The Argument for Action in Syria is Simple: The World can no longer allow the use of WMD

[BrentWil]

It seems to me the argument for action in Syria is rather simple. In an age when violence is democratized, the world cannot allow the use of WMD. To allow Syria to use the weapon, sets a global standard. Namely, you can use the weapons. In a world in which more states and non-state are getting WMD, the world must respond to any use of WMD. A punitive action against that use is something that is a must to enforce a global standard of not using these weapons.

[FarCenter]

1. If The World agrees, then The World should do something; not the United States.

[treestar]

2. Unfortunately it seems the world does not

care all that much.

The Russians, the UK - they're going to let Assad get away with this.

[BrentWil]

5. Russia and the UK are in different boats..

Russia is actively supporting. The UK Parliament and people just need to be convinced.

[DCBob]

51. Life is becoming increasingly less valuable in our hectic selfish world.

Seems were are all too busy with our own personal problems and issues to care... even when its innocent children involved.

[Harmony Blue]

71. Being anit war means you value

life more.

[BrentWil]

3. The United States has interests...

It has to enforce (or help to enforce) this norm. Otherwise, the use of WMD will eventually spread. In a world in which the UN security council is useless with the current rules, the US has to act.

[Harmony Blue]

7. Chemical weapon use did not spread

when Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran. Atomic weapon use against civilian population centers have yet to ever happen since the atomic bombs were dropped on Japan.

[BrentWil]

12. The past is the past..

Today, proliferation of the weapons has to change the calculus. When alot of actors have the weapons, use can quickly get out of control. One has to establish a clear global norm.

[Harmony Blue]

32. Bombing Syria ensure

nefarious actors like Al Nursa and AQ will have their hands on chemical weapon stockpilkes when Syrian army command and control is attacked and disorganized.

[KittyWampus]

21. The misery Assad's continued use of chem. weapons will spread to Jordan, Turkey, Egypt as refugees

destabilize those countries who have already taken in 2 MILLION Syrians.

It's already a humanitarian crisis in those countries trying to absorb Syrians.

I really hope DU'ers stop and think about how very ugly things are probably going to get in the near future whether we get involved or not.

[edhopper]

4. I don't disagree

Where I am unsure about it is. Will our actions result in the desired outcome. Can we act for the world without a great many allies?
I don't have answers for those.

I don't think sitting back as a man causes this much misery is the answer.
But I don't know what form our actions should take.

[BrentWil]

8. We should have no real dog in the civil war...

Besides the secular side of the opposition. However, this action should be nothing but a clear statement that Syria (or anyone else), will use WMD. That is not acceptable behavior in the modern world. We cannot afford it to be.

[FarCenter]

27. The secular side of the opposition is too weak and disorganized to win

The choice is between Assad and Al Qaeda.

[Harmony Blue]

6. If it was so simple

how come the majority of the world is backing away from this dumpster fire? And the only two countries considering of moving forward with military strikes (U.S. and France) are having second thoughts about such an action?

Not as "simple" as you proclaim it is.

[BrentWil]

9. Because of Iraq

That seems rather simple. Bush made it hard to take action, even if action is needed.

[Harmony Blue]

24. What action was taking when

peacefull monks were brutally murdered in Myanmar? What about Congo? Sudan? Should I continue? Sri Lanka?

[Scootaloo]

35. There's something "simple" around here, alright...

We need to do something!
Action needs to be taken!
We have to give a gesture!
We'll send a message!

These are nonsense platitudes, vague nothings whose purpose is simply to incite a response, rather than coherent arguments presented to make a case.

Nothing I can see will make our "strikes" guarantee anyone will back off chemical weapons. We blew up an entire country because of suspicion of chemical weapons, I think any "message" we're going to send has already been sent, received, and dismissed. Further, such action will ultimately be to the detriment of Syria, our allies, and ourselves.

This is simply an empty gesture to apply a little salve to the conscience of a nation that has killed far more people in the middle east than Assad has.

