General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsMake Up Your Mind on Syria, Mr. President!
<snip>
I say “begin a war” because if there’s one thing on which supporters and critics of military intervention in Syria agree, it’s that sending small arms won’t change much. “How can small arms make a difference?” asked Louay al Mokdad, political and media coordinator for the Free Syrian Army. “They should help us with real weapons, antitank and antiaircraft, and with armored vehicles, training and a no-fly zone.” John McCain added, “Every bone in my body knows that simply supplying weapons will not change the equation.” C.J. Chivers, who is covering the war for The New York Times, agreed that “small arms won’t change the current dynamic.”
By sending small arms, the Obama administration has now hitched its own political fortunes more tightly to those of Syria’s rebels. And if, as most expect, Washington’s rifles don’t turn the tide, Obama will find it harder to resist stronger military action than he would have had he not gone down this path to begin with. Already the U.S. is moving warplanes and antimissile systems to Jordan. Once there, the pressure to use them will only grow.
All this might be defensible if the President were telling Americans that we have grave national and moral interests at stake in Syria. And if he was prepared to make deposing Bashar Assad and ending Syria’s civil war a primary focus of his second term. But that’s exactly what he’s not doing. It’s not just that Obama left Ben Rhodes to make the announcement about small arms. Rhodes also hung the shift in U.S. policy on a new U.S. intelligence assessment that Assad has used chemical weapons. That’s a pretty thin reed. For starters, it’s not clear U.S. intelligence is that strong. On Thursday, Rhodes noted, “We are working with allies to present a credible, evidentiary case to share with the international community and the public”—thus conceding that the administration hasn’t presented one yet. Rhodes said the U.S.—which has no investigators on the ground in Syria—had made its own assessment because a United Nations “investigation [is] being frustrated by the failure of the Assad regime to cooperate and provide the necessary access.” Assad may well bear the blame for the U.N.’s failure to do an adequate investigation, but that doesn’t change the fact that, as Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon was quick to note, the U.N. doesn’t currently share America’s assessment. Especially after Iraq, skeptics will also find it suspiciously convenient that Team Obama announced its new intelligence on chemical weapons just days after Bill Clinton ratcheted up domestic political pressure by publicly calling out the President for not doing more in Syria.
And even if the Obama administration’s claims about chemical weapons use are correct, they’re not the reason to intervene. As Rhodes himself conceded, chemical weapons have killed perhaps 100 to 150 Syrians in a civil war that has claimed more than 90,000. The best rationales for intervention in Syria are preventing mass slaughter, preventing the war from engulfing Syria’s neighbors, and weakening Hezbollah and Iran. Chemical weapons aren’t near the top of the list.
<snip>
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/06/17/make-up-your-mind-on-syria-mr-president.html
I don't agree with Beinert's conclusions, but he does lay out the facts.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
liberal N proud
(60,334 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)Logical
(22,457 posts)davidpdx
(22,000 posts)What I have heard is most people are against it period. I have heard very few people voice concern for what is happening there. Maybe you should go take an ethic course or two to give those two marbles rattling around in your head something to think about.
John2
(2,730 posts)same people that got us into Iraq will be for it. Regime change is not Obama's Policy. It is their Policy. Obama put these advisors into his Administration. The Democrats pushing this, are tied to Israel. All they did was align themselves with the neocons and rightwing. Republicans like Rand Paul are more from the Libertarian wing of the Republican Party.
Netanyahu love the Clintons and John Kerry. They can't lose with either political party in the United States. It is more about the political environment in the United States with the Jewish population, similar to the Cubans. The Jewish lobby is very strong in the United States.
You also combine that with Arab dissidents, not in favor of their Governments for different reasons. Obama is following those voices. This Maureen Dowd of the New York Times keeps battering the President on this issue. She sounds just like the rightwing in many of her columms, claiming Obama is leading from behind, and citing the Clintons. This is their Policy, not Obama's. And she has the audacity to call him Barry, not President Obama. What Obama needs to do, is put his foot down and change U.S. Foreign Policy altogether. He should welcome them to try and impeach him too. Then we will really see their colors.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)If he does something he's a warmonger, if he doesn't Assad will continue to slaughter people. The world community will certainly not lift a finger to help and Russia may even try to sabotage whatever we try to do. IMHO if we hadn't been dragged into two costly wars we probably would do something. I think besides sending small arms he's not going to do anything.
cali
(114,904 posts)Americans are overwhelmingly opposed to ANY involvement in Syria. And btw, the rebels are every bit as bad as Assad.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)considering the fact that almost 10,000 people have been killed. At what point should we stop turning our heads? 20,000? 50,000? 100,000? It isn't as easy as you assume it is.
cali
(114,904 posts)first of all, inform yourself: over 90,000 people have been killed. Of course that's a small number compared to the DRC where over 5 million have been killed and we've handily stayed out of that. So much for the silly "at what point should we stop turning our heads?" stuff. Secondly, by becoming involved we may very well make it worse as far as loss of life and the expansion of what is already a regional war with over a million refugees. Thirdly, fighting a proxy war with Iran, in Syria, is incredibly dangerous. Fourth, there is no way to ensure that arms don't get into the hands of Al-Qaeda and other fundamentalists. How did that work out in Afghanistan when we wanted to see the USSR defeated? Fifth, who is pushing us into this? That's right repukes and corporate interests who stand to make money off conflict.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)there is always a chance that could happen. As for the number, I left out a 0 as I meant almost 100,000. It's evening I'm tired and I've been writing fucking annotated bibliographies for research all day and am sick of doing them. A proxy war would be a bad deal and Russia very much seems like that's what they are threatening to do. I would rather see something come together peacefully, but I doubt it will happen. Not only the repukes and the corporate interests are making money, so are the Russians as they are supplying Syria. My point is there is no easy answer. I have to wonder how long Turkey will take refugees before they say no more. They are beginning to have some problems as well.
cali
(114,904 posts)It already is a proxy war and a regional war. there's little disagreement on that. Again, I agree there's no easy answer, only the best of the worst.
