[Official] Do you support military strikes against Syria?

So, those who support intervention still keep ducking the important questions. Somebody needs to answer these or there is no way that Congress approves the AUMF.

1) What is the compelling national security interest we have in Syria?

2) How exactly does use of CBW in an internal civil war pose a threat to the national security of the US?

3) What is military goal of the proposed strikes?

4) What is the political goal of the proposed strikes?

5) What is the exit strategy? What is the endstate that we desire?

6) What will our course of action be if Assad ignores our strikes and launches another CBW strike?

7) In any military campaign casualties are likely (Assad could launch land-based SSMs at our ships, planes/pilots could be shot down, they have a couple of subs that could cause problems, etc) How many casualties are we willing to take? And what will our response be to taking casualties?

8) What will our response be if Iran, Hizbollah, and/or Iraqi militants (or other jihadists) attack US assets in response to our strikes?

9) Given Murphy's Law in war, are we prepared to be drawn into a deeper engagement in Syria itself, possibly with ground forces?

10) Given Murphy's Law in war, what will our course of action be if the conflict spreads beyond Syria's borders because of our actions?

These are 10 *vital* questions that need to be answered fully before we commit to this. I am freaking tired of these questions being brushed off or ignored. This is not a goddamned game. If you support intervention then you should be able to answer these questions satisfactorily. If you can't, then perhaps you should rethink your position.

 

The UN has, and always will be useful - as a giant forum where diplomats across the world can get together and talk about the important issues of the day.

Before the UN, and even before the League, there was a way for Country X to talk to Country Y through the embassy system, but there was no no way for Countries X,Y,Z, and W to get together and discuss various issues outside of difficult to plan conferences like the Berlin Conference. The UN solved that problem. If a system like that had been in place in the early 20th century, the mass miscommunication which occurred in the aftermath of Archduke Franz Ferdinand's assassination likely could have been avoided, and thus no Great War.

That's been the main goal of the UN more than anything. Nothing more.

 

Diplomats can make conference calls just like anyone else can. The UN has been useless for a long time now.

 

I was part of a sit down with our leadership today (round table, open talk) about this issue. I am part of a different theater but we will be involved due to our overall mission. (Which means I can not talk about it)

Several of these questions were asked and talked about. What got me was the fact that all of the leadership had the same, confused/skeptical thoughts about what the hell we are doing. 57 years of Military experience between out CC and Deputy......and they could not figure out what this accomplishes.

The House, General Population and Military disagree (Majority). So.......My bet is that this will happen. Cause THAT! Is how we roll.......

'Merica!

 

Er... OK?

Does anyone feel like answering any of these questions?

 

Honestly, at this point, I am starting to wonder if this is all just about a pretext for starting a war with Iran. Who gives a sh^t about Syria? Really?

Iran, we care about. We all know that they are actively pursuing the bomb. The clock is ticking. What if this is some calculated way to get them to attack us so that we have an excuse to hit their nuke program? There have been *alot* of calculated leaks during this episode, and the past day was filled with leaks about Iran attacking our assets. If we hit Syria, and they hit us, then we have our casus belli, no?

I know, nutty. Just thinking out loud, really. But does that make any less sense than what we're proposing in Syria? Hell, it makes more sense as far as I am concerned... But if that's what's going on here - and I'm not saying it is, just theorizing out loud - is this really a good way to go about doing it?

This is just Alex Jones garbage, right? FFS, I hope so.

 

Abysmal is a stretch, but she certainly can't be preferred, even over Kerry. She squandered relations with Russia, she pissed off the British with her comments about the Falklands, pissed of Egyptians enough that they actually threw tomatoes at her motorcade, a dead Ambassador, and we all know about the "What difference does it make?" debacle.

Back to the Middle East. I am beginning to worry about a couple of things. First, the silence from the administration regarding the attacks on Christians in both Syria and Egypt. There have been reports of dozens of attacks on Christian towns and bombings of churches in the last few weeks and it's only getting worse. Do we really know who we are supporting?