[janlyn]

47. +10000 n/t

[Bluenorthwest]

40. You mean because all the US leadership except Obama voted for and pushed for war in Iraq?

You do understand that Iraq used chemical gas many times during Reagan's time and the US applauded that, Rumsfeld went to shake Saddam's hand 4 months after he gassed the Kurds. Obama says Reagan was super great. John Kerry said Iraq had yellow cake mushroom cloud, had to act, security and morality demanded it.
If they had hired a new sales and marketing staff in DC instead of promoting all the failures they might have some credibility.

[The Straight Story]

10. Because most the world does not have the resources nor spend as much on military

They rely on us (Like the UK right now who has no current aircraft carriers in service even though they are an island).

I don't think Brazil has the ability to do anything about it.

France is backing us, as is Australia - both are also able to project force.

[BrentWil]

15. And many Gulf States will be with us NT

[Harmony Blue]

18. That is myopic American exceptionalism at work

If you truly believe the U.S. military might is needed to resolve most conflicts in the world.

The U.S. does spend a lot of money on the military and it is somewhat misleading to go by GDP %, other NATO nations spend more than the % of their GDP (eg Turkey, Greece).

[The Straight Story]

33. It is a simple observation really

Let's say Peru wanted to do something about Assad. How would they do it?

South Africa? Mexico?

We have the best and biggest navy in the world. Some of the most high tech equipment.

People look to us to lead where they cannot in some things. Whether we are right or wrong in what we do (ala Iraq - which had an international coalition behind it) there is no better force on the planet to do a job like this one.

And unlike some countries we are not a dictatorship and can better reign in leaders whereas some countries (like Syria) which has WMD's the people have only one recourse, civil war, to make any changes in power.

That's just the way the world is right now, for right or wrong. No one can do what we do, most cannot even come close to it (countries like Lethoso don't even have a navy as they are a land locked country in the mountains of south Africa).

So if we don't do something, and something needs done, who else would we trust to do it?

[Harmony Blue]

39. Those countries (Peru, South Africa, Mexico) are not that part of that theater

but they could contribute resources to countries closer to the theater that have a vested interest (eg. Turkey, Greece, Isreael) for defense and have military capabilities to back it up. You would think Turkey would be the first country to lead the pack in a military campaign assuming the Assad regime is responsible for the chemical weapon attack. Why? They are right next to Syria and they have a larger population clusters that are vulnerable and yet they are not beating the drums of war. Why? They did detain a terrorist cell with home made chemmical weapons in Turkey but the MSM never reported that or it was buried news items.

[The Straight Story]

42. Turkey is involved, but they don't have the technology we do

In Turkey, which has also called for military strikes against the Syrian regime, a government spokesman said Ankara would have preferred immediate action but was content that President Obama's speech signaled a determination to act.

"We would have preferred no delay, but the will is clearly there and we respect the internal workings of U.S. democracy," said a Turkish foreign ministry spokesman.

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan on Friday said that an intervention against Syria should be aimed at bringing an end to the rule of Mr. Assad and cautioned against limited strikes that could leave the regime in place.

"It can't be a 24 hours hit-and-run. What matters is stopping the bloodshed in Syria and weakening the regime to the point where it gives up," Mr. Erdogan told reporters at a reception in the presidential palace in the capital Ankara, according to the state run Anatolian news agency.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324009304579047533463488164.html

[Harmony Blue]

70. To suggest that Turkey doesn't have near the level

of U.S. technology in terms military hardware is laughable. They, like Greece spend greater percentage of GDP on military and the biggest seller to Greece and Turkey of military hardware and technology is the U.S.

[msongs]

11. the USA has no moral authority on this - drones away nt

[KittyWampus]

23. it has shit all to do with "moral authority" and everything to do w/containing the slaughter almost

certain to happen in the relatively near future.

[neverforget]

56. As opposed to the slaughter previous to now?

100,000 are dead. We didn't get all outraged until the means of killing changed.

