[blackshoe]

There is a principle of command that says "don't give orders you don't expect to be obeyed". Perhaps an appropriate analog for governments is "don't pass laws you can't or won't enforce".

[helene_t]

 blackshoe, on 2013-September-08, 10:21, said:

There is a principle of command that says "don't give orders you don't expect to be obeyed". Perhaps an appropriate analog for governments is "don't pass laws you can't or won't enforce".

Only for governments? Not for WBF and ACBL? Your Jillybean quote is somewhat apropos

[billw55]

 ArtK78, on 2013-September-06, 18:55, said:

There is a principal at work here, and it has obvious broader applications.

If Assad is allowed to gas his own people, in violation of nearly universal condemnation of the use of chemical agents in warfare, what is to prevent Iran or North Korea from employing nuclear weapons?

The US cannot allow the use of chemical weapons to pass without action.

To me, this argument has the most logical validity of any. Not necessarily that it is correct, but it is a least consistent. We dont want chemical weapons (or any WMDs) used by anyone in the world, so we retaliate against users to deter other potential users. Makes perfect sense, and could work as a policy - if we do it consistently, as Ken points out in an excellent post 153.

[billw55]

 PassedOut, on 2013-September-07, 11:00, said:

Agreed.

Reminds me of something that came up when Constance was developing a contract management system for a large Atlanta corporation. She called attention to many ambiguities in the contracts to be managed. The head of the legal division called her in and explained that the ambiguities were intentional, to permit the lawyers to argue either side should the need arise. He would prefer that she refrain from discussing her observations on that further.

Weird, I think it would be immediately obvious that such ambiguity also allows the other side's lawyers to do the same thing, so that the net gain is zero, plus the water is muddied. As someone said, maybe they are deliberately giving themselves more work to do.

[Trinidad]

 ArtK78, on 2013-September-06, 18:55, said:

There is a principal at work here, and it has obvious broader applications.

If Assad is allowed to gas his own people, in violation of nearly universal condemnation of the use of chemical agents in warfare, what is to prevent Iran or North Korea from employing nuclear weapons?

The US cannot allow the use of chemical weapons to pass without action.

 billw55, on 2013-September-09, 06:36, said:

To me, this argument has the most logical validity of any. Not necessarily that it is correct, but it is a least consistent. We dont want chemical weapons (or any WMDs) used by anyone in the world, so we retaliate against users to deter other potential users. Makes perfect sense, and could work as a policy - if we do it consistently, as Ken points out in an excellent post 153.

Of course, this argument has logical validity. I am all for some form of retaliation against users of WMDs.

But, and this is a very large but:

- Before anything is done, the facts need to be established. This is not the job of the USA (or any other single country).
- When the facts are established, it should be decided what form of retaliation is right. Again, this is not the job of the USA (or any other single country).

These are jobs for the UN and its agencies.

And that means that this procedure should be followed consistently, irrespective of who used the chemical weapon. Since WW II chemical weapons have been used on an irregular basis by a variety of countries. (Practically) none of these have led to consequences by the international community or retaliation by other countries. So, if we want to be consistent, we do nothing.

Rik

[ArtK78]

 Trinidad, on 2013-September-09, 08:08, said:

Of course, this argument has logical validity. I am all for some form of retaliation against users of WMDs.

But, and this is a very large but:

- Before anything is done, the facts need to be established. This is not the job of the USA (or any other single country).
- When the facts are established, it should be decided what form of retaliation is right. Again, this is not the job of the USA (or any other single country).

These are jobs for the UN and its agencies.

And that means that this procedure should be followed consistently, irrespective of who used the chemical weapon. Since WW II chemical weapons have been used on an irregular basis by a variety of countries. (Practically) none of these have led to consequences by the international community or retaliation by other countries. So, if we want to be consistent, we do nothing.

Rik

Consistency is not the goal here. Just because a policy was followed in the past does not mean we must or should follow it in the future. If the policy is wrong, it is wrong.

