Will the Congress approve military action against Syria

[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.

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.

I still don't understand what was wrong with what I wrote assessing your point of view....

"it isn't really a state of war if we are pounding someone that can't fight back."

You used the word escalation, but if we attack someone from the sea, I wouldn't consider it an escalation if they respond by attacking our naval forces. If we attack command and control centers, I wouldn't consider it an escalation if they respond by attacking our command and control centers. Surely that would establish a state of war...

[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.

I still don't understand what was wrong with what I wrote assessing your point of view....

"it isn't really a state of war if we are pounding someone that can't fight back."

You used the word escalation, but if we attack someone from the sea, I wouldn't consider it an escalation if they respond by attacking our naval forces. If we attack command and control centers, I wouldn't consider it an escalation if they respond by attacking our command and control centers. Surely that would establish a state of war...

If they had the ability to do those things, then of course we should consider that in our chosen means of responding to their actions.

But they don't, hence why should we worry about it? That is just the pragmatic reality of the situation. We can launch cruise missile with impunity, hence the concern that this could widen into a general war between Syria and the US is simply not relevant. It cannot, because they lack that capability.

If they had that capability, like my USSR example, then of course we should take that into consideration, and that may potentially constrain our ability to react. Your example of North Korea illustrates that well. North Korea could respond to any strike by wiping out Seoul. We have to consider that in any decision we make.

There are responses that Syria can take that we must consider of course. They could start throwing missiles at Israel. I imagine that possibility has been considered. They could fire some ASMs at any ships we have in the area I suppose, but I suspect that they have no real capability of doing so with any actual chance of success.

[alfred russel]

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?

We have rather severe sanctions on Iran and gave some support to their enemies when they were attacked. I don't think the US is the reason Iran is fucked up by any stretch, but the idea we've contributed to the mess isn't crazy either.

We have a robustly hands on policy in the Middle East. The list of ME countries we have either recently intervened in militarily or provide substantial aid to is significant. It isn't a stretch to say we are a major factor in any ME country's politics because of that.

What if we went hands off in the Middle East for a bit? Maybe that would be the healthiest option for everyone and start to break the "blame the US" sentiments.

[Berkut]

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?

We have rather severe sanctions on Iran and gave some support to their enemies when they were attacked. I don't think the US is the reason Iran is fucked up by any stretch, but the idea we've contributed to the mess isn't crazy either.

We have a robustly hands on policy in the Middle East. The list of ME countries we have either recently intervened in militarily or provide substantial aid to is significant. It isn't a stretch to say we are a major factor in any ME country's politics because of that.

What if we went hands off in the Middle East for a bit? Maybe that would be the healthiest option for everyone and start to break the "blame the US" sentiments.

That would work if in fact the basis of the "blame the US" sentiments were a reasoned and considered appraisal of US actions in the ME. But they are not - indeed, I think it is safe to say that the "intervention" of the US in ME affairs has overall been vastly positive for the ME, rather than the source of the problems.

We could go "hands off". It won't matter one bit from the standpoint of those with a vested interest in deflecting blame, but instead would make things much, much worse. Which we would then be blamed for by those who are not making rational evaluations as well.

[Tonitrus]

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

France - Like much of Africa, we should still be running the place.

[DGuller]

I wonder if it's a good idea for the UN security council voting to require only a two-thirds vote to act. That would prevent the logjams almost every time something serious is voted on. It would also work against the US at times, just as it would work against Russia and China in this case. But this type voting would allow many more nations to be on board with actions, and would show a large and united front. Most nations won't act without a UN authorization so it makes some mockery of things like the ban on using WMDs and other human rights issues,  of which there are agreements and the backing of most nations.

No, not a good idea.  All the various worldwide sporting federations have shown that "one nation, one vote" systems are corrupt to the core.  Getting things done will then become a matter of who can buy off more Botswanas.  The big boys should have disproportionate power, because at the end of the day, without their buy-in the whole legitimacy of the organization is gone.  At least the way things are right now, there is a way to enact things that are total no-brainers.  Without veto power for the big boys, UN would be ignored entirely by those who matter.

[Razgovory]

I wonder if it's a good idea for the UN security council voting to require only a two-thirds vote to act. That would prevent the logjams almost every time something serious is voted on. It would also work against the US at times, just as it would work against Russia and China in this case. But this type voting would allow many more nations to be on board with actions, and would show a large and united front. Most nations won't act without a UN authorization so it makes some mockery of things like the ban on using WMDs and other human rights issues,  of which there are agreements and the backing of most nations.

