Will the Congress approve military action against Syria

[Ed Anger]

My dutch oven is the nastiest gas of all gasses.

[crazy canuck]

But the only thing that surprises me more than the Administration's ability to screw this up is the wholesale rejection of liberal humanitarian interventionism based on such a widely regarded international no-no as chemical weapons, which has been such an ingrained part of our national identity in foreign policy.  And not just with us domestically, but with most of the world.

Bad things, man.

The intervention in Afganistan has shown us that years of intervention with the best of intentions can still end poorly.  Iraq demonstrated that intervention without a reasonable plan about what to do next can be disasterous. 

[Syt]

And Russia swoops in to prove that they're the ones who can handle the situation, and that it can all be done diplomatically.

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/09/09/politics/syria-kerry/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Syria 'welcomes' proposal to hand over control of chemical weapons

Were I paranoid, I would think the whole thing was orchestrated by Moscow: Inofficially greenlight chem weapon use to Assad, telling him that Russia will do anything to prevent U.S. intervention. Lots of waffling ensues; Western democracies fail their resolve dice rolls. Moscow comes in to save the day and prove who really has the power in the region.

[CountDeMoney]

The intervention in Afganistan has shown us that years of intervention with the best of intentions can still end poorly.  Iraq demonstrated that intervention without a reasonable plan about what to do next can be disasterous.

Afghanistan didn't start out as intervention;  it started out as payback.  Then mission creep set in.  It never should've gotten that far.
Iraq wasn't an intervention, either;  it was an outright invasion and occupation.  If you want to poo-poo humanitarian interventions, poo-poo Somalia.

And I disagree with Max that the only option left is regime change;  in this particular scenario, the use of punitive measures for bad behavior can hit Assad in his wallet by degrading his very pricey military assets, such as air defense, aircraft, airfields and SSM facilities.  Assad needs to learn that using chemical weapons comes with a price tag.  There is still a cost-benefit dynamic here at work that will not interject us into the middle of the civil war.  We punished Iraq for years with Northern Watch/Southern Watch very effectively, proving to him that his actions against rebellious factions came with a price, and that price wound up more than what he was willing to pay in conventional assets.

We can hit him, hit him hard, and get the message across that the international community will not tolerate the use of chemical weapons in the 21st century, and to the point that the cost of using them far outweighs the benefits.

[crazy canuck]

The intervention in Afganistan has shown us that years of intervention with the best of intentions can still end poorly.  Iraq demonstrated that intervention without a reasonable plan about what to do next can be disasterous.

Afghanistan didn't start out as intervention;  it started out as payback.  Then mission creep set in.  It never should've gotten that far.

I dont think you are correct about that.  Armed forces were sent to help the Northern alliance remove the Taliban from power.  It worked. The mission creep set in for exactly the reasons were are now wary of well intentioned intervention.

Iraq wasn't an intervention, either;  it was an outright invasion and occupation.  If you want to poo-poo humanitarian interventions, poo-poo Somalia.

Yes, but the fantasy the US government of the day was that they just had to win a quick war and then roses would be thrown at them as liberators by an adoring civilian population. Which is again why we are now very wary of getting involved militarily without an end game in mind.

And of course we dont have to mention the problem of getting involved militarily without clear objectives  -  Vietnam.

And I disagree with Max that the only option left is regime change;  in this particular scenario, the use of punitive measures for bad behavior can hit Assad in his wallet by degrading his very pricey military assets, such as air defense, aircraft, airfields and SSM facilities.  Assad needs to learn that using chemical weapons comes with a price tag.  There is still a cost-benefit dynamic here at work that will not interject us into the middle of the civil war.  We punished Iraq for years with Northern Watch/Southern Watch very effectively, proving to him that his actions against rebellious factions came with a price, and that price wound up more than what he was willing to pay in conventional assets.

We can hit him, hit him hard, and get the message across that the international community will not tolerate the use of chemical weapons in the 21st century, and to the point that the cost of using them far outweighs the benefits.

I agree with you on these points.  I was trying to point out why people are wary that it wont be that simple.

[derspiess]

He made this move to preserve his rule and so long as he succeeds in that I doubt he cares if a couple more buildings get blown up.

...but enough about Obama

[Maximus]

Considering that this is his biggest blunder yet, that doesn't really work.

[derspiess]

Afghanistan didn't start out as intervention;  it started out as payback.  Then mission creep set in.  It never should've gotten that far.

I dont think you are correct about that.  Armed forces were sent to help the Northern alliance remove the Taliban from power.  It worked. The mission creep set in for exactly the reasons were are now wary of well intentioned intervention.

You're both correct.  Except for the part where you said he wasn't

[DGuller]

What a mess this entire response has been.

If Obama felt a strike was necessary, it should have been done long ago.

This is the worst waffling in foreign policy I can recall in a very long time.

Christ, what could be worse than asking for permission to do something you intend to do whether you get permission or not?

I think you're missing the hidden genius of Obama's plan.  Unfortunately, so am I. 

[The Brain]

Crouching retard?

[CountDeMoney]

I dont think you are correct about that.  Armed forces were sent to help the Northern alliance remove the Taliban from power.  It worked. The mission creep set in for exactly the reasons were are now wary of well intentioned intervention.

Offensive operations were conducted against the Taliban due to their aiding and abetting of Al Qaeda.  We worked with the NA to the extent that we needed to accomplish that, and the political decision was made to work with the indigenous noodleheads to assist in anti-AQ operations, not for the express purpose of regime change.  Working with Karzai and Kabul was eventually necessary in keeping a lid on AQ, but creating a new Afghani government was not the original goal in October 2001.

Yes, but the fantasy the US government of the day was that they just had to win a quick war and then roses would be thrown at them as liberators by an adoring civilian population. Which is again why we are now very wary of getting involved militarily without an end game in mind.

And of course we dont have to mention the problem of getting involved militarily without clear objectives  -  Vietnam.

The current US government is not the government that invaded Iraq, and Syria is not Iraq.  And there is a specific endgame involved in punitive strikes:  the punitive strikes themselves.

And as far as Vietnam goes, might as well bring up Korea or the Jewish Revolt of 71AD.   Getting involved even with clear objectives doesn't change the fact that objectives change, or unforeseen circumstances occur.  That's not an excuse for inaction, and certainly not an excuse for inaction by The Indispensable Nation.

And I disagree with Max that the only option left is regime change;  in this particular scenario, the use of punitive measures for bad behavior can hit Assad in his wallet by degrading his very pricey military assets, such as air defense, aircraft, airfields and SSM facilities.  Assad needs to learn that using chemical weapons comes with a price tag.  There is still a cost-benefit dynamic here at work that will not interject us into the middle of the civil war.  We punished Iraq for years with Northern Watch/Southern Watch very effectively, proving to him that his actions against rebellious factions came with a price, and that price wound up more than what he was willing to pay in conventional assets.

We can hit him, hit him hard, and get the message across that the international community will not tolerate the use of chemical weapons in the 21st century, and to the point that the cost of using them far outweighs the benefits.

I agree with you on these points.  I was trying to point out why people are wary that it wont be that simple.

Good.  Let's start bombing some expensive Russian-made shit over there.  OH FUCK WHO THE HELL JUST LET THE RUSSIANS TAKE CHARGE OF THIS CRISIS SON OF A

[Ed Anger]

How could you not trust this man?

[Caliga]

He needs a tougher-looking dog than that.

[DGuller]

He needs a tougher-looking dog than that.

How about this:

[Ed Anger]

He needs a tougher-looking dog than that.

It was a gift from the Bulgarians.