While Senators could not be troubled to go to a simple briefing on the NSA warrantless surveillance program and some like South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham shrugged off the importance of privacy, the same Senators are demanding the intervention into yet another war in the Middle East. It does not matter that we have major educational and environmental programs being cut for lack of funding. It does not matter that our invasion in Iraq is an ongoing nightmare. We are being told to intervene in a civil war where Sunnis and Shia are carrying out centuries of hatred with atrocities on both sides. Senators want the U.S. to enforce a no-fly zone which would involve direct attacks on Serbian air forces while President Obama has already pledged to directly support rebel forces with arms.
Graham is frustrated by the delay in intervening into a fourth war: “We need to create a no-fly zone. We cannot take air power out of the equation.” His colleague, Georgia Republican Sen. Saxby Chambliss, has proclaimed “A no-fly zone may be the ultimate tactic that needs to be taken.”
Once again, the media is almost uniformly supporting this hawkish support by framing the question as to how far we should militarily intervene as opposed to whether we should intervene at all.
While Graham referred to the area as a “powder keg,” he is desperate for us to join the fighting through a no fly zone as well as military support. In the meantime, Russia has said it will oppose any no fly zone. Russia is of course the only nation with as conflicted a policy as our own. While denouncing Obama’s decision to supply arms to the rebels as destabilizing, Russia is of course sending massive support to the regime.
Once again, I am struck by how the media attention presupposes our intervention in some form rather than consider the possible position of non-intervention. We have a country filled with religious extremism and sectarian violence. Yet, these Senators are virtually panting to get involved in yet another war. Why?
Mike and Gene,
You both make some excellent points. I’m not a lawyer, but I recognize that there are many fine distinctions in the law. Here is one: I believe we should have acted against Saddam when he started gassing the Kurds, but we should not have gone to war in Iraq after 911 based on phony evidence. Here is another, not so fine: Syria is not Iraq, neither is it Viet Nam. If there is credible evidence that chemical weapons have been used by Assad, something must be done to stop their further use. That is where the community of nations has drawn the line since the First World War. The tragedy of Viet Nam nor the utter betrayal underlying Iraq should not preclude us from taking limited military action to save innocent lives.
We have no moral basis for intervention in Syria? Really?
How many of the weapons, including technology, used in the taking of innocent (non-combatant) lives did Assad receive from the U.S.? Are we no better as a nation than gun manufacturers or tobacco companies? Isn’t this nation a signatory to the Geneva Convention banning the use of chemical weapons, and therefore bound to oppose their use? I assert there is a moral basis, not for deciding the conflict, but for protecting non-combatants from chemical attack.
The Middle East is a clutterbuck created by decades of misguided U.S. foreign policy measures; we shouldn’t expect healthy, positive outcomes to regime changes whether they occur by ballot or by bullet. Because this is a mess we helped create, there is an obligation to mitigate the dangers faced by innocent people.
I agree that we shouldn’t go around getting involved in civil wars as a matter of routine, but Rwanda should have been an exception (Clinton cites it as his biggest single regret from his time in office) and the deployment of chemical weapons in Syria should be another. Would make a difference to you if Assad were using nuclear weapons?
If I hear a man murdering his wife next door, do I not have a moral obligation to try and intervene before the police arrive? If so, is it because they are my neighbors? What if they’re Syrian nationals?
But, Gene, to take your exception for getting involved in a civil war: hasn’t the Assad regime sponsored terrorism against us and our allies, like Ghaddafi did? He’s a threat, always has been, always will. I doubt that many American boots will be on the ground before the shootings over. Our engagement will be conducted at arms length, with proxies, similar to our involvement in Libya. I despise Obama for what I perceive as his many betrayals of our trust, but on this one he has my support.
Gene: preventing genocide was not our reason for entering into WWII
I know that, I said “would have been enough.” I think preventing genocide anywhere would be a moral and just reason to go to war.
I think it is a very complex issue to determine whether it is an obligation or not. I am not certain one has an obligation to risk one’s life in an attempt to save another life, and certainly if the danger is high enough and the hope of success is low enough (a house engulfed in flame, say) then I do not think an obligation exists.
As for Africa, I think we have had a moral failing there, and an error in judgment is not illustrative of anything.
As for preventive defense, I do not believe in attacking any country that has not already engaged in war. In my comment, I said entering a war on the side of a country being attacked or invaded, on the grounds that if the attacker gains the resources of the country-to-be-conquered, they will pose a threat to us in the future, and if we let that happen often enough, that threat will be overwhelming.
But that is not a pre-emptive initiation of hostilities, it is only joining a fight in progress, a prevention of an aggressor winning the spoils of a war they started. It is not robbing a bank, it is stopping bank robbers.
