Apparently Nobody Likes A Cautious Goliath

[WooWooWoo]

You might have expected us to be there by now. Some of us here in America think its a sign of weakness that we haven’t already been able to turn on CNN and see night-vision views of explosions over the Syrian skyline. If Obama was a decisive leader, they believe, then he would have acted months ago when the first signs of chemical weapons use became known.

Still some others (appearing to suffer from non-literal Iraq PTSD) have been screaming about any intervention in Syria being a virtual continuation of Bush’s neocon agenda.

Many others are filing in somewhere in the middle – caught in a honest moral dilemma of:

A) Wanting to help the Syrian people.
B) Recognizing the use of chemical weapons (assuming the evidence proves it) ups the stakes higher than anything in the run-up to Iraq.
C) Not totally being confident in the notion that we can help the Syrian people if the goal isn’t regime change.
D) Wanting to punish the clearly-evil Assad without punishing any civilians in the process.
E) Recognizing doing nothing is also a very bad option.

It would seem to me most people, if they were being honest, would admit to not being reflexively pro-intervention or anti-intervention. There is an honest and fair case to be made for both sides of the argument – something absent from the debate in the run-up Operation Iraqi Freedom. It would also seem to make sense that, when faced with a no-win situation, you would want the leader of your nation’s military to ponder the use of its forces for as long as he or she needs to make an informed decision.

From the president’s own statement, it’s clear that he wants to send a message, not only to Assad, but many other world leaders, that the use of chemical weapons cannot be tolerated. However, it is also clear from the timeline of events leading up to what’s about to happen in Syria, that Obama, as usual, isn’t rushing into anything.

http://thesterlingroad.com/2013/08/29/apparently-nobody-likes-a-cautious-goliath/

[seabeckind]

1. Nah...

Not even close.

I have no moral dilemma. I have no dilemma at all, most definitely not a moral one.

I am being presented with conflicting "facts" from multiple sources each of whom have good reasons to present false information. It is no moral dilemma to reject all of those "facts" from all of the sources.

Especially when there is no compelling reason for me to make any sort of personal decision on the matter.

As to what facts I believe? I believe that chemicals were released. Whether those chemicals rode in on a rocket or were already there is an open question.

I don't care if you think Obama wants to send a message. I don't care if Obama wants to send a message.

I don't think Obama or the United States has the obligation to send this message. And again, most definitely not using weapons of death to deliver it. Punish Assad? Seriously? By killing someone else? That's absurd. And to reiterate the weapon as the vehicle of delivery...killing someone to send a message that they shouldn't kill someone? Seriously? Absurd.

So once again I ask the same question I have asked before. If the US does this thing:

Cui bono?

And once again I will eliminate a couple of groups: Not in the best interest of the American people. I don't believe it's even in the best interest of the syrian people.

Dead is dead.

I just wish Obama would spend half as much effort into solving the problems in this country.

[Demeter]

3. I wanna rec your reply

You might develop it into an op-ed...it's publish-worthy, at least on DU!

[WooWooWoo]

4. yes, it's absurd

War is absurd.

I don't think Obama or the United States has the obligation to send this message. And again, most definitely not using weapons of death to deliver it. Punish Assad? Seriously? By killing someone else? That's absurd. And to reiterate the weapon as the vehicle of delivery...killing someone to send a message that they shouldn't kill someone? Seriously? Absurd.

I would say the United Nations has the obligation to send a message to nations that use chemical weapons (which, in lieu of me being on the ground and studying the findings myself, I'll give Obama the benefit of the doubt that his assertions are true) is not tolerated.

But the UN is crippled and ineffective because of Russia.

Nations that would normally make this call easily are still recovering from Iraq nightmares.

You feel comfortable leaving the Syrian people on their own with Assad, that's your right. I don't feel civil wars are reason alone for the US to get involved in other nations' internal business, but this isn't an ordinary civil wars.

The chemical weapons use changed everything. EVERYTHING.

If liberals can't support intervention in this instance, then they will never find a reason to support intervention anywhere at anytime. That's not a liberal foreign policy - that's a non-interventionist foreign policy and belongs with the selfish me-first advocates like Rand Paul and Ted Cruz.

just my opinion.

[seabeckind]

5. War absurd? At times...other times necessary.

This isn't one of those times.

"But the UN is crippled and ineffective" Is it really? Or is it failing to operate in the way you think it should operate? Based on opinions I have seen, the bulk of the informed people believe this issue is a way for the world to be dragged into another world war. And we are leery of standing too close to that brink.

You are entirely correct...the UN has an obligation to send this message. But the UN is a democratic body, just like the US is. We subjugate our individual rights to the rights of the collective.

Give Obama the doubt? No. I remember long ago about dominos. And I'm not interested in playing that game again. I agree there are some things that Obama might know that I don't. But the converse is also very true. Perhaps instead of trying to prove his case to the people he might listen to the case the people have. Cause he ain't paying attention.

He's supposed to be good at playing chess but he sure stinks at playing whatif games. (Sequester come to mind?)

The chemical weapons use changes nothing at all other than the means of death. Would you be as upset if chemical weapons had been used in Darfur?

Don't throw labels at me. This is not a liberal, conservative, blue, red, isolationist, pacifist, or any other label issue. This is an American issue and whether we should use military force and cause death in any other nation which has offered no threat to us -- to America.

And I believe you are wrong. This is very much an ordinary civil war. People die in civil wars... We have a solemn and moral obligation to make sure that the deaths from this civil war do not extend beyond its borders...particulary to the US.

I've got one of those whatifs for you...what if some other nation decides that we need to be punished for lobbing a missile at Syria? Ready to take the next step after that?

I have a copy of the Serenity Prayer on my desk and try to live by it.

[WooWooWoo]

6. well

The chemical weapons use changes nothing at all other than the means of death. Would you be as upset if chemical weapons had been used in Darfur?

It does absolutely change everything. There's a reason there's a taboo about them. Anyone who has ever experienced being gassed, or having gas in their lungs, would find it unique among the worst weapons man has ever created.

And yes, if chemical weapons were used by a state in any nation I'd support intervention on those grounds.

[1StrongBlackMan]

2. Great ...

and well reasoned piece.

+1