Skip to main content

In case you missed this NPR interview this morning, you can hear Rep Smith's analysis here.  Quite frankly, it is the best analysis I have heard to date.

Here's the link.

Steve Inskeep talks to Rep. Adam Smith of Washington, the ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, about the U.S. role in Syria. Smith, who recently visited Syrian refugees in Jordan, is urging the administration to step up aid to moderate opposition forces, but he has reservations about U.S. military action.


Great analysis

91%11 votes
8%1 votes

| 12 votes | Vote | Results

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (9+ / 0-)

    It's difficult to be happy knowing so many suffer. We must unite.

    by War on Error on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 06:56:35 AM PDT

  •  As a veteran (7+ / 0-)

    I am dismayed by the number of people who say, "We must DO something" without thinking through the implications of that assertion.

    "Doing something" means that we will have young men and women use vastly superior technology to kill a bunch of people they haven't met for something the dead may or may not have been responsible for.

    One of the key comments the congressman made that struck me is, a limited strike may not be enough.  Then the hawks will say that our credibility is on the line and we must escalate.

    Or... someone strikes back at us using unconventional means (guerrilla warfare or terrorism), and we escalate.

    Or... a plane is downed or a ship is sunk, and we escalate.

    Why do WE (US) have to "Do something"?

    The use of nerve agents is appalling, but not so much to incite the Arab league, Nato, or the UN.  Perhaps we should wait and work in concert with international bodies?

    •  The only "Do" something that makes (0+ / 0-)

      any sense at this point, is to find Assad and blow his ass up. In the hopes whoever remains will be more amenable to negotiation.

      For 50 years, Syria has been a Zit on the ass of the world that needed to be popped. You let asshole zealots and dictators run around in charge, eventually you end up with a mess.

      The problem with having a wounded animal cornered, like Assad, is that how it will lash out as doom approaches is completely unknown. I'd rather confront the mess now, rather than wait until it becomes something we really are FORCED to deal with.

    •  Van Jones (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      JanetT in MD, War on Error

      Made what I thought was a good point yesterday.

      He said we seem to be rushing in to save face. We drew a bright red line. And if we back down, we won't "look good" in the eyes of the world. And I think he's right.

      But as he said, what happens if this thing is not quick and easy? We will be stuck in a war we went into all by ourselves. We won't look good under those circumstances

      We will have no one else to rely on, to give us some credibility and support. We won't look good under those circumstances.

      If we need to escalate, that won't look good. If we draw gown without having achieved our goals, that don't look good.

      There is no international force if occupation is necessary. So we will look HORRIBLE at that point.

      Many people are openly admitting this is about looking good when they toss around the word "credibility," but going it alone means we have to hit the bulls eye, or we end up looking terrible.

      © grover

      So if you get hit by a bus tonight, would you be satisfied with how you spent today, your last day on earth? Live like tomorrow is never guaranteed, because it's not. -- Me.

      by grover on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 09:34:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Agree (0+ / 0-)

        But maybe the red line was drawn so we could justify intervention

        Multi level chess?

        It's difficult to be happy knowing so many suffer. We must unite.

        by War on Error on Tue Sep 03, 2013 at 11:29:32 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The red line that says 'no chemical weapons' has a (0+ / 0-)

          point, though. To be blunt, it's the law of our land and 182 others,  and has been since we signed the Post WWI treaty about not using chemical weapons anywhere, in 1925 or so. Given what the Constitution says about treaties, it's an enforceable provision of our law and not simply a decorative lace doily.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site