by Ugh
Let's do this.
Bombing Syria: good? bad? unknown? If the last, then good? Bad?
Who/what would we be acting on behalf of? The United States/American people? The United Nations? Some subset of the latter? The Assad opposition? Noble ideals? A "red line"? Some of the above?
Perhaps the question I'm most interested in at the moment: what legal document will the President point to authorizing him to commit an act of war against Syria? Or have we reached the point that no one cares anymore as long as the "right" people/nations/things are being targeted?
When do we stop? Is this some sort of Goldilocks bombing campaign with just the right amount of explosive ordinance, neither to much nor too little? How much of a deterrent is this to any future would-be users of chemical weapons if, after the proper amount of bombing is applied, Assad is still there and, indeed, if he's around three years from now?
How much is this going to cost? Could the money be spent better elsewhere?
Maybe we should bomb ourselves.
Maybe we should bomb ourselves.
“We have met the enemy, and he is us” – Pogo
“We have met the enemy, and he is us” – Pogo
I don’t know a whole lot about it but I’ve generally found James Fallows to make sense, especially when he agrees with my gut instincts anyway. “Fact 1: Atrocities are happening in Syria. Fact 2: The United States has bombers, cruise missiles, and drones. Putting those two facts together does not make the second a solution to the first.”
I don’t know a whole lot about it but I’ve generally found James Fallows to make sense, especially when he agrees with my gut instincts anyway. “Fact 1: Atrocities are happening in Syria. Fact 2: The United States has bombers, cruise missiles, and drones. Putting those two facts together does not make the second a solution to the first.”
George Packer …says it feels like 1914. He also says that Russia and Iran will not let Assad go down. I can’t help connecting this to the Snowden humiliation, and whatever information is still encoded and not yet released.
This could escalate, but Bandar Bush, who is now head of Saudi Arabian Intelligence, just spent some serious talking with Putin. A deal might have been reached. $150 a barrel oil?
Welcome to Rome, or Victorian Britain. You, wherever you are, are most likely a resident and beneficiary of the Evil Empire. You are responsible, a brute and a victim. You can leave, but they won’t miss you. You can protest, but nobody will notice. You can vote, and they will thank you for legitimating them.
You don’t make policy.
Kinda a moral hell heading for a more physical hell, but the bread and circuses are terrific.
George Packer …says it feels like 1914. He also says that Russia and Iran will not let Assad go down. I can’t help connecting this to the Snowden humiliation, and whatever information is still encoded and not yet released.
This could escalate, but Bandar Bush, who is now head of Saudi Arabian Intelligence, just spent some serious talking with Putin. A deal might have been reached. $150 a barrel oil?
Welcome to Rome, or Victorian Britain. You, wherever you are, are most likely a resident and beneficiary of the Evil Empire. You are responsible, a brute and a victim. You can leave, but they won’t miss you. You can protest, but nobody will notice. You can vote, and they will thank you for legitimating them.
You don’t make policy.
Kinda a moral hell heading for a more physical hell, but the bread and circuses are terrific.
On the matter of legal justfication, I would say that:
– a fair number of people around the country do care about having one if we are going to start fighting. (Me included.)
– an infinitesimal number of the folks in Washington (both parties, and those who are not politicians) care. Some of them, at some times, will use the issue to score political points off each other — but they don’t really care about the issue as an issue. So don’t expect anything resembling a real legal justification.
As for bombing Syria itself, any discussion of that has to start with the question: What are we actually trying to accomplish here? If we are trying to get rid of Assad, that’s one thing. If we are just trying to punish use of chemical weapons, that’s different. And if we are merely shoring up “our credibility,” that’s yet another. So, what are we trying to accomplish?
I think most of us can agree that the world would be better off without Assad and his regime in it. Which is not the same as saying that whatever follows him would be anything we would be happy to see either.
My personal take is that the best (or, more accurately, least bad) outcome, for the Syrian people and for their neighbors, would be for the two (probably more, since I suspect the Kurds would want to stay separate) sides to pull back into separate areas and partition the country. They would probably still keep fighting for years — like India and Pakistan, but more vigorously. But it would be as close to real peace as Syria is likely to come, unless one side manages a successful genocide. Which is probably the only viable alternative to partition.
But the way we get to that, as far as I can judge (from my massive ignorance), is to bomb Assad hard, but not too hard. So he ends up weakened enough to have to pull back to the Alawite areas, but doesn’t get actually beaten. No bets whether anyone really knows just how hard a blow that might need to be. Or whether we could execute it successfully, even if we are right.
On the matter of legal justfication, I would say that:
– a fair number of people around the country do care about having one if we are going to start fighting. (Me included.)
– an infinitesimal number of the folks in Washington (both parties, and those who are not politicians) care. Some of them, at some times, will use the issue to score political points off each other — but they don’t really care about the issue as an issue. So don’t expect anything resembling a real legal justification.
As for bombing Syria itself, any discussion of that has to start with the question: What are we actually trying to accomplish here? If we are trying to get rid of Assad, that’s one thing. If we are just trying to punish use of chemical weapons, that’s different. And if we are merely shoring up “our credibility,” that’s yet another. So, what are we trying to accomplish?
I think most of us can agree that the world would be better off without Assad and his regime in it. Which is not the same as saying that whatever follows him would be anything we would be happy to see either.
My personal take is that the best (or, more accurately, least bad) outcome, for the Syrian people and for their neighbors, would be for the two (probably more, since I suspect the Kurds would want to stay separate) sides to pull back into separate areas and partition the country. They would probably still keep fighting for years — like India and Pakistan, but more vigorously. But it would be as close to real peace as Syria is likely to come, unless one side manages a successful genocide. Which is probably the only viable alternative to partition.
But the way we get to that, as far as I can judge (from my massive ignorance), is to bomb Assad hard, but not too hard. So he ends up weakened enough to have to pull back to the Alawite areas, but doesn’t get actually beaten. No bets whether anyone really knows just how hard a blow that might need to be. Or whether we could execute it successfully, even if we are right.
Bombing Syria: good? bad? unknown?
Bad, because it is pointless. We’re going to bomb Syria because of domestic political constraints. Months ago, the administration talked about the ‘red line’ but they never expected Assad to last this long and they never expected anyone to use chemical weapons. But now all the war mongers and media morons are screaming about the ‘red line’, so the administration has to do something, no matter how pointless.
We’re going to bomb a foreign country because no one in washington can say the truth: the US military, despite costing a trillion dollars a year, actually can’t solve a great many foreign policy problems, including the Syrian civil war.
Who/what would we be acting on behalf of?
We are going to bomb to protect America’s innocence. People in this country, or at least the media bubble, are not capable of dealing with the fact that the US military has limited capabilities. That’s like questioning our national manhood — there isn’t enough Vi*gra in the country to deal with the resulting flaccidity.
what legal document will the President point to authorizing him to commit an act of war against Syria?
None, because he doesn’t need any.
If Congress cares, it can always cut funding, but it doesn’t care because everyone is Congress is terrified of primary opponents screaming about ‘soft on terror’ or failing to ‘support the troops’. Besides, there isn’t going to be a war: we’re going to launch some Tomohawk missiles and that’ll be it, because Syria is too weak to fight back.
How much is this going to cost?
Spending $100 million on tomahawks to preserve our national manhood is a bargain.
Bombing Syria: good? bad? unknown?
Bad, because it is pointless. We’re going to bomb Syria because of domestic political constraints. Months ago, the administration talked about the ‘red line’ but they never expected Assad to last this long and they never expected anyone to use chemical weapons. But now all the war mongers and media morons are screaming about the ‘red line’, so the administration has to do something, no matter how pointless.
We’re going to bomb a foreign country because no one in washington can say the truth: the US military, despite costing a trillion dollars a year, actually can’t solve a great many foreign policy problems, including the Syrian civil war.
Who/what would we be acting on behalf of?
We are going to bomb to protect America’s innocence. People in this country, or at least the media bubble, are not capable of dealing with the fact that the US military has limited capabilities. That’s like questioning our national manhood — there isn’t enough Vi*gra in the country to deal with the resulting flaccidity.
what legal document will the President point to authorizing him to commit an act of war against Syria?
None, because he doesn’t need any.
If Congress cares, it can always cut funding, but it doesn’t care because everyone is Congress is terrified of primary opponents screaming about ‘soft on terror’ or failing to ‘support the troops’. Besides, there isn’t going to be a war: we’re going to launch some Tomohawk missiles and that’ll be it, because Syria is too weak to fight back.
How much is this going to cost?
Spending $100 million on tomahawks to preserve our national manhood is a bargain.
There aren’t really any easy good outcomes, but there is a bad outcome of not doing anything – increased Iranian hegemony in the region. The problem is, knowing that doing nothing is likely to lead to a bad outcome doesn’t mean that there is necessarily a way to avoid it without making things even worse.
At this point, I suspect we are talking action because the Saudis really really want Assad taken down, and that is something we can probably do. The problem is, unless we are willing and can find some way to justify outright taking over the country (don’t hold your breath), his replacement might well be acceptable to the Saudis and give the Iranians fits, but they’re not likely otherwise to good for us.
There aren’t really any easy good outcomes, but there is a bad outcome of not doing anything – increased Iranian hegemony in the region. The problem is, knowing that doing nothing is likely to lead to a bad outcome doesn’t mean that there is necessarily a way to avoid it without making things even worse.
At this point, I suspect we are talking action because the Saudis really really want Assad taken down, and that is something we can probably do. The problem is, unless we are willing and can find some way to justify outright taking over the country (don’t hold your breath), his replacement might well be acceptable to the Saudis and give the Iranians fits, but they’re not likely otherwise to good for us.
It is weird how you can be poor, and have no ability to project power in a region, and still be a regional hegemon. If Iran is a regional hegemon, I guess I am too.
It is weird how you can be poor, and have no ability to project power in a region, and still be a regional hegemon. If Iran is a regional hegemon, I guess I am too.
Fuzzy, I’m not sure how doing nothing increases Iran’s power in the region. Assad was already their boy. And no matter how things work out, he is going to be a lot weaker than he was.
Iran lost clout in the region when the Syrian civil war took off, and there really isn’t any prospect of their getting it back. Their best case scenario is that he somehow wins the war.
But he will be trying to run a country where the substantial majority of the people are not only opposed to him, but no longer really effectively cowed like they were before. Even if he pours lots and lots of money (that Iran doesn’t have to give him) into secret police informers, he will never again have the control that he used to have.
Fuzzy, I’m not sure how doing nothing increases Iran’s power in the region. Assad was already their boy. And no matter how things work out, he is going to be a lot weaker than he was.
Iran lost clout in the region when the Syrian civil war took off, and there really isn’t any prospect of their getting it back. Their best case scenario is that he somehow wins the war.
But he will be trying to run a country where the substantial majority of the people are not only opposed to him, but no longer really effectively cowed like they were before. Even if he pours lots and lots of money (that Iran doesn’t have to give him) into secret police informers, he will never again have the control that he used to have.
There is potential legal justification for military action, even absent a UN resolution:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23855428
Quite how this condition might be met – “Any force used must be specifically targeted at stopping the atrocity and protecting the civilian population” – is however entirely beyond me.
I have little doubt that a large majority of the electorates in both the US and the UK are against any military action; I also have little doubt that it will happen anyway.
There is potential legal justification for military action, even absent a UN resolution:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23855428
Quite how this condition might be met – “Any force used must be specifically targeted at stopping the atrocity and protecting the civilian population” – is however entirely beyond me.
I have little doubt that a large majority of the electorates in both the US and the UK are against any military action; I also have little doubt that it will happen anyway.
Maybe Putin’s friend (and, once removed, Assad’s friend) Edward Snowden was part of the hacking of the New York times today. Another reason to do nothing: we won’t be able to read the paper!
Maybe Putin’s friend (and, once removed, Assad’s friend) Edward Snowden was part of the hacking of the New York times today. Another reason to do nothing: we won’t be able to read the paper!
I mentioned this link and this anecdote seems to have a lot of interesting historical resonances.
After the First World War, an independent kingdom of Syria had been briefly proclaimed in 1920. France, however, had reoccupied Syria forcefully on the basis of the mandate it had been granted at Versailles, ‘sacrificing herself’ in defence of the civilizing mission, with a view to bringing democracy, development and human rights. The Syrians, who were unreceptive to the idea that the occupation was for their own good, showed consistently in polls that a majority wanted the occupation to end. Syrians sent petitions to the League of Nations complaining about French exercise of power under the mandate. When these petitions went unheeded, uprisings erupted. In 1925, a more significant uprising broke out after the French high commissioner failed to properly handle Druze complaints against Captain Carbillet, a French officer who — although he also built roads, bridges and dams — tended to manipulate tribal factions in a way that threatened the feudal authority of Druze sheikhs. The French repressed the insurgency brutally. Insurgents were designated as ‘brigands’, villages that had harboured them were burned and the bodies of 24 rebels were paraded in the streets on camel backs before being exposed in a Damascus public square. After more fighting from the Syrians, the counter-insurgency took a new dimension. The French sent tanks into the streets and systematically bombed Damascus from the hills. Whole neighbourhoods were razed. Between 500 and 1000 locals were killed. Priceless Islamic cultural artifacts were lost.
Following the bombing, a controversy unfolded in the columns of the American Journal of International Law. The article by Colby is in fact a response to an earlier article published by Quincy Wright in favour of the applicability of the laws of war. The Colby article constitutes one of the last systematic attempts at excluding ‘non-civilized peoples’ from the laws of war, one which seeks to articulate, on the basis of existing sources, precisely what it is that makes ‘savages’ unworthy of such protection.
The Colby mentioned is Elbridge Colby who “denounced the acquittal by an all-white jury of a man who had, in 1925, shot a black soldier for refusing to step off a sidewalk to let a white man pass, an event that was to have significant negative repercussions on his career.”
This is not to claim that Assad is innocent or that France is simply reverting to form. But, rather than history being one damn thing after another, it often seems like the same damn thing, over and over. For my opinion, what Farley wrote here, which I cut and paste, basically mirrors mine.
I don’t expect that the military action that’s likely about to happen will have any meaningful effect on the course of the Syrian civil war.
I do suspect that the U.S. will strike a variety of targets (most likely with TLAMs) that are associated in some way with the deployment and control of chemical weapons.
I think that the move of other air assets into the region (both by U.S. and U.K.) is largely a precaution against Syrian government reprisal.
Given Syria’s lack of response to recent Israeli airstrikes, I doubt we’ll see much beyond a rhetorical condemnation from the Syrians.
I worry that the Syrian rebels will over-interpret these strikes as support for their position, and begin to engage in risk-acceptant behaviors intended to provoke the government.
Beyond upholding the taboo against chemical weapons use (which I think has some value), it’s not easy for me to sort out the connection between means and ends.
I think the Obama administration made its “red line” commitment in the belief that there was virtually no chance that the Syrian government would use chemical weapons (or, indeed, survive this long). The administration seems to be struggling to escape a trap of its own making.
I hope that the reluctance to become directly engaged on the part of the administration will limit the dangers of entanglement. However, such dangers always exist.
On balance, I think it’s a bad idea to engage. But I also doubt that it’s a mistake of any significant or enduring consequence.
I mentioned this link and this anecdote seems to have a lot of interesting historical resonances.
After the First World War, an independent kingdom of Syria had been briefly proclaimed in 1920. France, however, had reoccupied Syria forcefully on the basis of the mandate it had been granted at Versailles, ‘sacrificing herself’ in defence of the civilizing mission, with a view to bringing democracy, development and human rights. The Syrians, who were unreceptive to the idea that the occupation was for their own good, showed consistently in polls that a majority wanted the occupation to end. Syrians sent petitions to the League of Nations complaining about French exercise of power under the mandate. When these petitions went unheeded, uprisings erupted. In 1925, a more significant uprising broke out after the French high commissioner failed to properly handle Druze complaints against Captain Carbillet, a French officer who — although he also built roads, bridges and dams — tended to manipulate tribal factions in a way that threatened the feudal authority of Druze sheikhs. The French repressed the insurgency brutally. Insurgents were designated as ‘brigands’, villages that had harboured them were burned and the bodies of 24 rebels were paraded in the streets on camel backs before being exposed in a Damascus public square. After more fighting from the Syrians, the counter-insurgency took a new dimension. The French sent tanks into the streets and systematically bombed Damascus from the hills. Whole neighbourhoods were razed. Between 500 and 1000 locals were killed. Priceless Islamic cultural artifacts were lost.
Following the bombing, a controversy unfolded in the columns of the American Journal of International Law. The article by Colby is in fact a response to an earlier article published by Quincy Wright in favour of the applicability of the laws of war. The Colby article constitutes one of the last systematic attempts at excluding ‘non-civilized peoples’ from the laws of war, one which seeks to articulate, on the basis of existing sources, precisely what it is that makes ‘savages’ unworthy of such protection.
The Colby mentioned is Elbridge Colby who “denounced the acquittal by an all-white jury of a man who had, in 1925, shot a black soldier for refusing to step off a sidewalk to let a white man pass, an event that was to have significant negative repercussions on his career.”
This is not to claim that Assad is innocent or that France is simply reverting to form. But, rather than history being one damn thing after another, it often seems like the same damn thing, over and over. For my opinion, what Farley wrote here, which I cut and paste, basically mirrors mine.
I don’t expect that the military action that’s likely about to happen will have any meaningful effect on the course of the Syrian civil war.
I do suspect that the U.S. will strike a variety of targets (most likely with TLAMs) that are associated in some way with the deployment and control of chemical weapons.
I think that the move of other air assets into the region (both by U.S. and U.K.) is largely a precaution against Syrian government reprisal.
Given Syria’s lack of response to recent Israeli airstrikes, I doubt we’ll see much beyond a rhetorical condemnation from the Syrians.
I worry that the Syrian rebels will over-interpret these strikes as support for their position, and begin to engage in risk-acceptant behaviors intended to provoke the government.
Beyond upholding the taboo against chemical weapons use (which I think has some value), it’s not easy for me to sort out the connection between means and ends.
I think the Obama administration made its “red line” commitment in the belief that there was virtually no chance that the Syrian government would use chemical weapons (or, indeed, survive this long). The administration seems to be struggling to escape a trap of its own making.
I hope that the reluctance to become directly engaged on the part of the administration will limit the dangers of entanglement. However, such dangers always exist.
On balance, I think it’s a bad idea to engage. But I also doubt that it’s a mistake of any significant or enduring consequence.
increased Iranian hegemony in the region.
I’m with Turb, I’m not seeing Iranian hegemony in action.
India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, the various other Stans, Russia, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia, Ukraine, Turkey, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, the UAE, Oman, Yemen.
And Syria.
That’s the neighborhood.
Iran can probably shut down the straights of Hormuz. It would cost them something, maybe a lot, but they could probably do it. For some period of time, probably long enough to annoy everybody else in the world.
That would be a royal PITA, but I don’t see it as regional hegemony.
Maybe you could explain what you have in mind.
IMO the answer to whether it’s a good idea to bomb Syria depends on whether anything good or useful would be achieved by doing so. It seems to me that the answer to that is “it’s a crapshoot”, so I guess bombing Syria would be, likewise, a crapshoot.
I also find myself with vanishingly small confidence that we aren’t all being played eight ways to Sunday, by eleventy-seven different players, which also reduces my confidence in the wisdom of the adventure.
Beyond that, I have nothing to contribute by way of informed opinion on the topic.
increased Iranian hegemony in the region.
I’m with Turb, I’m not seeing Iranian hegemony in action.
India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, the various other Stans, Russia, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia, Ukraine, Turkey, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, the UAE, Oman, Yemen.
And Syria.
That’s the neighborhood.
Iran can probably shut down the straights of Hormuz. It would cost them something, maybe a lot, but they could probably do it. For some period of time, probably long enough to annoy everybody else in the world.
That would be a royal PITA, but I don’t see it as regional hegemony.
Maybe you could explain what you have in mind.
IMO the answer to whether it’s a good idea to bomb Syria depends on whether anything good or useful would be achieved by doing so. It seems to me that the answer to that is “it’s a crapshoot”, so I guess bombing Syria would be, likewise, a crapshoot.
I also find myself with vanishingly small confidence that we aren’t all being played eight ways to Sunday, by eleventy-seven different players, which also reduces my confidence in the wisdom of the adventure.
Beyond that, I have nothing to contribute by way of informed opinion on the topic.
I dropped in the comments of the Farley thread and one of the comments had a link to this about the red line of chemical attacks from the Monkey Cage
I dropped in the comments of the Farley thread and one of the comments had a link to this about the red line of chemical attacks from the Monkey Cage
As for bombing Syria itself, any discussion of that has to start with the question: What are we actually trying to accomplish here?
To quote Sir Humphrey Appleby as best I can recall:
“Something must be done. This is a something. Therefore we must do it.”
As for bombing Syria itself, any discussion of that has to start with the question: What are we actually trying to accomplish here?
To quote Sir Humphrey Appleby as best I can recall:
“Something must be done. This is a something. Therefore we must do it.”
India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, the various other Stans, Russia, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia, Ukraine, Turkey, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, the UAE, Oman, Yemen.
And Syria.
Big neighborhood. Actually, the neighborhood is even bigger. The neighborhood is the world, as exemplified by the New York Times hacking today. No man is an island, especially these days.
India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, the various other Stans, Russia, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia, Ukraine, Turkey, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, the UAE, Oman, Yemen.
And Syria.
Big neighborhood. Actually, the neighborhood is even bigger. The neighborhood is the world, as exemplified by the New York Times hacking today. No man is an island, especially these days.
Well, one tiny little detail in Turbs argument is wrong: Iran isn’t poor, it’s rich – and potentially one of the richest countries in the world, due to its natural resources and well educated population.
