame was on that resolution, at first it was reported as 60 days, then I heard 90. Going to find time today to read through it, but I have a huge headache and 3 meetings : /

 

Given that Boehnor is backing the resolution I get the feeling that the resolution will pass. Boehnor has said he wouldn't support legislation that didn't have majority support of the Republican caucus yet he is backing this. That tells me that he might know more than what these numbers reveal.

 

The Hastert rule does not appear to apply in this case.

If the reports about the current whip counts in the House are even remotely close, then it looks unlikely this will pass the House. Those supporting intervention would have to run nearly a clean sweep of the rest of the undecideds, something that is extremely unlikely.

Not saying it couldn't or won't happen, but it doesn;t look likely at all at this point.

 

We should not do anything in Syria. It is not in our interests and Syria means nothing to us. Saying this I also was against any Mid east war except Afghanistan when Bin Laden was there and even then after bombing their infrastructure into nothingness we should have just come back home with a warning that this will happen to others that harm us. No staying and building them back up.

I am also in the belief that all our troops worldwide should be brought back home.

 

And things like this won't help:

Kerry portrait of Syria rebels at odds with intelligence reports

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/05/us-syria-crisis-usa-rebels-idUSBRE98405L20130905

Russia says it's compiled 100-page report blaming Syrian rebels for a chemical weapons attack

Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/09/...0-page-report.html#.Uiirgsash8F#storylink=cpy

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/09/05/201268/russia-releases-100-page-report.html#.Uiirgsash8F

On the latter, you can argue that it's just Russia trying to throw a wrench into the works, but wouldn't it be worth waiting for the UN investigation to conclude before acting in this case? If the Russians are right and the rebels used sarin in earlier attacks, it becomes a bit difficult to choose sides and only attack Assad, does it not? It pretty much blows the entire moral argument out of the water.

At the least, it begs for more patience.

 

I hope it will not pass.