What do people favoring Syrian intervention envision as the result?

[DirkGently]

What are the possible outcomes here, theoretically?

If we do what Obama says he wants -- a limited "punishment bombing" or whatever we're calling it, what's the goal? What will be the state of things when it is "over?"

A few bombs and missiles -- assuming anyone believes that will be the case -- will fall. A few structures destroyed. A few Assad loyalists blown up with morally upright explosives, rather than evil gas. And then what will be the story?

The world will see that a "punishment" was carried out and ... what? If chemical weapons aren't used again in this conflict, we're heroes? We can assume if more chemicals are used, we'll be back with another "limited strike," which could go on indefinitely, but assume it goes better than that. What if Assad, properly chastened from the use of gas, continues to slaughter his own people by only conventional means, and the rebels continue with the liver eating and Kurd beheading?

How meaningful is avenging "1,000 deaths" by gas, in a war at 100,000 deaths and counting?

Are we now committing to purely symbolic military action?

But if we do what McCain wants -- continue and expand a military intervention with the goal of toppling Assad, but without "boots on the ground," what then? So now we're in with a concrete goal, which granted is better in a way than a symbolic punishment bombing. But now we've spent real money, likely caused large-scale (albeit non-gaseous) casualties ourselves, and we can 't really quit until the entire war is resolved, unless we want to admit defeat.

But we're supposed to believe that full-bore committment to beating Assad will not involve U.S. troops, at any point? Because that's not going to work. We can't drone our way to a sterile, U.S. - casualty - free victory in a full-scale war. The robot killing machines are not quite that good yet.

So now we're either failing at a non-invasion strategy, or we're invading.

So we invade, with another "coalition of the willing" providing even less support than in Iraq. Micronesia will cheer us on from the sidelines. A handful of French will do ... something, because they still feel some sense of ownership in their former occupied territory.

And then what? Assad goes down. Or Assad doesn't go down. Either way, this conflict is already an ethnic slaughter between the Alawites and the other, previously repressed ethnic groups in the country. So genocide and revenge killings will ensue.

NPR interviewed some little children in a camp of refugees fleeing Assad a while back, and they spoke of annhiliating every Alawaite man, woman and child. These are the kids saying this.

And all of this because it would have been too embarrassing for Obama to back off on his "red line" speech?

How important is the preservation of the Presidential ego and image here?

How many Syrian deaths would be justified?

How many American?

How much more ammunition will we hand to the "Well, we have no money for anything but wars" Republicans?

Let's hear the "best case" scenarios people are envisioning. Because I'm seeing another heavy-handed, selfishly motivated, guaranteed-to-deepen-anti-American-resentment, MIC-enriching, bloody interventionist boondoggle in the making.

Syria has been on the wish list of the supporters of perennial U.S. military involvement for a long time. It's even in order, if I'm remembering right. Or maybe Iran was supposed to be next, and then Syria.

Who's seeing a quick, decisive, good result from this thing being sold to us where we launch a few noble anti-WMD strikes and retire to the portico for congratulations and a cool victory toast?

Really?

[HooptieWagon]

1. All very good points.

I don't think the DU war-mongers are thinking ahead. They are outraged over civilian deaths (as are we all), but want instant gratification in a retalitory strike. So far, I havent heard any concern about if the strike goes wrong, if it fails to stop Assad from using chemical weapons, or how it fits into an overall strategic goal. Obama may have such thoughts, but he isn't communicating them either.
To me, this whole situation reeks of Saudi Arabia dragging us into another quagmire...with us doing the heavy lifting, on their behalf. Time to say no.

[DirkGently]

3. Yes -- we're being fed a convenient frame. Again.

Granted, Bush's WMD were more imaginary -- or rather, long over with -- than the ones in question here. It sure looks like someone gassed someone, and that is a terrible thing.

But the assumption that this is something it is America's job to stop, and within America's capabilities to stop, and not in any way a convenient pretext the for constant Middle East intervention PNACs and McCains and defense industry moguls of the world always want seems like something we should be past believing at this point.

I like that Americans don't like stories of children being gassed, and want to stop it.

I don't like that we are so easily led to believe that one horrific slaughter in one location on one occasion, justifies not just a reaction, but a WAR, while others are not our business, or cannot be helped, or can best be helped by other means.

Or that anyone believes that once the Pentagaon gets its camel's nose under the tent in yet another Middle East conflict, that we will walk away clean, confident, and heroic.

How many times do we need to be shown what these wars are about, who stands to gain and lose, and what a "pretext" looks like?