As for Iranian hegemony, not an appealing thought given the current regime, but look at the alternatives: US? Israel? Saudi Arabia? – oh dear. At least Iran hasn’t invaded any other countries since godknowswhen.
Well, one tiny little detail in Turbs argument is wrong: Iran isn’t poor, it’s rich – and potentially one of the richest countries in the world, due to its natural resources and well educated population.
As for Iranian hegemony, not an appealing thought given the current regime, but look at the alternatives: US? Israel? Saudi Arabia? – oh dear. At least Iran hasn’t invaded any other countries since godknowswhen.
Iran isn’t poor, it’s rich – and potentially one of the richest countries in the world, due to its natural resources and well educated population.
Indeed, Iran is so very rich, rich enough to have an inflation rate of 40%. Would that we were all so rich!
Iran isn’t poor, it’s rich – and potentially one of the richest countries in the world, due to its natural resources and well educated population.
Indeed, Iran is so very rich, rich enough to have an inflation rate of 40%. Would that we were all so rich!
If I was Barack Obama, I would prepare a very expensive, extensive bombing campaign against Syria, accompanied by covert action inside the country and then, at the last moment, as the debt ceiling/government shutdown vermin in the House of Republicans push their traitorous, murderous program for the bankruptcy and dissolution of the United States government, I would halt the the action against Syria and turn the weaponry on the elite political and media filth of the Republican Party and their families, who are positioning themselves to kill more Americans than Assad, Saddam, and al Qaeda ever dreamed.
I declare the threatened bankruptcy of the United States and the defunding of Obamacare to be poisonous gas and weapons of mass destruction under the Geneva Convention.
If I was Barack Obama, I would prepare a very expensive, extensive bombing campaign against Syria, accompanied by covert action inside the country and then, at the last moment, as the debt ceiling/government shutdown vermin in the House of Republicans push their traitorous, murderous program for the bankruptcy and dissolution of the United States government, I would halt the the action against Syria and turn the weaponry on the elite political and media filth of the Republican Party and their families, who are positioning themselves to kill more Americans than Assad, Saddam, and al Qaeda ever dreamed.
I declare the threatened bankruptcy of the United States and the defunding of Obamacare to be poisonous gas and weapons of mass destruction under the Geneva Convention.
I think most of us can agree that the world would be better off without ______ and his regime in it.
This is a blank that has been and can be filled in with many names, some of them our staunchest allies.
It does not strike me as a good place to begin any sort of meaningful analysis.
I think most of us can agree that the world would be better off without ______ and his regime in it.
This is a blank that has been and can be filled in with many names, some of them our staunchest allies.
It does not strike me as a good place to begin any sort of meaningful analysis.
It seems to me that any coherent foreign policy in the Mideast would include the arrest and prosecution of this traitor and the traitors in Texas who placed him in power.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/08/louie-gohmert-fueling-anti-american-conspiracy-theory-egypt.php?ref=fpb
He’s fomenting hatred and violence against America in Egypt.
We don’t even need the NSA to spy on him.
He declares his guilt directly into the microphone.
It seems to me that any coherent foreign policy in the Mideast would include the arrest and prosecution of this traitor and the traitors in Texas who placed him in power.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2013/08/louie-gohmert-fueling-anti-american-conspiracy-theory-egypt.php?ref=fpb
He’s fomenting hatred and violence against America in Egypt.
We don’t even need the NSA to spy on him.
He declares his guilt directly into the microphone.
I looked at LJ’s otherwise very interesting link at Monkeycage and saw the writer speaking as though Assad had killed “hundreds of thousands”. In the first place, the counted death toll (and that’s all people in the press ever use for the Iraq War, thanks to the misplaced trust in the thoroughness of Iraq Body Count) is 100,000, even if the real figure is larger, and in the second place, those supposedly doing the counting (the Syrian Observatory of Human Rights) claim that at least 40,000 of those counted dead were either Syrian army or Syrian militia supporting Assad.
NYT article on death toll as of late June
Of course I have no idea what the real numbers are and already expressed doubt about the Syrian Observatory breakdown in the other thread (for various reasons), but I wish people would stop talking as though the Syrian civil war consisted of Assad going around shooting and gassing people. The situation seems a tad more complicated and confused than that, to me at least.
I looked at LJ’s otherwise very interesting link at Monkeycage and saw the writer speaking as though Assad had killed “hundreds of thousands”. In the first place, the counted death toll (and that’s all people in the press ever use for the Iraq War, thanks to the misplaced trust in the thoroughness of Iraq Body Count) is 100,000, even if the real figure is larger, and in the second place, those supposedly doing the counting (the Syrian Observatory of Human Rights) claim that at least 40,000 of those counted dead were either Syrian army or Syrian militia supporting Assad.
NYT article on death toll as of late June
Of course I have no idea what the real numbers are and already expressed doubt about the Syrian Observatory breakdown in the other thread (for various reasons), but I wish people would stop talking as though the Syrian civil war consisted of Assad going around shooting and gassing people. The situation seems a tad more complicated and confused than that, to me at least.
Bennis and Wildman have an anti-intervention piece up at the Nation
link
Bennis and Wildman have an anti-intervention piece up at the Nation
link
That’s a fascinating link, liberal japonicus. Thanks for posting it.
I also agree with the Farley cut&paste, although this seems a bit silly:
I worry that the Syrian rebels will over-interpret these strikes as support for their position, and begin to engage in risk-acceptant behaviors intended to provoke the government.
All the reporting I have seen indicates that the rebels are deeply skeptical (and for good reasons) about relying on any western help, and in any event it’s hard to see how it would make any difference on either score.
That’s a fascinating link, liberal japonicus. Thanks for posting it.
I also agree with the Farley cut&paste, although this seems a bit silly:
I worry that the Syrian rebels will over-interpret these strikes as support for their position, and begin to engage in risk-acceptant behaviors intended to provoke the government.
All the reporting I have seen indicates that the rebels are deeply skeptical (and for good reasons) about relying on any western help, and in any event it’s hard to see how it would make any difference on either score.
This is also fairly to the point (it’s from Greenwald, so sapient may ignore it):
(4) In 2008, President Obama, when he was a candidate for President, had this question-and-answer exchange with the Boston Globe:
“Q. In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites — a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)
“OBAMA: The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.
“As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent.”
This is also fairly to the point (it’s from Greenwald, so sapient may ignore it):
(4) In 2008, President Obama, when he was a candidate for President, had this question-and-answer exchange with the Boston Globe:
“Q. In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites — a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)
“OBAMA: The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.
“As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent.”
Patrick Cockburn says that Syrian Kurds are being ethnically cleansed from Syria–40,000 just this week. But by the rebels, not the government.
I was wondering if ethnic cleansing is something that we bomb people for, or does it depend on who does it to whom or is it unimportant so long as nobody has labeled it a red line?
link
Patrick Cockburn says that Syrian Kurds are being ethnically cleansed from Syria–40,000 just this week. But by the rebels, not the government.
I was wondering if ethnic cleansing is something that we bomb people for, or does it depend on who does it to whom or is it unimportant so long as nobody has labeled it a red line?
link
Another way to read the Monkeycage statement (by Eric Voeten), which is
Why should Assad be able to kill hundreds of thousands with conventional weapons without a U.S. military intervention but a much more modest attack using chemical weapons crosses the proverbial red line?
could be that he is noting the inherent contradiction that has been noted by others with chemical weapons vs. conventional weapons. It is hard to tell from the grammar, but it might be better expressed as ‘Assad could have killed many more but why, in using chemical weapons, he triggers a response’. I don’t know which reading reflects his thinking, but he has a number of interesting papers about international justice here. He’s also said that he will do a series of blog posts on human rights institutions, so you may want to raise this point with him as I think it is a valuable one and you seem to have a lot of the links handy.
Another way to read the Monkeycage statement (by Eric Voeten), which is
Why should Assad be able to kill hundreds of thousands with conventional weapons without a U.S. military intervention but a much more modest attack using chemical weapons crosses the proverbial red line?
could be that he is noting the inherent contradiction that has been noted by others with chemical weapons vs. conventional weapons. It is hard to tell from the grammar, but it might be better expressed as ‘Assad could have killed many more but why, in using chemical weapons, he triggers a response’. I don’t know which reading reflects his thinking, but he has a number of interesting papers about international justice here. He’s also said that he will do a series of blog posts on human rights institutions, so you may want to raise this point with him as I think it is a valuable one and you seem to have a lot of the links handy.
Why should Assad be able to kill hundreds of thousands with conventional weapons without a U.S. military intervention but a much more modest attack using chemical weapons crosses the proverbial red line?
One possible answer is that chemical weapons, while of limited or even no utility in conventional wars, are particularly effective weapons for repressing a civilian population for a regime which has no moral (or external) restraint on its actions.
Modern conventional weapons are also weapons of mass destruction if used in the manner Assad has done, but they also produce massive ‘collateral’ damage to economic infrastructure.
For a dictator facing a mass uprising, and lacking any compunction, chemical weapons are a very attractive option indeed.
While I am extremely skeptical about the utility of what’s likely to happen in the next few days, and oppose immediate military action without a supporting UN resolution, I also believe it’s likely that Assad would use chemical weapons on a massive scale if he was certain that there would never be any external intervention as a result.
Why should Assad be able to kill hundreds of thousands with conventional weapons without a U.S. military intervention but a much more modest attack using chemical weapons crosses the proverbial red line?
One possible answer is that chemical weapons, while of limited or even no utility in conventional wars, are particularly effective weapons for repressing a civilian population for a regime which has no moral (or external) restraint on its actions.
Modern conventional weapons are also weapons of mass destruction if used in the manner Assad has done, but they also produce massive ‘collateral’ damage to economic infrastructure.
For a dictator facing a mass uprising, and lacking any compunction, chemical weapons are a very attractive option indeed.
While I am extremely skeptical about the utility of what’s likely to happen in the next few days, and oppose immediate military action without a supporting UN resolution, I also believe it’s likely that Assad would use chemical weapons on a massive scale if he was certain that there would never be any external intervention as a result.
I left a comment at his blog, LJ. I’m not arguing with his main point, with which I am sympathetic. I just singled him out because I keep reading people talking about the war in those terms, as though all the deaths can be attributed to Assad and as though the reported death toll consisted mostly of civilian victims. For all I know the real death toll is predominantly civilian and killed by Assad’s side, but it’s not what the Syrian Observatory count actually shows.
I left a comment at his blog, LJ. I’m not arguing with his main point, with which I am sympathetic. I just singled him out because I keep reading people talking about the war in those terms, as though all the deaths can be attributed to Assad and as though the reported death toll consisted mostly of civilian victims. For all I know the real death toll is predominantly civilian and killed by Assad’s side, but it’s not what the Syrian Observatory count actually shows.
No man is an island, especially these days.
Since the original dates from about 400 years ago, I suspect there’s nothing special about ‘these days’.
I’m unclear on how this worthy quote is evidence, pro or con, for the idea that the threat of Iranian regional hegemony is either credible, or a good reason to bomb Syria.
I’m also unclear on how the NYT hacking makes the case for bombing Syria stronger or weaker.
Is this about the use of chemical weapons, or not?
No man is an island, especially these days.
Since the original dates from about 400 years ago, I suspect there’s nothing special about ‘these days’.
I’m unclear on how this worthy quote is evidence, pro or con, for the idea that the threat of Iranian regional hegemony is either credible, or a good reason to bomb Syria.
I’m also unclear on how the NYT hacking makes the case for bombing Syria stronger or weaker.
Is this about the use of chemical weapons, or not?
I’m also unclear on how the NYT hacking makes the case for bombing Syria stronger or weaker.
While clearly it’s no significant threat to US security, if conducted by the Syrian state, it is in theory an act of war, so would provide some sort of legal fig leaf for any subsequent action.
Of course, one could make a similar but much stronger case against the US for propagating the Stuxnet virus, for example…
I’m also unclear on how the NYT hacking makes the case for bombing Syria stronger or weaker.
While clearly it’s no significant threat to US security, if conducted by the Syrian state, it is in theory an act of war, so would provide some sort of legal fig leaf for any subsequent action.
Of course, one could make a similar but much stronger case against the US for propagating the Stuxnet virus, for example…
I’m unclear on how this worthy quote is evidence, pro or con, for the idea that the threat of Iranian regional hegemony is either credible, or a good reason to bomb Syria.
Sorry, I omitted some threads in my train of thought there. I don’t think that the term “Iranian hegemony” is meant to cover all of the neighbors that you mentioned (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, the various other Stans, Russia, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia, and Ukraine, for example). That’s what I meant by pretty big neighborhood.
As to “no man is an island” the use of chemical weapons is an international problem that transcends neighborhoods.
I’m also unclear on how the NYT hacking makes the case for bombing Syria stronger or weaker.
By the way, I’m not “making a case” for anything but a response to the chemical attack, and bombing seems to be the only response on the table aside from invasion.
It’s an interesting thing that Snowden, the hero, just took gigabytes and gigabytes of US national security secrets to Russia, and suddenly Assad feels emboldened to use chemical weapons on a large scale, and friends of Assad find ways to intimidate the New York Times by hacking its servers. Obviously, no proof of cause and effect, but it might give some people pause as to whether Snowden’s great service to the country was maybe a little dangerous after all. And, yes, I do think the various massive intelligence leaks may be having an effect on the actions of the participants.
I’m unclear on how this worthy quote is evidence, pro or con, for the idea that the threat of Iranian regional hegemony is either credible, or a good reason to bomb Syria.
Sorry, I omitted some threads in my train of thought there. I don’t think that the term “Iranian hegemony” is meant to cover all of the neighbors that you mentioned (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, the various other Stans, Russia, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia, and Ukraine, for example). That’s what I meant by pretty big neighborhood.
As to “no man is an island” the use of chemical weapons is an international problem that transcends neighborhoods.
I’m also unclear on how the NYT hacking makes the case for bombing Syria stronger or weaker.
By the way, I’m not “making a case” for anything but a response to the chemical attack, and bombing seems to be the only response on the table aside from invasion.
It’s an interesting thing that Snowden, the hero, just took gigabytes and gigabytes of US national security secrets to Russia, and suddenly Assad feels emboldened to use chemical weapons on a large scale, and friends of Assad find ways to intimidate the New York Times by hacking its servers. Obviously, no proof of cause and effect, but it might give some people pause as to whether Snowden’s great service to the country was maybe a little dangerous after all. And, yes, I do think the various massive intelligence leaks may be having an effect on the actions of the participants.
While I am extremely skeptical about the utility of what’s likely to happen in the next few days, and oppose immediate military action without a supporting UN resolution, I also believe it’s likely that Assad would use chemical weapons on a massive scale if he was certain that there would never be any external intervention as a result.
I’m hoping for a UN resolution as well, but I don’t “oppose” military action in its absence, because I agree altogether with the rest of your sentence, and I don’t think that Putin should be the only thing standing in the way of deterrence.
While I am extremely skeptical about the utility of what’s likely to happen in the next few days, and oppose immediate military action without a supporting UN resolution, I also believe it’s likely that Assad would use chemical weapons on a massive scale if he was certain that there would never be any external intervention as a result.
I’m hoping for a UN resolution as well, but I don’t “oppose” military action in its absence, because I agree altogether with the rest of your sentence, and I don’t think that Putin should be the only thing standing in the way of deterrence.
Sorry, I omitted some threads in my train of thought there.
Thanks for the clarification.
All of the countries I named are near to Iran. Of all of them, to my knowledge Iran can arguably be said to exert hegemony – preponderant political influence – on exactly one – Syria. Note my use of the word ‘arguably’.
All of which is to say, there may be 1,000 very good reasons to make a military response to Syria’s use of chemical weapons. Curbing Iranian hegemony in the region doesn’t appear, to me, to be one of them.
That’s my point, in it’s entirety.
Sorry, I omitted some threads in my train of thought there.
Thanks for the clarification.
All of the countries I named are near to Iran. Of all of them, to my knowledge Iran can arguably be said to exert hegemony – preponderant political influence – on exactly one – Syria. Note my use of the word ‘arguably’.
All of which is to say, there may be 1,000 very good reasons to make a military response to Syria’s use of chemical weapons. Curbing Iranian hegemony in the region doesn’t appear, to me, to be one of them.
That’s my point, in it’s entirety.
“It’s an interesting thing that Snowden, the hero, just took gigabytes and gigabytes of US national security secrets to Russia, and suddenly Assad feels emboldened to use chemical weapons on a large scale, and friends of Assad find ways to intimidate the New York Times by hacking its servers. Obviously, no proof of cause and effect, but it might give some people pause as to whether Snowden’s great service to the country was maybe a little dangerous after all. ”
Somebody check the sunspot cycle–I think there was a coronal mass ejection just the other day. Obviously there is no proof of cause and effect, but I can’t help thinking that solar magnetic fields might have something to do with the Snowdens dancing in sapient’s head.
A slightly more likely, but still implausible theory that I’ve seen is that the US lack of action regarding the slaughter in Egypt might have emboldened Assad (or whoever) to think that you can get away with anything these days. Or the fact that nobody talks seriously of air strikes against the Syrian rebels or of arresting US or Israeli or other Western officials for their own morally dubious actions, just might have something to do with the general feeling that international law on war crimes is something of a hypocritical joke.
But personally I think it’s solar magnetic fields.
“It’s an interesting thing that Snowden, the hero, just took gigabytes and gigabytes of US national security secrets to Russia, and suddenly Assad feels emboldened to use chemical weapons on a large scale, and friends of Assad find ways to intimidate the New York Times by hacking its servers. Obviously, no proof of cause and effect, but it might give some people pause as to whether Snowden’s great service to the country was maybe a little dangerous after all. ”
Somebody check the sunspot cycle–I think there was a coronal mass ejection just the other day. Obviously there is no proof of cause and effect, but I can’t help thinking that solar magnetic fields might have something to do with the Snowdens dancing in sapient’s head.
A slightly more likely, but still implausible theory that I’ve seen is that the US lack of action regarding the slaughter in Egypt might have emboldened Assad (or whoever) to think that you can get away with anything these days. Or the fact that nobody talks seriously of air strikes against the Syrian rebels or of arresting US or Israeli or other Western officials for their own morally dubious actions, just might have something to do with the general feeling that international law on war crimes is something of a hypocritical joke.
But personally I think it’s solar magnetic fields.
Donald Johnson, you’re perfectly happy to believe that Snowden took absolutely nothing of importance on his various laptops and thumb drives except things that would help us all see the light about the evils of the NSA. And maybe you’re right. I happen to think you’re the one who’s deluded.
But what he took is Putin’s now. And it’s unlikely that we’ll know for a very long time.
Donald Johnson, you’re perfectly happy to believe that Snowden took absolutely nothing of importance on his various laptops and thumb drives except things that would help us all see the light about the evils of the NSA. And maybe you’re right. I happen to think you’re the one who’s deluded.
But what he took is Putin’s now. And it’s unlikely that we’ll know for a very long time.
It is naive to think Snowden did not do great harm to legitimate US interests, even if he also revealed an ever-expanding security state. Time will tell if the harm to our legitimate national interests will overwhelm the value of learning what we’ve learned about the breadth and depth of NSA et al’s surveillance.
But, that’s an aside, given the topic at hand. IF Assad could be brought down/forced to the table, etc by raining down cruise missiles on him and his military, *that* might make the endeavor worthwhile. But, it can’t and it won’t and since he knows something of that nature is headed his way, he can now take steps to mitigate.
None of us read the Middle East very well, I suspect, but it can’t be bad for Assad to have been attacked by the US and still remain in the fight.
I happen to be a big fan of Machiavelli and he was dead solid right when he said ‘Never do an enemy a small injury.’
It is naive to think Snowden did not do great harm to legitimate US interests, even if he also revealed an ever-expanding security state. Time will tell if the harm to our legitimate national interests will overwhelm the value of learning what we’ve learned about the breadth and depth of NSA et al’s surveillance.
But, that’s an aside, given the topic at hand. IF Assad could be brought down/forced to the table, etc by raining down cruise missiles on him and his military, *that* might make the endeavor worthwhile. But, it can’t and it won’t and since he knows something of that nature is headed his way, he can now take steps to mitigate.
None of us read the Middle East very well, I suspect, but it can’t be bad for Assad to have been attacked by the US and still remain in the fight.
I happen to be a big fan of Machiavelli and he was dead solid right when he said ‘Never do an enemy a small injury.’
None of us read the Middle East very well, I suspect, but it can’t be bad for Assad to have been attacked by the US and still remain in the fight.
Not sure that this is true. Unfortunately, a violent stalemate is apparently the short-term best solution until the parties can come to some kind of negotiated settlement. A weakened Assad might be more likely to deal.
None of us read the Middle East very well, I suspect, but it can’t be bad for Assad to have been attacked by the US and still remain in the fight.
Not sure that this is true. Unfortunately, a violent stalemate is apparently the short-term best solution until the parties can come to some kind of negotiated settlement. A weakened Assad might be more likely to deal.
It’s an interesting thing that Snowden, the hero, just took gigabytes and gigabytes of US national security secrets to Russia, and suddenly Assad feels emboldened to use chemical weapons on a large scale, and friends of Assad find ways to intimidate the New York Times by hacking its servers.
Are you high?
Assad feels emboldened because the war is going poorly for him.
And no one actually hacked the NYT servers. They hacked a small incompetent DNS registrar in Australia that that the NYT was using.
Obviously, no proof of cause and effect, but it might give some people pause as to whether Snowden’s great service to the country was maybe a little dangerous after all.
Is there any evidence, any evidence at all, that links Snowden to the chemical weapons attack or the NYT hacking? I don’t see any. Which means that you’re just writing out delusional fantasies.