No, not a good idea.  All the various worldwide sporting federations have shown that "one nation, one vote" systems are corrupt to the core.  Getting things done will then become a matter of who can buy off more Botswanas.  The big boys should have disproportionate power, because at the end of the day, without their buy-in the whole legitimacy of the organization is gone.  At least the way things are right now, there is a way to enact things that are total no-brainers.  Without veto power for the big boys, UN would be ignored entirely by those who matter.

Yeah, we'd probably be finding ourselves at war with Israel or have the UN sanction an invasion of the US.

[Ideologue]

I wonder if it's a good idea for the UN security council voting to require only a two-thirds vote to act. That would prevent the logjams almost every time something serious is voted on. It would also work against the US at times, just as it would work against Russia and China in this case. But this type voting would allow many more nations to be on board with actions, and would show a large and united front. Most nations won't act without a UN authorization so it makes some mockery of things like the ban on using WMDs and other human rights issues,  of which there are agreements and the backing of most nations.

No, not a good idea.  All the various worldwide sporting federations have shown that "one nation, one vote" systems are corrupt to the core.  Getting things done will then become a matter of who can buy off more Botswanas.  The big boys should have disproportionate power, because at the end of the day, without their buy-in the whole legitimacy of the organization is gone.  At least the way things are right now, there is a way to enact things that are total no-brainers.  Without veto power for the big boys, UN would be ignored entirely by those who matter.

Since the UN is a garbage relic of when we were allies with the Soviets and when the Good Chinese controlled the mainland, who cares?

[DGuller]

I wonder how long it will be before someone tries to renegotiate their position in UN.  India and Brazil, if they continue growing at their current pace, are going to resent being victimized due to fossilized UN structure.  The former Axis powers would likewise be unhappy with the terms imposed upon them due to losing the war.   

There is also the possibility that Russia may at some point overplay its hand and lose its veto power.  After all, they only have veto power if other big players agree that they have veto power.  It's not like they have some court to appeal to if, er, something happened to their veto.

[The Minsky Moment]

I agree with the Israelis, if we do nothing it bodes very poorly for Iranian behavior in the future.

I don't see the logic in that.

[Tonitrus]

I wonder if it's a good idea for the UN security council voting to require only a two-thirds vote to act. That would prevent the logjams almost every time something serious is voted on. It would also work against the US at times, just as it would work against Russia and China in this case. But this type voting would allow many more nations to be on board with actions, and would show a large and united front. Most nations won't act without a UN authorization so it makes some mockery of things like the ban on using WMDs and other human rights issues,  of which there are agreements and the backing of most nations.

No, not a good idea.  All the various worldwide sporting federations have shown that "one nation, one vote" systems are corrupt to the core.  Getting things done will then become a matter of who can buy off more Botswanas.  The big boys should have disproportionate power, because at the end of the day, without their buy-in the whole legitimacy of the organization is gone.  At least the way things are right now, there is a way to enact things that are total no-brainers.  Without veto power for the big boys, UN would be ignored entirely by those who matter.

Take note:  He did limit it to the UNSC.

[Tonitrus]

I wonder how long it will be before someone tries to renegotiate their position in UN.  India and Brazil, if they continue growing at their current pace, are going to resent being victimized due to fossilized UN structure.  The former Axis powers would likewise be unhappy with the terms imposed upon them due to losing the war.   

There is also the possibility that Russia may at some point overplay its hand and lose its veto power.  After all, they only have veto power if other big players agree that they have veto power.  It's not like they have some court to appeal to if, er, something happened to their veto.

Maybe we can trick them into a boycott again.  After all, it worked 53 years ago.

[DGuller]

Take note:  He did limit it to the UNSC.

Yeah, but UNSC members themselves are voted on by all the kids, even the ones from the special ed class.

[Tonitrus]

If that were entirely true, the U.S. would have been kicked off long ago.

[Jacob]

This kicking to Congress thing is interesting.

What are your guys' thinking on:

A: the reason Obama kicked it to Congress?

I've heard "political cover for an unpopular action" and "genuine belief that that's how it should be done" in this thread? Any other scenarios?

B: How's do you see it playing out? Both in terms of US domestic politics and in Syria?