Whether or not Assad used chemical weapons doesn't alter my thoughts on military intervention much

[Recursion]

It's one factor, but not a very big one.

I'm a pessimist when it comes to using military force, both intellectually from having studied history and viscerally from having been part of an ill-advised invasion of Iraq.

Personally (and I know many on DU see this differently, in two different directions), I have one and only one question I ask when I'm pondering the US use of military force: would the use of force advance or impede US security?

Intelligence is an imperfect field, of course, and you can never know for certain, but I have trouble imagining a situation in which intervention in Syria has benefits for the US that outweigh the liabilities that come with it. Toppling dictators willy-nilly doesn't particularly make the world a safer place, and that region is dangerous enough as it is.

[Th1onein]

1. I agree with you; am against the war, but for different reasons.

I am anti-war. Period.

[bowens43]

2. the idea that using chemical weapons is one kind of 'red line' is pure srtupidity

there is no difference between killing with bombs and killing with gas. dead is dead.

We have no business getting involved (except for business , money for the military industrial complex)....

fuck war

[customerserviceguy]

3. Me either

No sense in getting involved in someone else's mess when we don't have to.

[BainsBane]

4. Really?

Watching that video of the gassed children left a huge impression on me.

[CJCRANE]

5. Saddam Hussein did much worse things

(look at Halabja) and we let him stay in place for 20 years more before toppling him (and now some think that was a mistake).

[Recursion]

6. Is anything we can do going to make the situation better?

Last edited Mon Aug 26, 2013, 08:53 AM - Edit history (1)

That's a hard question to answer

[BainsBane]

8. That is really the question

and I don't know.

[backscatter712]

10. I think we should adopt the Federation's Prime Directive.

Interference in other country's affairs only creates more problems.

[KharmaTrain]

7. The Media Loves To Jump From 0 to War in 60 Seconds...

...the first question is if the U.S. were to strike to halt the use of chemical weapons...where? This isn't a country where we have a lot of reliable intelligence...especially in this fluid situation involving various factions. It's not the black and white/good guys vs. bad guys game the media loves to create. Yes the possible (and I'll go further and say probable) gassing of civilians, especially children, is heinous and a war crime, but some "feel good" missile attack isn't going to prevent a regime determined to hold onto power from backing down. It is likely to accelerate the carnage...

[BainsBane]

9. unless they can take out some key military installations

and places where they make and store the nerve gas.

[KharmaTrain]

11. Easier Said Than Done...

...is there a road map that points to those sites? While it's proven that Syria has massive stockpiles of sarin and mustard gas they can be moved around easily. This is especially the case in a country that's been on a non-stop war footing for over 60 years and has been caught flat footed in the past. The pressure needs to be applied to Russia, China and others that continue to support and supply Assad with the money and weapons to wage war. That's just the first step, but a very big one. Blind military intervention just for the sake of intervention is what got us into the Iraq mess...

[BainsBane]

12. Russia and China?

Talk about a lost cause.

I have no idea about the possibility of taking out those sites. I would imagine it isn't easy.

[KharmaTrain]

14. Diplomatic Pressure...

...they're the ones who keep Assad in power; especially Russia. If Putin gets on the horn and tells Assad to "cool it" with the chemical weapons, he'll listen...especially if its much needed money and weapons. Syria has few natural resources and other friends...Iran, Russia and China are Assad's biggest benefactors and they also have the most influence. Again...launching any missile or other strikes is just lashing out...it doesn't assure that we Assad (or whomever) to back down from using WMD and is likely to escalate the violence and casualties....

[BainsBane]

16. I understand that

but China and Russia seem impervious to diplomatic pressure.

[KharmaTrain]

17. No Easy Answers...

...yes, they seem impervious, but that's the best chance right now to bring a quicker resolution to this ugly situation than trying to lob missiles or launch "surgical strikes" that have little real impact in a country that is loaded to the gills in weapons and factions not afraid to use them. The U.S. has little influence inside Syria...unlike an Egypt...and thus the most effective answer is not just the U.S., but all nations, to put pressure on Putin, in specific, to put the screws to Assad to look at finding a nice dasha in Moscow to hang in for the next 40 or so years.

This administration has been reluctant to stand up to Putin...but this isn't just a US issue, it's an international one and thus we shouldn't act unilaterally. If Western Europe joins the U.S. in cutting exports from Russia by 10%, I'm betting you'd see things change and quick.

[BainsBane]

22. I hope you're right

Russia at least is vulnerable economically. China is not in any practical sense.

[Dash87]

21. An unfortunate reality is that there's nothing we can do.

[exlrrp]

13. If Obama takes us into another war

then he has proven himself to be as big a fucking dumbass as Bush

[cali]

15. I wish I could have more sympathy for where you come from on this

but it's huge to me. I just don't understand U.S. security being the sine qua non in your configuration. It seems to me that that mentality is so much of what's wrong in the world.

[Recursion]

19. I understand your point

It seems to me that that mentality is so much of what's wrong in the world.

It is. But I don't know of a way for everybody to step down at once (except on the margins).

[stevenleser]

18. Agreed. No intervention in Syria! nt

[bemildred]

20. Agreed. It fails morally and it fails pragmatically.

The only way it "works" is politically and financially, which is why we are so fond of conspiracy theories, even though people keep asserting we are nuts, because we keep doing this over and over again.