It’s an interesting thing that Snowden, the hero, just took gigabytes and gigabytes of US national security secrets to Russia, and suddenly Assad feels emboldened to use chemical weapons on a large scale, and friends of Assad find ways to intimidate the New York Times by hacking its servers.
Are you high?
Assad feels emboldened because the war is going poorly for him.
And no one actually hacked the NYT servers. They hacked a small incompetent DNS registrar in Australia that that the NYT was using.
Obviously, no proof of cause and effect, but it might give some people pause as to whether Snowden’s great service to the country was maybe a little dangerous after all.
Is there any evidence, any evidence at all, that links Snowden to the chemical weapons attack or the NYT hacking? I don’t see any. Which means that you’re just writing out delusional fantasies.
It is naive to think Snowden did not do great harm to legitimate US interests, even if he also revealed an ever-expanding security state.
Is it ?
Given what is clearly pretty abysmal security at the NSA, nations like China and Russia have probably already been able to buy any such information from less public and less scrupulous sources among the other 999 sysadmins.
Setting aside that argument, I have yet to see a convincing case for any great harm which might have been done.
It is naive to think Snowden did not do great harm to legitimate US interests, even if he also revealed an ever-expanding security state.
Is it ?
Given what is clearly pretty abysmal security at the NSA, nations like China and Russia have probably already been able to buy any such information from less public and less scrupulous sources among the other 999 sysadmins.
Setting aside that argument, I have yet to see a convincing case for any great harm which might have been done.
They hacked a small incompetent DNS registrar in Australia that that the NYT was using.
Which resulted in people’s not being able to read the NYT for three hours. They seem to be getting better at hacking.
Is there any evidence, any evidence at all, that links Snowden to the chemical weapons attack or the NYT hacking? I don’t see any. Which means that you’re just writing out delusional fantasies.
How soon do you think there will be evidence, any evidence at all, of the harm Snowden has done with his massive leaks? Maybe there won’t be any evidence. Maybe there is no harm. After all, George W. Bush looked into the soul of Putin. It’s all good.
They hacked a small incompetent DNS registrar in Australia that that the NYT was using.
Which resulted in people’s not being able to read the NYT for three hours. They seem to be getting better at hacking.
Is there any evidence, any evidence at all, that links Snowden to the chemical weapons attack or the NYT hacking? I don’t see any. Which means that you’re just writing out delusional fantasies.
How soon do you think there will be evidence, any evidence at all, of the harm Snowden has done with his massive leaks? Maybe there won’t be any evidence. Maybe there is no harm. After all, George W. Bush looked into the soul of Putin. It’s all good.
sapient, thanks for confirming that you have zero evidence for your theory, which puts it in the same category as astrology.
sapient, thanks for confirming that you have zero evidence for your theory, which puts it in the same category as astrology.
Keep the faith in Glenn, Turbulence.
Keep the faith in Glenn, Turbulence.
As with most of you, I think this is stupid (there is another spin: that this is part & parcel of a general plan to prolong the conflict and make Russian & Iran pour more resources into it. That, IMO, shifts things from “stupid” to “evil”).
I was against the Libyan adventure, and I’m doubly against this one. I’m tired of arguing why, as it should be perfectly obvious by now to all.
As with most of you, I think this is stupid (there is another spin: that this is part & parcel of a general plan to prolong the conflict and make Russian & Iran pour more resources into it. That, IMO, shifts things from “stupid” to “evil”).
I was against the Libyan adventure, and I’m doubly against this one. I’m tired of arguing why, as it should be perfectly obvious by now to all.
Which resulted in people’s not being able to read the NYT for three hours. They seem to be getting better at hacking.
And? I’m struggling to find the relevance here.
Which resulted in people’s not being able to read the NYT for three hours. They seem to be getting better at hacking.
And? I’m struggling to find the relevance here.
Can I ask a stupid question?
How do we know the Syrian government used chemical weapons?
How do we know chemical weapons were used at all?
I’m looking at the reportage on this, and I see that UN inspectors are there, Ban Ki Moon has that they be given time to complete their work, and that John Kerry and Joe Biden say it’s undeniable that chemical weapons were used.
Is there clear evidence that chemical attacks actually happened?
If so, is it clear who was responsible?
Can I ask a stupid question?
How do we know the Syrian government used chemical weapons?
How do we know chemical weapons were used at all?
I’m looking at the reportage on this, and I see that UN inspectors are there, Ban Ki Moon has that they be given time to complete their work, and that John Kerry and Joe Biden say it’s undeniable that chemical weapons were used.
Is there clear evidence that chemical attacks actually happened?
If so, is it clear who was responsible?
The main proof I have seen has been videos recorded and analyses of the videos and the report of Doctors without Borders. Because the videos are rather graphic, I think they have not been highlighted as much. This link discusses the basic points while this New Scientist article discusses why it is probably government rather than rebel forces. I am trying to find an article I read by a doctor who analyzed the video, but am coming up empty.
This might be a good time to remind everyone to please play the ball, not the man. Thanks.
The main proof I have seen has been videos recorded and analyses of the videos and the report of Doctors without Borders. Because the videos are rather graphic, I think they have not been highlighted as much. This link discusses the basic points while this New Scientist article discusses why it is probably government rather than rebel forces. I am trying to find an article I read by a doctor who analyzed the video, but am coming up empty.
This might be a good time to remind everyone to please play the ball, not the man. Thanks.
thanks for the links LJ, I will check them out.
thanks for the links LJ, I will check them out.
What blows my mind about all of this is that the only reason most people have seen that video is because it doesn’t show people getting shot or blown up by explosives or strafed or boiled alive or shredded by shrapnel or any of the other myriad ways that civilians die horribly. Our media morons have bizarrely decided that you can’t show almost any killing of civilians, but there’s this weird nonsensical exception for chemical weapons. It doesn’t make any sense. If the cable news folks played videos of other Syrian massacres (made with conventional weapons), maybe the US government would have done something two years ago, but no one can show those videos on TV because ZOMG! Civilians! Are! Getting! Shot!
If there’s one thing Americans cannot abide, it is violence on their television.
What blows my mind about all of this is that the only reason most people have seen that video is because it doesn’t show people getting shot or blown up by explosives or strafed or boiled alive or shredded by shrapnel or any of the other myriad ways that civilians die horribly. Our media morons have bizarrely decided that you can’t show almost any killing of civilians, but there’s this weird nonsensical exception for chemical weapons. It doesn’t make any sense. If the cable news folks played videos of other Syrian massacres (made with conventional weapons), maybe the US government would have done something two years ago, but no one can show those videos on TV because ZOMG! Civilians! Are! Getting! Shot!
If there’s one thing Americans cannot abide, it is violence on their television.
None of us read the Middle East very well, I suspect, but it can’t be bad for Assad to have been attacked by the US and still remain in the fight.
Not sure about that- it seems to me that it can be pretty bad for him if the West rejects him as an acceptable leader (eg Gadaffi); if his faction become interested in a settlement but understand that he is personally an insurmountable obstacle, that’s an unhealthy position to be in.
But analogies between Libya and Syria seem to founder on the different role Russia plays here. Im starting to think zombie Russia may be the biggest security threat in the next decade or two: China wants to do business. Maybe a bit bareknuckled at times, but everyone’s cost-benefit analysis should keep us from serious trouble. Russia seems poised to ride a wave of pseudofascist nationalism directly into Serious Trouble For Everyone.
None of us read the Middle East very well, I suspect, but it can’t be bad for Assad to have been attacked by the US and still remain in the fight.
Not sure about that- it seems to me that it can be pretty bad for him if the West rejects him as an acceptable leader (eg Gadaffi); if his faction become interested in a settlement but understand that he is personally an insurmountable obstacle, that’s an unhealthy position to be in.
But analogies between Libya and Syria seem to founder on the different role Russia plays here. Im starting to think zombie Russia may be the biggest security threat in the next decade or two: China wants to do business. Maybe a bit bareknuckled at times, but everyone’s cost-benefit analysis should keep us from serious trouble. Russia seems poised to ride a wave of pseudofascist nationalism directly into Serious Trouble For Everyone.
Sound policy and military strategy here:
One U.S. official who has been briefed on the options on Syria said he believed the White House would seek a level of intensity “just muscular enough not to get mocked” but not so devastating that it would prompt a response from Syrian allies Iran and Russia.
“They are looking at what is just enough to mean something, just enough to be more than symbolic,” he said.
And what does this remind me of:
Because of safety concerns, the team of U.N. inspectors in Damascus was forced to scrub a planned visit Tuesday to one of the suburbs allegedly hit by poison gas. They are to leave Syria on Sunday, but they probably will be withdrawn earlier if Washington warns that missile strikes are imminent.
Sound policy and military strategy here:
One U.S. official who has been briefed on the options on Syria said he believed the White House would seek a level of intensity “just muscular enough not to get mocked” but not so devastating that it would prompt a response from Syrian allies Iran and Russia.
“They are looking at what is just enough to mean something, just enough to be more than symbolic,” he said.
And what does this remind me of:
Because of safety concerns, the team of U.N. inspectors in Damascus was forced to scrub a planned visit Tuesday to one of the suburbs allegedly hit by poison gas. They are to leave Syria on Sunday, but they probably will be withdrawn earlier if Washington warns that missile strikes are imminent.
And let’s flip this around: if it was the opposition forces in Syria that used chemical weapons against the Assad regime, would we be talking about bombing the former?
And let’s flip this around: if it was the opposition forces in Syria that used chemical weapons against the Assad regime, would we be talking about bombing the former?
Practically it’d be a lot harder to figure responsibility since the rebel leadership is so fragmented, and even within factions ‘leadership’ may have only tentative control over individual units and commanders.
Practically it’d be a lot harder to figure responsibility since the rebel leadership is so fragmented, and even within factions ‘leadership’ may have only tentative control over individual units and commanders.
Although the more general point that we often have different standards of behavior for nominal enemies versus ourselves or for nominal allies is well-taken.
Although the more general point that we often have different standards of behavior for nominal enemies versus ourselves or for nominal allies is well-taken.
Although the more general point that we often have different standards of behavior for nominal enemies versus ourselves or for nominal allies is well-taken.
True, but there is the fact that Assad is the recognized leader of Syria makes his action a “state action” rather than a terrorist action or something else. Syria signed the Geneva Conventions and is supposedly bound by them.
Although the more general point that we often have different standards of behavior for nominal enemies versus ourselves or for nominal allies is well-taken.
True, but there is the fact that Assad is the recognized leader of Syria makes his action a “state action” rather than a terrorist action or something else. Syria signed the Geneva Conventions and is supposedly bound by them.
Donald Johnson, you’re perfectly happy to believe that Snowden took absolutely nothing of importance on his various laptops and thumb drives except things that would help us all see the light about the evils of the NSA. And maybe you’re right. I happen to think you’re the one who’s deluded.”
It seems unlikely that he only took things that would expose the evils of the NSA. For one thing, we’re told that those evils were of great importance to national security, so the two categories–“great importance” and “exposing evil”–aren’t mutually exclusive. Maybe Ellsberg did some harm too. And there might be some genuinely harmful stuff that even I wouldn’t approve being released in what he took. I just haven’t heard about it.
But the link to atrocities in Syria seems rather tenuous, about on the same level as my sunspot theory–whoever I read that suggested a link to Egypt might have a better though still very weak case. You could argue that Obama’s caving in to Netanyahu made him look weak to everyone, but again, I don’t really propose that–he did bomb Libya after all and assassinates jihadis (and bystanders) with drones, unless they are in Syria or planting bombs in Hezbollah neighborhoods in Lebanon.
“Syria signed the Geneva Conventions and is supposedly bound by them.”
So someone should bomb countries that violate the Geneva Convention? Interesting.
Donald Johnson, you’re perfectly happy to believe that Snowden took absolutely nothing of importance on his various laptops and thumb drives except things that would help us all see the light about the evils of the NSA. And maybe you’re right. I happen to think you’re the one who’s deluded.”
It seems unlikely that he only took things that would expose the evils of the NSA. For one thing, we’re told that those evils were of great importance to national security, so the two categories–“great importance” and “exposing evil”–aren’t mutually exclusive. Maybe Ellsberg did some harm too. And there might be some genuinely harmful stuff that even I wouldn’t approve being released in what he took. I just haven’t heard about it.
But the link to atrocities in Syria seems rather tenuous, about on the same level as my sunspot theory–whoever I read that suggested a link to Egypt might have a better though still very weak case. You could argue that Obama’s caving in to Netanyahu made him look weak to everyone, but again, I don’t really propose that–he did bomb Libya after all and assassinates jihadis (and bystanders) with drones, unless they are in Syria or planting bombs in Hezbollah neighborhoods in Lebanon.
“Syria signed the Geneva Conventions and is supposedly bound by them.”
So someone should bomb countries that violate the Geneva Convention? Interesting.
A fellow commenter at Open Zion (not a front page poster, just someone in the comment section) suggested the other day that the purpose for Obama bombing Syria would be put pressure on Iran. (I’m not sure about the etiquette of cutting and pasting someone else’s comment at another blog, so I’ll paraphrase.) He said Obama has set two red lines –the use of chemical weapons by Syria and the completion of a nuclear weapon by Iran. So in order for the second to be taken seriously he has to bomb Syria. Finishing my paraphrase, he isn’t sure if this is to placate Israel or to effect Iran.
This makes sense to me. It’s always about credibility with American Presidents.
A fellow commenter at Open Zion (not a front page poster, just someone in the comment section) suggested the other day that the purpose for Obama bombing Syria would be put pressure on Iran. (I’m not sure about the etiquette of cutting and pasting someone else’s comment at another blog, so I’ll paraphrase.) He said Obama has set two red lines –the use of chemical weapons by Syria and the completion of a nuclear weapon by Iran. So in order for the second to be taken seriously he has to bomb Syria. Finishing my paraphrase, he isn’t sure if this is to placate Israel or to effect Iran.
This makes sense to me. It’s always about credibility with American Presidents.
Not sure about that- it seems to me that it can be pretty bad for him if the West rejects him as an acceptable leader (eg Gadaffi); if his faction become interested in a settlement but understand that he is personally an insurmountable obstacle, that’s an unhealthy position to be in.
How many Middle Eastern strong men have been toppled by the west? How many have been toppled for any of the reasons you enumerate?
My point is simply that standing up to and taking a hit from Uncle Sam seems to be a badge of honor in some, perhaps, many quarters in the Middle East.
Not sure about that- it seems to me that it can be pretty bad for him if the West rejects him as an acceptable leader (eg Gadaffi); if his faction become interested in a settlement but understand that he is personally an insurmountable obstacle, that’s an unhealthy position to be in.
How many Middle Eastern strong men have been toppled by the west? How many have been toppled for any of the reasons you enumerate?
My point is simply that standing up to and taking a hit from Uncle Sam seems to be a badge of honor in some, perhaps, many quarters in the Middle East.
So someone should bomb countries that violate the Geneva Convention? Interesting.
A response by the international community is called for when a treaty’s signatory violates the treaty. And yes, that includes a response to actions by the United States which violate the Geneva Conventions.
I’m glad that a case is being made before the UN. I think that a lot of groundwork should be done before any kind of military response is made with regard to Syria’s use of chemical weapons. I also think that making no attempt towards responding to war crimes is very bad policy.
Unlike the United States, whose electorate responded eventually (not fast enough) by changing their country’s leadership, Syria’s “electorate” is being gassed, shot and bombed by their President, who appears to be staying in office. Although I don’t support “regime change” by the international community, I do support a meaningful response.
So someone should bomb countries that violate the Geneva Convention? Interesting.
A response by the international community is called for when a treaty’s signatory violates the treaty. And yes, that includes a response to actions by the United States which violate the Geneva Conventions.
I’m glad that a case is being made before the UN. I think that a lot of groundwork should be done before any kind of military response is made with regard to Syria’s use of chemical weapons. I also think that making no attempt towards responding to war crimes is very bad policy.
Unlike the United States, whose electorate responded eventually (not fast enough) by changing their country’s leadership, Syria’s “electorate” is being gassed, shot and bombed by their President, who appears to be staying in office. Although I don’t support “regime change” by the international community, I do support a meaningful response.
Here’s a piece opposed to US intervention on humanitarian grounds-
chemical attacks and military interventions
Here’s a piece opposed to US intervention on humanitarian grounds-
chemical attacks and military interventions
You’re assuming we’ve stopped committing war crimes, sapient. And aside from that, if a country has our history it’s pretty obvious we’ll do it again, so long as there are no consequences. Elections are no way to deal with the problem–for one thing, almost no one (including me) votes for President based on this issue. (If I did, no way I’d be throwing my vote away on some third party candidate.)
Here’s another blog on the Middle East, this by an American professor with friends in Lebanon. Here he is talking (in mid August, before the gas attack) with a Lebanese friend who is a supporter of Hezbollah. It’s interesting for an American to read a supporter of Hezbollah who is wondering why the US is in bed with Al Qaeda supporters, and who says you can’t reason with those people.
We don’t have anywhere near enough variety in the Western press. I suspect our foreign policy would be somewhat different if we actually heard other voices besides ours.
qifanabki
You’re assuming we’ve stopped committing war crimes, sapient. And aside from that, if a country has our history it’s pretty obvious we’ll do it again, so long as there are no consequences. Elections are no way to deal with the problem–for one thing, almost no one (including me) votes for President based on this issue. (If I did, no way I’d be throwing my vote away on some third party candidate.)
Here’s another blog on the Middle East, this by an American professor with friends in Lebanon. Here he is talking (in mid August, before the gas attack) with a Lebanese friend who is a supporter of Hezbollah. It’s interesting for an American to read a supporter of Hezbollah who is wondering why the US is in bed with Al Qaeda supporters, and who says you can’t reason with those people.
We don’t have anywhere near enough variety in the Western press. I suspect our foreign policy would be somewhat different if we actually heard other voices besides ours.
qifanabki
How many Middle Eastern strong men have been toppled by the west? How many have been toppled for any of the reasons you enumerate?
I suspect that each case will have too many unique factors to make a statistical analysis useful. I’m sure that being hit and not taken out by the US is a useful propaganda tool. But my point is that if the West is dissatisfied enough with Assad to make his removal a precondition of a peace acceptable to the West, then that seems to me much more of a detriment to his position than being hit by the US and surviving will be an advantage.
How many Middle Eastern strong men have been toppled by the west? How many have been toppled for any of the reasons you enumerate?
I suspect that each case will have too many unique factors to make a statistical analysis useful. I’m sure that being hit and not taken out by the US is a useful propaganda tool. But my point is that if the West is dissatisfied enough with Assad to make his removal a precondition of a peace acceptable to the West, then that seems to me much more of a detriment to his position than being hit by the US and surviving will be an advantage.
“If I did, no way I’d be throwing my vote away on some third party candidate”
Forgot to delete the “no way” in that sentence. I meant that if I was a single issue voter (as I almost am as a blog commenter), I’d be voting Green or something.
“If I did, no way I’d be throwing my vote away on some third party candidate”
Forgot to delete the “no way” in that sentence. I meant that if I was a single issue voter (as I almost am as a blog commenter), I’d be voting Green or something.
Syria’s “electorate” is being gassed, shot and bombed by their President, who appears to be staying in office.
Not by him personally, but by other Syrians who happen to support him. It appears that some of his citizens like him quite well.
Is the agenda to respond to the use of chemical weapons, or to unseat Assad?
Syria’s “electorate” is being gassed, shot and bombed by their President, who appears to be staying in office.
Not by him personally, but by other Syrians who happen to support him. It appears that some of his citizens like him quite well.
Is the agenda to respond to the use of chemical weapons, or to unseat Assad?
Unlike the United States, whose electorate responded eventually (not fast enough) by changing their country’s leadership…
Eventually every country changes leadership. I don’t think we can call this consistent with the Geneva Conventions being enforced equally on all parties.
Although I don’t support “regime change” by the international community, I do support a meaningful response.
I have a really hard time saying what we should do because of this- on the one hand, I really want to have an international situation where we can collectively act against war crimes, especially attacks on civilians. On the other hand, I don’t see any reason anyone should accept us saying “We’ve done bad and ignored worse in the past but from here forward we’re really going to be reasonably impartial referees of international standards”.
That is, I really want to intervene. I want to be able to be intervening for the right reasons. But I am not at all convinced that this is what would happen and certain that this is not how it would be perceived.
Unlike the United States, whose electorate responded eventually (not fast enough) by changing their country’s leadership…
Eventually every country changes leadership. I don’t think we can call this consistent with the Geneva Conventions being enforced equally on all parties.
Although I don’t support “regime change” by the international community, I do support a meaningful response.
I have a really hard time saying what we should do because of this- on the one hand, I really want to have an international situation where we can collectively act against war crimes, especially attacks on civilians. On the other hand, I don’t see any reason anyone should accept us saying “We’ve done bad and ignored worse in the past but from here forward we’re really going to be reasonably impartial referees of international standards”.
That is, I really want to intervene. I want to be able to be intervening for the right reasons. But I am not at all convinced that this is what would happen and certain that this is not how it would be perceived.
Is the agenda to respond to the use of chemical weapons, or to unseat Assad?
My agenda is the former. And I’m as conflicted as anyone on what to do. I just believe that doing nothing is a terrible option.
And, yes, if the Syrian people suddenly elected a different leader, I think that there would be no need for the international community to “respond”. I don’t think that military response is always the right response. Unfortunately, international law is still in its infancy. Enforcing it even-handedly isn’t really possible. That doesn’t mean that it should be ignored by the international community.
I brought the subject up in a different thread, not because I was beating the drum. But I don’t think isolationism is the answer.
