Massive use of chemical weapons in Syria, 1,429 killed including 426 children

[CountDeMoney]

I have a feeling you'll be disappointed.  I doubt it will be an operation over the course of several days, like Operation Desert Fox in 1998.  This will just be a few dozen Tomahawks.  I doubt any long range air assets will even be used.

[Ed Anger]

They (as in the Washington Post) are talking 2 days of cruise missile fun. Enough for me in this parched TV summer.

I'll also play Tool's Vicarious while CNN is on.

[CountDeMoney]

It would probably make the Tomahawk strikes more effective if everybody didn't fucking tell them they were coming.  Because, gee, letting them move assets or harden targets only makes it fair.

[Ed Anger]

The Syrian runway repair folks are happy they are going to get to use their equipment.

[derspiess]

The good news is that the administration has the full backing of the American people on this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/08/26/new-poll-syria-intervention-even-less-popular-than-congress/

[CountDeMoney]

Gonna have to go with stated US policies and precedents regarding non-proliferation of NBC WMD on this one, derisolationist.  Even if it's a token strike.

[derspiess]

Gonna have to go with stated US policies and precedents regarding non-proliferation of NBC WMD on this one, derisolationist.  Even if it's a token strike.

So we're not going to wait for more evidence, then?  Why didn't we launch a bunch of expensive cruise missiles the first time, then?

[CountDeMoney]

I'm sure there's enough evidence that you're not aware of.

[Malthus]

Gonna have to go with stated US policies and precedents regarding non-proliferation of NBC WMD on this one, derisolationist.  Even if it's a token strike.

So we're not going to wait for more evidence, then?  Why didn't we launch a bunch of expensive cruise missiles the first time, then?

I assume the answer is that the US gov't wanted to build a consensus with other nations before acting - that is, follow the precedent of Lybia, rather than that of Iraq II. That explains why they didn't push the button a while ago, but are rather going to do so now.

Any action in Syria is going to be difficult and unpopular, with both other nations and with the US people (as you have pointed out). The gov't has to walk the tightrope between doing something to harm the undoubted bad guys (and sending a message that there are certain behaviours that the civilized world simply will not tolerate without consequence), and the requirements of realpolitic - as in, not doing damage to either the US interests or the government's own popularity within the US itself. 

[Solmyr]

You guys are all war like, but the rest of the net seems pretty quiet. I'd expect more of a PR effort if real troop commitments were to take place.

The rest of the net is distracted by Hanna Montana becoming an exotic dancer.

You should launch Hanna Montana at Syria.

Btw, according to Kerry, attacking people-gassing dictator in Iraq: bad, attacking people-gassing dictator in Syria: good. How does that work?

[Baron von Schtinkenbutt]

Btw, according to Kerry, attacking people-gassing dictator in Iraq: bad, attacking people-gassing dictator in Syria: good. How does that work?

Overthrowing people-gassing dictator in Iraq using American manpower 15 years after he did it: bad
Lobbing a few dozen cruise missiles at people-gassing dictator in Syria a week after he did it: good

[MadBurgerMaker]

You should launch Hanna Montana at Syria.

War crime.

[Razgovory]

You guys are all war like, but the rest of the net seems pretty quiet. I'd expect more of a PR effort if real troop commitments were to take place.

The rest of the net is distracted by Hanna Montana becoming an exotic dancer.

You should launch Hanna Montana at Syria.

Btw, according to Kerry, attacking people-gassing dictator in Iraq: bad, attacking people-gassing dictator in Syria: good. How does that work?

There's a statute of limitations to these things.  We don't bomb the UK for using gas in WWI.

[derspiess]

I assume the answer is that the US gov't wanted to build a consensus with other nations before acting - that is, follow the precedent of Lybia, rather than that of Iraq II. That explains why they didn't push the button a while ago, but are rather going to do so now.

Any action in Syria is going to be difficult and unpopular, with both other nations and with the US people (as you have pointed out). The gov't has to walk the tightrope between doing something to harm the undoubted bad guys (and sending a message that there are certain behaviours that the civilized world simply will not tolerate without consequence), and the requirements of realpolitic - as in, not doing damage to either the US interests or the government's own popularity within the US itself. 

Both sides are the bad guys.  And I really don't see how our national interests are served by getting involved.

[Malthus]

I assume the answer is that the US gov't wanted to build a consensus with other nations before acting - that is, follow the precedent of Lybia, rather than that of Iraq II. That explains why they didn't push the button a while ago, but are rather going to do so now.

Any action in Syria is going to be difficult and unpopular, with both other nations and with the US people (as you have pointed out). The gov't has to walk the tightrope between doing something to harm the undoubted bad guys (and sending a message that there are certain behaviours that the civilized world simply will not tolerate without consequence), and the requirements of realpolitic - as in, not doing damage to either the US interests or the government's own popularity within the US itself. 

Both sides are the bad guys.  And I really don't see how our national interests are served by getting involved.

Both sides have not, as far as I know, used chemical weapons on civilians.

The US national interest may not, directly, be served by involvement other than in this way: acting with punitive measures may ultimately discourage the use of chemical weapons more generally. Failing to discourage their use may lead to them being more generally available, which could have bad consequences for the US in the future either directly or indirectly.