Will the Congress approve military action against Syria

[alfred russel]

It isn't endorsed by the UN because the UN has a idiotic setup for endorsing actions where Russia will simply veto said action regardless of its justification.

And princicples like "It is not ok to use WMDs" are not and should not be subject to "international review". Nor is any such claim that it is "against international opinion" valid in any case. How do you know that? How do you measure it?

Comparing this to Iraq is an excellent example of what I said above. You are using the term "war" in one case in its most loosely defined meaning, then comparing two grossly different actions as if they were the same because they both can fit under some overly broad definition of the term "war", even though they are utterly different in any meaningful manner.

The UN was set up in the way it was because it wanted to make sure that only the most egregious matters involving a broad consensus would result in military action. I tend to think that while there are flaws in the structure, that is reasonable.

Russia isn't the sole block here anyway. China is also a block. I don't know the breakdown of European countries for and against action, but my understanding is that European public opinion is generally against military action. In the UK it is decisively against action, and even in France it is divided (I've read less than 50% support in places) though the government is for action.

The body for assessing opinion is the UN. We know that it won't approve any action. You want to know how to measure world opinion? In this case it isn't so hard. List your major countries/regions and ask yourself what you think their opinion is:
China
Latin America
Germany
Russia
the Arabic World
Spain
Italy
etc.

[alfred russel]

No, that iWe've launched missiles in many places that did not result in a state of war.

Not that I really care one way or the other, since the semantics of it has no bearing on the wisdom of the policy proposal.

If it results in a state of war, in your opinion, so what? It's not like shooting missiles at someone is a good idea if it doesn't, and a bad idea if it does. It is a good or bad idea based on whether or not shooting missiles at people is a good or bad idea under the circumstances, not on whether or not it will result in a "state of war".

As far was what WE would do...who cares? That isn't relelvant, Syria is not the USA, and their ability to respond to an act of violence taken against them by other actors is not comparable to our ability to do the same, and more importantly, WE don't tend to use WMDs against civilians.

Giant humongous obvious exception notwithstanding.

I'm going to summarize this as: "it isn't really a state of war if we are pounding someone that can't fight back."

[Berkut]

China - Do not know. Don't really care either.
Latin America - Do not know. Neither do you.
Germany - Certianly against, but then, they are against everything.
Russia - Against, but for reasons that make me more inclined to support rather than less.
Arabic World - Mixed, I imagine.
Spain - Don't know
Italy - Don't know

The point is we don't know, we just assume we know.

The other point is...so what? If various places propaganda had successfully convinced 50.1% of the world population that Hitler really wasn't such a bad guy, should England have refused to go to war over Poland?

Principles are not and should not be subject to the vagaries of current popular opinion, which is largely informed by ignorance and factors that often have nothing to do with the principles involved. Russia is a fine example - they are not against because they think using Sarin on people is fine, they are against for completely political reasons and because it is in their best interests (they think) to thwart whatever the west wants to do.

You might as well argue that we should have let North Korea overrun South Korea, since the USSR was in favor of it!

The UN is setup in the way it is largely for the reasons you state. But that setup results in clear cases where the particulars of a situation simply make it impossible for the UN to address it. If Russia dropped a nuke on the Ukraine tomorrow, surely they would veto any proposed response - are you arguing that the rest of the world should then throw up their hands and say "Gosh, Russia says we should let them nuke their neighbors! And they are on the Security Council! Oh well!"


I am all for using the UN for those circumstances where the situation is such that consensus can be reached.


I reject totally the idea that nobody can do anything without the UNSC blessing it first.

[Berkut]

No, that iWe've launched missiles in many places that did not result in a state of war.

Not that I really care one way or the other, since the semantics of it has no bearing on the wisdom of the policy proposal.

If it results in a state of war, in your opinion, so what? It's not like shooting missiles at someone is a good idea if it doesn't, and a bad idea if it does. It is a good or bad idea based on whether or not shooting missiles at people is a good or bad idea under the circumstances, not on whether or not it will result in a "state of war".

As far was what WE would do...who cares? That isn't relelvant, Syria is not the USA, and their ability to respond to an act of violence taken against them by other actors is not comparable to our ability to do the same, and more importantly, WE don't tend to use WMDs against civilians.

Giant humongous obvious exception notwithstanding.

I'm going to summarize this as: "it isn't really a state of war if we are pounding someone that can't fight back."

*You* can summarize your position anyway you want.

I think MY position pretty much stands on its own without your need to "summarize" it to mean what you wish I had said, rather than what I actually said.

[alfred russel]

*You* can summarize your position anyway you want.

I think MY position pretty much stands on its own without your need to "summarize" it to mean what you wish I had said, rather than what I actually said.

That is the critical difference in this instance, though, correct?

If Syria had the means of fighting back, say a legitimate chance of sinking an aircraft carrier and ICBMs capable of comparable attacks on US targets, you would consider the attack to establish a state of war.

[alfred russel]

China - Do not know. Don't really care either.
Latin America - Do not know. Neither do you.
Germany - Certianly against, but then, they are against everything.
Russia - Against, but for reasons that make me more inclined to support rather than less.
Arabic World - Mixed, I imagine.
Spain - Don't know
Italy - Don't know

The point is we don't know, we just assume we know.

The other point is...so what? If various places propaganda had successfully convinced 50.1% of the world population that Hitler really wasn't such a bad guy, should England have refused to go to war over Poland?

Principles are not and should not be subject to the vagaries of current popular opinion, which is largely informed by ignorance and factors that often have nothing to do with the principles involved. Russia is a fine example - they are not against because they think using Sarin on people is fine, they are against for completely political reasons and because it is in their best interests (they think) to thwart whatever the west wants to do.

You might as well argue that we should have let North Korea overrun South Korea, since the USSR was in favor of it!