In other contexts, I’ve mentioned that doing nothing has consequences, just as doing something does. We will be blamed for whatever happens, no matter what we do or don’t do. I think that the steps we take to support whatever we do or don’t do are probably as important to the cause of international law as the action or inaction itself.
Is the agenda to respond to the use of chemical weapons, or to unseat Assad?
My agenda is the former. And I’m as conflicted as anyone on what to do. I just believe that doing nothing is a terrible option.
And, yes, if the Syrian people suddenly elected a different leader, I think that there would be no need for the international community to “respond”. I don’t think that military response is always the right response. Unfortunately, international law is still in its infancy. Enforcing it even-handedly isn’t really possible. That doesn’t mean that it should be ignored by the international community.
I brought the subject up in a different thread, not because I was beating the drum. But I don’t think isolationism is the answer.
In other contexts, I’ve mentioned that doing nothing has consequences, just as doing something does. We will be blamed for whatever happens, no matter what we do or don’t do. I think that the steps we take to support whatever we do or don’t do are probably as important to the cause of international law as the action or inaction itself.
We will be blamed for whatever happens, no matter what we do or don’t do.
if we do nothing, the blame will be hypothetical (“the US could have…”). if we do ‘something’, there will be real consequences – some number of innocent people will inevitably be killed by our weapons – and our blame will be real and deserved.
right now, all real blame is contained within Syria.
and it should stay there.
We will be blamed for whatever happens, no matter what we do or don’t do.
if we do nothing, the blame will be hypothetical (“the US could have…”). if we do ‘something’, there will be real consequences – some number of innocent people will inevitably be killed by our weapons – and our blame will be real and deserved.
right now, all real blame is contained within Syria.
and it should stay there.
Good Morning Mr. President, below are a couple of highlights from your schedule this week:
Wednesday, August 28: Commemorate the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington by giving a speech on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial.
Labor Day Weekend: Order the bombing of Syria.
Have a nice day.
Good Morning Mr. President, below are a couple of highlights from your schedule this week:
Wednesday, August 28: Commemorate the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington by giving a speech on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial.
Labor Day Weekend: Order the bombing of Syria.
Have a nice day.
And, yes, if the Syrian people suddenly elected a different leader, I think that there would be no need for the international community to “respond”.
Id agree, if the perps were tried in-country for their crimes. Or if there were some reconciliation like South Africa. I guess my bar is something like ‘the matter is taken up seriously internally by the country’.
But I dont think either of those could reasonably be said to apply to eg the Reagan Administration’s support of Iraqi chemical weapons use. I certainly can’t endorse the idea that just because a party lost an election at some point since they committed a war crime, that’s equivalent to their actions being repudiated and crimes punished.
I don’t think that military response is always the right response. Unfortunately, international law is still in its infancy. Enforcing it even-handedly isn’t really possible.
Id settle for something approximately even-handedly. At it stands, it’s enforced so un-even-handedly that it doesn’t appear to be more than an excuse for action when other motives underlie the desire.
That’s my frustration; Id like to support your position that we should act to support international norms of behavior, but even if we do & even if that were to be our motive, it’ll be a long time- and some enforcement that isn’t so convenient for us- before anyone should believe us.
And, yes, if the Syrian people suddenly elected a different leader, I think that there would be no need for the international community to “respond”.
Id agree, if the perps were tried in-country for their crimes. Or if there were some reconciliation like South Africa. I guess my bar is something like ‘the matter is taken up seriously internally by the country’.
But I dont think either of those could reasonably be said to apply to eg the Reagan Administration’s support of Iraqi chemical weapons use. I certainly can’t endorse the idea that just because a party lost an election at some point since they committed a war crime, that’s equivalent to their actions being repudiated and crimes punished.
I don’t think that military response is always the right response. Unfortunately, international law is still in its infancy. Enforcing it even-handedly isn’t really possible.
Id settle for something approximately even-handedly. At it stands, it’s enforced so un-even-handedly that it doesn’t appear to be more than an excuse for action when other motives underlie the desire.
That’s my frustration; Id like to support your position that we should act to support international norms of behavior, but even if we do & even if that were to be our motive, it’ll be a long time- and some enforcement that isn’t so convenient for us- before anyone should believe us.
if we do nothing, the blame will be hypothetical (“the US could have…”). if we do ‘something’, there will be real consequences – some number of innocent people will inevitably be killed by our weapons – and our blame will be real and deserved.
right now, all real blame is contained within Syria.
and it should stay there.
I admit there’s a moral consistency to only taking responsibility for what you do and not what you fail to prevent. But as a general proposition, I don’t agree with it- Im not saying that we will do more good intervening than not, but if we could and fail to, Id regard that as a moral failing. And not a hypothetical one.
if we do nothing, the blame will be hypothetical (“the US could have…”). if we do ‘something’, there will be real consequences – some number of innocent people will inevitably be killed by our weapons – and our blame will be real and deserved.
right now, all real blame is contained within Syria.
and it should stay there.
I admit there’s a moral consistency to only taking responsibility for what you do and not what you fail to prevent. But as a general proposition, I don’t agree with it- Im not saying that we will do more good intervening than not, but if we could and fail to, Id regard that as a moral failing. And not a hypothetical one.
but if we could and fail to
what is the plausible scenario where we “do something” and things turn out for the best for everyone? (be sure to weigh the inevitable civilian deaths we cause properly!)
i haven’t seen one.
therefore, the “if” in “if we could” is the kind of “if” that takes us from reality to total fantasy. and i refuse to take responsibility for things that can’t happen in reality.
but if we could and fail to
what is the plausible scenario where we “do something” and things turn out for the best for everyone? (be sure to weigh the inevitable civilian deaths we cause properly!)
i haven’t seen one.
therefore, the “if” in “if we could” is the kind of “if” that takes us from reality to total fantasy. and i refuse to take responsibility for things that can’t happen in reality.
what is the plausible scenario where we “do something” and things turn out for the best for everyone?
That was not the question. You said that we’re just not responsible for things we could prevent but don’t, at least not in the same way that we are for things that we do. I don’t agree.
It’s important to know where one stands on that before weighing various policy options. eg if you’re a pacifist, then it just won’t matter if we can save some lives by taking others. I can respect that, even while disagreeing with it.
I am just not smart enough or well-informed enough or prescient enough to think I can foresee the results of our various choices with complete accuracy.
I can, however, say with complete accuracy that I think that the moral weight of what we choose is impacted by what we leave undone, that we ought to bear the moral weight for what happens with our forbearance.
*If* we can do more good than harm by acting then I think we should. Others may disagree on principle. Having settled that I can return to proclaiming my almost complete ignorance about what we should actually do. :\
[And Im presuming you read the bit where I said as a general proposition, since you quoted it and all].
>i refuse to take responsibility for things that can’t happen in reality.
Then do both of us a favor and refrain from engaging in counterfactual hypotheticals? It’s not like you were involuntarily dragged into discussing the point, you raised it.
If what you wanted to say was “We can’t make the situation better so we shouldn’t intervene”, well, that’s much more straightforward than what you wrote, isn’t it?
what is the plausible scenario where we “do something” and things turn out for the best for everyone?
That was not the question. You said that we’re just not responsible for things we could prevent but don’t, at least not in the same way that we are for things that we do. I don’t agree.
It’s important to know where one stands on that before weighing various policy options. eg if you’re a pacifist, then it just won’t matter if we can save some lives by taking others. I can respect that, even while disagreeing with it.
I am just not smart enough or well-informed enough or prescient enough to think I can foresee the results of our various choices with complete accuracy.
I can, however, say with complete accuracy that I think that the moral weight of what we choose is impacted by what we leave undone, that we ought to bear the moral weight for what happens with our forbearance.
*If* we can do more good than harm by acting then I think we should. Others may disagree on principle. Having settled that I can return to proclaiming my almost complete ignorance about what we should actually do. :\
[And Im presuming you read the bit where I said as a general proposition, since you quoted it and all].
>i refuse to take responsibility for things that can’t happen in reality.
Then do both of us a favor and refrain from engaging in counterfactual hypotheticals? It’s not like you were involuntarily dragged into discussing the point, you raised it.
If what you wanted to say was “We can’t make the situation better so we shouldn’t intervene”, well, that’s much more straightforward than what you wrote, isn’t it?
You said that we’re just not responsible for things we could prevent but don’t
no, that is not what i said.
i can see how you got that, if i squint. but that’s not what i was saying,
i’m trying to get someone to tell me what the “something” is that we should do that makes things better for everyone. because i assert that there is no such something.
and if the consequences of all our possible actions are on the whole negative, how could we be held responsible if our inaction doesn’t lead to a positive outcome? we can’t. so sapient shouldn’t have to worry about the placement of blame.
I can, however, say with complete accuracy that I think that the moral weight of what we choose is impacted by what we leave undone, that we ought to bear the moral weight for what happens with our forbearance.
sure.
but Syria is not an abstract philosophical puzzle. our inaction there leads to death, and all of our plausible actions there will lead to death – probably more death than our inaction. there is no good solution. and it’s not our fault. we didn’t create the situation. and if we can’t fix it, that’s not our fault either.
It’s not like you were involuntarily dragged into discussing the point, you raised it.
the point was already raised by sapient, to whom i was replying.
If what you wanted to say was “We can’t make the situation better so we shouldn’t intervene”, well, that’s much more straightforward than what you wrote, isn’t it?
straightforward, sure. but not what i wanted to write. so, that’s not what i wrote. it’s a crazy way of doing things.
You said that we’re just not responsible for things we could prevent but don’t
no, that is not what i said.
i can see how you got that, if i squint. but that’s not what i was saying,
i’m trying to get someone to tell me what the “something” is that we should do that makes things better for everyone. because i assert that there is no such something.
and if the consequences of all our possible actions are on the whole negative, how could we be held responsible if our inaction doesn’t lead to a positive outcome? we can’t. so sapient shouldn’t have to worry about the placement of blame.
I can, however, say with complete accuracy that I think that the moral weight of what we choose is impacted by what we leave undone, that we ought to bear the moral weight for what happens with our forbearance.
sure.
but Syria is not an abstract philosophical puzzle. our inaction there leads to death, and all of our plausible actions there will lead to death – probably more death than our inaction. there is no good solution. and it’s not our fault. we didn’t create the situation. and if we can’t fix it, that’s not our fault either.
It’s not like you were involuntarily dragged into discussing the point, you raised it.
the point was already raised by sapient, to whom i was replying.
If what you wanted to say was “We can’t make the situation better so we shouldn’t intervene”, well, that’s much more straightforward than what you wrote, isn’t it?
straightforward, sure. but not what i wanted to write. so, that’s not what i wrote. it’s a crazy way of doing things.
i can see how you got that, if i squint. but that’s not what i was saying
OK, I can see now how you weren’t actually trying to say that acting creates “real” blame versus (presumably) some kind of less-real blame for not acting.
otoh, maybe then you could’ve squinted at what I said and seen that I’d misunderstood? If I made the mistake of not interpreting your comment in context of sapient’s, I think you made the mistake of seeing my comment only *in* that context.
i can see how you got that, if i squint. but that’s not what i was saying
OK, I can see now how you weren’t actually trying to say that acting creates “real” blame versus (presumably) some kind of less-real blame for not acting.
otoh, maybe then you could’ve squinted at what I said and seen that I’d misunderstood? If I made the mistake of not interpreting your comment in context of sapient’s, I think you made the mistake of seeing my comment only *in* that context.
First of all, I really appreciate the thoughtful discussion of the issues here, and especially in response to me.
I watched E. J. Dionne, and am watching Obama on NewsHour right now.
I don’t think the Syria situation is an easy decision, and I’m not going . Basically, Obama’s not thumping his chest (in fact, it looks to me that he’s worrying immensely about this). Many of the people who are in favor of military action in Syria are, of course, in favor of military action in all cases, whenever. But Obama isn’t making stuff up in an attempt to intervene. When he said tonight that Syria has the largest chemical weapons stock in the world, maybe he’s right about that. (Anybody doing a Pinocchio test?)
If there’s a global taboo against chemical weapons, how can we not make an emphatic statement about that? I find myself, again, being convinced by an obviously haunted and conscience-stricken Obama. He doesn’t want to do this, unlike Bush/Cheney, who couldn’t wait to do it.
I am not convinced that doing nothing is the right thing. I think Obama would like to believe that, but is also not convinced.
First of all, I really appreciate the thoughtful discussion of the issues here, and especially in response to me.
I watched E. J. Dionne, and am watching Obama on NewsHour right now.
I don’t think the Syria situation is an easy decision, and I’m not going . Basically, Obama’s not thumping his chest (in fact, it looks to me that he’s worrying immensely about this). Many of the people who are in favor of military action in Syria are, of course, in favor of military action in all cases, whenever. But Obama isn’t making stuff up in an attempt to intervene. When he said tonight that Syria has the largest chemical weapons stock in the world, maybe he’s right about that. (Anybody doing a Pinocchio test?)
If there’s a global taboo against chemical weapons, how can we not make an emphatic statement about that? I find myself, again, being convinced by an obviously haunted and conscience-stricken Obama. He doesn’t want to do this, unlike Bush/Cheney, who couldn’t wait to do it.
I am not convinced that doing nothing is the right thing. I think Obama would like to believe that, but is also not convinced.
sorry – I didn’t edit the last post. I’m really troubled and distressed about this issue.
sorry – I didn’t edit the last post. I’m really troubled and distressed about this issue.
Turb, Iran’s economy ranks 17th/25th in the world and they have the biggest natural gas and second biggest oil reserves – why do you think the US is so interested in them?
Of course their economy has problems, some of the homegrown, but mainly due to sanctions – strangling the major export sector and cutting off access to the international banking system would have any country struggle with its economy.
Iran is a rich country, denying that just exposes your ignorance. Iran also projects power in the region, as is to be expected for a country of that size and status.
Turb, Iran’s economy ranks 17th/25th in the world and they have the biggest natural gas and second biggest oil reserves – why do you think the US is so interested in them?
Of course their economy has problems, some of the homegrown, but mainly due to sanctions – strangling the major export sector and cutting off access to the international banking system would have any country struggle with its economy.
Iran is a rich country, denying that just exposes your ignorance. Iran also projects power in the region, as is to be expected for a country of that size and status.
As to the “open thread” part of the “Bombing Syria Open Thread” whatever that means:
Did anyone see or read or hear the President’s speech today? Obama’s a hero, I don’t care what anybody says.
As to the “open thread” part of the “Bombing Syria Open Thread” whatever that means:
Did anyone see or read or hear the President’s speech today? Obama’s a hero, I don’t care what anybody says.
Iran’s economy ranks 17th/25th in the world
What happens to those numbers when you normalize for population?
and they have the biggest natural gas and second biggest oil reserves
We’re supposed to take unverified estimates from a dictatorial regime at face value?
why do you think the US is so interested in them?
Americans are both astonishingly ignorant about the world and really irrational. I mean, this is a country where it is considered normal for people to buy rifles for their five year old kid and leave them lying around loaded. I think Americans are oddly fixaeted on Iran because of the hostage crisis.
strangling the major export sector and cutting off access to the international banking system would have any country struggle with its economy.
Yes, and their economy has been strangled for over three decades, with no sign of letting up in the foreseeable future. You get that right?
Iran also projects power in the region, as is to be expected for a country of that size and status.
Tell me about Iranian power projection capabilities…how many ICBMs do they have? Oh wait, they don’t actually have any nukes do they? Hmmm…OK, how many aircraft carriers do they have? How many submarines? How many heavy bombers?
Iran’s economy ranks 17th/25th in the world
What happens to those numbers when you normalize for population?
and they have the biggest natural gas and second biggest oil reserves
We’re supposed to take unverified estimates from a dictatorial regime at face value?
why do you think the US is so interested in them?
Americans are both astonishingly ignorant about the world and really irrational. I mean, this is a country where it is considered normal for people to buy rifles for their five year old kid and leave them lying around loaded. I think Americans are oddly fixaeted on Iran because of the hostage crisis.
strangling the major export sector and cutting off access to the international banking system would have any country struggle with its economy.
Yes, and their economy has been strangled for over three decades, with no sign of letting up in the foreseeable future. You get that right?
Iran also projects power in the region, as is to be expected for a country of that size and status.
Tell me about Iranian power projection capabilities…how many ICBMs do they have? Oh wait, they don’t actually have any nukes do they? Hmmm…OK, how many aircraft carriers do they have? How many submarines? How many heavy bombers?
As I recall, we had our own bloody and cruel civil war. I’d like a show of hands here of those who think the European powers of the day should have intervened.
It is also distressing to observe the case being polarized as between “do nothing” and (some state of)war. There are plenty of options such as really massive humanitarian aid for the refugees, cutting off all aid to Israel, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia, sanctions, etc. A cruise missile or two falling on Riyadh, for your war lovers, wouldn’t hurt much either, and could possibly (yes, there’s that word!) accomplish a great deal.
There was a bloody civil war in Northern Ireland not too long ago. I do not recall Billy Kristol advocating cruise missile strikes on 10 Downing St.
But of course, these are warring factions of the little brown people, and sides must be taken to demonstrate, if nothing else, that we are the boss.
As I recall, we had our own bloody and cruel civil war. I’d like a show of hands here of those who think the European powers of the day should have intervened.
It is also distressing to observe the case being polarized as between “do nothing” and (some state of)war. There are plenty of options such as really massive humanitarian aid for the refugees, cutting off all aid to Israel, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia, sanctions, etc. A cruise missile or two falling on Riyadh, for your war lovers, wouldn’t hurt much either, and could possibly (yes, there’s that word!) accomplish a great deal.
There was a bloody civil war in Northern Ireland not too long ago. I do not recall Billy Kristol advocating cruise missile strikes on 10 Downing St.
But of course, these are warring factions of the little brown people, and sides must be taken to demonstrate, if nothing else, that we are the boss.
This link postulates a connection to an assassination attempt of Assad and the chemical attack.
This link postulates a connection to an assassination attempt of Assad and the chemical attack.
and they have the biggest natural gas and second biggest oil reserves
We’re supposed to take unverified estimates from a dictatorial regime at face value?
No, but those are also the estimates of the western oil majors:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Gas_Reserves
Tell me about Iranian power projection capabilities
They project power through less conventional means (eg Hezbollah
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4314423.stm ).
I don’t believe they are the regional boogeyman they are made out to be, and there are good reasons for attempting a rapprochement with them, particularly after the recent election, but they are indubitably a power of some consequence.
and they have the biggest natural gas and second biggest oil reserves
We’re supposed to take unverified estimates from a dictatorial regime at face value?
No, but those are also the estimates of the western oil majors:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Gas_Reserves
Tell me about Iranian power projection capabilities
They project power through less conventional means (eg Hezbollah
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4314423.stm ).
I don’t believe they are the regional boogeyman they are made out to be, and there are good reasons for attempting a rapprochement with them, particularly after the recent election, but they are indubitably a power of some consequence.
Iran has Russian built submarines and is currently working on building a capacity of their own armed with supercavitating torpedos. Enough to worry the US Navy at least. The quality of Iranian anti-ship missiles is iirc disputed but I doubt that the US will provide their carriers as test cases. I can’t say how much of a real threat the Iranian ballistic missiles are (without unconventional warheads*) but the program has been hyped for many years because the range and payload significantly exceeds what Saddam had.
The US could crush Iran militarily but it would incur costs (potentially very high) either in personnel and expensive assets or in reputation.
*as seen in WW2, a rain of missiles carrying just high explosives can spread terror but is by itself no war winner.
Iran has Russian built submarines and is currently working on building a capacity of their own armed with supercavitating torpedos. Enough to worry the US Navy at least. The quality of Iranian anti-ship missiles is iirc disputed but I doubt that the US will provide their carriers as test cases. I can’t say how much of a real threat the Iranian ballistic missiles are (without unconventional warheads*) but the program has been hyped for many years because the range and payload significantly exceeds what Saddam had.
The US could crush Iran militarily but it would incur costs (potentially very high) either in personnel and expensive assets or in reputation.
*as seen in WW2, a rain of missiles carrying just high explosives can spread terror but is by itself no war winner.
I’d guess that the main problem with supercavitating torpedoes are (in order of significance):
a) Inability to maneuver. Because of what supercavitation means, the whole of the torpedo body will be dry, which means in effect that any hydrodynamic control surfaces will be rendered useless.
b) No homing guidance. The propulsion necessary to achieve supercavitation speed is NOISY, which basically renders the torpedo deaf, so that it must rely on inertial guidance. Inertial guidance can’t make corrections to an initial intercept course or follow a maneuvering target.
In short, supercavitating torpedoes are likely still not very useful. I wouldn’t be surprised if there were also fuzing issues.
I’d guess that the main problem with supercavitating torpedoes are (in order of significance):
a) Inability to maneuver. Because of what supercavitation means, the whole of the torpedo body will be dry, which means in effect that any hydrodynamic control surfaces will be rendered useless.
b) No homing guidance. The propulsion necessary to achieve supercavitation speed is NOISY, which basically renders the torpedo deaf, so that it must rely on inertial guidance. Inertial guidance can’t make corrections to an initial intercept course or follow a maneuvering target.
In short, supercavitating torpedoes are likely still not very useful. I wouldn’t be surprised if there were also fuzing issues.
A straight-up shooting match with Iran is one that the US military could win before it had its first cup of coffee in the morning. In terms of training and equipment, the US military is superior. Of all possible scenarios of confrontation, this is the one that the US would most prefer. It’s a conventional war. We’ve been training to win the conventional war for many decades. This is a good deal of why we keep trying to engage in them, and also why adversaries avoid engaging in that way.
Except for Iraq, on a couple of occasions, and Iraq was easily crushed. Not without US casualties, but the people calling the shots would consider a few hundred US casualties to thousands of adversary casualties to be a big win.