[HooptieWagon]

4. I don't think US should ALWAYS stand by.

Certainly there are crisises where our involvement can make a positive difference, and we should lead the way of an international effort. There should be a clear-cut reason (not a bs pretext), and clear goals, a viable plan, and a defined end. Any military involement in Syria doesn't meet any of those criteria. There are actions the US can take inre Syria....refugee relief, freezing Assad's personal wealth...that would be a positive effect, but they aren't being discussed.

[DirkGently]

12. Sure. Why always military force to solve

things? Is that all we've got? We think of ourselves as a wise nation, a beacon for fair, stable government. But when we want to accomplish something, our answer is bombs? Drones? Troops?

It's hammer syndrome, where everything looks like a nail. We have all this military capacity, and like to think it can be used to do all kinds of things military force doesn't really do, like solve civil wars or make people behave ethically.

[zipplewrath]

25. A false dichotomy

You're dead on with your question and characterization. I get tired of the discussion seeming to revolve around the concept that there are two options, doing nothing or going out and bombing a country. I'm fairly sure my senators and congress critter are gonna vote for this, so I'm working up a letter to send that says "Hey, at least let's go through a few steps first. We always say last resort, but yet bombing always seems to be our first choice."

Here's an idea, how about actually letting the security council vote. Sure, we all know what the outcome will be, but lets get it on the record. Then lets ask those folks voting it down what they think should be done. How about calling up Putin and asking him what he thinks should be done. He has some interest in playing both sides against the middle. He doesn't want to end up on the loosing side in Syria. So I'm sure he'd like to position himself such that regardless of who wins, he's still favored inside of Syria. Work that angle. How about going to the Hague and pressing charges. How about pressing the Arab League for some solution other than the US going in and bombing an Arab country. They complain all the time about our meddling. Tell 'em it's time to put up or shut up.

And that's the short list of quick ideas. Surely all them smart folks at State can think up more and better ones. I'm tired of the State Department constantly coming up with military solutions. The MIC is completely capable of doing that all on their own. How about State coming up with some DIPLOMATIC solutions. It's full of diplomats after all.

[nashville_brook]

29. +1 -- also, your post has me wondering if Hillary's State Dept would have crafted the same

not putting this out there as a fan of Hillary (i'm neither for/against), but I wonder how much of this "solution" has Kerry's signature on it. is this something he's "all in" for? it sure sounds like it.

so that just has me wondering what exactly the State Dept's role is here...b/c you're right...it seems as if they're taking on a military role.

[zipplewrath]

31. Been that way for awhile

I've heard more than one Sec Def complain that the State Dept. tends to dream up more reasons and causes for the military to address than the Defense Dept. does. People are forever suggesting that we create the "Secretary of Peace" or the "Peace Department". I always answer; "Isn't that what the State Department is suppose to be about?"

[nashville_brook]

32. indeed -- i remember this being a meme back in college

doing model UN Security Councils... that the State Dept is supposed to act as the Peace Dept. Instead they act more as an arm of the CIA.

[Arctic Dave]

2. It sounds like a bad case of Hero Syndrome

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hero_Syndrome


Democrats are trying so hard to shake the post Vietnam hippy label that they will find any reason whatsoever to bomb the shit out of something so they "look tough".

[blazeKing]

5. They don't envision the ethnic cleansing

Which will happen with a power vacuum.

[bluestate10]

7. I don't like Assad. But, like you, I see nothing but bad coming from us changing the

balance. 100,000 dead will become far, far more as world reporters report on the ethnic cleansing carnage. The fragile balance in Lebanon will be destroyed, plunging that nation back into ethnic violence. Saudi Arabia will have to make the choice to step in and end ethnic killing at the risk of it's own undoing via an increase in religious fanaticism within it's borders.

Assad is a bad man, but there are bad people ruining countries all over the world.

[FarCenter]

22. The Saudi Arabians do not have the manpower to invade Syria. Turkey does.

Turkey has a border with Syria. Saudi Arabia does not.

Turkey has a significant Army. Saudi Arabia does not.

The only Arab country with a Sunni Arab population big enough to invade Syria is Egypt.

[n2doc]

6. The logic:

[DirkGently]

10. A civil war in which neither "side" is an ally of ours, yet ...

we feel qualified and able to be the force that shifts the balance.

[woo me with science]

8. What a fucking scam.

And the answer is: $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Money and power.
Power and money.
Blood for profit.

This was planned a long time ago.