There have been many flawed policies followed by many nations (and groups of nations) in the past. I prefer that we follow the right policy. We may differ in our opinion of what the right policy is. But consistency for consistency's sake is not the goal here.

And if relying on the international community (in the form of the UN or otherwise) results in doing nothing, and doing nothing is the wrong policy, it is the obligation of the US (as [for all practical purposes] the only country in the world that can do anything about it) to do something.

[Winstonm]

Who would have thought the Russians would turn out to be the heroes of this story?

[hrothgar]

 ArtK78, on 2013-September-09, 09:50, said:

Consistency is not the goal here. Just because a policy was followed in the past does not mean we must or should follow it in the future. If the policy is wrong, it is wrong.

There have been many flawed policies followed by many nations (and groups of nations) in the past. I prefer that we follow the right policy. We may differ in our opinion of what the right policy is. But consistency for consistency's sake is not the goal here.

And if relying on the international community (in the form of the UN or otherwise) results in doing nothing, and doing nothing is the wrong policy, it is the obligation of the US (as [for all practical purposes] the only country in the world that can do anything about it) to do something.

I'm not sure if I agree with all of Art's points, however, I have a great deal of sympathy for the broad sentiments.

I would strongly prefer it if the US were able to gain agreement from the UN. With this said and done, I view the inability of the US to get agreement from the security council to primarily reflect a failure on the part of the UN. On one of the Friday NPR shows I heard a caller make a very basic point which has stuck with me.

If the UN is unable to even condemn chemical weapons attacks, what good is it? I'm attaching a quote from the US ambassador to the UN which makes a very similar point.

Quote

Of course, this isn't the only legitimate question being raised. People are asking, shouldn't the United States work through the Security Council on an issue that so clearly implicates international peace and security? The answer is, of course, yes, we could if we would -- if we could, we would, if we could, but we can't. Every day for the two-and-a-half years of the Syrian conflict, we have shown how seriously we take the UN Security Council and our obligations to enforce international peace and security.

Since 2011 Russia and China have vetoed three separate Security Council resolutions condemning the Syrian regime's violence or promoting a political solution to the conflict. This year alone Russia has blocked at least three statements expressing humanitarian concern and calling for humanitarian access to besieged cities in Syria. And in the past two months Russia has blocked two resolutions condemning the generic use of chemical weapons and two press statements expressing concern about their use.

We believe that more than 1,400 people were killed in Damascus on August 21, and the Security Council could not even agree to put out a press statement expressing its disapproval.

The international system that was founded in 1945, a system we designed specifically to respond to the kinds of horrors we saw play out in World War II, has not lived up to its promise or its responsibilities in the case of Syria. And it is naive to think that Russia is on the verge of changing its position and allowing the UN Security Council to assume its rightful role as the enforcer of international peace and security. In short, the Security Council the world needs to deal with this urgent crisis is not the Security Council we have.

[billw55]

 ArtK78, on 2013-September-09, 09:50, said:

Consistency is not the goal here. Just because a policy was followed in the past does not mean we must or should follow it in the future. If the policy is wrong, it is wrong.

There have been many flawed policies followed by many nations (and groups of nations) in the past. I prefer that we follow the right policy. We may differ in our opinion of what the right policy is. But consistency for consistency's sake is not the goal here.

And if relying on the international community (in the form of the UN or otherwise) results in doing nothing, and doing nothing is the wrong policy, it is the obligation of the US (as [for all practical purposes] the only country in the world that can do anything about it) to do something.

Agree that we should not continue a wrong policy for the sake of consistency. Determining the right policy, then following that consistently, would be much better.