And that’s what it would be, most likely. We have a MUCH better Air Force, much better weapons and sensors, a pretty damned well-trained military, and a much better Navy. Any Iranian submarine attempting to approach e.g. a US carrier group would be repelled or killed by ASW sweeps.
Iran can badger us, of course, and make life miserable, but it would be a horrible mistake for it to try and engage us directly. Most likely it would simply attempt to disrupt shipping in the Gulf.
IMO, of course. But it’s a decently informed opinion. Remember how fearsome Iraq’s armed forces looked back in the early ’90s?
A straight-up shooting match with Iran is one that the US military could win before it had its first cup of coffee in the morning. In terms of training and equipment, the US military is superior. Of all possible scenarios of confrontation, this is the one that the US would most prefer. It’s a conventional war. We’ve been training to win the conventional war for many decades. This is a good deal of why we keep trying to engage in them, and also why adversaries avoid engaging in that way.
Except for Iraq, on a couple of occasions, and Iraq was easily crushed. Not without US casualties, but the people calling the shots would consider a few hundred US casualties to thousands of adversary casualties to be a big win.
And that’s what it would be, most likely. We have a MUCH better Air Force, much better weapons and sensors, a pretty damned well-trained military, and a much better Navy. Any Iranian submarine attempting to approach e.g. a US carrier group would be repelled or killed by ASW sweeps.
Iran can badger us, of course, and make life miserable, but it would be a horrible mistake for it to try and engage us directly. Most likely it would simply attempt to disrupt shipping in the Gulf.
IMO, of course. But it’s a decently informed opinion. Remember how fearsome Iraq’s armed forces looked back in the early ’90s?
Must be Scott Ritter:
The intelligence linking Syrian President Bashar Assad or his inner circle to an alleged chemical weapons attack that killed at least 100 people is no “slam dunk,” with questions remaining about who actually controls some of Syria’s chemical weapons stores and doubts about whether Assad himself ordered the strike, U.S. intelligence officials say.
President Barack Obama declared unequivocally Wednesday that the Syrian government was responsible, while laying the groundwork for an expected U.S. military strike.
Alas, yee-hah it is.
Must be Scott Ritter:
The intelligence linking Syrian President Bashar Assad or his inner circle to an alleged chemical weapons attack that killed at least 100 people is no “slam dunk,” with questions remaining about who actually controls some of Syria’s chemical weapons stores and doubts about whether Assad himself ordered the strike, U.S. intelligence officials say.
President Barack Obama declared unequivocally Wednesday that the Syrian government was responsible, while laying the groundwork for an expected U.S. military strike.
Alas, yee-hah it is.
I’m thinking about this wargame, held last year.
POLLACK: The end of the game – and, of course, the end of the game was a – it’s always a bad place to stop, was pretty bad. The Americans were about to launch a massive military operation against Iran. The only question was whether it was obliterating all of Iran’s coastal defenses, air defenses, surface-to-air missile batteries, navy, et cetera, or whether it was going to be all that and the Iranian nuclear program. And the Iran team had already thought this through and decided that if that was what the United States is going to do, they were going to fight on in their words forever.
And so the game ends with the first big American military moves. And it’s unfortunate because, of course, the real problems with a war with Iran are not that first big American moves, they’re what follows. They’re how do you turn off a war with Iran? How do you bring it to a close? How do you stop them?
link
I’m thinking about this wargame, held last year.
POLLACK: The end of the game – and, of course, the end of the game was a – it’s always a bad place to stop, was pretty bad. The Americans were about to launch a massive military operation against Iran. The only question was whether it was obliterating all of Iran’s coastal defenses, air defenses, surface-to-air missile batteries, navy, et cetera, or whether it was going to be all that and the Iranian nuclear program. And the Iran team had already thought this through and decided that if that was what the United States is going to do, they were going to fight on in their words forever.
And so the game ends with the first big American military moves. And it’s unfortunate because, of course, the real problems with a war with Iran are not that first big American moves, they’re what follows. They’re how do you turn off a war with Iran? How do you bring it to a close? How do you stop them?
link
The only way to win is not to play.
The only way to win is not to play.
Like Atrios, I believe the Onion gets Syria right.
Like Atrios, I believe the Onion gets Syria right.
They’re how do you turn off a war with Iran? How do you bring it to a close? How do you stop them?
You remember that they have two and a half times the population, and three and a half times the land area, of Iraq, and you don’t turn it on in the first place.
They’re how do you turn off a war with Iran? How do you bring it to a close? How do you stop them?
You remember that they have two and a half times the population, and three and a half times the land area, of Iraq, and you don’t turn it on in the first place.
The Foreign Policy website has a number of interesting articles. Here’s one about the civil war within the civil war in Syria–the Kurds are fighting the fanatical Islamists.
link
A Kurd in the article makes a point I’ve seen others make–bad as Assad is, and he is very bad, some on the rebel side are literally genocidal. They want to exterminate people for their ethnicity or religion.
So again, is ethnic cleansing a crime against humanity? Actually, I asked this question at Jerome Slater’s blog once, in connection with the Nakba. It turns out that ethnic cleansing doesn’t have a clear legal definition. (I’ll put the link for that assertion in the next post, since this place sometimes has a problem with multiple links). But starting with the Balkans (I think) people started using the phrase and talking about it as something just beneath genocide in its seriousness. If that’s the case, why aren’t we talking about our moral duty to bomb some of the rebel factions–in particular, those Islamists who are ethnically cleansing Kurds?
The Foreign Policy website has a number of interesting articles. Here’s one about the civil war within the civil war in Syria–the Kurds are fighting the fanatical Islamists.
link
A Kurd in the article makes a point I’ve seen others make–bad as Assad is, and he is very bad, some on the rebel side are literally genocidal. They want to exterminate people for their ethnicity or religion.
So again, is ethnic cleansing a crime against humanity? Actually, I asked this question at Jerome Slater’s blog once, in connection with the Nakba. It turns out that ethnic cleansing doesn’t have a clear legal definition. (I’ll put the link for that assertion in the next post, since this place sometimes has a problem with multiple links). But starting with the Balkans (I think) people started using the phrase and talking about it as something just beneath genocide in its seriousness. If that’s the case, why aren’t we talking about our moral duty to bomb some of the rebel factions–in particular, those Islamists who are ethnically cleansing Kurds?
The author in the link below says ethnic cleansing has no precise legal definition, but proposes that it be treated as a type of genocide–
link
The author in the link below says ethnic cleansing has no precise legal definition, but proposes that it be treated as a type of genocide–
link
If that’s the case, why aren’t we talking about our moral duty to bomb some of the rebel factions–in particular, those Islamists who are ethnically cleansing Kurds?
Because we’re not taking sides in the civil war; we’re just enforcing a UN treaty to which the government of Syria is a signatory?
My reservation is this, and it’s a big one: I don’t think Obama has enough support, either internationally or domestically for this action.
If that’s the case, why aren’t we talking about our moral duty to bomb some of the rebel factions–in particular, those Islamists who are ethnically cleansing Kurds?
Because we’re not taking sides in the civil war; we’re just enforcing a UN treaty to which the government of Syria is a signatory?
My reservation is this, and it’s a big one: I don’t think Obama has enough support, either internationally or domestically for this action.
sapient, I think you are correct about how unhappy Obama is about this. I just hope that, once he decides what he military action he would do, he first goes to Congress and insists that they sign on and authorize acting.
It would be nice to return to the Constitutional requirements on this sort of thing. And politically, it would mean that the opposition would either have to embrace the action (and its consequences!), or reveal that they don’t really want him to act after all.
sapient, I think you are correct about how unhappy Obama is about this. I just hope that, once he decides what he military action he would do, he first goes to Congress and insists that they sign on and authorize acting.
It would be nice to return to the Constitutional requirements on this sort of thing. And politically, it would mean that the opposition would either have to embrace the action (and its consequences!), or reveal that they don’t really want him to act after all.
wj, I agree. I was okay with his actions regarding Libya because he had the UN resolution. He needs more (IMO) than he has right now.
wj, I agree. I was okay with his actions regarding Libya because he had the UN resolution. He needs more (IMO) than he has right now.
Because we’re not taking sides in the civil war; we’re just enforcing a UN treaty to which the government of Syria is a signatory?
If it’s a UN treaty, shouldn’t the UN be the one to decide how to enforce it?
Because we’re not taking sides in the civil war; we’re just enforcing a UN treaty to which the government of Syria is a signatory?
If it’s a UN treaty, shouldn’t the UN be the one to decide how to enforce it?
Any speculations on why the administration keeps referring to violations of “international norms” by Syria? What the hell is an “international norm”?
Any speculations on why the administration keeps referring to violations of “international norms” by Syria? What the hell is an “international norm”?
But when we intervened in Kosovo, it was supposed to be because of ethnic cleansing. If the US is going to act as global policeman enforcing the laws of war against those who commit war crimes or worse, then surely the ethnic cleansing of Kurds is comparable to a gas attack.
I almost refrained from pointing out that if we are going to act as global policemen, there might be some people closer to home we could investigate and if the evidence warrants, prosecute.
Anyway, this isn’t really about enforcing moral norms. It’s about the fact that Obama drew a red line on this particular point and now will lose the precious quality known as “credibility” if he doesn’t do something. I think he’s been reluctant to get too deeply involved in Syria (though our pals seem eager to arm the rebels and I’m not sure if we’ve done that yet–haven’t googled it), but feels trapped by his own rhetoric.
But when we intervened in Kosovo, it was supposed to be because of ethnic cleansing. If the US is going to act as global policeman enforcing the laws of war against those who commit war crimes or worse, then surely the ethnic cleansing of Kurds is comparable to a gas attack.
I almost refrained from pointing out that if we are going to act as global policemen, there might be some people closer to home we could investigate and if the evidence warrants, prosecute.
Anyway, this isn’t really about enforcing moral norms. It’s about the fact that Obama drew a red line on this particular point and now will lose the precious quality known as “credibility” if he doesn’t do something. I think he’s been reluctant to get too deeply involved in Syria (though our pals seem eager to arm the rebels and I’m not sure if we’ve done that yet–haven’t googled it), but feels trapped by his own rhetoric.
Hopefully they didn’t get Obama right.
Hopefully they didn’t get Obama right.
This legal rationale is less than convincing (from the UK):
It says the three necessary requirements for “humanitarian intervention” have all been met: There is convincing evidence of extreme, large scale humanitarian distress; there is no practical alternative to the use of force if lives are to be saved; and the use of force must be proportionate and aimed at relieving a human crisis.
That is rather different than the rationale on offer here in the US (although is certainly a factor) and, more importantly, even assuming the conditions are met, applied before any mass use of chemical weapons.
Slarti – sadly, I think they got them both right.
This legal rationale is less than convincing (from the UK):
It says the three necessary requirements for “humanitarian intervention” have all been met: There is convincing evidence of extreme, large scale humanitarian distress; there is no practical alternative to the use of force if lives are to be saved; and the use of force must be proportionate and aimed at relieving a human crisis.
That is rather different than the rationale on offer here in the US (although is certainly a factor) and, more importantly, even assuming the conditions are met, applied before any mass use of chemical weapons.
Slarti – sadly, I think they got them both right.
*headdesk*
*headdesk*
So what this is all looking like at this point, to me, is the following:
There’s strong evidence that somebody attacked civilians in Ghouta with chemical weapons. ‘Somebody’ was most likely folks supporting Assad. Assad himself may or may not personally have approved the attacks.
On numerous occasions over the last year, Obama has publicly stated that the use of chemical weapons would be a red line that would merit a ‘strong response’.
As practical matter, the range of ‘strong responses’ available to Obama basically includes bombs that can be sent from remote locations, with limited need for air engagement and no need for a US presence in country.
The likely targets of such bombing strikes are fairly well known, to the point that various websites oriented toward politics, foreign policy, and military affairs have published maps with the targets called out and ranked according to their suitability according to various factors.
It’s not clear that bombing any of these targets will reduce or eliminate the stock of chemical weapons, or have a significant impact on Assad’s overall military strength or hold on political power in Syria.
Unclear if it will make it any more or less likely that Assad will use chemical weapons again. Hard to say what his state of mind is.
Strikes like this are generally referred to as ‘surgical’ because of the accuracy of targeting, however ‘surgical’ is a relative term when you blow up large things, and so some Syrian folks are likely to die.
Long story short:
Chemical weapons are frowned on, and banned for those nations who have signed on to the ban (which does not include Syria).
Obama said he’d do something about it if Assad used them.
It looks like Assad or someone loyal to Assad used them.
The only practical thing available to ‘do about it’ is blow some stuff up.
So, we are likely to blow some stuff up.
So what this is all looking like at this point, to me, is the following:
There’s strong evidence that somebody attacked civilians in Ghouta with chemical weapons. ‘Somebody’ was most likely folks supporting Assad. Assad himself may or may not personally have approved the attacks.
On numerous occasions over the last year, Obama has publicly stated that the use of chemical weapons would be a red line that would merit a ‘strong response’.
As practical matter, the range of ‘strong responses’ available to Obama basically includes bombs that can be sent from remote locations, with limited need for air engagement and no need for a US presence in country.
The likely targets of such bombing strikes are fairly well known, to the point that various websites oriented toward politics, foreign policy, and military affairs have published maps with the targets called out and ranked according to their suitability according to various factors.
It’s not clear that bombing any of these targets will reduce or eliminate the stock of chemical weapons, or have a significant impact on Assad’s overall military strength or hold on political power in Syria.
Unclear if it will make it any more or less likely that Assad will use chemical weapons again. Hard to say what his state of mind is.
Strikes like this are generally referred to as ‘surgical’ because of the accuracy of targeting, however ‘surgical’ is a relative term when you blow up large things, and so some Syrian folks are likely to die.
Long story short:
Chemical weapons are frowned on, and banned for those nations who have signed on to the ban (which does not include Syria).
Obama said he’d do something about it if Assad used them.
It looks like Assad or someone loyal to Assad used them.
The only practical thing available to ‘do about it’ is blow some stuff up.
So, we are likely to blow some stuff up.
The reality is more laughable than the satire.
The reality is more laughable than the satire.
Because we’re not taking sides in the civil war; we’re just enforcing a UN treaty to which the government of Syria is a signatory?
Are you saying you don’t think we have a reasonable claim of jurisdiction over possible war crimes committed by the rebels, but that we do over possible war crimes committed by the Syrian government?
Because we’re not taking sides in the civil war; we’re just enforcing a UN treaty to which the government of Syria is a signatory?
Are you saying you don’t think we have a reasonable claim of jurisdiction over possible war crimes committed by the rebels, but that we do over possible war crimes committed by the Syrian government?
Because we’re not taking sides in the civil war; we’re just enforcing a UN treaty to which the government of Syria is a signatory?
Also, for the record: if the treaty in question is the Chemical Weapons Convention, then Syria is not a signatory.
There may be other treaties that Syria has signed off on, I’d be interested to know if that was so.
Because we’re not taking sides in the civil war; we’re just enforcing a UN treaty to which the government of Syria is a signatory?
Also, for the record: if the treaty in question is the Chemical Weapons Convention, then Syria is not a signatory.
There may be other treaties that Syria has signed off on, I’d be interested to know if that was so.
Hey look, the WaPo got the US intelligence community budget from Snowden.
Alas:
The Washington Post is withholding some information after consultation with U.S. officials who expressed concerns about the risk to intelligence sources and methods. Sensitive details are so pervasive in the documents that The Post is publishing only summary tables and charts online.
Out with it! You think you’re the only news organization he gave it to?
Hey look, the WaPo got the US intelligence community budget from Snowden.
Alas:
The Washington Post is withholding some information after consultation with U.S. officials who expressed concerns about the risk to intelligence sources and methods. Sensitive details are so pervasive in the documents that The Post is publishing only summary tables and charts online.
Out with it! You think you’re the only news organization he gave it to?
ok, and so now this is going on.
not a surprise, really. everybody wants to be a hegemon.
ok, and so now this is going on.
not a surprise, really. everybody wants to be a hegemon.
Syria signed the Geneva Protocol, which originally applied only war between nations, but has been interpreted by international courts also to apply to internal conflicts. The ban on chemical weapons has become an international norm recognized by international courts.
Syria signed the Geneva Protocol, which originally applied only war between nations, but has been interpreted by international courts also to apply to internal conflicts. The ban on chemical weapons has become an international norm recognized by international courts.
we have a reasonable claim of jurisdiction over possible war crimes committed by the rebels
There’s certainly precedent for the international community holding various people responsible for war crimes, but whether it’s a duty of the international community to hold “rebels” (who are technically citizens of a nation who are violating the laws of their nation for political reasons) accountable, instead of their home nation doing so is questionable, IMO. I don’t claim to be an expert on the subject.
we have a reasonable claim of jurisdiction over possible war crimes committed by the rebels
There’s certainly precedent for the international community holding various people responsible for war crimes, but whether it’s a duty of the international community to hold “rebels” (who are technically citizens of a nation who are violating the laws of their nation for political reasons) accountable, instead of their home nation doing so is questionable, IMO. I don’t claim to be an expert on the subject.
The ban on chemical weapons has become an international norm recognized by international courts.
Let’s be very very clear here.
(1) There is an international norm against using chemical weapons.
(2) There is also an international norm against exterminating civilian populations.
Everyone with a brain agrees that (2) is much, much more important than (1). In the same way that contract killings and jaywalking are both illegal, one of them is a good bit worse than the other. There has been substantial evidence of that (2) has been occurring for many many months now but only recently has evidence that (1) has occurred.
Logically, that means that the US does not value the international norm in (1). I think we can all agree with that. Dead Arab civilians are not a concern for the US government. Their lives and deaths are literally worthless to Washington.
Now, if the US government doesn’t care about dead Arabs, why should we take its claims about the sanctity of chemical weapon norms seriously?
The ban on chemical weapons has become an international norm recognized by international courts.
Let’s be very very clear here.
(1) There is an international norm against using chemical weapons.
(2) There is also an international norm against exterminating civilian populations.
Everyone with a brain agrees that (2) is much, much more important than (1). In the same way that contract killings and jaywalking are both illegal, one of them is a good bit worse than the other. There has been substantial evidence of that (2) has been occurring for many many months now but only recently has evidence that (1) has occurred.
Logically, that means that the US does not value the international norm in (1). I think we can all agree with that. Dead Arab civilians are not a concern for the US government. Their lives and deaths are literally worthless to Washington.
Now, if the US government doesn’t care about dead Arabs, why should we take its claims about the sanctity of chemical weapon norms seriously?
(2) There is also an international norm against exterminating civilian populations.
If you’re talking about genocide, it’s not my understanding that genocide is happening here.
Now, if the US government doesn’t care about dead Arabs, why should we take its claims about the sanctity of chemical weapon norms seriously?
An argument that is based on nonintervention because of Obama’s supposed lack of compassion for civilian Arabs is not a very good argument. It’s pretty clear that American intervention isn’t going to save civilian lives. American intervention might deter the use of chemical weapons (although that’s not a given either).
(2) There is also an international norm against exterminating civilian populations.
If you’re talking about genocide, it’s not my understanding that genocide is happening here.
Now, if the US government doesn’t care about dead Arabs, why should we take its claims about the sanctity of chemical weapon norms seriously?
An argument that is based on nonintervention because of Obama’s supposed lack of compassion for civilian Arabs is not a very good argument. It’s pretty clear that American intervention isn’t going to save civilian lives. American intervention might deter the use of chemical weapons (although that’s not a given either).
I think he’s been reluctant to get too deeply involved in Syria….but feels trapped by his own rhetoric.
11 dimensional chess does not seem to apply when you are the hegemon. Also, what S. Bartfest said about heads and desks.
I think he’s been reluctant to get too deeply involved in Syria….but feels trapped by his own rhetoric.
11 dimensional chess does not seem to apply when you are the hegemon. Also, what S. Bartfest said about heads and desks.
Now, if the US government doesn’t care about dead Arabs, why should we take its claims about the sanctity of chemical weapon norms seriously?
this rightfully applies to nearly every government in the world. nobody else stepped in, militarily, to do anything about Syrian deaths, either. many tried to do something diplomatically. and most of them are upset to one degree or another about the chemical weapons usage. the US doesn’t own all responsibility and blame for this.
no, i’m not trying to imply that you were arguing otherwise. i just wanted to point this out.
Now, if the US government doesn’t care about dead Arabs, why should we take its claims about the sanctity of chemical weapon norms seriously?
this rightfully applies to nearly every government in the world. nobody else stepped in, militarily, to do anything about Syrian deaths, either. many tried to do something diplomatically. and most of them are upset to one degree or another about the chemical weapons usage. the US doesn’t own all responsibility and blame for this.
no, i’m not trying to imply that you were arguing otherwise. i just wanted to point this out.
“We’re not taking sides in a civil war….”
By far the funniest thought expressed on this thread.
“We’re not taking sides in a civil war….”
By far the funniest thought expressed on this thread.
“If you’re talking about genocide, it’s not my understanding that genocide is happening here.”
We intervened in Kosovo because of ethnic cleansing, or so I think we were told. And there is ethnic cleansing going on. Massive generation of refugees by both sides, though some on the rebel side are apparently doing it on the basis of ethnicity and/or religion.
Really, I can’t see why we shouldn’t be bombing the living hell out of both sides, if we grant that this our job, enforcing the law selectively against people we don’t like, which is a fine old American tradition, when we’re not assisting other people to do the very same things. Anyway, there are Islamic extremists in Syria, doing the worst sorts of things that Islamic extremists do. We either bomb such people or arm them, or we arm them first and then bomb them later. I just want to know what stage in the process we’re at.
“If you’re talking about genocide, it’s not my understanding that genocide is happening here.”