It's funny, I heard a McCain clip from a town hall where he argues with a Syrian woman pleading for us not to intervene, saying she knows the people who are fighting for the rebels, they are the ones who killed her cousin last week and they are not Syrian. McCain responded that he had been to Syria too, and that he had stood side by side with the rebels, and knew that they were good men who were fighting for Syria.


And second, Syria's refugees in Lebanon. Like the Palestinian refugees, this is going to tear Lebanon into another civil war as well. The longer this draws out, the more tensions rise next door. This very easily could spread to a regional conflict in no time. Then, when Israels eyes are focused on the north...

Then, from behind comes the Palestinian and Sinai rebels from the South. Followed by upsurge in violence in Iraq and Iran, although Iran is doubtful to get into anything. They are like a Chihuahua.

But seriously, I do think the **** is about to hit the fan.

 

I think basically you have to limit the scope of the action to just discouraging chemical weapons forever and worldwide. A really over simplistic analogy might be, a family has 4 boys ages 8-14. They fight all the time, if you tried to break them up every time that's all you would be doing. But if one of them picks up a bat and hits another one, Dad as to step in and punish the one that broke the rules.

And I don't claim to be an expert on any of this, I'm just trying to give you the other side of the debate i.e. That Mr. Obama and the US are the leaders of the free world and since WW2 are the guarantors of whatever level of civility we can achieve among our violent species. We spend $500 billion a year to be the preeminent military power on the planet not only to insure our own country but , in as much as we can, the sanctity of all innocent people. We don't want to do it, but if we don't what are the future consequences?

 

Kudos to Dubious to answering the questions above. I wonder if your effort was in vain though, since as with most "I must oppose everything Obama says or does" discussions, most reasonable positions gets brushed aside. I reckon I would have had more respect for the questions if the very same list of questions would have been posed re: the previous President who said he was acting against the use of (or even the possession of) WMDs.

Some times leaders make decisions that may not always be popular, but necessary. And some times leaders discuss moves that will make, but don't. But in politics, the more important factor isn't what is right or wrong, but whether they have an R or D after their name of their voters card.

 

The GOP opposes this too, though, so that argument doesn't work at all. You can't say someone is driven by politics when they are doing something that both parties oppose.

 

We used chemical weapons in Vietnam. We basically looked the other way (arguably, helped him) when Saddam Hussein used them in the 80s. What makes us the moral authority in regard to chemical weapons use?

I understand the sentiment that there should be grave repercussions for the use of chemical warfare in military conflicts for the sake of deterrence. But it shouldn't be the responsibility of one country to carry this out. It not only drains us economically, it creates a security threat for Americans and allies abroad due to (inevitable) blowback. Whether such an off-the-cuff response improves or worsens the situation in Syria from a humanitarian standpoint is also unpredictable at this stage (perhaps the Syrian regime, pushed into a much more desperate situation, would be even more likely to use chemical weapons again).

There should have been a plan in place well ahead of time for an international response to such situations which all members of the UN agree to. If Obama is serious about upholding international law, that is (and the US really never has been). This has less to do with global security, and more to do with upholding our position and credibility as the world's overlord.

 

It's really not an economic drain - if anything, it's a small short-term stimulus to makers of cruise missiles. But the overall cost is fairly minor. I believe Libya cost about $1 billion, and that was more involved and sustained over a few months.

 

I also don't understand the "mission creep" concern into ground forces. Iraq was Iraq because our mission was to take over the country and install our own government. That's not remotely what we even want to do here.

If there's any response by Syria, the potential mission creep would be from "punish chemical weapons use" to "topple Assad", in which case a better comparison would be Libya. There are already organized ground forces (though we may not like them) to actually do the job - our mission in that case would be simply to cripple Assad and make it easier for them. There's simply no reason for us to put in our own ground forces - if anything, that might be counterproductive and redundant. Mission creep here would simply involve more missiles and distance weaponry.