For Those Doubting if Syria is Part of the Neo-Con Plan
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023584665

McCain: Obama to Send New Arms to Syrian Rebels
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023584769

Obama, ex-rival McCain united as hawks on Syria
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023580983

US general says Syria action could be 'more substantial than thought'
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023585737

[DirkGently]

19. Good links. Syria's been on the Wishlist for a while.

[Marr]

9. They envision Obama looking good.

That's about where the thinking ends for most, I'd say. The neocon wing, I'm sure, sees it as their return to prime time. The actual policy makers? Money, money, and money.

[DirkGently]

14. He'd look better seeking international support. If there was one

single thing that America got behind in electing this President, it was ending the endless bloody boondoggles of the Bush era. Granted, Obama has always said he favored continued fighting in Afghanistan, and there we remain.

But Americans are tired of war, tired of America aggression and the appearance (or reality) of an imperialist attitude, tired of asking more and more and more of our service people, then pulling the financial rug out from under them when they return home.

This IS an opportunity for the administration to show that it is smarter and better than the last one. But if the answer for the Middle East remains "all military intervention, all the time," what do Democrats have to offer the country that is any different?

We stand poised on the brink of what President (gack) McCain would have brought us. I thought we all heaved at least one sigh of relief that an Obama administration would mean an end to constant military mucking in the Middle East.

Boehner has said today he supports a U.S. attack on Syria. McCain and Graham are onboard.

I thought OUR party was supposed to have something different in mind in the Middle East.

Were we kidding ourselves?

[Marr]

23. I agree with you. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say they expect he'll *do it*, and

that they'll need to defend it. So it's best to go on record now as proclaiming action in Syria to be the 'wise choice'.

[leftstreet]

16. A Nobel Peace Prize winner talking war doesn't look good

It appears Obama's Ardent Supporters™ are just as confused as he is about why he won that prize

[DirkGently]

18. I think that was a pre-payment on the Peace Dividend.

We may have to refund something at some point here. How much is a Krona going for these days?

[1-Old-Man]

11. They won't do something anymore that they've already quit doing.

[nashville_brook]

13. K and R

[nashville_brook]

15. in for a penny in for a pound

the problem with the limited proposal on the table is that there's no vision which will certainly lead to a larger commitment.

in other words, it's a set-up from the start.

[DirkGently]

17. Anyone doubt the commitment will have to be "open-ended?"

I don't see the resolution being for $20 million of strategic missile strikes on chemical-weapons enabling assets, to end by November, 2013" do you?

No budget, no timeline. At least none that can't be easily amended.

Because that's how the war machine rolls.

[denbot]

20. Whether or not we intervene, the outcome cannot be envisioned.

One certainty is that Iran, North Korea, Myanmar, Sudan, Ethiopia, Serbia, and many more nations will take note of either our reaction, or lack of it.

I think that letting chemical weapon use slide without an unacceptable response is asking for more trouble down the road.

[DirkGently]

21. Why would it be the U.S. "letting it slide" if we don't attack?

How did we get this attitude that we are in charge of the world?

Moreover, though, even if we think we the most important country, or the most ethical country, or whatever it is, why do we keep imagining we can micromanage with bullets?

What message are we sending by threatening yet another Middle Eastern country with the beneficience of our bloody intervention in their affairs?

Don't we keep claiming the "terrorists" are crazy to hate us, crazy to think we kill Muslims at the drop of a hat, crazy to think we're trying to control their countries because of the strategic importance of the region?

What happens when we keep proving them right?

[denbot]

24. We are nearly singular in our ability to take action across the globe.

I took a lot of flack in a previous post stating that it (intervention) was the cost of our hunger for power. We wanted to be the biggest kid on the block, and that comes with unexpected consequences.

Being pro-intervention is signing up to be a pariah around here, but how many of the same people that have called me a chickenhawlk, or keyboard warrior, would have passively stood by while Trayvon was murdered? How many of those same people would have mocked Miss Soto's unimaginable sacrifice saving the children in her class?

In the same thread I asked if the difference was scale, or geography.

I see it as a greater moral failing to do nothing in the face of clear breech of international standards of conduct. And by ignoring such conduct, we are inviting even more trouble down the road.

[HooptieWagon]

26. Thug dictators are gonna be thug dictators.

For every Saddam, Amin, Shah, or Noriega that's taken down, there wil be a Mugabe or Kim to take power. Not our role to take down every thug, nor do we have the ability to do so. And most of the world would think we're hypocritically arrogant to claim the role of final deciderr.

[nashville_brook]

28. actually, we put most (if not all) of those thugs in power...so, ostensibly

we could start out with "not our role to install every thug."