We intervened in Kosovo because of ethnic cleansing, or so I think we were told. And there is ethnic cleansing going on. Massive generation of refugees by both sides, though some on the rebel side are apparently doing it on the basis of ethnicity and/or religion.
Really, I can’t see why we shouldn’t be bombing the living hell out of both sides, if we grant that this our job, enforcing the law selectively against people we don’t like, which is a fine old American tradition, when we’re not assisting other people to do the very same things. Anyway, there are Islamic extremists in Syria, doing the worst sorts of things that Islamic extremists do. We either bomb such people or arm them, or we arm them first and then bomb them later. I just want to know what stage in the process we’re at.
By far the funniest thought expressed on this thread.
I think it’s pretty clear that we don’t want anyone to win right now, so I don’t know why you’re so amused.
We intervened in Kosovo because of ethnic cleansing, or so I think we were told. And there is ethnic cleansing going on. Massive generation of refugees by both sides, though some on the rebel side are apparently doing it on the basis of ethnicity and/or religion.
NATO intervened for humanitarian reasons, true. Refugees were spilling out into European (NATO) countries. But mainly, we thought that intervention in order to stop the killing would do some good, whereas nobody really believes that will happen in Syria, except for possibly ending the use of chemical weapons.
By far the funniest thought expressed on this thread.
I think it’s pretty clear that we don’t want anyone to win right now, so I don’t know why you’re so amused.
We intervened in Kosovo because of ethnic cleansing, or so I think we were told. And there is ethnic cleansing going on. Massive generation of refugees by both sides, though some on the rebel side are apparently doing it on the basis of ethnicity and/or religion.
NATO intervened for humanitarian reasons, true. Refugees were spilling out into European (NATO) countries. But mainly, we thought that intervention in order to stop the killing would do some good, whereas nobody really believes that will happen in Syria, except for possibly ending the use of chemical weapons.
If you’re talking about genocide, it’s not my understanding that genocide is happening here.
I’m sorry, but do you understand that killing large numbers of civilians, whether or not one is engaging in genocide, is a serious violation of international norms?
If you’re talking about genocide, it’s not my understanding that genocide is happening here.
I’m sorry, but do you understand that killing large numbers of civilians, whether or not one is engaging in genocide, is a serious violation of international norms?
the US doesn’t own all responsibility and blame for this.
Absent US involvement, how many of them would have started bombing Syria?
It seems to me that when it comes to bombing Syria, the US owns all of that.
the US doesn’t own all responsibility and blame for this.
Absent US involvement, how many of them would have started bombing Syria?
It seems to me that when it comes to bombing Syria, the US owns all of that.
“whereas nobody really believes that will happen in Syria, except for possibly ending the use of chemical weapons.”
If we bomb, it’ll be because Obama drew the red line and now he thinks he has to do something. If he bombs, one can hope that civilian casualties will be minimal (or zero) and that as a byproduct, it will persuade whoever did this (most likely the Syrian regime, with or without Assad’s consent, but we still don’t know) not to do it again, but to kill people in conventional ways.
I can’t imagine that even advocates of liberal humanitarian interventions can be too enthused about this one.
“whereas nobody really believes that will happen in Syria, except for possibly ending the use of chemical weapons.”
If we bomb, it’ll be because Obama drew the red line and now he thinks he has to do something. If he bombs, one can hope that civilian casualties will be minimal (or zero) and that as a byproduct, it will persuade whoever did this (most likely the Syrian regime, with or without Assad’s consent, but we still don’t know) not to do it again, but to kill people in conventional ways.
I can’t imagine that even advocates of liberal humanitarian interventions can be too enthused about this one.
Maybe Obama should put it to a vote in Congress and hope it fails.
Maybe Obama should put it to a vote in Congress and hope it fails.
If we bomb, it’ll be because Obama drew the red line and now he thinks he has to do something.
That may be true, but he drew the red line because he genuinely thought that the use of chemical weapons would warrant action. He probably hoped that he wouldn’t have to do anything about it, true.
I can’t imagine that even advocates of liberal humanitarian interventions can be too enthused about this one.
No one is enthused, except for people who are enthused about war.
I’m sorry, but do you understand that killing large numbers of civilians, whether or not one is engaging in genocide, is a serious violation of international norms?
It would help if you would cite an example of where killing large numbers of civilians in a civil war has required intervention, especially when intervention wouldn’t end the killing. On the other hand, “genocide” does trigger a duty on the part of the UN or states acting alone, under the UN Convention on Genocide.
If we bomb, it’ll be because Obama drew the red line and now he thinks he has to do something.
That may be true, but he drew the red line because he genuinely thought that the use of chemical weapons would warrant action. He probably hoped that he wouldn’t have to do anything about it, true.
I can’t imagine that even advocates of liberal humanitarian interventions can be too enthused about this one.
No one is enthused, except for people who are enthused about war.
I’m sorry, but do you understand that killing large numbers of civilians, whether or not one is engaging in genocide, is a serious violation of international norms?
It would help if you would cite an example of where killing large numbers of civilians in a civil war has required intervention, especially when intervention wouldn’t end the killing. On the other hand, “genocide” does trigger a duty on the part of the UN or states acting alone, under the UN Convention on Genocide.
Maybe Obama should put it to a vote in Congress and hope it fails.
That’s actually a very good idea, both for those who hope it fails and those who hope it succeeds. I hope he does do that for his own sake, even though he’ll have to listen for days while Republicans beat their chests about his “dithering”.
Maybe Obama should put it to a vote in Congress and hope it fails.
That’s actually a very good idea, both for those who hope it fails and those who hope it succeeds. I hope he does do that for his own sake, even though he’ll have to listen for days while Republicans beat their chests about his “dithering”.
For those wondering how to position their portfolio in the event of bombing Syria and takin out infrastructure, collatoral people, and infrastructure, the word is from Lazaro Berinyi, nice guy but a market statistician, that your equity holdings may rise in the short term, given historical incidences of bombing, but complications could arise which might cause collatoral damage to the equities (which are people, according to Citizen’s United) in the longer term, so I would go short people and long the more valuable people-like equities initially and short equities and hedge short long people who have taken so many pay cuts recently to benefit their equity cousins in the long term, until the next bombing, which will be along shortly, and for which some long.
For those wondering how to position their portfolio in the event of bombing Syria and takin out infrastructure, collatoral people, and infrastructure, the word is from Lazaro Berinyi, nice guy but a market statistician, that your equity holdings may rise in the short term, given historical incidences of bombing, but complications could arise which might cause collatoral damage to the equities (which are people, according to Citizen’s United) in the longer term, so I would go short people and long the more valuable people-like equities initially and short equities and hedge short long people who have taken so many pay cuts recently to benefit their equity cousins in the long term, until the next bombing, which will be along shortly, and for which some long.
he drew the red line because he genuinely thought that the use of chemical weapons would warrant action
Cite please?
I think he drew the red line because the war mongerers have been demanding a war for two years now and he had to do something to avoid looking weak.
he drew the red line because he genuinely thought that the use of chemical weapons would warrant action
Cite please?
I think he drew the red line because the war mongerers have been demanding a war for two years now and he had to do something to avoid looking weak.
I think he drew the red line because the war mongerers have been demanding a war for two years now and he had to do something to avoid looking weak.
Your guess is as good as mine.
I think he drew the red line because the war mongerers have been demanding a war for two years now and he had to do something to avoid looking weak.
Your guess is as good as mine.
Well, no matter what the reason, I’m guessing he regrets using that rhetoric now.
Well, no matter what the reason, I’m guessing he regrets using that rhetoric now.
It would help if you would cite an example of where killing large numbers of civilians in a civil war has required intervention, especially when intervention wouldn’t end the killing. On the other hand, “genocide” does trigger a duty on the part of the UN or states acting alone, under the UN Convention on Genocide.
No, I don’t think that would help. International law remains in force whether or not any examples necessitating intervention have occurred. What matters is what the law says. As for that, well, I refer you to Protocol II of the Geneva Conventions.
It would help if you would cite an example of where killing large numbers of civilians in a civil war has required intervention, especially when intervention wouldn’t end the killing. On the other hand, “genocide” does trigger a duty on the part of the UN or states acting alone, under the UN Convention on Genocide.
No, I don’t think that would help. International law remains in force whether or not any examples necessitating intervention have occurred. What matters is what the law says. As for that, well, I refer you to Protocol II of the Geneva Conventions.
What matters is what the law says. As for that, well, I refer you to Protocol II of the Geneva Conventions.
not ratified by the US
What matters is what the law says. As for that, well, I refer you to Protocol II of the Geneva Conventions.
not ratified by the US
On genocide, I’m not a big fan of Samantha Power and her book A Problem from Hell, but one thing I learned from it was that the official definition of genocide excluded the mass killing of political, social or cultural groups because of opposition from Stalin. (I wonder why?) Here’s a link, not to Power, but to someone else I found after googling this–
link
The definition of genocide is morally arbitrary (and I think, ironically, gave Samantha Power an excuse not to cover certain topics that would have made her book toxic with Serious People if she had). But if you want to stick to the legal definition, if any of the rebels are killing people for their religion or ethnicity, and this seems likely since it’s hard to ethnically cleanse groups without killing some of them, I’m sure we could call it genocide if it were convenient to do so.
On genocide, I’m not a big fan of Samantha Power and her book A Problem from Hell, but one thing I learned from it was that the official definition of genocide excluded the mass killing of political, social or cultural groups because of opposition from Stalin. (I wonder why?) Here’s a link, not to Power, but to someone else I found after googling this–
link
The definition of genocide is morally arbitrary (and I think, ironically, gave Samantha Power an excuse not to cover certain topics that would have made her book toxic with Serious People if she had). But if you want to stick to the legal definition, if any of the rebels are killing people for their religion or ethnicity, and this seems likely since it’s hard to ethnically cleanse groups without killing some of them, I’m sure we could call it genocide if it were convenient to do so.
not ratified by the US
Yet further demonstration of the US government’s shining commitment to international law.
The fact that US hasn’t ratified it though is irrelevant in this case. Protocol II is considered customary international law; it is binding on all countries, regardless of whether they’ve ratified it. In any event, the US isn’t accused of violating it, Syria is, so our refusal to ratify it is doubly besides the point.
not ratified by the US
Yet further demonstration of the US government’s shining commitment to international law.
The fact that US hasn’t ratified it though is irrelevant in this case. Protocol II is considered customary international law; it is binding on all countries, regardless of whether they’ve ratified it. In any event, the US isn’t accused of violating it, Syria is, so our refusal to ratify it is doubly besides the point.
Yet further demonstration of the US government’s shining commitment to international law.
I’m not sure that it betrays a lack of commitment to international law that every treaty isn’t ratified, but whatever you say.
Anyway, you seem to think that the United States either has to intervene all the time, or that it is never justified intervening. You think that if the United States has ever acted badly, it should never act again.
Chemical weapons have long been taboo, and a lot of people feel that there’s a duty to enforce that taboo. I think so too. You think otherwise. Fine.
I’m not thrilled about getting involved in Syria, because it could backfire in a huge way. I do think there’s value in enforcing the ban on chemical weapons. If Obama goes it alone in doing that, I think that he will be placing himself and the United States in a bad place, and I don’t want to see that happen.
Yet further demonstration of the US government’s shining commitment to international law.
I’m not sure that it betrays a lack of commitment to international law that every treaty isn’t ratified, but whatever you say.
Anyway, you seem to think that the United States either has to intervene all the time, or that it is never justified intervening. You think that if the United States has ever acted badly, it should never act again.
Chemical weapons have long been taboo, and a lot of people feel that there’s a duty to enforce that taboo. I think so too. You think otherwise. Fine.
I’m not thrilled about getting involved in Syria, because it could backfire in a huge way. I do think there’s value in enforcing the ban on chemical weapons. If Obama goes it alone in doing that, I think that he will be placing himself and the United States in a bad place, and I don’t want to see that happen.
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/british-parliament-rejects-syria-strike
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/british-parliament-rejects-syria-strike
I’m not sure that it betrays a lack of commitment to international law that every treaty isn’t ratified, but whatever you say.
If you fail to ratify one of the major foundational treaties protecting civilians from massacre, then yeah, it does betry a lack of commitment. It indicates that you’re not interested in protecting civilian lives. Which is exactly what I said earlier today and what you disputed. To wit:
(2) There is also an international norm against exterminating civilian populations.
I think my argument still stands. The administration doesn’t care about killing Arab civilians. They’re going to engage in pointless and illegal action to defend a norm that is far less important than, you know, the one about not massacring civilians. And in the process, they’re probably going to kill a bunch of civilians.
Whoohoo.
“And I’m proud to be an American, where at least I know I’m free…”
I’m not sure that it betrays a lack of commitment to international law that every treaty isn’t ratified, but whatever you say.
If you fail to ratify one of the major foundational treaties protecting civilians from massacre, then yeah, it does betry a lack of commitment. It indicates that you’re not interested in protecting civilian lives. Which is exactly what I said earlier today and what you disputed. To wit:
(2) There is also an international norm against exterminating civilian populations.
I think my argument still stands. The administration doesn’t care about killing Arab civilians. They’re going to engage in pointless and illegal action to defend a norm that is far less important than, you know, the one about not massacring civilians. And in the process, they’re probably going to kill a bunch of civilians.
Whoohoo.
“And I’m proud to be an American, where at least I know I’m free…”
Anyway, you seem to think that…You think that…You think otherwise…
Again, I must ask you: please don’t tell me what I think. I know that much better than you, given how consistently wrong you are.
For example, I don’t think any of the things you claim I do in your last comment. How often do you have to get this completely wrong before you stop doing it?
Anyway, you seem to think that…You think that…You think otherwise…
Again, I must ask you: please don’t tell me what I think. I know that much better than you, given how consistently wrong you are.
For example, I don’t think any of the things you claim I do in your last comment. How often do you have to get this completely wrong before you stop doing it?
Again, I must ask you: please don’t tell me what I think. I know that much better than you, given how consistently wrong you are.
Fine. I’ve apparently misunderstood your position – perhaps it’s me, or perhaps you don’t articulate your opinion very well. In any case, it’s not worth it to me. Thanks.
Carleton, if the Brits are out, I really don’t see how we can do this.
Again, I must ask you: please don’t tell me what I think. I know that much better than you, given how consistently wrong you are.
Fine. I’ve apparently misunderstood your position – perhaps it’s me, or perhaps you don’t articulate your opinion very well. In any case, it’s not worth it to me. Thanks.
Carleton, if the Brits are out, I really don’t see how we can do this.
The US state department admitted arming the Syrian opposition to Assad after Wikileaks released diplomatic cables showing that it was doing so.
But of course the US isn’t taking sides in Syria. Not at all.
The Syrian rebels were trained to use chemical weapons, they said they were going to use chemical weapons, there is credible evidence that they did use chemical weapons. What does the US do about it? Less than nothing.
But of course the US isn’t taking sides in Syria.
Sapient’s arguments always brighten up my day, everybody needs a good laugh now and then.
The US state department admitted arming the Syrian opposition to Assad after Wikileaks released diplomatic cables showing that it was doing so.
But of course the US isn’t taking sides in Syria. Not at all.
The Syrian rebels were trained to use chemical weapons, they said they were going to use chemical weapons, there is credible evidence that they did use chemical weapons. What does the US do about it? Less than nothing.
But of course the US isn’t taking sides in Syria.
Sapient’s arguments always brighten up my day, everybody needs a good laugh now and then.
It’s customary here to provide links to the kind of assertions you make in your 8:21 post, Duff Clarity.
It’s customary here to provide links to the kind of assertions you make in your 8:21 post, Duff Clarity.
if the Brits are out, I really don’t see how we can do this.
22 Arab League countries are calling for the UNSC to authorize a strike on Syria. This is also a big deal. Google for yourself
Saudi Arabia and Qatar are each supporting factions fighting against Assad in Syria. Partly a religious war.
The Suez-Mediterranean pipeline, oil and natural gas from a undersea field between Qatar and Iran (which must generate revenue to be developed, and LNG doesn’t tanker cheaply) is a big deal. A big deal to Russia and Iran, who also want to supply natural gas points west.
It would be wrong not to speculate about who is calling the shots and pulling strings here. Hint:it really ain’t only Israel. Players have changed.
if the Brits are out, I really don’t see how we can do this.
22 Arab League countries are calling for the UNSC to authorize a strike on Syria. This is also a big deal. Google for yourself
Saudi Arabia and Qatar are each supporting factions fighting against Assad in Syria. Partly a religious war.
The Suez-Mediterranean pipeline, oil and natural gas from a undersea field between Qatar and Iran (which must generate revenue to be developed, and LNG doesn’t tanker cheaply) is a big deal. A big deal to Russia and Iran, who also want to supply natural gas points west.
It would be wrong not to speculate about who is calling the shots and pulling strings here. Hint:it really ain’t only Israel. Players have changed.
bob, that’s not the way I’m reading the news. And there are only 21 members of the Arab league, since Syria, whose membership was suspended, is missing.
So although your comment is intriguing, not sure what you’re trying to say.
bob, that’s not the way I’m reading the news. And there are only 21 members of the Arab league, since Syria, whose membership was suspended, is missing.
So although your comment is intriguing, not sure what you’re trying to say.
From your own link
“Stopping short of endorsing Western intervention, the league called on the United Nations Security Council to “overcome the disagreements between its members” so it could “take the necessary deterring measures against the perpetrators of this crime, whose responsibility falls on the Syrian regime,” and end other abuses that “the Syrian regime has been committing.”
which is close enough, re Arab League, to what I said.
From your own link
“Stopping short of endorsing Western intervention, the league called on the United Nations Security Council to “overcome the disagreements between its members” so it could “take the necessary deterring measures against the perpetrators of this crime, whose responsibility falls on the Syrian regime,” and end other abuses that “the Syrian regime has been committing.”
which is close enough, re Arab League, to what I said.
It’s customary here to provide links to the kind of assertions you make
On August 28, 2013 at 08:26 AM you made assertions of fact with no links.
On August 28, 2013 at 12:33 PM you made assertions of fact with no links.
On August 28, 2013 at 01:19 PM you made assertions of fact with no links.
On August 29, 2013 at 11:24 AM you made assertions of fact with no links.
On August 29, 2013 at 02:51 PM you made assertions of fact with no links.
On August 29, 2013 at 02:55 PM you made assertions of fact with no links.
On August 29, 2013 at 04:08 PM you made assertions of fact with no links.
On August 29, 2013 at 04:26 PM you made assertions of fact with no links.
On August 29, 2013 at 04:58 PM you made assertions of fact with no links.
On August 29, 2013 at 08:42 PM you complained that someone made assertions of fact with no links.
But oh yeah, life goes on, long after the thrill of living is gone. Link provided.
In all seriousness, if you were unaware that the US was funding the Syrian opposition or that there was credible evidence that the Syrian opposition had used chemical weapons, you need to consider whether or not epistemic closure is working out for you.
It’s customary here to provide links to the kind of assertions you make
On August 28, 2013 at 08:26 AM you made assertions of fact with no links.
On August 28, 2013 at 12:33 PM you made assertions of fact with no links.
On August 28, 2013 at 01:19 PM you made assertions of fact with no links.
On August 29, 2013 at 11:24 AM you made assertions of fact with no links.
On August 29, 2013 at 02:51 PM you made assertions of fact with no links.
On August 29, 2013 at 02:55 PM you made assertions of fact with no links.
On August 29, 2013 at 04:08 PM you made assertions of fact with no links.
On August 29, 2013 at 04:26 PM you made assertions of fact with no links.
On August 29, 2013 at 04:58 PM you made assertions of fact with no links.
On August 29, 2013 at 08:42 PM you complained that someone made assertions of fact with no links.
But oh yeah, life goes on, long after the thrill of living is gone. Link provided.
In all seriousness, if you were unaware that the US was funding the Syrian opposition or that there was credible evidence that the Syrian opposition had used chemical weapons, you need to consider whether or not epistemic closure is working out for you.
why is it the job of the united states to enforce all of this stuff?
aren’t the UN inspectors in Syria now?
why don’t we let them finish their job, make their report, and then let the UN – including us, and the UK, and whoever else – come to whatever decision they want to come to?
yes, I understand that most likely Russia and China will veto any kind of action against Syria.
yes, I understand that using chemical weapons against your own citizens sucks mightily.
really horrifying stuff goes on every day somewhere around the world. is it the unique job of the United States to address it in some way, when and wherever it happens?
there are about a hundred and seventy two different agendas in play in Syria, including about forty seven American ones.
if we need to blow some stuff up so that Obama doesn’t have to look like a blowhard, I guess that’s what we’ll do. it is 100% unclear to me that that will accomplish anything of value for the Syrian people. It’s 100% unclear to me that that will demonstrate our unwillingness to countenance the use of chemical weapons anywhere in the world.
It’s 100% unclear to me, for that matter, that it will prevent or even significantly discourage Assad from using them again. It’s sink or swim for Assad, I suspect he will do whatever he thinks he has to do, and I also suspect that he believes, probably correctly, that Russia and China will get his back, chemical weapons or no.
What is our upside?
I’m sorry to put it in such blunt terms, but those are the terms on which the decision will surely be made.
I’m not saying we should or should not blow some Syrian stuff up, just to make the point that we are agin’ the use of chemical weapons. That actually might well be a worthwhile use of some cruise missiles.
I don’t know that for sure, because when dead people are in the equation, it throws the calculus off, for me.
But in terms of how these things end up getting decided, it might actually be worthwhile.