Things could quite possibly get worse if we bomb Syria. Other actors in the region such as Hezbollah could use this as an excuse to get involved and attack Israel. Or Syria could do the same and lash out at it's neighbors.

I have yet to hear what happens after we bomb Syria. We bomb Syria but Assad will still be in charge and have chemical weapons. What will have changed? We will have slightly degraded his ability to deliver chemical weapons and that's it. There are a lot of downsides to this that are not being talked about and that's what concerns me.

[BrentWil]

65. THe means of killing are important to U.S. interests. NT

[leftstreet]

13. Some proof would be nice

Where's the evidence that points to Assad?

[BrentWil]

20. Have you been paying attention?

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2013-08-30_map_accompanying_usg_assessment_on_syria.pdf

[leftstreet]

25. LOL

That shows 'where.'

No proof of WHO DID IT

[Harmony Blue]

26. Apparently the reps briefed

on classified material are still not convinced. And they are more privy to information that is not made public.

[Cronus Protagonist]

14. Nonetheless, that does not mean we should start wars after one is used

It means we should never have a war again, and this goal must be reached by agreement of the peoples around the world, not by bombing their children.

[HardTimes99]

16. Gee, where have I heard this argument before? Oh yeah, now I remember:

[BrentWil]

22. You had use of WMD in Iraq before we went in? NT

[HardTimes99]

29. Oy vey. Unsubstantiated allegations of WMD use in Iraq preceded

our invasion of Iraq, IIRC. Thus far, all I've seen and heard are unsubstantiated allegaations of WMD use by the Assad regime. If Obama's case is so friggin' rock solid, why isn't he before the U.N. Security Council? Compel Russia and China to veto the resolution but put it before the U.N.

N.B. Bush committed a war crime in failing to secure U.N. Security Council approval for an attack on Iraq before invading, when there was no imminent threat. That Bush has not been prosecuted does not negate the fact that he committed a crime, a lesson Obama would do well to heed.

[FarCenter]

36. Iraq had used chemical weapons against the Kurds and Iran

They could not produce records showing how all their chemical and biological weapons had been destroyed.

The US government, being filled with lawyers and accountants, didn't believe they had destroyed all of them because the paperwork wasn't complete. Had Hussein been more foresighted, he would have made sure they had good records (or fabricated a complete set).

[enlightenment]

57. Of course the US knew they had them -

we helped them use them against Iran.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/08/25/secret_cia_files_prove_america_helped_saddam_as_he_gassed_iran

[polichick]

17. Okay - let's look at what's happening right here in the U.S.

This is just a place to start thinking about what's going on here at home:

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/2693:biological-weapons-bargaining-with-the-devil

[99th_Monkey]

19. "violence is democratized"?

[BrentWil]

28. More people and groups have the ablity to cause a large amount of damage

is what I meant by that.

[99th_Monkey]

34. Ok - thanks for clarification

I don't especially agree with you post, but am not inclined to
argue these points either ... I'm just keeping an open mind and
listening between the lines.

[burnsei sensei]

30. Sorry. That "global standard" was set and then broken

when Gamal Abdel-Nasser gassed his own people.
In the Middle east, gas has been used several times against helpless populations over the generations.
We didn't stop them before and we won't stop them with this strike.

[Harmony Blue]

37. Another fair example

but when the MSM feeds Americans what to believe and ignore past or recent history this doesn't surprise me. Why do some feel the need to be outraged when the MSM tells them to be outraged? What about the other genocides and attrocities the past 20+ years that were committed during civil wars that the U.S. did nothing?

[last1standing]

31. Your argument is simple; the solution is complex.

For argument's sake let's say everyone agrees to bomb Syria. Then what?

What is the likely message received that Obama seems intent on sending? Might makes right?

What is the benefit for the people of Syria other than a few more dead Syrian soldiers and civilians?

What is the follow-up plan for success in the region? Do we have one?

What do we do if Russia is drawn into the conflict and bombs the rebels who have also likely used chemical weaponry?

Looking back at Afghanistan and Iraq, haven't we gotten into enough trouble using simple arguments for complex problems?