There's a legitimate reason to oppose that too - but making comparisons to Iraq makes no sense.

 

We don't know if this operation Obama is intending to carry out will be "one and done", or the prelude of a much larger military involvement (either through direct use of our military forces, or through escalation of military aid to the rebel forces). I think the latter is more likely.

And I was speaking more in general terms, not for this specific situation. The need to constantly be at the ready to unilaterally bomb/invade the next country that does something we don't like is a huge economic burden. Neither party's leadership has the sense or political courage to point this out and argue for us relinquishing this role. Global security responsibility should be distributed among all members of the international community.

 

It already is taboo, has been taboo, and will remain taboo. The 1925 Geneva Protocol is still in effect. The 1993 CWC is also in effect, of course Syria is not a signatory. Shall we impose mandatory adherence to the CWC? Perhaps we should invade a few other countries we know are in possession of chemical weapons?

At any rate, your answer did not answer the question of what our national security interest is. This was a John Kerry answer that skirted the actual question. The implication in your answer is that if we don't respond then everyone will suddenly believe that it's kosher to use CW in warfare and we will suddenly see widespread use. That's quite a logical leap to take.

Please answer the question as it relates to the United States' national security interests.

Again, the implication is that suddenly everyone is going to be throwing gas around. You base this assumption on what? After Saddam gassed the Kurds and the Iranians did everyone suddenly start using gas in warfare?

And again, you did not address the actual question. How exactly does use of CBW in an internal civil war pose a threat to the national security of the US?

Are Assad's weapons a threat to us? Do you think anyone on this planet is more likely to use CW against the US because of this? Groups like AQ were already prepared to use gas, anyone else knows that regardless of what happens in Syria use of CW against US targets would bring a massive response.

Please answer the question directly. How does this event directly threaten US national security?

Oh, really? So all of the rank and file in Assad's military, who had no part in launching or ordering a CW strike, and who are going to get killed by us, need to be punished? The inevitable civilians who will be collateral damage need to be punished? Are we sending in SF to capture the general who gave the order to launch the attack, so he can stand trial at the Hague? Are we going to attempt to capture Assad so that we can put him on trial, too? Or are we going to try to kill him as punishment, to serve as an example to other would-be gassers?

I thought regime change wasn't our goal here? And if our goal is to punish Assad, how long to we keep at trying to get him?

Your answers need to be more specific and detailed. These are Kerry answers.

Sorry, but did Assad's use of them make them suddenly legal? Did Saddam's use of them make them legal? They are still illegal insofar as limited international law allows (treaty, really, but that's another discussion).

Use of CW is are still as "illegal" as it was before Assad gassed his people. It's exactly as illegal as it was the first several times his troops used gas. It's still exactly as illegal as it was when the rebels used gas earlier this year. Why didn't we punish Assad earlier? Why are we not punishing the rebels, too?

Other states will continue to consider the cost of WMD use just as they always have. Just as before it sorta matters who you use them against.

So, how are you going to be sure that Assad won't use CW again? Do you think that we should strike the CW sites? We risk accidental release if we do that (apparently we have ruled it out). Do you intend to destroy every platform he has to launch those weapons? If so, then prepare for a very long air campaign, as we will have to destroy his entire air force and his rather large mass of artillery and rocket platforms.

Or were you planning on sending in the Marines to seize the CW? I thought this was no boots on the ground? Anyway, unless you do those things you can't guarantee that Assad won;t launch another gas attack. Your answer not only fails to actually answer the question, but it leads well into the next one.

And at what point do we just invade and take the Assad regime out?

What happened to "limited"? This sounds like an invitation to an open engagement.

Again, you did not answer the question. How many casualties are we willing to take in this endeavor?

