I believe John Kerry and I support U.S. action against the al-Assad government of Syria in response to its horrendous use of chemical weapons on August 21st.
Here is a transcript of Kerry's remarks from yesterday: http://www.dailykos.com/....
Here is a transcript of yesterday's White House release of an unclassified intelligence assessment of the chemical weapons attack, on which Kerry's statement was based: http://www.dailykos.com/....
For a little side helping of meta, it's interesting to see how big issues strike this community. On some issues there is great contention, with large numbers--and angry voices--on both sides. Some examples include Clinton vs. Obama in the primaries; rox vs. sux; and the special rox:sux issue of Edward Snowden.
But there are other issues where all of the front-pagers and 95% of the community rally around one point of view, leading to scores of diaries all more or less making the same point (with notable exceptions such as ivorybill's masterpiece from last Wednesday: http://www.dailykos.com/...). The issue of the impending strike on Syria is a classic example.
I also want to commend Gary Norton's excellent diary from yesterday that fleshes out the Syrian government's motivation for the chemical attack: http://www.dailykos.com/....
The community is currently so aligned to the view that military action would be insane that it's hard to buck the trend. But I feel a need to do so.
I'd like to register the contrarian view that I admire and trust John Kerry, and I thought his statement yesterday was convincing.
Some takeaways for me:
1. The attack was much larger than previously known, with more than 1,400 deaths including more than 400 children.
2. Based on many intelligence sources, the United States has been aware that the Syrian government has used chemical weapons numerous times in the past during the civil war, but never before to this huge extent. And it has done so for strategic reasons to beat back rebel advances.
3. Based on the sources in Mr. Norton's diary, it appears that the rebels in the eastern portions of Damascus that were gassed were threatening the center of al-Assad's power; the government was failing to dislodge them with conventional weapons; and the rebels in that area had shot down two Syrian aircraft with missiles provided by Saudi Arabia. So the government felt forced to act.
UPDATE: In the first draft of this diary I mistakenly said the missiles came from Iran, which makes no sense at all. That's not what Mr. Norton's diary said.
4. Based on many intelligence sources, the United States was aware for three days that the Syrian forces were assembling forces for a large-scale chemical attack. It's not hard to imagine that the United States issued a private ultimatum that was spurned.
5. Based on many intelligence sources, the United States knows that the rockets came from places controlled by the government and landed on places controlled by the rebels.
I am well aware of U.S. historical hypocrisy concerning the use of terrible weapons. I'm well aware of the malign influence of the MIC and the evils of American imperialism. I'm well aware that the United States generally cannot be trusted when it makes pronouncements about war. I'm nearly always opposed to U.S. military action, especially the drone war and the illegal invasion of Iraq.
If a Republican administration were in power, I would probably disbelieve the reports of intelligence assessments.
But I trust and admire John Kerry. I take his words at face value. I'm sure he would not say what he did unless he'd carefully evaluated the raw, classified intelligence.
Therefore, I think President Obama is correct when he asserts (as he has done more than once since August 21st) that U.S. national interests are at stake, not just humanitarian concerns. So I support whatever action he decides to take to enforce the international norm against chemical weapons.
I really don't think this is about oil this time, as one overheated reclist diary now claims.
The Obama administration in the past has called for al-Assad to be ousted. This past week, President Obama and his spokespeople have said several times that the impending strike is not about regime change. I don't think those are contradictory positions. The impending strike--which I think is certain to happen--is primarily to enforce the international norm against chemical weapons. It's also about things like supporting American honor and prestige, which I don't care much about. But underlying that all is a legitimate desire for a continuation of the Arab Spring revolutions and eventual democratization of the Middle East.
For all the folly and messiness that that entails, and all the mixed motivations, that is a foreign policy goal that's on the right side of history.
We'll be able to say more about actual U.S. policy goals after we see the nature of the strike. I'm guessing that it will involve a heavier assault on the Syrian air force and air defenses than most seem to expect. If that is true, then long-term regime change really is the main goal, and it's a goal I support.
Eventually I suspect Syria will need to be partitioned. But that of course should not be dictated by Western powers.
Many people on this site are vastly more knowledgeable and expert about all of this than me. This is just two cents from a leftie immigration lawyer who is comfortable here in supporting a Democratic president.
P.S. My satellite TV provider just started carrying Aljazeera America, which is REAL NEWS! It's like watching CNN from the 1980s. This diary is largely inspired from watching quite a bit of solid, level-headed reporting on Aljazeera concerning the Syrian crisis.