Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsKristof and the “Mere Flexing” of Military Power
By DANIEL LARISON
Nick Kristof thinks that the threat of attacking Syria worked:
In short, the mere flexing of military power worked initially and tentatively. And while it seems that neither Congress nor the public has any appetite for cruise missile strikes on Syria, it will be critical to keep the military option alive in the coming weeks or Russia and Syria will play us like a yo-yo.
Kristof fails to explain how the threat worked when it seemed more than likely that at least one house of Congress was on track to refuse authorizing the use of force. If Obama was on the verge of having his policy repudiated in Congress and the mere flexing of military power was soon to be nothing more than that, why would Russia and Syria jump at the chance to offer up all of Syrias chemical weapons? I can understand why administration officials feel compelled to pretend that the threat worked, because it could make Obamas decision to make the threat look less risible than it did a few days ago. That doesnt mean that the rest of us have to take this for granted. Obamas position before Monday was increasingly untenable, and if the votes in Congress had gone ahead as planned the threat of military action would have very likely evaporated. Considering how few supporters military action had, it is hard to see how the threat could have worked when the threat was daily being revealed as an empty one. Many Syria hawks have been terrified all month that Congress rejection of the AUMF resolution would make attacking Syria politically impossible, but were supposed to think that no one in other governments noticed what was happening?
Its true that Russia didnt and still doesnt want the U.S. to attack Syria, so it may have occurred to Moscow to find some other way to ensure that an attack would be indefinitely delayed. If preventing an attack on Syria is Russias reason for making the proposal, it hardly seems likely that Russia is going to accept either a binding Security Council resolution confirming the deal or a reference in the resolution to serious consequences for noncompliance. Russia would assume that Western governments would interpret this as an authorization for some future military intervention, and after Libya there is no chance that Russia is ever going to allow the passage of another resolution that in any way authorizes the U.S. and other Western governments to intervene. In exchange for Russian support, Putin has said that he wants the U.S. to renounce the use of force against Syria, and this is the one thing that Syria hawks absolutely wont renounce.
So it may not be true that the threat worked, and saying that it did will encourage many Americans to draw the wrong conclusions from this experience. Instead of learning that it is foolish to threaten unnecessary military action when U.S. and allied security are not at risk, many will conclude that it is the best way to get results. U.S. foreign policy is already far too militarized, and learning the wrong lesson from this episode will just reinforce that.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/kristof-and-the-mere-flexing-of-military-power/
One time I actually agree with something from that site.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
0 replies, 349 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (0)
ReplyReply to this post