The UN is setup in the way it is largely for the reasons you state. But that setup results in clear cases where the particulars of a situation simply make it impossible for the UN to address it. If Russia dropped a nuke on the Ukraine tomorrow, surely they would veto any proposed response - are you arguing that the rest of the world should then throw up their hands and say "Gosh, Russia says we should let them nuke their neighbors! And they are on the Security Council! Oh well!"


I am all for using the UN for those circumstances where the situation is such that consensus can be reached.


I reject totally the idea that nobody can do anything without the UNSC blessing it first.

I'm not aware of polling in the countries/regions I mentioned but I suspect you can offer more than "don't know."

So you can't assert world opinion is behind launching an attack.

The better part of international governments, even of typically stable US allies, are not behind an attack.

The UN won't support an attack.

The US does not have critical interests at stake in the country.

If you want non proliferation to be successful, there needs to be international cooperation. The US acting as the worlds policeman is going to be counterproductive if it isn't done in a way that is unilateral.

[alfred russel]

A major problem with getting involved is it is going to create animosity and blame to the US for years to come. Just check out the Iran coup thread--over half a century later we are getting blamed for the trouble in the country. And in this particular case, for what? Does anyone think firing missiles into Syria will fix anything?

[Berkut]

*You* can summarize your position anyway you want.

I think MY position pretty much stands on its own without your need to "summarize" it to mean what you wish I had said, rather than what I actually said.

That is the critical difference in this instance, though, correct?

If Syria had the means of fighting back, say a legitimate chance of sinking an aircraft carrier and ICBMs capable of comparable attacks on US targets, you would consider the attack to establish a state of war.

No, I would consider that the likelihood of our act resulting in an escalation into an actual war would be greater in that case, and of course would then have to be considered in our response.

If the USSR, for example, had decided to use nerve gas against dissidents in the Caucaus in 1979, then I would certainly have felt that that was a terrible thing, but out ability to do anything about it would be almost negligible in a direct sense. We could (and should) respond using other means, but military force would not be a viable option. However, the USSR in 1979 was not a rogue state, hence unlikely to do something like that, and also more suscpetible to non-military pressures in any case, and hence there are more levers to be used to constrain their actions.

Syria today is not the same of course. They do not have the capability to widen strikes by France/US/others into a general conflict, and they are also enough of a pariah state that they are not likely to care about any non-military response we may use. So that leaves us with the remaining levers we have that

A) Might actually have some effect, and
B) Are not likely to widen the conflict even moreso or in a fashion that is counter-productive.

[CountDeMoney]

I'm wondering if Obama kicked it to congress so that he can "avoid" blame when/if they vote against action.

You know, I've sort of been wondering that myself

It's so hilarious;  this isn't the first time you've ascribed some sort of cynical political Machiavellian objective behind the Administration's workings.  When are you going to realize that he's simply not that kind of guy?

He's a former professor of law.  He's not only not built like Nixon, he's fundamentally incapable of thinking like him.  This President, and the people he surrounds himself with, are the most politically transparent we've had since Carter, the level of idealistic naïveté is actually that great.

[frunk]

Because allowing inspectors appropriate access was a condition of the peace treaty, to which the US was a party.

In Syria, the US has no interests. The UN Security Council was set up for this type of situation, and is not inclined to act. Also, there is probably less international support for attacking Syria than there was Iraq.

From what I can tell it wasn't a peace treaty but a UN Resolution that was violated.  I'm willing to bet that the language in it is just as specific as to violations as the Geneva Conventions.

[garbon]

I'm wondering if Obama kicked it to congress so that he can "avoid" blame when/if they vote against action.

You know, I've sort of been wondering that myself

It's so hilarious;  this isn't the first time you've ascribed some sort of cynical political Machiavellian objective behind the Administration's workings.  When are you going to realize that he's simply not that kind of guy?

He's a former professor of law.  He's not only not built like Nixon, he's fundamentally incapable of thinking like him.  This President, and the people he surrounds himself with, are the most politically transparent we've had since Carter, the level of idealistic naïveté is actually that great.

Well I would respect him more.

[Berkut]

A major problem with getting involved is it is going to create animosity and blame to the US for years to come. Just check out the Iran coup thread--over half a century later we are getting blamed for the trouble in the country. And in this particular case, for what? Does anyone think firing missiles into Syria will fix anything?

I understand the concern.

But I think I've realized that if we act, the masses in the ME will blame us, and if we don't act, the masses in the ME will blame us, and if we kind of act, the masses in the ME will blame us.

We are blamed in Iran for interceding decades ago. But can they honestly say that the situation in Iran *today* is because of what happened in 1953? Or 1979? They took over 30+ years ago, and if their country is still fucked up, who is that on?

Well, it is on us, because they don't want to face the reality that if they haven't fixed what our interference supposedly broke over three decades ago...

But it doesn't matter. The US is too convenient a locus for blame for any actions we take to actually effect it in any case, so I don't see that concerns about the masses blaming us some day in the future should enter into our policy decisions. They are going to do so if we act. They are going to do so if we don't act. Oh well.

The goal here is not to help the rebels win, or keep Assad from winning. It is to punish the regime for using WMDs against their civilians, so that maybe in the future the next Assad might think twice about it.

[Ed Anger]

I await the hilarity of Russian lawmakers rushing to the states to lobby against the use of force.

[CountDeMoney]

Well I would respect him more.

As would I; but it's simply not part of the package with this guy.

Don't worry, Miss Machiavelli If You're Nasty will bring Presidential cynicism back in vogue in 2016.

[garbon]

Well I would respect him more.

As would I; but it's simply not part of the package with this guy.

Don't worry, Miss Machiavelli If You're Nasty will bring Presidential cynicism back in vogue in 2016.

That had better happen.