I’m just trying to understand why it’s our job.
why is it the job of the united states to enforce all of this stuff?
aren’t the UN inspectors in Syria now?
why don’t we let them finish their job, make their report, and then let the UN – including us, and the UK, and whoever else – come to whatever decision they want to come to?
yes, I understand that most likely Russia and China will veto any kind of action against Syria.
yes, I understand that using chemical weapons against your own citizens sucks mightily.
really horrifying stuff goes on every day somewhere around the world. is it the unique job of the United States to address it in some way, when and wherever it happens?
there are about a hundred and seventy two different agendas in play in Syria, including about forty seven American ones.
if we need to blow some stuff up so that Obama doesn’t have to look like a blowhard, I guess that’s what we’ll do. it is 100% unclear to me that that will accomplish anything of value for the Syrian people. It’s 100% unclear to me that that will demonstrate our unwillingness to countenance the use of chemical weapons anywhere in the world.
It’s 100% unclear to me, for that matter, that it will prevent or even significantly discourage Assad from using them again. It’s sink or swim for Assad, I suspect he will do whatever he thinks he has to do, and I also suspect that he believes, probably correctly, that Russia and China will get his back, chemical weapons or no.
What is our upside?
I’m sorry to put it in such blunt terms, but those are the terms on which the decision will surely be made.
I’m not saying we should or should not blow some Syrian stuff up, just to make the point that we are agin’ the use of chemical weapons. That actually might well be a worthwhile use of some cruise missiles.
I don’t know that for sure, because when dead people are in the equation, it throws the calculus off, for me.
But in terms of how these things end up getting decided, it might actually be worthwhile.
I’m just trying to understand why it’s our job.
I’m interested in the religious angle. As I understood it, Assad is an Alawite, which is a Shia sect, which then explained why it is Iran and Assad (Shia) vs Saudi Arabia and Quatar (Sunni). However, this link suggests that it was the political alliance between the Assad family and Iran, especially after the Iranian revolution rather than a deeper religious connection, which makes a bit more sense, given that Assad has always portrayed himself as very Westernized.
On the other hand, there is also the point that the majority of Muslims in Syria are Sunni, so the Alawites occupy the position of a privileged minority, so it becomes a Sunni v. Shia conflict because of that, even though the Alawites are not so closely connected to the Shia.
One should also note that Hezbollah, which has lent its support to Assad, is a Shia militia.
Related to the Sunni, the Uyghur, the ethnic minority which the Chinese are concerned with are Sunni, as are the Chechen. There are reports of Chinese Uyghur joining the rebels (though the Chinese have been accused of exaggerating it) as well as Syria being a rallying point for Chechen separatists. The Uyghur link seems weak, but the Chechen one seems much stronger.
If anyone has any other insights or links to the religious aspects of this, I’d love to hear them.
I’m interested in the religious angle. As I understood it, Assad is an Alawite, which is a Shia sect, which then explained why it is Iran and Assad (Shia) vs Saudi Arabia and Quatar (Sunni). However, this link suggests that it was the political alliance between the Assad family and Iran, especially after the Iranian revolution rather than a deeper religious connection, which makes a bit more sense, given that Assad has always portrayed himself as very Westernized.
On the other hand, there is also the point that the majority of Muslims in Syria are Sunni, so the Alawites occupy the position of a privileged minority, so it becomes a Sunni v. Shia conflict because of that, even though the Alawites are not so closely connected to the Shia.
One should also note that Hezbollah, which has lent its support to Assad, is a Shia militia.
Related to the Sunni, the Uyghur, the ethnic minority which the Chinese are concerned with are Sunni, as are the Chechen. There are reports of Chinese Uyghur joining the rebels (though the Chinese have been accused of exaggerating it) as well as Syria being a rallying point for Chechen separatists. The Uyghur link seems weak, but the Chechen one seems much stronger.
If anyone has any other insights or links to the religious aspects of this, I’d love to hear them.
I’m just trying to understand why it’s our job.
We have the guns, and we claim to care about human rights. We sit on the Security Council. We helped win WWII.
But mostly, now, we have the guns.
I’m just trying to understand why it’s our job.
We have the guns, and we claim to care about human rights. We sit on the Security Council. We helped win WWII.
But mostly, now, we have the guns.
By the way, I agree with you about letting the UN inspectors do their job and make their report. You do know, though, that they’re just trying to find out whether gas was used, not the perpetrator.
I suppose there’s an argument that if someone doesn’t hurry up and do something, there will be another gas attack, so further harm is imminent.
By the way, I agree with you about letting the UN inspectors do their job and make their report. You do know, though, that they’re just trying to find out whether gas was used, not the perpetrator.
I suppose there’s an argument that if someone doesn’t hurry up and do something, there will be another gas attack, so further harm is imminent.
If I am reading it right, it sounds like your answer here is a combination of “we can” and “we’re actually willing to do it”.
Which is a not-bad answer, so thanks.
What’s left unanswered is whether it will actually be worthwhile, as a practical matter – i.e., whether the situation after we drop bombs will actually be better than the situation before we drop bombs.
Also not answered is whether, and why, it is actually in our interest to step in.
We helped win WWII.
Can you explain the relevance of this.
If I am reading it right, it sounds like your answer here is a combination of “we can” and “we’re actually willing to do it”.
Which is a not-bad answer, so thanks.
What’s left unanswered is whether it will actually be worthwhile, as a practical matter – i.e., whether the situation after we drop bombs will actually be better than the situation before we drop bombs.
Also not answered is whether, and why, it is actually in our interest to step in.
We helped win WWII.
Can you explain the relevance of this.
Can you explain the relevance of this.
Not trying to Godwinize – I know you’re sensitive. We’re in the position we’re in because we helped make up the rules after WWII. WWII was a pivotal point in history. It did really happen, and placed us in the spot we’re in today.
As to the other questions you posed, all good. I think the issue is: wring hands v. do something that might deter. Wringing hands won’t deter.
Can you explain the relevance of this.
Not trying to Godwinize – I know you’re sensitive. We’re in the position we’re in because we helped make up the rules after WWII. WWII was a pivotal point in history. It did really happen, and placed us in the spot we’re in today.
As to the other questions you posed, all good. I think the issue is: wring hands v. do something that might deter. Wringing hands won’t deter.
Also not answered is whether, and why, it is actually in our interest to step in.
Well, it’s in our interests, and everyone’s interests, that chemical warfare not make a comeback. Don’t you agree? Whether our actions will deter is the real question.
Also not answered is whether, and why, it is actually in our interest to step in.
Well, it’s in our interests, and everyone’s interests, that chemical warfare not make a comeback. Don’t you agree? Whether our actions will deter is the real question.
Chemical warefare is not “making a comeback” (no cite).
The probability that a limited military intervention will “deter” whomever used these weapons is extremely low (no cite).
This is a civil war. (cite not necessary).
By drawing red lines, the president essentially boxed himself in. Tallyrand (“It was worse than a crime. It was a mistake.”) he is not wrt this matter.(opinion).
By supplying arms and aid to the rebels, we have taken sides in this conflict (no cite).
Chemical warefare is not “making a comeback” (no cite).
The probability that a limited military intervention will “deter” whomever used these weapons is extremely low (no cite).
This is a civil war. (cite not necessary).
By drawing red lines, the president essentially boxed himself in. Tallyrand (“It was worse than a crime. It was a mistake.”) he is not wrt this matter.(opinion).
By supplying arms and aid to the rebels, we have taken sides in this conflict (no cite).
I guess I’m going to have to question the existence of an international norm against the use of chemical weapons if the only country in the world willing to act militarily is the US.
I guess I’m going to have to question the existence of an international norm against the use of chemical weapons if the only country in the world willing to act militarily is the US.
This belies a very rosily optimistic expectation that Congress will make a sensible decision in this matter. Or any other, but that’s another topic.
Fixed. I know: damn you, Autocorrect!
This belies a very rosily optimistic expectation that Congress will make a sensible decision in this matter. Or any other, but that’s another topic.
Fixed. I know: damn you, Autocorrect!
I am still confused about what “international norm” means. Anyone? Bueller?
It’s probably super-easy, but I can’t recall having had that phrase tossed around previous to right now. Maybe I’m just more awake than I used to be.
I am still confused about what “international norm” means. Anyone? Bueller?
It’s probably super-easy, but I can’t recall having had that phrase tossed around previous to right now. Maybe I’m just more awake than I used to be.
I am still confused about what “international norm” means.
The term is a very common and longstanding one in international law. If you plug it in as a search term in Google Books, you’ll find entire books on the subject.
I am still confused about what “international norm” means.
The term is a very common and longstanding one in international law. If you plug it in as a search term in Google Books, you’ll find entire books on the subject.
Sure, it’s a term of art. But what’s it mean?
Sure, it’s a term of art. But what’s it mean?
…the situation after we drop bombs will actually be better than the situation before we drop bombs.
about the only thing improved by our bombings will be the hawks’ self-righteous estimation of the US’s credibility.
it would be a Respect My Authoritah! move. nothing more.
…the situation after we drop bombs will actually be better than the situation before we drop bombs.
about the only thing improved by our bombings will be the hawks’ self-righteous estimation of the US’s credibility.
it would be a Respect My Authoritah! move. nothing more.
I guess I’m going to have to question the existence of an international norm against the use of chemical weapons if the only country in the world willing to act militarily is the US.
Well, other than the fact that the U.S. is not the only country in the world that supports military action, I’m pretty sure that if you had listened to the parliamentary debates, you wouldn’t have heard the MPs denying that there was an international norm against the use of chemical weapons.
Of course, the opposite of having an international norm against the use of chemical weapons is having an international norm allowing the use of chemical weapons. Are you supporting that norm? Good times!
I guess I’m going to have to question the existence of an international norm against the use of chemical weapons if the only country in the world willing to act militarily is the US.
Well, other than the fact that the U.S. is not the only country in the world that supports military action, I’m pretty sure that if you had listened to the parliamentary debates, you wouldn’t have heard the MPs denying that there was an international norm against the use of chemical weapons.
Of course, the opposite of having an international norm against the use of chemical weapons is having an international norm allowing the use of chemical weapons. Are you supporting that norm? Good times!
if the only country in the world willing to act militarily is the US.
that’s the current state of things.
if conclusive evidence turns up that (somehow) shows that Assad deliberately used CW, that might change.
right now, a lot of countries are waiting for that evidence.
if the only country in the world willing to act militarily is the US.
that’s the current state of things.
if conclusive evidence turns up that (somehow) shows that Assad deliberately used CW, that might change.
right now, a lot of countries are waiting for that evidence.
France’s readiness to fight seems somewhat inconstant.
France’s readiness to fight seems somewhat inconstant.
Oh. Interesting:
This looks a lot like: we’ve already decided to take action; any actual evidence would just confuse the issue.
Oh. Interesting:
This looks a lot like: we’ve already decided to take action; any actual evidence would just confuse the issue.
Zerohedge seems to have aggregated a number of handy links, which I am currently sorting through. Feel free to peruse, or not.
Zerohedge seems to have aggregated a number of handy links, which I am currently sorting through. Feel free to peruse, or not.
This looks a lot like: we’ve already decided to take action; any actual evidence would just confuse the issue.
I think it’s more: we already have the evidence we need and we’ve decided to take action quickly; the evidence that the UN might gather will add nothing, especially since they aren’t responsible for finding out who attacked.
That said, I would prefer that the administration wait until the inspectors are done, but I assume that timing is pretty important to strategy. They’ve already said they’re going to do something which has caused Syria to evacuate people (which I think was on purpose, so fewer human beings would be killed). I guess they think they should go ahead with it now.
This looks a lot like: we’ve already decided to take action; any actual evidence would just confuse the issue.
I think it’s more: we already have the evidence we need and we’ve decided to take action quickly; the evidence that the UN might gather will add nothing, especially since they aren’t responsible for finding out who attacked.
That said, I would prefer that the administration wait until the inspectors are done, but I assume that timing is pretty important to strategy. They’ve already said they’re going to do something which has caused Syria to evacuate people (which I think was on purpose, so fewer human beings would be killed). I guess they think they should go ahead with it now.
I am completely unsurprised by this statement. I am also unsurprised that it’s an assertion that doesn’t link to anything that supports it.
I am completely unsurprised by this statement. I am also unsurprised that it’s an assertion that doesn’t link to anything that supports it.
– Barack Obama, 2007
– Joe Biden, 2007
– Barack Obama, 2007
– Joe Biden, 2007
Excellent.
Either/or, shoot ’em through the door.
Excellent.
Either/or, shoot ’em through the door.
I am still confused about what “international norm” means. Anyone? Bueller?
It is a good question.
The closest thing I can think of is customary international law. There are some things, like the Geneva Conventions, that are so widely adopted and so foundational, that you can’t opt out of them. Everyone is bound by customary int’l law whether or not they’ve ratified the treaties.
In that narrow sense, there are “norms” that bind countries even if the countries reject them. But I don’t think that is the sense in which sapient and the administration are using the term.
My best guess is that they’re using the phrase so as to imply that Syria has done something wrong that we are entitled/required to punish but without using the phrase international law since that would suggest all sorts of difficult questions like ‘what punishment for violations is specified in the relevant treaties?’.
I am still confused about what “international norm” means. Anyone? Bueller?
It is a good question.
The closest thing I can think of is customary international law. There are some things, like the Geneva Conventions, that are so widely adopted and so foundational, that you can’t opt out of them. Everyone is bound by customary int’l law whether or not they’ve ratified the treaties.
In that narrow sense, there are “norms” that bind countries even if the countries reject them. But I don’t think that is the sense in which sapient and the administration are using the term.
My best guess is that they’re using the phrase so as to imply that Syria has done something wrong that we are entitled/required to punish but without using the phrase international law since that would suggest all sorts of difficult questions like ‘what punishment for violations is specified in the relevant treaties?’.
That’s roughly what I suspected, Turbulence.
That’s roughly what I suspected, Turbulence.
We helped win WWII.
According to many historians, Russia contributed even more to this victory than the USA. Does this mean Putin gets the final say?
We helped win WWII.
According to many historians, Russia contributed even more to this victory than the USA. Does this mean Putin gets the final say?
I think it all depends on how a hypothetical “reasonable country” would conduct itself.
I think it all depends on how a hypothetical “reasonable country” would conduct itself.
I am completely unsurprised by this statement. I am also unsurprised that it’s an assertion that doesn’t link to anything that supports it.
Me too. But in all fairness, Sapient did preface that with “I think it’s more:” implying that what followed was just his opinion/guess.
Just my opinion 🙂
I am completely unsurprised by this statement. I am also unsurprised that it’s an assertion that doesn’t link to anything that supports it.
Me too. But in all fairness, Sapient did preface that with “I think it’s more:” implying that what followed was just his opinion/guess.
Just my opinion 🙂
I doubt Russia’s contribution would have been as effective without Lend/Lease, but I have to bow to dr ngo’s historical expertise.
I doubt Russia’s contribution would have been as effective without Lend/Lease, but I have to bow to dr ngo’s historical expertise.
Standing O for Duff Clarity’s 8/29/13 10:47PM.
Standing O for Duff Clarity’s 8/29/13 10:47PM.
“hypothetical reasonable country” is going on my list of mythical beasts.
“hypothetical reasonable country” is going on my list of mythical beasts.
It might also make for a good subgenre of music.
It might also make for a good subgenre of music.
the intel assessment on the gas attack makes it seem pretty unlikely that anyone besides Assad’s forces launched the gas attack… in case anyone was still on the fence.
the intel assessment on the gas attack makes it seem pretty unlikely that anyone besides Assad’s forces launched the gas attack… in case anyone was still on the fence.
According to many historians, Russia contributed even more to this victory than the USA. Does this mean Putin gets the final say?
Perhaps you meant the Soviet Union? If the Soviet Union still existed, we might have a conversation about that.
Even so, Russia holds a seat on the Security Council, and Putin is a factor in our considerations, largely because the Soviet Union also emerged from WWII in a position of leadership.
My point about WWII wasn’t to self-aggrandize, despite the snark society’s interpretation of my comment. It was to answer russell’s question about why we have the role that we have. If you want to ignore the obvious history of our position in the world, then go right ahead. Go ahead and ignore the French and British mandates for the Middle East following WWI as well, if you’d like.
But I’m not sure what your point would be in doing so, dr ngo.
According to many historians, Russia contributed even more to this victory than the USA. Does this mean Putin gets the final say?
Perhaps you meant the Soviet Union? If the Soviet Union still existed, we might have a conversation about that.
Even so, Russia holds a seat on the Security Council, and Putin is a factor in our considerations, largely because the Soviet Union also emerged from WWII in a position of leadership.
My point about WWII wasn’t to self-aggrandize, despite the snark society’s interpretation of my comment. It was to answer russell’s question about why we have the role that we have. If you want to ignore the obvious history of our position in the world, then go right ahead. Go ahead and ignore the French and British mandates for the Middle East following WWI as well, if you’d like.
But I’m not sure what your point would be in doing so, dr ngo.
when we bomb Syria is there a good reason we shouldn’t announce precisely where and when it will occur? This would enhance the perception of Americas omnipotence and Syria’s impotence IMHO. (not an endorsement of going to war)
when we bomb Syria is there a good reason we shouldn’t announce precisely where and when it will occur? This would enhance the perception of Americas omnipotence and Syria’s impotence IMHO. (not an endorsement of going to war)
My best guess is that they’re using the phrase so as to imply that Syria has done something wrong that we are entitled/required to punish but without using the phrase international law since that would suggest all sorts of difficult questions like ‘what punishment for violations is specified in the relevant treaties?’.
That seems like quite the red herring, I can’t think of any of the standards in this area of international relations have codified punishments (as opposed to eg the WTO process). There may be some, but there are certainly many international agreements, treaties, standards, etc that don’t have codified punishments.
So I doubt that your mindreading is correct that the administration is using this phrase in order to avoid questions about codified punishments.
In that narrow sense, there are “norms” that bind countries even if the countries reject them. But I don’t think that is the sense in which sapient and the administration are using the term.
Please, do not stop your mindreading at such a critical juncture, let us know why they aren’t being used in that sense. Certainly, if there are *any* norms that bind countries without their consent, not using poison gas on civilians has got to be right up there IMO.
From John Kerry’s statement today :This crime against conscience, this crime against humanity, this crime against the most fundamental principles of international community, against the norm of the international community, this matters to us.
Certainly sounds like he’s referring to norms that bind countries regardless of their consent. ‘Crimes against humanity’ also suggests the concept of non-consensual yet binding standards of behavior.
My best guess is that they’re using the phrase so as to imply that Syria has done something wrong that we are entitled/required to punish but without using the phrase international law since that would suggest all sorts of difficult questions like ‘what punishment for violations is specified in the relevant treaties?’.
That seems like quite the red herring, I can’t think of any of the standards in this area of international relations have codified punishments (as opposed to eg the WTO process). There may be some, but there are certainly many international agreements, treaties, standards, etc that don’t have codified punishments.
So I doubt that your mindreading is correct that the administration is using this phrase in order to avoid questions about codified punishments.
In that narrow sense, there are “norms” that bind countries even if the countries reject them. But I don’t think that is the sense in which sapient and the administration are using the term.
Please, do not stop your mindreading at such a critical juncture, let us know why they aren’t being used in that sense. Certainly, if there are *any* norms that bind countries without their consent, not using poison gas on civilians has got to be right up there IMO.
From John Kerry’s statement today :This crime against conscience, this crime against humanity, this crime against the most fundamental principles of international community, against the norm of the international community, this matters to us.
Certainly sounds like he’s referring to norms that bind countries regardless of their consent. ‘Crimes against humanity’ also suggests the concept of non-consensual yet binding standards of behavior.
It seems to me that bombing has immediate (and long term) negative consequences that are virtually certain and that any positive consequences are uncertain, hard to measure, and relatively far off.
It seems to me that bombing has immediate (and long term) negative consequences that are virtually certain and that any positive consequences are uncertain, hard to measure, and relatively far off.
It seems to me that bombing has immediate (and long term) negative consequences that are virtually certain and that any positive consequences are uncertain, hard to measure, and relatively far off.
Especially as it seems the plan is to bomb in order to “send a message.” So I walk back my support for the idea. I see no good coming out of it, either way. There’s still a problem, but there appears to be no sensible plan on the table to do anything about it.
It seems to me that bombing has immediate (and long term) negative consequences that are virtually certain and that any positive consequences are uncertain, hard to measure, and relatively far off.
Especially as it seems the plan is to bomb in order to “send a message.” So I walk back my support for the idea. I see no good coming out of it, either way. There’s still a problem, but there appears to be no sensible plan on the table to do anything about it.
Especially as it seems the plan is to bomb in order to “send a message.”
From what I have seen reported, the point of bombing is definitely to send a message. The message is:
If you use chemical weapons, especially on civilian populations, it’s going to cost you something. Some of your stuff is going to get blown up.
I don’t see any statement about a military strike for any other reason. Not to overthrow Assad, not specifically to support one side or the other in the civil war.
Just a carefully measured reprisal for using chemical weapons.
Especially as it seems the plan is to bomb in order to “send a message.”
From what I have seen reported, the point of bombing is definitely to send a message. The message is:
If you use chemical weapons, especially on civilian populations, it’s going to cost you something. Some of your stuff is going to get blown up.
I don’t see any statement about a military strike for any other reason. Not to overthrow Assad, not specifically to support one side or the other in the civil war.
Just a carefully measured reprisal for using chemical weapons.
When your goal in a war is to, just barely, avoid being mocked, maybe it is a war that does not need to be fought.
When your goal in a war is to, just barely, avoid being mocked, maybe it is a war that does not need to be fought.
Just a carefully measured reprisal for using chemical weapons.
What russell said. (Not that people shouldn’t be worried about it.)
One U.S. official who
When the anonymous U.S. official who is interviewed says something a*****ish, we would expect it to be quoted by people who aren’t favorably inclined towards the action.