Don't agree that USA is the only country that can do anything. At the very least, any nation that fields a fixed wing aircraft carrier could do something. According to Wikipedia, eight nations currently do so. That doesn't include England, who could obviously do something by other means. Other nations must have the capability and proximity needed for land-based aircraft attack. USA is not alone in this capacity.

 hrothgar, on 2013-September-09, 10:02, said:

I'm not sure if I agree with all of Art's points, however, I have a great deal of sympathy for the broad sentiments.

I would strongly prefer it if the US were able to gain agreement from the UN. With this said and done, I view the inability of the US to get agreement from the security council to primarily reflect a failure on the part of the UN. On one of the Friday NPR shows I heard a caller make a very basic point which has stuck with me.

If the UN is unable to even condemn chemical weapons attacks, what good is it? I'm attaching a quote from the US ambassador to the UN which makes a very similar point.

I have deep doubts about the UNs ability to respond, due to its organization - the permanent members of the security council can easily become a functional "hands off my buddies" veto block. Still, I reserve final judgment until the situation is over and we see what has happened (UN report results, Russia/China veto or not, action taken if any, etc).

[hrothgar]

 billw55, on 2013-September-09, 10:11, said:

Don't agree that USA is the only country that can do anything. At the very least, any nation that fields a fixed wing aircraft carrier could do something. According to Wikipedia, eight nations currently do so. That doesn't include England, who could obviously do something by other means. Other nations must have the capability and proximity needed for land-based aircraft attack. USA is not alone in this capacity.

My understanding is that the Syrians have a very good air defense system.
I suspect that there are a limited number of countries that could successful destroy this system without significant losses.

I'm sure that the US and Israel could, but an Israeli attack would be and idea on so many levels.

I suspect that England, France, and Germany could.
England and Germany won't act.
I'd be surprised if France would do go it alone.

From my perspective, the big question is Saudi Arabia and Qatar.
Both countries claim to support an attack on Syria.

I doubt that they could safely do so on their own.
With this said and done, I don't think that US should launch an attack unless they "actively" participate (even if said participation is cosmetic)

[Aberlour10]

Todays development:

Kerry : USA gives Assad one week Ultimatum....surrender of chemical weapons could stop U.S. attack ... punitive military action against Syria.

Defence Depratment: This statement has only rhetorical meaning.

(Question : Is Kerry a windbag, who doesnt know another time what is he talking about??)

Russia: Putin calls Assad to bring all chemical weapons under international control immediately, and to destroy it under this control later.

Syrian Minister of Foreign Affairs: We agree.

If its true, what now? Let Obama bomb in any case?

[hrothgar]

 Aberlour10, on 2013-September-09, 10:36, said:

Todays development:

Kerry : USA gives Assad one week Ultimatum....surrender of chemical weapons could stop U.S. attack ... punitive military action against Syria.

Defence Depratment: This statement has only rhetorical meaning.

(Question : Is Kerry a windbag, who doesnt know another time what is he talking about??)

Russia: Putin calls Assad to bring all chemical weapons under international control immediately, and to destroy it under this control later.

Syrian Minister of Foreign Affairs: We agree.

If its true, what now? Let Obama bomb in any case?

Personally, I would consider eliminating the Syrian chemical weapons stockpiles without the need for any bombing campaign to be a good outcome.

[ArtK78]

 hrothgar, on 2013-September-09, 11:01, said:

Personally, I would consider eliminating the Syrian chemical weapons stockpiles without the need for any bombing campaign to be a good outcome.

Absolutely. Let's see if anything productive actually comes out of this.

[kenberg]

 Aberlour10, on 2013-September-09, 10:36, said:

Todays development:

Kerry : USA gives Assad one week Ultimatum....surrender of chemical weapons could stop U.S. attack ... punitive military action against Syria.

Defence Depratment: This statement has only rhetorical meaning.

(Question : Is Kerry a windbag, who doesnt know another time what is he talking about??)

Russia: Putin calls Assad to bring all chemical weapons under international control immediately, and to destroy it under this control later.

Syrian Minister of Foreign Affairs: We agree.