I'm not sure that you understand; this is an act of war. Once the missiles fly it will be impossible to predict where it all ends up. The potential is very high for us to get entangled in a very messy internal civil war that could possibly spread beyond its current borders. Alot of Americans could die, alot of innocent civilians could die - as a result of our actions.

So, how many before we decide it's not worth the cost? Answer the question, please.

So yes, you are OK with getting into a war with Iran over this? Morality and legality have nothing to do with this, I am asking you about practical consequences. If you are willing to get into a war with Iran over this, just say so up front. And then answer all of these questions again with respect to that second front that you deem "worth it".

So, you think it wise to commit an act of war but preemptively rule out use of ground forces? You have no idea where this will lead. How can we rule that out at this point? The brass can't which is why they are opposed to this. They understand this, the political leadership apparently does not.

So, if Assad repeatedly launches CW attacks and the atrocities mount, do we at some point decide that regime change is necessary? And how do you effect regime change without boots on the ground? You can't.

I think you misunderstood my question. I am not talking about the humanitarian crisis or refugees, I am talking about the fighting spreading beyond the borders. It is very easy to envision the fighting spreading to Iraq, Lebanon, and Israel (and to a lesser effect Jordan and possibly parts of Turkey or Iran). How will we deal with such developments?

Look, you basically skirted all of these questions. Not one of them was directly answered. I give you kudos for the attempt, but if these are the answers lawmakers are going to get then expect the AUMF to be denied. This is serious business and the answers to these questions require more than one-liners, they require serious contemplation of all of the possible outcomes, and a precise definition of our purpose, goals, and exit strategy.

And how exactly do we accomplish that? I want to know what targets we hit and which ones we leave alone to accomplish just the right balance of "punishment" and "limitation". This is not an academic question. If you don't do enough then you didn't accomplish the punishment. If you do too much then it isn't limited. You are very unlikely to accomplish both the limited and punishment aspects in this situation.

Which I appreciate, and it's not your responsibility to explain any of this. It is the administration's responsibility, and so far they have completely failed at it.

 

No..

Or else Australia will have to support America and go to war..

 

One more "boots on the ground" question.

Suppose that due to our actions the Assad regime falls. Those CW stockpiles are just sitting there. Hizbollah is present in the area, as are AQ affiliates Nusra Front. Do we sit back and watch them seize those weapons, or do we go in and seize them ourselves? Mind you, such an operation would not be something we could accomplish from the air or with a couple helos' full of SOF. It would require a sizeable contingent of troops on the ground for a period likely of days to weeks to accomplish, all the while likely getting shot at by Hizbollah and/or the AQ types.

How can we be ensured that no ground troops will be introduced in Syria? We can't. In fact if we're actually serious about this it's pretty much inevitable at some point, at least to some extent.

 

Under that scenario? Ground troops would likely be necessary. Even so, such a task would be nowhere as demanding as Iraq or even Afghanistan. As you said, it would likely take only some days or weeks to accomplish.

But I can throw that scenario right back at you. Let's say we don't strike, yet Assad still loses, and your scenario with CW happens. What do you do? At the end of the day, there is no scenario where the US can absolutely stay out and you can absolutely say CWs won't fall into the hands of terrorists - even if Assad wins, there's still the issue of Hezbollah.

Why?

No, really, why? Let's suppose that our hegemony is so weakened economically that we now can't afford to launch some cruise missiles. Why do you care then that responsibility should be distributed among all members of the international community? I despise Paul's groupings, but at least they're consistent. They don't care if the international community ( whoever that is anyways), Russia, China, or whomever rules the world, they just want the US to stick its head in the sand at all costs.

There is no international community, no international brotherhood - or perhaps there is. Cain and Abel.

 

Because I think formal international laws are necessary for global security and stability, and there needs to be a workable/sustainable enforcement mechanism for it. Any time you have a minority reserving the right to lord over a majority, its not sustainable. Syria, and countless other examples, demonstrate that.