Tony,
“I think, in some circumstances, humanitarian assistance is a valid reason, I also think that preventive defense can be a valid reason, ally or not.”
I’d stipulate to the first but for the following observation: preventing genocide was not our reason for entering into WWII although MI6 and the OSS both knew what was happening to the Jews. They just didn’t fully appreciate the scale of the thing until troops hit the ground and liberated the camps. If stopping an atrocity like genocide was to become a valid rationale for war (and from an ethical standpoint, I agree that it could/should be) then that principle should have been followed in every instance since WWII. However, it hasn’t. Just look at Africa.
As for preventive defense? Would you care to explain how that materially differs from the Doctrine of Pre-emptive Warfare started under Bush before I comment further?
Here is another ‘sign’ that we were on our way to an Syrian Invasion/War/Conflilct (a few companies knew well in advance. Would it surprise you if you knew that certain US Congressional leaders owe stock in these companies?):
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20130601/DEFREG02/306010012/Amid-Sequester-US-Defense-Stocks-Still-Surge
“WASHINGTON — Signs of the automatic budget cuts known as sequestration are everywhere in Washington, but on Wall Street it’s a different story.”
“Many US defense stocks are at or near record highs, having well outperformed the broader market recovery of 2013, and much of that gain occurred in May.”
“While the S&P 500, a capitalization-weighted index of top US companies, grew 3.4 percent from April 29 to May 29, defense stocks nearly doubled that figure at 6.5 percent as measured by the Spade Defense Index (DXS).”
“The Spade Defense Index, also capitalization-weighted — meaning that the index factors in the value of the companies when aggregating numbers — is composed of nearly 50 companies, more than two dozen of which appear on the Defense News Top 100 contractors list.”
“Goldman Sachs even announced May 30 that it now considers defense stocks “attractive,” a move that will likely push more casual investors into the space and spur more growth.”
“That growth, paired with the fact that defense stocks didn’t tumble when the sequester became official, means that defense contractors are experiencing stock pricesat or above previous highs of 2007 before the economic downturn that served as a drag on the market as a whole.”
“The sector never really dropped, it never really collapsed even when people thought it might,” said Scott Sacknoff, manager of the Spade Defense Index, discussing both the index and the PPA investment fund that is built on the index. “The index is higher than it’s ever been, which means that we actually have a higher valuation of defense companies now than we did when we hit the peak in defense spending during the Iraq and the Afghanistan wars. I’m really not sure what to make of that.”
Yesterday, the local Fox2News reported that Boeing is looking to hire 400 new employees partially due to an increase in ‘federal contracts’……………..
Gene: I don’t believe there are only two reasons. I think, in some circumstances, humanitarian assistance is a valid reason, I also think that preventive defense can be a valid reason, ally or not.
As an individual, I think it is moral and just to stop a violent crime against another individual. I won’t get into whether it is an obligation or responsibility, but I do think it is moral and just if it is done, and I think that extends to the country level as well with little modification. In WWII, I think just knowing what the Nazis were doing to Jews would have been sufficient cause to intervene.
I also think that, as humans, we can accurately project the consequences of some wars upon ourselves in the far future, so something like entering a war on the side of those being attacked, allies or not, to stop the march of world wide totalitarianism, could count as “self defense.” A small surgery can sometimes prevent a runaway cancer that would have been fatal.
There are only two reasons to go to war that are just and therefor moral: self-defense and retribution. These reasons for going to war are often co-mingled as in the case of America’s entry into WWII. A third basis – defense of allies – can be a just war but not always depending upon the circumstances. This also highlights the hypocrisy and venal underpinnings of illegally invading Iraq under false pretenses when we knew it was Bush family/Halliburton business partner Saudi Arabia that funded and manned the 9/11 attack. However, in the entirety of human history, the just war is the exception and not the rule. It’s usually about money followed closely by religion which is usually a cover for it being about money although ideology can play an actual real role in motivation.
We have no moral basis for intervening in Syria.
It’s a civil war and unless they attack us directly or attack an ally under the “right” circumstances, it’s an internal matter and none of our business. We – and other nations – should stay out of it both actively and passively (for example by refusing to provide material support for either side).
Why shouldn’t we appease the MIC…. They after all allow the puppet regime to continue….
maybe we should intervene and do it right this time, get rid of syria, saudi arabia and iran. then we wouldnt have to worry about tapping our phones, the tsa feeling us up, having to be body searched to go into a government building because all the threats would be a black shadow on the pavement or a red smear.
we are just stupid. Osama was right, the US is a paper tiger.