If its true, what now? Let Obama bomb in any case?

"We agree"? You saw this somewhere? I saw that they welcome the proposal, which is not quite the same thing. Actually it would surprise me if any country said "we agree" to international control of its weapons stockpile.

I will say this: If indeed Syria does in fact agree to effective and immediate international control of its chemical weapons, this has to be viewed as an enormous accomplishment of Obama's. He threatens three days of cruise missiles and before he sends even one, the Syrians agree to totally relinquish control of their chemical weapons? Amazing. Things that are too good to be true usually are not true. But we shall see.

[Aberlour10]

 kenberg, on 2013-September-09, 12:14, said:

"We agree"? You saw this somewhere? I saw that they welcome the proposal, which is not quite the same thing. Actually it would surprise me if any country said "we agree" to international control of its weapons stockpile.

I will say this: If indeed Syria does in fact agree to effective and immediate international control of its chemical weapons, this has to be viewed as an enormous accomplishment of Obama's. He threatens three days of cruise missiles and before he sends even one, the Syrians agree to totally relinquish control of their chemical weapons? Amazing. Things that are too good to be true usually are not true. But we shall see.

Assad does not know how strong the US air strike would really be." Three days" says nothing about its intensivity.

He knows, his chemical weapons are now useless. Would he commit these weapons another time >>> Obama would bomb him not 3 days but 3 months or longer.
This would be the end of his regime for sure.

He also knows his forces are to this point in favour against the rebels. He can control the situation with conventional weapons, but only if these would not be destroyed by the strike.

So he wins time and dont need to fight at two fronts to the same time.

enormous accomplishment of Obama's? yes indeed.

So it could be win-win situation for both sides.

[blackshoe]

 helene_t, on 2013-September-08, 11:09, said:

Only for governments? Not for WBF and ACBL? Your Jillybean quote is somewhat apropos

We weren't talking about bridge, but yes, the governing bodies of the game (or for that matter any game) fall under the same caveat.

[paua]

 ArtK78, on 2013-September-09, 09:50, said:

Consistency is not the goal here. Just because a policy was followed in the past does not mean we must or should follow it in the future. If the policy is wrong, it is wrong.

There have been many flawed policies followed by many nations (and groups of nations) in the past. I prefer that we follow the right policy. We may differ in our opinion of what the right policy is. But consistency for consistency's sake is not the goal here.

And if relying on the international community (in the form of the UN or otherwise) results in doing nothing, and doing nothing is the wrong policy, it is the obligation of the US (as [for all practical purposes] the only country in the world that can do anything about it) to do something.

But then the US is playing judge, jury and executioner.
What if every country decided for themselves what is right and wrong, and took actions from their moral high-ground ?

[paua]

 hrothgar, on 2013-September-09, 10:02, said:

I'm not sure if I agree with all of Art's points, however, I have a great deal of sympathy for the broad sentiments.

I would strongly prefer it if the US were able to gain agreement from the UN. With this said and done, I view the inability of the US to get agreement from the security council to primarily reflect a failure on the part of the UN. On one of the Friday NPR shows I heard a caller make a very basic point which has stuck with me.

If the UN is unable to even condemn chemical weapons attacks, what good is it? I'm attaching a quote from the US ambassador to the UN which makes a very similar point.

and the USA has vetoed countless resolutions condemning Israel's behaviour in Palestine. Is this the fault of the UN ?? Or blatant hypocrisy by the USA ?

[kenberg]

 paua, on 2013-September-09, 17:47, said:

But then the US is playing judge, jury and executioner.
What if every country decided for themselves what is right and wrong, and took actions from their moral high-ground ?

I think that's pretty much what they do, at least if you delete the reference to moral high ground.

[akwoo]

For those who believe in action only after an international consensus, keep in mind that the Chinese government argues, generally on Hobbesian grounds, that a government has the right to do anything to its subjects that it deems necessary to maintain control.