[Harmony Blue]

38. +1 Well said

Let me add some more:

*How will the chemical weapon sites be secured if Syrian armed forces are forced to flee in the face of air strikes?

*A direct attack against chemical weapon sites is very risky and could cause massive casualties

*Chemical weapon sites and rocket tipped delivery system will more than likely be still intact when all is said and done

*Bombing command and control of the Syrian government only helps Al Nursa and AQ to mount a coordinated offensive to make raids for weapons, supplies, and if possible chemical weapons.

[pinboy3niner]

41. No, it's not a must

Resort to a military response must be weighed against the likelihood of it being effective in achieving its objectives and the risks of causing greater harm or potentiallly leading to further escalation--with significantly greater casualties among civilians as well as combatants.

Military action is not the only possible response--it's just the riskiest one.

[MFrohike]

46. Yep

The frenzy to attack seems like a desperate need to be seen doing something regardless whether anything is actually accomplished.

[20score]

43. "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." H.L. Mencken

Think! Jesus!

[andym]

44. Unified action by the world powers is called for-- too bad realpolitik dominates Syria

so this won't happen.

[pjt7]

45. We killed over 500,000 with Agent Orange Chemical in Vietnam

Don't ever forget who has done what & how the US media manipulates you into war.. when they are ordered to due so.

[janlyn]

48. OH! MY! GOD!

What is it with this knee jerk reaction to buy into the fact that anything our administration tells us is fact, if it's a democratic administration!!!

There is no proof that the syrian government are the ones responsible. And no, just because Obama said it doesn't make it fact.
Come on people, the fact that Graham and McCain are practically foaming at the mouth at the prospect of war ,should tell you everything you need to know.
When have those two ever considered the facts before jumping on a band wagon.

When I saw the WMD card played, my first thought was someone ripped a whole in the space-time continuum. And that I had been sucked into a right wing website in 2002!!!

[AnotherMcIntosh]

49. The answer is simple. If you are a war-cheerleader, you should call 1-888-550-ARMY (2769).

Cyber-recruiters are standing by.


http://www.goarmy.com/talk-with-us/phone.html

You can also either go down and sign up or - if you are too sick, lame, or lazy, or have any other excuse - drive one of your relatives down to a recruiter's office.

[sibelian]

50. Yah, once AGAIN with the "I love the smell of depleted uranium in the morning" crowd.

Exactly how stupid do you expect us all to pretend to be?

[Swede Atlanta]

52. The international community should now accept this but....

the responsibility is on the world community, not us.

I am tired of the U.S. being the bandleader and the country that gives most. I realize that the world needs a leader but we need to find a different way of "leading". Other nations need to step up to the plate. The U.K. under Winston Churchill created the modern Middle East and they should be carrying 95% of the burden here, not sending 2 airplanes and a few soldiers.

[nadinbrzezinski]

53. I hope you (or your blood) are willing to enlist like NOW

it is easy to scream for war... if you have no skin in the damn game, and war is not Tour of Duty.

[grahamhgreen]

54. Then why do we make and stockpile them?

[DCBob]

55. deterrent to those who might think to use them.

but of course you knew that.

[MNBrewer]

59. But according to the rationale in the OP, it would be illegal for us to use them as a deterrent

but of course you knew that.

[DCBob]

60. Its still a deterrent.

[MNBrewer]

61. No, it's not a deterrent at all

[Savannahmann]

58. You're right, it's simple

Your analysis is simple, your conclusion is even simpler. Reality however, is much more convoluted.

First, President Obama has already ruled out Regime Change. For a good reason I must admit. There is no way the American Public gets behind Iraq part two, the Syrian Sequel. There is no way that we can just remove Assad and wish the Syrians well, because there are at least three distinct groups fighting against him, they would turn on each other before the sun set on day one of the new world. The Military doesn't have the might to stop them now, what makes anyone think they can set up some sort of provisional ruling council?