Tony C, RWL spoke of investments by elites. Warren Buffett is making tons of money on his purchase of a railroad that hauls US oil. More money in that than in Syrian oil……
Swarthmore: I wish I was in the financial position of considering $40M a day “paltry.” Must be nice where you live.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-06-18/americans-exporting-more-oil-first-time-since-70s.html
RWL, Right…. Elites have better things to do with their money than chase some paltry amount of oil in Syria. ..
If Lindsay Graham is for it, I would be very hesitant to agree. He is a war monger of the highest degree and there is probably another “reason” why he is favor. Think money.
I was firmly opposed to the war in Iraq and the way in which it was fought. I object to drone strikes on U.S citizens without a trial and I’m terrified that routine surveillance by the government has become the status quo around the world. I see a lot of insanity in our culture and politics, but intervention in this case is not one of those instances.
I’m not comfortable with the notion of allowing the use of chemicals weapons to go unpunished; that is a line that cannot be crossed. I think back to Rwanda, the Kurds in Iraq and Sarajevo – those were humanitarian causes that called for intervention. This is another one of them.
Will someone enrich their bank account as a result of our involvement? Yes. Are past U.S. policies culpable in these chemical attacks or even complicit. Again, yes. Will American lives be lost in an engagement with Syria. Hopefully not but possibly yes. These are not reasons compellingly strong enough to cause us to ignore these attacks and they should not be used as excuses for not taking action. These chemicals kill indiscriminately; non-combatants, children, even dogs. There is a moral component in our obligation to stop Assad from continuing them.
Expect to see the same strategy Obama used in Libya, supplying air support, and arming rebels and proxies, which successfully limited the number of American causalities. I have no problem with that, and let me forestall any criticism some of may have: I do have skin in the game. I have close family members and friends in the Navy and Marines. I worry about them every day. But some wars are worth fighting.
“There is a moral component in our obligation to stop Assad from continuing them.”
RTC,
I strongly disagree that there is any “moral” component obliging the U.S. to do this. Putting intervention in a foreign country into “moral” terms has been the excuse for aggression throughout the ages. You yourself said that you opposed the Iraq war. Can we forget that the justification for it was “weapons of mass destruction”, in the form of chemical warfare, that was never found. Why should I give the story of Assad “gassing” his citizens any more credibility?
However, let me go further. This nation has lost its right to assert “moral” authority anywhere, other than in direct protection of our shores. We devastated Viet Nam for “moral” reasons and have been in Iraq and Afghanistan for over a decade, asctually making things worse in both countries. We got rid of Ghaddafi, but has Libya really gotten any better? Is Morsi in Egypt any better than his predeccessor? Are people still starving in Ruanda and the Sudan? Truthfully in Iran the Shah was far worse than Mossadegh and we put him in power. I could go on to show that througout the history of U.S. foreign policy most of our interventions turned out to be immoral, yet justified on “moral” grounds.
I heard that in South Carolina Lindsey Graham Cracker wants to frack Quakers. What does that all mean?
In 2012 the US was importing about 10.5 million barrels of oil a day, according to the same US Energy Information Administration. That 1000 barrels a day is the penny in the parking lot that it isn’t worth bending down to pick up.
That 7 million barrels of fracked oil a day is 1.4 percent of that total. Considering the downside to fracking I wonder if the damage done will be worth it.
LK,
You & SWM are good, decent common folks (as my pops use to say back in MS). However, you are forgetting who runs this country: Elites. Their middle name is “Greed”. These corporations are licking their chops to go in Syria, and make what Jim Cramer, from CNBC, states: “longest green.”
Didn’t we go through the same ordeal with Iraq? How about Afghanistan? The Congo? Imposed sanctions, went to war, and then allowed Wall Street to go in and prosper?
As one US soldier in Aghanistan stated: “Now, I see more dumptrucks, cranes, and tractors than army vehicles.”
I meant to say “So many.” Also, I forgot to add: We-American people-reap the rewards from these companies for their involvement in war/conflict, especially when it comes to mineral resources……diamonds, gold, oil, job opportunities, etc…
SWM,
The US doesn’t just go for oil; they go for everything else. Some many US corporations profit from war/conflict, especially in the middle east.
Cheaper than war? For you and I (Main Street), but it doesn’t matter to the Elites, Feds, and Wall Street. This group have been doing this for centuries……..
Nick S,
Whoa!!!! Fan of Fracking?!?!?!? Too many environmentalists on this blog for you to make that announcement. LOL!
nick, I am an anti-fracker. 🙂 I have experienced a few small earthquakes during the last few years due to fracking. I was just pointing out that the idea that the US needs to go to war with Syria to get their miniscule amount of oil when we have an abundance is not exactly true.