[HooptieWagon]

33. That too.

[DirkGently]

36. Are those the choices? Do nothing or accept chemical weapons?

I think we are singular in our *belief* the U.S. has a) the right and b) the ability to moderate world affairs through force.

The problem is, the public's willingness to do good is abused, and the framing is falsified. We go to war in the Middle East, and not in Africa, and not in Asia, and not in a lot of places, because of the strategic significance of the region. American political forces are convinced we can and should manipulate power structures in the region to our and our supposed allies' advantage.

But even assuming we all thought this was a special circumstance, what is the projected outcome of using MILITARY FORCE in this scenario?

It's not like Assad's forces will apologize or acknowledge it. It's also questionable whether it would have an impact on the decision to use chemical weapons, or to commit atrocities.

And then we will be engaged. Our leaders will say it would be ridiculous to drop a few bombs (as they now claim are all we need to do) and leave, with the war still raging. We will hear that we need to topple Assad. The authorization for force will be open-ended.

Why not work through the U.N. to sanction the regime and force compromise?

How do we get to our supposed goal of humanitarian good by once again interfering in a region we are known to want to interfere in for purely selfish reasons?

What does "success" in the case of the "punishment bombing" actually look like?

[nashville_brook]

27. yes, it would be nice if the US had a history of deterring CW use

[Benton D Struckcheon]

30. As a practical matter,

the ideal outcome is the FSA gets put in power and the foreign fighters, aka Jihadists, get kicked out.
And all the minority groups are protected despite the majority group Sunni Arabs (the Kurds are Sunni, but for some reason they get attacked by the rebels anyway) coming to power.
Obviously that's the ideal. Actual mileage will likely vary.

[HooptieWagon]

34. Yes, that's ideal.

And why the US appears to be supporting and supplying them.

However, I doubt the FSA has the numbers and ability to control the entire country if Assad is removed, thus several years of sectarian violence among all the rebel groups. And there will be mass-killings and bombings of various religious minorities like Alawites and Christians that FSA will be unable to stop.

[DirkGently]

37. Interesting. Doesn't flow from a punitive anti-chem strike, though ...

... does it?

That's more an idea of an ideal outcome for the entire conflict.

Which we claim we are not presently trying to control.

[Benton D Struckcheon]

38. You can't stop CW w/o boots on the ground,

lots of em, and to dispose of them will take a long time. Article on same below. To actually get rid of them would take a serious, long-term commitment. Operative word in the proposed strike is punitive. No way it gets rid of any CW.
OTOH, mere threat of a strike has brought about some defections and desertions, so even without doing anything it's changed the reality on the ground. Like it's said in chess, many times the threat is worse than the execution.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/syrias-chemical-weapons-pose-a-decade-long-problem-for-the-world/article11674949/

[DirkGently]

39. That's why I think this isn't about what

... we're saying it's about. If we're REALLY so offended at the notion Assad has chemical weapons -- if he's Baby Hitler and the other inferences being tossed around, then we need to declare war, invade, and put him down.

But that won't fly, because the reality is the chemical threat, while surely obscene, really isn't a a bigger threat than the rest of the slaughter going on, and we can't justify going in just for that.

So we're being asked to authorize a "statement" of sorts. With, you know, Tomahawks and things.

I don't believe it will work, and I don't believe we will stop there. I believe this is a ploy to begin another attempt to control the fortunes of Middle Eastern Countries by military force.

[Benton D Struckcheon]

40. I don't dispute the US would prefer a friendly Syria,

but Syria really isn't all that important to us. It is important to Russia, because it's their last client in the Arab world, having lost Libya, which is why they are never going to allow anything, not even a general condemnation of CW use, to pass the UN Security Council.
That, of course, does turn Syria into another pawn in the Great Game, if you want to look at it that way, but realistically (most people on this board don't see it this way, I'm sure) Russia is a minor player on the international scene now. The only power they have is to irritate everyone else, and Putin is using that to great effect to puff up their prestige. Syria plays right into that. By itself, Syria's an insignificant state. No great shakes as an oil player, no Suez Canal like Egypt has.
In an ideal world, you'd be able to remove Assad, get him to the Hague, and put in place someone else who could rule Syria and respect the rights of their minorities. But there isn't a single clause in that previous sentence that in any way describes the real world.

[Ruby the Liberal]

35. There is no way this ends well.

Rock and a hard place. The only winning situation (IMO) is to somehow destroy the gasses so they don't start crossing borders, but that still won't stop these people from bombing their own countrymen (on both sides).

No win situation.