Why Kerry’s Speech Doesn’t Necessarily Mean We’re Going To War In Syria

[ProSense]

Why Kerry’s Speech Doesn’t Necessarily Mean We’re Going To War In Syria

By Zack Beauchamp

The near-universal reaction to Secretary of State John Kerry’s speech on Syrian chemical slaughter of civilians is that he was clearly laying the groundwork for some kind of military assault against the Assad regime. The Washington Post reported this takeaway as if it were straight news: “Kerry left little doubt,” the Post wrote, “that the decision for the United States is not whether to take military action, but when.”

Not so fast. It’s true that Kerry’s speech marked the harshest American condemnation of the slaughter in Syria to date, but rhetorical escalations don’t mean military ones. In both international law and morality, moral judgments of atrocities are distinct from moral justifications for military responses to them. There’s a strong chance we’ll take military action in Syria, but this speech by no means guarantees it.

To start with, go read Kerry’s speech. Here’s the full text. Notice that neither the word “military” nor the word “intervention” appear in the speech. Though long on condemnation (“moral obscenity”), Kerry’s address only demanded “accountability for the use of chemical weapons so that it never happens again.”

It is simply not the case that accountability means military strikes. It could, for instance, mean indicting Bashar al-Assad in the International Criminal Court (ICC). It could mean economic sanctions. There’s actually a wide spectrum of non-military strategies for mass atrocity prevention and accountability that could be used if, as Kerry said, President Obama wants some kind of “accountability” for the attack on Ghouta.

- more -

http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/08/26/2529731/kerry-syria-war-intervention-law-just/

[Logical]

1. Damn it!! n-t

[Arctic Dave]

2. Kerry is talking out his ass.

There is zero proof of who did this.


Obama would be a fucking moron in the mold of bush if he gets suckered into bombing Syria.

[KittyWampus]

6. You are the one who appears to be talking out of an inappropriate orifice. Hitting some targets

as retaliation/warning regarding the chemical weapons is vastly different than starting a war and/or intervening in a civil war.

You should get off DU and start reading some different viewpoints.

[politicasista]

10. Thank you for sticking up for Kerry and Obama

don't know why people are angry at him for speaking. Obama hasn't said nothing yet.

[FSogol]

16. +1 n/t

[Arctic Dave]

12. Bombing countries is an act of war.

Cruise Missile Liberals and chickenhawks are the only ones who think different.

Rah! Rah! Rah!

You got no skin in the game but it will probably good for your portfolio.

[Celefin]

17. Jeebus... just some targets, what's the problem?

Sending cruise missiles into a sovereign nation is not a 'warning'.
Warnings are not given with weapons.

The use of weapons against another country, however limited, is an act of war - no matter how you try to spin it.

Just because this appears to be the new normal these days doesn't change that fact. If you're okay with that, fine. Please say so in plain language and just maybe you could have a serious debate on whether or not an act of war would be justified under the circumstances.
But stop the spinning, unless you -want- to infuriate people.

[LongTomH]

3. I dunno! I really don't know at this point!

I would really like to believe that Mr. Obama and his advisers have the good sense not to get drawn into another nobody-wins clusterfuck in the Middle East; but, I dunno!

[Behind the Aegis]

4. I agree.

I was watching it on MSNBC live, and when he was done, looked at my partner, and said "WTF?! So, what's the deal?" I like Kerry for many things, but he can talk and talk and not say a damn thing. Even the analyst after the speech, some hot daddy-type, kept saying "where are the plans? That was a whole bunch of nothing." He said more, but I was being superficial and was lusting in my heart.

[KittyWampus]

8. drawing a line tween hitting targets in retaliation f/ chemical weapons vs. intervening in civil war

Fine line.

They are going to have to find it and highlight it in fluorescent yellow marker.

[Behind the Aegis]

11. It's the fine line that worries me.

If they can take the reserves, awesome; if not, it could be yet one more clusterfuck.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

5. Nice try. This was one of many trial balloons to judge reaction of Americans to a number of possible

Actions. It is clear Americans want nothing to do with a ground war, but many are seeing this chemical attack and believe something substantive must be done.

Havel has already sent carrier battle groups into the area. To me it is not a matter of if but when and with what level of intervention.

[leftstreet]

7. The article makes some good points

It could be read as Kerry-rhetoric designed to send a message, but not the one the press instantly headline grabbed

[Cha]

9. Yes, you actually have to listen carefully..

From another OP..

"Anyone see Steve Clemons interviewed on Rachel tonight?"

There was a very interesting Steve Clemons interview on Rachel tonight. He says that he believes the claim of Assad using chemical weapons and that he generally tends to be skeptical of these kinds of things. He has been carefully investigating this in the past few days.

He thinks that Obama will do a very circumscribed hit to punish, not to go to war. He says there is a line between being involved in the war on the side of the rebels and being on the side of the global consensus against the use of chemical weapons. He thinks Obama is distinguishing between these two things and any strike would be to punish the use of chemical weapons so that Assad does not think he can do so again with impunity.

The interview is at the end of this video."

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/26315908/vp/52852301#52852301

h/t Nancy Waterman http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023540424

Thanks ProSense

[ProSense]

15. Yes. n/t

[Lifelong Dem]

13. "Additional information" on the way.

We have additional information about this attack, and that information is being compiled and reviewed together with our partners, and we will provide that information in the days ahead.

...we know that the Syrian regime maintains custody of these chemical weapons. We know that the Syrian regime has the capacity to do this with rockets. We know that the regime has been determined to clear the opposition from those very places where the attacks took place. And with our own eyes, we have all of us become witnesses.

[JayhawkSD]

14. We aren't a mamber of the ICC, so strike that option.

And on what planet do sanctions or strong words translate as "accountability?"

We will have a Libya redux, and we will have it within days.

[Scurrilous]

18. Kick

[freshwest]

19. TY.