Send in bombers because we'll look weak if we don't? No, that's not a good enough reason for war action. Send in bombers because we'll lose credibility if we don't? We need to bomb Syria to sustain our National pride? Bunk! Is it a question of morality? We should strike Syria because Assad allegedly ordered using chemical weapons? Why not because he ordered using bullets to kill his inconvenient protestors? U.S. bombs are a more righteous kill? Who's morality? I think the Quakers and Mennonites (along with a few others) would find bombing for "morality" oxymoronic.
Oh, I stand corrected. "Bombs" is old school. Today well call them "missiles". Patriot missiles to be specific. We are to fire missiles toward Syria over chemical weapons that may have been supported by the U.K. or supplied by Russia? (What sanctions can we implement toward these complicit nations? Oh? We're not? huh) Well then, back to what I was saying. Where is the proof that if we don't destroy these chemical weapons, Syria will deploy them upon the United States?
Sarin gas is a heinous weapon. There's a good reason chemical weapons have been banned internationally since WWI. President Obama's "red line" statement was made with good intentions, but that doesn't mean we have to send in bombs (uh, missiles) this week, month or year. We can take the time to investigate and discuss this action.
After this week's White House meeting was over, senators and congressional members weighed in on their views toward Assad's Syria. Sadly, I saw both Nancy Pelosi and John Boehner agree on a "limited" and "proportional" strike on Syria.
Pelosi:
President Obama didn't draw the red line, Humanity drew it decades ago.
Boehner:
The use of these weapons has to be responded to, and only the United States has the capability and capacity to stop Assad and to warn others around the world that this type of behavior is not going to be tolerated.
Assad has been killing his opponents for a year now. We've tolerated Darfor, Rwanda. We tolerate Somalia which is hardly better today than it was twenty years ago. Why is death by chemical weapons any worse than political killing by any other method? Darfor and Somalia are still a mess and IMO, are more urgent. Don't blow smoke up my nose. If it's the oil situation you want stabilized, then don't wrap the immorality of chemical weapons around what you want to do. And, don't give me "I'd rather go over this in a classified session", bullshit. Declassify and Dish!
I know President Obama declared "This is not Iraq and this is not Afghanistan". Ok, is he saying that bombing the crap out of Syria will work better than it did to bomb the crap out of both Iraq and Afghanistan? We bombed Iraq throughout the 1990's and look how that turned out. After twenty-five years of missiles, invasion, war atrocities, IEDs and more, how many Iraqi's think of the the United States as their friend? More importantly, how many hate the United States enough to do us harm? How does Libya presently view the U.S.? Are they grateful for what role we played in deposing Gaddafi? Why would Syria be any different? Tell me, what will Syria's allies' response to our "limited" action likely to be?
I need to see the documents before I believe this is the right intervention. I need to see with my own eyes, documentation that shows how Syria is an imminent threat to the United States. I need a picture of Assad with his hand over the red button. I need to see the memo signed by Assad that reads: "gas 'em" or "use chemical weapons to contain this insurrection". I need to see a plan for setting these weapons off on U.S. ground. Yes, I need to see proof that rude, that crude, that blatant. No, I'm not going to accept another government suit looking earnestly into a camera saying, "Trust me. The danger is real." I've heard that bullshit before. A trillion dollars later, I'm no safer. The Middle East and Central Asia is still as unstable as it was the day I was born.
How do we know a "limited" and "proportional" strike will work? Can our military guarantee there will be no "collateral damage"? I thought not. What exactly, do those terms, "limited" and "proportional" mean? What is the predicted outcome? Will our "message" sent via bombs stimulate the peace we want to see for Syria? Bombing for peace? That's insane. How can a bomb be construed as a "message" for peace? How(?) exactly, will that work? What are the likely unintended consequences of this "limited" and "proportionate" action? When, and under what circumstances, has limited and proportionate bombing worked before? Name when and where "message" bombing brought about the response the U.S. desired. Some could say bombing Iraq worked until we spun a web of bullshit to justify invading them; but who today says U.S. Iraq foreign policy has worked?
Maybe the president was implying, "This time, we know the chemical weapons are really there". If so, that's largely believable, but I'm not sure if killing your political opponents is ok no matter what method you use to do it and I'm not sure killing more of a country's civilians in retaliation for inappropriate civilian killing is an appropriate response. The U.S. government needs to worry less about international credibility and worry more about domestic credibility, because when it comes to making the case for war; our government is at an all time low. Next thing we know, we'll see the Espionage Act used against people who say a Syria strike is not in the best interests of the U.S. If that happens, we're sunk. We'll be at war with Syria for 10 years.
Over ten years ago we had a totally inadequate debate over attacking Afghanistan and Iraq play out into a largely ineffective 12 year war. The fear of WMD combined with the idea that "We have to do something....anything" to either retaliate for 9/11 or "protect the world" didn't work out as our government officials predicted. The cost of the war in terms of Iraqi and Afghan human suffering has been under reported. The cost to the U.S. in terms of human suffering is unknowable. How, exactly, will a limited and proportionate military action improve the lot of the average Syrian? How will Syrian civilians suffer? How many U.S. service personnel will sustain injury in these attacks? What about their human suffering?
Now we're at redux. Do we accept the premise that Syria isn't either Iraq or Afghanistan? How exactly, is Syria an imminent threat to the United States? Do we accept the idea that if we don't make good on Obama's "red line" statement a year ago is a sign of national weakness or a loss of national pride? What's the downside of walking the "red line" back? Do we really believe there will be no boots on the ground? That's not what John Kerry said to the Senate on 9-3. How do we know those sites really are where the chemical stores are kept? How do we know they will be destroyed without their release? How do we know how a "limited" and proportionate" strike will be interpreted? What will the Syrian government look like post Assad if he's deposed? How will this action help Syria gain political stability?
Five years from now, how will bombing Syria today make for a more stable Middle East then?
There are too many questions and not enough answers. This time, "Trust me" isn't going to carry the day. I predict that striking Syria will tun out to be déjà vu all over again.