[blackshoe]

PassedOut, on 2013-August-28, 08:16, said:

I well remember the "evidence" that Colin Powell presented to the UN about Iraq's so-called "weapons of mass destruction" before the US invasion. It is safe to say that everyone with an IQ over 80 realized that no evidence at all had been presented to justify the attack. This better not be more of the same...

Or what?

[blackshoe]

kenberg, on 2013-August-27, 04:49, said:

From Gerson:

So we should do what? Beats me.It's a tough world out there.

I would go with your third option: stay out of it. Yes, what's going on there is appalling. Yes, Assad is no friend to the US. Yes, if we stay out, whoever wins will not be our friend. Doesn't matter. Every time we stick our nose into something like this, we get it bloodied. I don't know about anybody else, but I've had enough interventionism.

[billw55]

Trinidad, on 2013-August-29, 08:12, said:

Of course, the Russians have their interest in Syria. They have a navy base there and a lot of other stuff. The USA should start any diplomatic discussion with the Russians with the guarantee that they are not aiming to harm those interests. Once the Russians know that their interests are not at stake, and there is a clear conclusion from the UN that Assad used chemical weapons they just might come around. But they will view a unilateral attack from the West, solely based on US intelligence, as an attempt to increase Western influence at the expense of Russian interests... And that is a legite way to look at it.

Agree, Russia would see an attack that way. But I think that advance diplomacy is unlikely to change that.

And perhaps it is true that the USA will not be convinced that the Syrian regime did not use chemical weapons. On the other hand, Russia seems unlikely to be convinced that they did.

[kenberg]

Trinidad, on 2013-August-29, 08:12, said:

On the other hand, suppose that the inspectors come back and say that the rebels were responsible for the attack or that there was no chemical attack but a shell hit a chemical storage or whatever other possible explanation there might be, the whole world will believe them, except for the unconvincable USA.

Rik

If this should happen, I, and I think just about everyone here, most especially our President, would be very highly gratified. Virtually no one here wants to get into this mess. It is impossible to see how intervention will be a big plus for us.

As I understand it, the Arab League, the British, the French, the Germans, damn near every government except the Russians, the Chinese and the Iranians, have little doubt as to who was responsible., I am not talking of the famous man in the street here. I saw the other day that 29% of Republicans in Louisianan think that Obama was responsible for the botched response to Katrina in 2005. The man in the street is not really what one might call well-informed. For that matter, I do not regard myself as well-informed regarding Syria. But it appears to me that a lot of informed people who are not at all anxious to go to war are pretty sure what happened. They would be delighted to find that they are wrong, since it would then relieve them of the obligation to think about what to do in response.

Waiting until we are sure is a fine idea. No quarrel with that. But I don't expect problems on that front. I expect the problem will be that no response, including the response of not doing anything, will work out very well.

It is possible to be too eager to believe what you want to hear. It is also possible to be too eager to dis-believe what you do not want to hear. Such is life, it has always been so.

[Trinidad]

billw55, on 2013-August-29, 08:37, said:

Agree, Russia would see an attack that way. But I think that advance diplomacy is unlikely to change that.

And perhaps it is true that the USA will not be convinced that the Syrian regime did not use chemical weapons. On the other hand, Russia seems unlikely to be convinced that they did.

I don't understand where you get that idea.

The Russians seem to want to wait for real evidence before they draw conclusions. I don't know, but that seems a lot smarter than the American way of jumping the gun and not apologizing when you turn out to be wrong.

I don't know where you get the idea that the Russians wouldn't listen to UN inspectors when they show evidence that Assad launched a chemical attack. I am not guaranteeing that they will listen (who am I? I don't look remotely like Putin.) but in recent years, they have a pretty good track record in believing UN inspectors, which cannot be said of some other countries...

So far, there is no solid evidence. There is "US intelligence" of which the CIA and DoD themselves say that the "evidence" is not as solid as it should be. So, let's wait for conclusive evidence, coming from the UN. In the mean time, of course, it is a good idea to be prepared for the real evidence when it comes and have many options available. But it is way too early to make a choice.

Rik

[billw55]

Trinidad, on 2013-August-29, 09:26, said:

I don't understand where you get that idea.

The Russians seem to want to wait for real evidence before they draw conclusions. I don't know, but that seems a lot smarter than the American way of jumping the gun and not apologizing when you turn out to be wrong.

I don't know where you get the idea that the Russians wouldn't listen to UN inspectors when they show evidence that Assad launched a chemical attack. I am not guaranteeing that they will listen (who am I? I don't look remotely like Putin.) but in recent years, they have a pretty good track record in believing UN inspectors, which cannot be said of some other countries...

So far, there is no solid evidence. There is "US intelligence" of which the CIA and DoD themselves say that the "evidence" is not as solid as it should be. So, let's wait for conclusive evidence, coming from the UN. In the mean time, of course, it is a good idea to be prepared for the real evidence when it comes and have many options available. But it is way too early to make a choice.

Rik

Well, let's distinguish what governments really think/know from what they publicize. Regarding the Iraq issue, the USA government probably knew the evidence was weak. But they wanted to invade for other reasons, and this was the angle they used to push it to the public. And they weren't entirely alone in doing so.

