Skip to main content

View Diary: The war supporter's weak case for war (242 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Very true. However, with the war in the balance (0+ / 0-) could still be critical to Assad surviving or falling.

    •  so now you're saying it's about regime change, (4+ / 0-)

      and not just about deterring Assad from using CW.

      OK then. That's not what Obama is saying, but I'm glad you're more upfront about it.

      "In America, the law is king." --Thomas Paine

      by limpidglass on Thu Sep 05, 2013 at 08:55:03 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  To ASSAD it's about regime change (0+ / 0-)

        The US goal is to make Assad feel some real heat for using chemical weapons to deter him.  It's probably not their goal to try to overthrow his gov't competely because that would be a nightmare.

        But from Assad's POV this means it's harder for him to maintain power, and so now he'll have to balance the advantages of using chemical weapons against the price he'll pay in the form of things like air strikes.  That changes the equation in a way where he'd have to be much, more more desperate before using them.  If no action is taken against him, then he is much more free to use them even when not at the most dire need.

        •  Will a few days launching missiles deter Assad ? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          tb mare

          There’s a basic disconnect here:

          If we just intend to spend a week launching missiles without in any way altering the real balance of power or advantage in the war, then the deterrent effect is too trivial to justify an attack.

          We’re positing Assad is willing to conduct a CW assault on his own citizenry (which is somehow worse than using guns) but that he would somehow be deterred from doing so if we go ahead and launch a few days worth of missiles at his ordinance depots.

          It’s not logical that the reprisal being put forth by the USG bolsters international standards against use of CW given that the response involves killing innocent people. The burden of persuasion rests upon those advocating such measures to demonstrate how this proposal is anything other than a ruse.

          A 'boots on the ground' invasion dedicated to overthrowing Assad is the only real deterrent, yet no advocate of intervention is proposing that.  Why? Primarily because  that it would be unsaleable, ‘disproportionate’ to Assad’s ‘crime’, and result in displacement of a relatively rationale dictator with a cache of fundamentalist Muslim sects and  concomitant chaos.

          It’s disingenuous to say we’re needing to  attack Syria in the name of international conventions when most signatories of the CW conventions are not in agreement with us that an attack is justified.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site