Obama’s National-Security Argument for Striking Syria Is Terrible

[morningfog]

The case for air strikes in Syria is a rational (though far from clear-cut) application of humanitarian internationalism: The international norm against using chemical weapons is worth maintaining. But it’s a complicated argument, not to mention an unpopular one. Americans are war-weary and unreceptive to internationalist arguments centered on protecting nameless civilians in godforsaken backwaters. So the Obama administration is augmenting its sensible humanitarian arguments with mindless security arguments.

In his prepared remarks, Chuck Hagel offered up the kind of self-interested defense of intervention that would appeal to a “realist” like himself:

If Assad is prepared to use chemical weapons against his own people, we have to be concerned that terrorist groups like Hezbollah, which has forces in Syria supporting the Assad regime, could acquire them. This risk of chemical weapons proliferation poses a direct threat to our friends and partners, and to U.S. personnel in the region. We cannot afford for Hezbollah or any terrorist group determined to strike the United States to have incentives to acquire or use chemical weapons.

This starts off making no sense and then manages to make even less sense as it goes on.

Begin with the first sentence. Why would Bashar al-Assad’s willingness to use chemical weapons against his own people indicate a willingness to give those weapons to Hezbollah? He’s using the weapons because he wants to stay in power and is sociopathic enough to deploy whatever ends necessary to advance that goal. He might decide to give some chemical weapons to Hezbollah, but using them against his own people has nothing to do with a decision like that.

In his next sentence, Hagel invokes the “risk of chemical weapons proliferation.” But we have no plan to stop chemical-weapons proliferation. Chemical weapons, unlike nuclear weapons, are easy to manufacture. They don’t require extremely rare materials and technical capacity. We don’t even have a plausible strategy to destroy Assad’s currently existing chemical-weapons stockpile.

Building on the implausible premises in his first two sentences, Hagel arrives at his final, ominous warning: “We cannot afford for Hezbollah or any terrorist group determined to strike the United States to have incentives to acquire or use chemical weapons.” By this point, Hagel has descended into a word salad of scaremongering. If Hezbollah is “determined to strike the United States,” then what’s stopping them? How would our failure to bomb Assad alter the equation in such a way as to make a chemical attack against the United States more likely?

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/09/obamas-terrible-national-security-argument.html?mid=twitter_nymag

[malaise]

1. National Security, national interest

and terrorism - all three of those concepts should be banned.They are amorphous and self- serving and will forever support the interests of the 1% of the planet.

[tazkcmo]

2. Where have we heard this before?

Does any of this sound familiar?

[malaise]

5. I have heard it so often my head is spinning n/t

[snappyturtle]

3. I'd like to know what's *really* going on because none of the

rhetoric makes any sense....to me anyway.

[GeorgeGist]

4. Does he ever mention that Blowback might be directed at US ...

or remember 9/11?

Do you think Americans will cheer if it's Hezbollah and not al-Qaida that strikes back at the empire.

[Bluenorthwest]

6. Chuck Hagel is a Republican, he supported the Iraq invasion and continued funding for that war

and he has in fact supported every war he was ever asked to support. He is year 12.5 of Republicans heading Defense Department, he is the first not to have been appointed by W as it went Rumsfeld, Gates, Hagel. Democrats need not apply.
Hagel was selected in order to sell this war. A war he has wanted for years. His credibility is defined by his support for invading Iraq.