And in the current circumstance in Syria, chances are good that many governments know quite well what happened. And it is reasonable to think that Russia, as a close ally, knows better than anyone. But Russia has interests in Syria, and so publicly the are unlikely to acknowledge guilt by the Assad regime. For that matter, the (alleged) chemical weapons must have come from somewhere. If Russia supplied the weapons, this might be reason enough to deny they were used, or ever existed.

Anyway, if the end point of your argument is that the USA should not unilaterally attack Syria, I certainly agree with that.

[PassedOut]

billw55, on 2013-August-29, 10:35, said:

Anyway, if the end point of your argument is that the USA should not unilaterally attack Syria, I certainly agree with that.

As do I.

If the UN votes to take action, I expect the US to participate. If not, the US should not take military action.

[billw55]

PassedOut, on 2013-August-29, 11:51, said:

As do I.

If the UN votes to take action, I expect the US to participate. If not, the US should not take military action.

Hard to believe that vote will happen with Russia and China both wielding veto power.

[PassedOut]

billw55, on 2013-August-29, 12:06, said:

Hard to believe that vote will happen with Russia and China both wielding veto power.

Yes, seems unlikely. We'll see how it plays out.

[Cyberyeti]

billw55, on 2013-August-29, 12:06, said:

Hard to believe that vote will happen with Russia and China both wielding veto power.

They do in the security council, if they wield it, expect the US to go for a general assembly motion.

[Scarabin]

I would hope the UK vote might be a game changer but it does not seem to have affected French or American resolve. At least there is more open skepticism than before IRAQ 2.

[kenberg]

I grow more pessimistic by the hour. I gather that Obama not only feels that he doesn't need the British, he also doesn't need Congress. I believe history will judge this to be the end of an effective Obama presidency. Letting the gas attack in Syria slide by with no response will clearly demonstrate that his previous positions on such matters were a bluff by a man who had no grasp of reality. Acting, in the manner he is contemplating, with no plan and no support, will make him look like a petulant idiot. There is no way that this will end well.

Added: I just found this rather pessimistic view in the Post:

“There’s a broad naivete in the political class about America’s obligations in foreign policy issues, and scary simplicity about the effects that employing American military power can achieve,” said retired Lt. Gen. Gregory S. Newbold, who served as director of operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff during the run-up to the Iraq war, noting that many of his contemporaries are alarmed by the plan.


Full article at
http://www.washingto...d814_story.html

[Winstonm]

Along the same notes sung by Ken, The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism by Andrew Bacevich should be required reading for any new President. In the book, Bacevich describes the skewed thinking that pervades American politicos that the military can accomplish any political aim, when reality is far different.

There is a limit on what military action can accomplish. I hope Obama has the courage to understand that and if he retaliates, he uses limited involvement, targeting with CIA or special forces only those leaders at the top responsible for ordering the gas attack.

In fact, I wouldn't even mind if he bluffed, claiming publicly that he was ordering in CIA to kill the bad guys while in fact not doing so at all.

[billw55]

Scarabin, on 2013-August-29, 23:38, said:

I would hope the UK vote might be a game changer but it does not seem to have affected French or American resolve. At least there is more open skepticism than before IRAQ 2.

Hmm, French? I wonder what their angle is. They also took action in Algeria, although they had more concrete national interests there.

[blackshoe]

From that WaPo article: "White House officials reiterated Thursday that the administration is not contemplating a protracted military engagement."

Where have I heard that before?

[kenberg]

blackshoe, on 2013-August-30, 08:06, said:

From that WaPo article: "White House officials reiterated Thursday that the administration is not contemplating a protracted military engagement."

Where have I heard that before?

Ah yes, the troops will be home by Christmas.

[Aberlour10]

billw55, on 2013-August-30, 06:01, said:

Hmm, French? I wonder what their angle is. .

Hollande have so many big problems on the domestic front, political, economical...so he plays a strong
man in foreign, business as usual. French presidents decide alone about peace and war. They need the support
of the parliament not until 4 months of the military action.

[kenberg]

As I understand it, Cameron could, or believes that he could, act without the consent of Parliament. He has said that he will not be doing so. I regard this as very wise. If a guy is going to jump into quicksand, it's a bad idea to alienate his buddies just before doing so.
Dear NSA monitor, could you pass this advice on to the prez, please?

[Cyberyeti]

kenberg, on 2013-August-30, 10:49, said:

As I understand it, Cameron could, or believes that he could, act without the consent of Parliament. He has said that he will not be doing so. I regard this as very wise. If a guy is going to jump into quicksand, it's a bad idea to alienate his buddies just before doing so.
Dear NSA monitor, could you pass this advice on to the prez, please?

He can, and he didn't have to even recall parliament and debate it.

[Trinidad]

Cyberyeti, on 2013-August-30, 10:51, said:

kenberg, on 2013-August-30, 10:49, said:

As I understand it, Cameron could, or believes that he could, act without the consent of Parliament. He has said that he will not be doing so. I regard this as very wise. If a guy is going to jump into quicksand, it's a bad idea to alienate his buddies just before doing so.
Dear NSA monitor, could you pass this advice on to the prez, please?

He can, and he didn't have to even recall parliament and debate it.

Isn't that exactly what Blair did in Iraq 2?

Rik