So we won't bomb Assad directly, instead we'll bomb a few useless buildings wiping out the janitorial staff and whomever has the night watch. That won't teach Assad anything. It won't prove anything to the world.

Now, perhaps we go back and consider Regime Change. How do we do it? Jordan has said no. Who does that leave? Lebanon, Turkey, Iraq, and Israel. None of them have the moral authority to do it, and none of them want anything to do with this mess. Israel may want to march in and take a little more territory, but that's about all.

Saudi Arabia is in the unique position of being a totalitarian regime denouncing a totalitarian regime. Back when Syria was more or less stable, their policies towards women were far more liberal than those of the Saudi Kingdom.

So where do we go from here? We know we can't bomb the weapons themselves, they would be released, and several thousand more innocent people would die from CW to teach Assad the lesson that you don't gas your own people.

So what is the answer? It's not so simple to me. Short of nuking the entire nation, there is no way that it ends with our punitive attack. Next question, what about the Russians? Are we really willing to crank up the hostility with the Russians and the Chinese over Syria? Before you say they wouldn't dare, remember that they're probably saying the same thing about us. Do we shoot at Russian ships if they are parked in our way and we must fire over them to reach Syrian targets? What do we do when they fire back? Start World War III and watch at least a third of the worlds population die in the first year?

If you think it's worth the risk, we could well have nice long winters to consider the wisdom of the actions, those of us who survive. If you live anywhere near a Military base, or a priority target, you won't have to worry about what to do after the exchange of nuclear weapons, because you'll die within a couple days. No worries, a bunch of us will die along with you in that case.

It may be the time for action, but it is not time for reactionary knee jerk reactions. We need an intelligent plan, well considered, and with the next several moves already planned out. Because right now, no matter what happens, we lose. That is hardly the statement we want to make to the world is it?

[BrentWil]

62. If you take control of the air space..

and bomb him for a set period (100 hours perhaps), and than state you will return on another use.... one does have an effective deterrent. However, you are right. To be effective, it has to be more than few cruise missiles.

[Savannahmann]

63. Nah, that won't work

Because the targets you bomb are what's important. One of the complaints in Viet-Nam was we were bombing suspected truck parks, that is a bunch of trees near a road that we thought that trucks might be parked in. Our guys risked their lives to bomb a chunk of jungle that was no more important than any other chunk of jungle.

Ruling out regime change means you can't bomb anything that is vital to Assad maintaining power. So we would be reduced to bombing things that don't matter, like the chunk of worthless desert we are almost certainly left with. If we bomb anything to do with the Chemical Weapons, we'll release them and gas a few thousand more people who live near the plants/depots. Explosives don't neutralize CW, it just spreads them around a bit. That would be like you objecting to me spanking my child by coming over and spanking my child to teach me a lesson.

It doesn't matter how many bombs, or how long, it matters what we target. By ruling out the potential objective of bombing, we have painted ourselves into a corner where all that is left is some useless crap that won't matter a pair of fetid dingo's kidneys to anyone.

[BrentWil]

64. Chemical weapons and "what allows him to stay in power" overlap

He needs air support, command and control, and delivery systems to both stay in power and use chemical weapons. If we control the air space and degrade his chemical weapons, we will also degrade his ability to defeat the opposition. That is fundamentally striking at something he will care about because it will hamper his ability to stay in power.

[neverforget]

66. And who replaces Assad if we take him out? Do we have a plan?

Do we know what happens next?

[BrentWil]

67. While we can shape that and try to add the secular portions of the oppositions...

That isn't the primary concern. Whoever takes over, we need to make a clear statement that one will not use chemical weapons.

[neverforget]

69. In other words, there is no plan for what happens afterwards.

That is nuts.

[Supersedeas]

68. you mean like drones, cluster bombs, white phosphorous shells, and cruise missiles

all that stuff we use...no wonder there are so many folks around the world who have a problem with our use of force too

[Scuba]

72. You make a good case for the US to dismantle all of our WMD's. Once we've done that ...

... then maybe we can ascend to the moral high ground. That it?