Just a carefully measured reprisal for using chemical weapons.
What russell said. (Not that people shouldn’t be worried about it.)
One U.S. official who
When the anonymous U.S. official who is interviewed says something a*****ish, we would expect it to be quoted by people who aren’t favorably inclined towards the action.
And do the corpses care whether they were killed by poisonous gas in their lungs or metal punching holes in their skulls?
This will be the stupidest war since Grenada, at least.
And do the corpses care whether they were killed by poisonous gas in their lungs or metal punching holes in their skulls?
This will be the stupidest war since Grenada, at least.
No, Grenada was much much stupider.
No, Grenada was much much stupider.
cleek, 2:11:in case anyone was still on the fence.
Leaked Emails Show US False Flag
US Gov’t or their media lackeys told me the sun was rising in the east, I would look out my west window at 6 AM
cleek, 2:11:in case anyone was still on the fence.
Leaked Emails Show US False Flag
US Gov’t or their media lackeys told me the sun was rising in the east, I would look out my west window at 6 AM
No, Grenada was much much stupider.
Again, agreeing with russell.
Truly, we (the people of the United States) are in a hugely privileged and burdened position of having power. We’ve been over it, and over it, about meddling in cultures that we don’t understand; about “waving our dicks”; about committing our own sins, and there are many.
But, here we are, in 2013, being asked to respond to the gassing of civilians. I’m in favor of making an emphatic statement: “no, we don’t do that.”
I’m worried about the haste, and I sent a note to President Obama about the possibility that allowing Congress to vote might be wise, and that I hoped for more fervent support from the international community. But I think a “red line” against gassing civilians is ultimately worth marking.
No, Grenada was much much stupider.
Again, agreeing with russell.
Truly, we (the people of the United States) are in a hugely privileged and burdened position of having power. We’ve been over it, and over it, about meddling in cultures that we don’t understand; about “waving our dicks”; about committing our own sins, and there are many.
But, here we are, in 2013, being asked to respond to the gassing of civilians. I’m in favor of making an emphatic statement: “no, we don’t do that.”
I’m worried about the haste, and I sent a note to President Obama about the possibility that allowing Congress to vote might be wise, and that I hoped for more fervent support from the international community. But I think a “red line” against gassing civilians is ultimately worth marking.
No, the message is: the US, oh wait, the US president can do whatever the fuck he wants and doesn’t answer to anybody, neither the people, nor congress, nor the UN.
The upside: such hubris is a clear sign of the American empire crumbling.
No, the message is: the US, oh wait, the US president can do whatever the fuck he wants and doesn’t answer to anybody, neither the people, nor congress, nor the UN.
The upside: such hubris is a clear sign of the American empire crumbling.
bobmcmanus, reliable source! Please link to more of that trash!
bobmcmanus, reliable source! Please link to more of that trash!
Well, in fairness that quote isn’t exactly administration policy. And, fwiw, if Im reading that correctly he’s not saying the US would bomb in order to avoid being mocked, but that the force level would be chosen to be between ‘mockable’ and ‘enough to get the Russians involved’.
One of the problems I have with the proposed attack is scale- if it’s a deterrent against future chemical attacks on civilians, what’s the right amount of force? Weirdly, I think it’s stuck in a place where it ought to be enough to damage Assad’s position (or it’s not a deterrent), but actually damaging Assad’s position is the one thing that Russia presumably won’t stand for.
So my bet is that if there’s an attack, it’ll be on that line- harsh enough to not be dismissed as a slap on the wrist, small enough to not actually impact the civil war (or, really, act as a significant deterrent). Likewise, the time scale will be short- my guess we won’t bomb for months or hold a long no-fly zone or somesuch. Nothing long enough for the Russians to develop a dangerous head of steam over.
And do the corpses care whether they were killed by poisonous gas in their lungs or metal punching holes in their skulls?
Presumably they also don’t care (being corpses) if they were killed intentionally, via careless disregard for civilian lives, or in the course of a reasonable military action with unavoidable civilian impact. But I think those things matter.
In an ideal world I think it’d be an obvious choice to inflict military harm on a military force that committed war crimes as a deterrent against future war crimes. This is not that ideal world, for a whole ton of reasons, and Im not sure the proposed attacks make sense or can hope to achieve their hoped-for result. But that doesn’t make the idea of deterrence a bad one, IMO.
Well, in fairness that quote isn’t exactly administration policy. And, fwiw, if Im reading that correctly he’s not saying the US would bomb in order to avoid being mocked, but that the force level would be chosen to be between ‘mockable’ and ‘enough to get the Russians involved’.
One of the problems I have with the proposed attack is scale- if it’s a deterrent against future chemical attacks on civilians, what’s the right amount of force? Weirdly, I think it’s stuck in a place where it ought to be enough to damage Assad’s position (or it’s not a deterrent), but actually damaging Assad’s position is the one thing that Russia presumably won’t stand for.
So my bet is that if there’s an attack, it’ll be on that line- harsh enough to not be dismissed as a slap on the wrist, small enough to not actually impact the civil war (or, really, act as a significant deterrent). Likewise, the time scale will be short- my guess we won’t bomb for months or hold a long no-fly zone or somesuch. Nothing long enough for the Russians to develop a dangerous head of steam over.
And do the corpses care whether they were killed by poisonous gas in their lungs or metal punching holes in their skulls?
Presumably they also don’t care (being corpses) if they were killed intentionally, via careless disregard for civilian lives, or in the course of a reasonable military action with unavoidable civilian impact. But I think those things matter.
In an ideal world I think it’d be an obvious choice to inflict military harm on a military force that committed war crimes as a deterrent against future war crimes. This is not that ideal world, for a whole ton of reasons, and Im not sure the proposed attacks make sense or can hope to achieve their hoped-for result. But that doesn’t make the idea of deterrence a bad one, IMO.
The upside: such hubris is a clear sign of the American empire crumbling.
In favor of …. ???????
Somebody’s got to do it.
The upside: such hubris is a clear sign of the American empire crumbling.
In favor of …. ???????
Somebody’s got to do it.
If you use chemical weapons, especially on civilian populations, it’s going to cost you something. Some of your stuff is going to get blown up.
Let’s say that instead of using chemical weapons, Syria had done the exact same thing with a small tactical nuclear device purchased from Russia. Would that have been a problem? Assuming Syria withdrew from the NPT, I’m not aware of any international legal constraint on using nuclear weapons per se against civilians. Obviously, killing civilians regardless of the means is wrong, but that’s not the argument that the US government is making.
For that matter, if using chemical weapons against civilians is a crime against humanity, are we all ready to acknowledge that using nuclear weapons in WWII was also a crime against humanity? Or is that different somehow?
If you use chemical weapons, especially on civilian populations, it’s going to cost you something. Some of your stuff is going to get blown up.
Let’s say that instead of using chemical weapons, Syria had done the exact same thing with a small tactical nuclear device purchased from Russia. Would that have been a problem? Assuming Syria withdrew from the NPT, I’m not aware of any international legal constraint on using nuclear weapons per se against civilians. Obviously, killing civilians regardless of the means is wrong, but that’s not the argument that the US government is making.
For that matter, if using chemical weapons against civilians is a crime against humanity, are we all ready to acknowledge that using nuclear weapons in WWII was also a crime against humanity? Or is that different somehow?
Somebody’s got to do it.
My, what extraordinary crimes and stupidities have marched under this banner!
Somebody’s got to do it.
My, what extraordinary crimes and stupidities have marched under this banner!
Or is that different somehow?
(Let me preface this by identifying myself as someone from the generation that grew up in the post-WWII era, and has considered that moral dilemma since childhood, along with just about everyone else from my generation, many of whom could state their own views.)
It’s actually not different. We’ve been working hard on non-proliferation since WWII. Americans are especially sensitive to the fact that we actually did it first. There are different moral assessments of what was necessary, and whether both bombings were necessary. Lots of people think that the second bombing was a war crime. Everyone understands that without those bombings, a lot of killing and suffering would have gone on, perhaps as much among civilians.
Still, the world was stunned, and nobody ever did it again, even though they made a lot more bombs, bigger bombs. We (the United States, Russia, France, Israel, UK – all of the nuclear powers) knew that the cost/ benefit was mostly cost. My own father, who was grateful as hell for the end of the war (from Nuke I, at least), knew that the end of the human race would happen if we didn’t find another way.
And now there’s a norm against nuclear weapons. There’s a norm against chemical weapons. There’s a norm against biological weapons. Norms are good.
Won’t lecture you, Turbulence, as a youngster. But you are one so you might want to consider that possibility. When I’m long dead, you can have your way, and ignore these norms.
Or is that different somehow?
(Let me preface this by identifying myself as someone from the generation that grew up in the post-WWII era, and has considered that moral dilemma since childhood, along with just about everyone else from my generation, many of whom could state their own views.)
It’s actually not different. We’ve been working hard on non-proliferation since WWII. Americans are especially sensitive to the fact that we actually did it first. There are different moral assessments of what was necessary, and whether both bombings were necessary. Lots of people think that the second bombing was a war crime. Everyone understands that without those bombings, a lot of killing and suffering would have gone on, perhaps as much among civilians.
Still, the world was stunned, and nobody ever did it again, even though they made a lot more bombs, bigger bombs. We (the United States, Russia, France, Israel, UK – all of the nuclear powers) knew that the cost/ benefit was mostly cost. My own father, who was grateful as hell for the end of the war (from Nuke I, at least), knew that the end of the human race would happen if we didn’t find another way.
And now there’s a norm against nuclear weapons. There’s a norm against chemical weapons. There’s a norm against biological weapons. Norms are good.
Won’t lecture you, Turbulence, as a youngster. But you are one so you might want to consider that possibility. When I’m long dead, you can have your way, and ignore these norms.
I’m worried about the haste, and I sent a note to President Obama about the possibility that allowing Congress to vote might be wise
That’s funny.
I’m worried about the haste, and I sent a note to President Obama about the possibility that allowing Congress to vote might be wise
That’s funny.
My, what extraordinary crimes and stupidities have marched under this banner!
Really? You don’t believe in power vacuums? Please provide more than snark (and snore-inducing front-page posts). Would be so welcome.
My, what extraordinary crimes and stupidities have marched under this banner!
Really? You don’t believe in power vacuums? Please provide more than snark (and snore-inducing front-page posts). Would be so welcome.
Do you know what we call bombing a country because they violated a norm? A war crime.
You can’t just bomb countries for “norm violations” and have it be legal. If you want to bomb countries that have committed serious violations of international law, you need to be able to point to specific treaties they’ve violated.
But sapient, I’m glad that you’re not bound by even the slightest consistency. Maybe consistency, like a childhood free of lead poisoning, only afflicts the young.
Do you know what we call bombing a country because they violated a norm? A war crime.
You can’t just bomb countries for “norm violations” and have it be legal. If you want to bomb countries that have committed serious violations of international law, you need to be able to point to specific treaties they’ve violated.
But sapient, I’m glad that you’re not bound by even the slightest consistency. Maybe consistency, like a childhood free of lead poisoning, only afflicts the young.
It’s your world, Turb. Have at it.
It’s your world, Turb. Have at it.
Im not sure the proposed attacks make sense or can hope to achieve their hoped-for result.
I would heartily agree with this.
But that doesn’t make the idea of deterrence a bad one, IMO.
The Cold War was a classic case of deterrence. No nuclear weapons were unleashed. In this instance it would appear deterrence has failed…the poison gas was employed. Are we not then simply discussing the level of punishment or retaliation to be meted out to the guilty party?
OTOH I could be making a useless point….wouldn’t be the first time…or alas, the last.
Im not sure the proposed attacks make sense or can hope to achieve their hoped-for result.
I would heartily agree with this.
But that doesn’t make the idea of deterrence a bad one, IMO.
The Cold War was a classic case of deterrence. No nuclear weapons were unleashed. In this instance it would appear deterrence has failed…the poison gas was employed. Are we not then simply discussing the level of punishment or retaliation to be meted out to the guilty party?
OTOH I could be making a useless point….wouldn’t be the first time…or alas, the last.
Sapient: If you don’t like my front-page posts, don’t read them. Many don’t. I don’t care for your bombast and bullying. So please STFU. Would be more than welcome.
Sapient: If you don’t like my front-page posts, don’t read them. Many don’t. I don’t care for your bombast and bullying. So please STFU. Would be more than welcome.
I don’t care for your bombast and bullying.
Sent from the Kingdom of dr ngo. The guy who accused sapient of being an elevator pervert. So hilarious! So wish that at times like that we could all meet each other! Pretty clear to me who would be revealed as the creepy one.
As to informed or substantive comments in response to various issues other than The Kingdom of dr ngo, there is very little.
Did try to appreciate your front page posts (and I am pretty good at making nice) but it was kind of impossible considering your relentless, incomprehensible and ill-informed snark, dr ngo. You’re apparently an old piss-ant, and I know plenty of them. Have a good evening!
I don’t care for your bombast and bullying.
Sent from the Kingdom of dr ngo. The guy who accused sapient of being an elevator pervert. So hilarious! So wish that at times like that we could all meet each other! Pretty clear to me who would be revealed as the creepy one.
As to informed or substantive comments in response to various issues other than The Kingdom of dr ngo, there is very little.
Did try to appreciate your front page posts (and I am pretty good at making nice) but it was kind of impossible considering your relentless, incomprehensible and ill-informed snark, dr ngo. You’re apparently an old piss-ant, and I know plenty of them. Have a good evening!
Wow. I hardly know where to begin.
Probably with your assertion that I accused you of being an elevator pervert. Really? I’d have thought I’d remember that.
(Seriously: I have no recollection of this. Perhaps you have confused me with someone else, or perhaps my memory is worse than I thought. Link, please?)
“I am pretty good at making nice” – now that really brought a chuckle! Talk about “hilarious” counterfactuals!! (Hint: does the fact that other posters – not myself, until now – have repeatedly called you “rude” suggest anything about your perceived public demeanor?)
I’m sorry that you found my front page posts incomprehensible and ill-informed, but, given other evidence of your reading comprehension, not really surprised.
I may be an old piss-ant, but I doubt seriously if I could outdo you in the “creepy” stakes.
“As to informed or substantive comments . . . ” – I’m happy to let the ObWi readership judge between you and me on this account.
But enough of this airy persiflage. We now know what we think of each other; what remains to be seen is whether this blog is Big Enough For Both Of Us.
Wow. I hardly know where to begin.
Probably with your assertion that I accused you of being an elevator pervert. Really? I’d have thought I’d remember that.
(Seriously: I have no recollection of this. Perhaps you have confused me with someone else, or perhaps my memory is worse than I thought. Link, please?)
“I am pretty good at making nice” – now that really brought a chuckle! Talk about “hilarious” counterfactuals!! (Hint: does the fact that other posters – not myself, until now – have repeatedly called you “rude” suggest anything about your perceived public demeanor?)
I’m sorry that you found my front page posts incomprehensible and ill-informed, but, given other evidence of your reading comprehension, not really surprised.
I may be an old piss-ant, but I doubt seriously if I could outdo you in the “creepy” stakes.
“As to informed or substantive comments . . . ” – I’m happy to let the ObWi readership judge between you and me on this account.
But enough of this airy persiflage. We now know what we think of each other; what remains to be seen is whether this blog is Big Enough For Both Of Us.
Here you are, dr ngo, a a link to your comment, mansplaining that I, sapient, was actually speaking from some “horny and clueless” place in the Kingdom of dr ngo.
When, in fact, I was not.
So thanks, dr ngo, for your ridiculous and very wrong assumptions, as was (to me) a warning for the future. No, I won’t forget that very, very rude comment. And just because the people here didn’t call it out doesn’t mean that it wasn’t extremely wrong and rude.
Here you are, dr ngo, a a link to your comment, mansplaining that I, sapient, was actually speaking from some “horny and clueless” place in the Kingdom of dr ngo.
When, in fact, I was not.
So thanks, dr ngo, for your ridiculous and very wrong assumptions, as was (to me) a warning for the future. No, I won’t forget that very, very rude comment. And just because the people here didn’t call it out doesn’t mean that it wasn’t extremely wrong and rude.
IMO ‘violating a norm’ is not even close to sufficient reason to bomb another country.
There is a treaty against using chemical weapons, but Syria is not a signatory, so it’s not clear to me what the status of Assad’s alleged use of chemical weapons is under international law.
It really is, or at least ought to be, a Big Fncking Deal to bomb another country, especially a country that has committed exactly zero belligerent acts against you. In Syria’s case, the act in question is purely internal, and is part of a civil war.
A civil war in which there is no party that is, as far as I can tell, an unambiguous ‘good guy’, or who would be considered unequivocally friendly to us or our interests.
It’s not our war. And there’s no good reason I can see to make it our war.
For the precious little that it’s worth, what it seems to me ought to happen is (a) the inspectors should finish their work, (b) they should present their findings to the UN, and (c) the UN should decide what they want to do about it.
Which will likely be damned little, because the UN is subject to the interests of a really disparate group of players.
I appreciate the appeal of the idea that the US is the go-to nation for preserving the civil liberties of free people all around the world, but I’m not sure that’s really an accurate reading of our history.
WWII notwithstanding.
If the UN decides to act, IMO we should support the action, assuming it’s not blatantly insane. I don’t think we should take it upon ourselves to drop bombs on every country that violates an ‘international norm’. There aren’t enough bombs in our arsenal to keep up, and half the time we’d be bombing places that are ostensibly our friends, and/or are acting at our direction.
Among other things, I note that dropping bombs on countries who present no threat to your own nation whatsoever violates a very very large international norm.
Which ‘norm’ is the more sacrosanct?
IMO the use of chemical weapons deserves a response, but I’m not interested in the United States being judge, jury, and executioner every time some country somewhere does something fncked up.
I do not see that, absent UN sanction, we have the authority to bomb Syria. ‘Norms’ are not sufficient.
IMO ‘violating a norm’ is not even close to sufficient reason to bomb another country.
There is a treaty against using chemical weapons, but Syria is not a signatory, so it’s not clear to me what the status of Assad’s alleged use of chemical weapons is under international law.
It really is, or at least ought to be, a Big Fncking Deal to bomb another country, especially a country that has committed exactly zero belligerent acts against you. In Syria’s case, the act in question is purely internal, and is part of a civil war.
A civil war in which there is no party that is, as far as I can tell, an unambiguous ‘good guy’, or who would be considered unequivocally friendly to us or our interests.
It’s not our war. And there’s no good reason I can see to make it our war.
For the precious little that it’s worth, what it seems to me ought to happen is (a) the inspectors should finish their work, (b) they should present their findings to the UN, and (c) the UN should decide what they want to do about it.
Which will likely be damned little, because the UN is subject to the interests of a really disparate group of players.
I appreciate the appeal of the idea that the US is the go-to nation for preserving the civil liberties of free people all around the world, but I’m not sure that’s really an accurate reading of our history.
WWII notwithstanding.
If the UN decides to act, IMO we should support the action, assuming it’s not blatantly insane. I don’t think we should take it upon ourselves to drop bombs on every country that violates an ‘international norm’. There aren’t enough bombs in our arsenal to keep up, and half the time we’d be bombing places that are ostensibly our friends, and/or are acting at our direction.
Among other things, I note that dropping bombs on countries who present no threat to your own nation whatsoever violates a very very large international norm.
Which ‘norm’ is the more sacrosanct?
IMO the use of chemical weapons deserves a response, but I’m not interested in the United States being judge, jury, and executioner every time some country somewhere does something fncked up.
I do not see that, absent UN sanction, we have the authority to bomb Syria. ‘Norms’ are not sufficient.
it’s not clear to me what the status of Assad’s alleged use of chemical weapons is under international law.
Actually, I think that Assad should just gas the place. I mean, why not. He didn’t sign anything, and what the hell – bullets are probably worse.
it’s not clear to me what the status of Assad’s alleged use of chemical weapons is under international law.
Actually, I think that Assad should just gas the place. I mean, why not. He didn’t sign anything, and what the hell – bullets are probably worse.
Oh, and if he does still have control of chemical weapons, maybe he can gas the WHOLE place. What a lovely resort he could make for himself and his family. The couple of coughing people that are left? They can probably work for him. Maybe they could earn a lot!
Oh, and if he does still have control of chemical weapons, maybe he can gas the WHOLE place. What a lovely resort he could make for himself and his family. The couple of coughing people that are left? They can probably work for him. Maybe they could earn a lot!
Big brother, that’s what we are. I mean who knows more about Syria than Assad and his family, and who else deserves the country more? We need to stay out of it and, by the way, quit spying.
I say we stay far away while Assad gasses the unnecessary people and makes a nice spot for himself and his family. Putin and Snowden can visit or drill for oil. It’s all good, and it’s absolutely none of our business.
Big brother, that’s what we are. I mean who knows more about Syria than Assad and his family, and who else deserves the country more? We need to stay out of it and, by the way, quit spying.
I say we stay far away while Assad gasses the unnecessary people and makes a nice spot for himself and his family. Putin and Snowden can visit or drill for oil. It’s all good, and it’s absolutely none of our business.
Thanks for the link, Sapient. I had in fact forgotten that exchange. I am surprised that you remembered it – remembered me – so vividly, because as I re-read the whole thread, it struck me that my comments were quite mild compared with what others had just been saying to you. Or did they all also make your Enemies List?
For the record, I did not accuse you of being an elevator pervert. I said you were having a “hissy fit,” which certainly was pejorative, if you want something to hold a grudge about for the next two years. The phrase “horny and clueless” not only was not applied to you, but in fact referred specifically to my own younger self. If this was “extremely wrong and rude,” worthy of sanction, you must have far more delicate sensibilities than your own robust rhetoric suggests.
In my previous comment I did disparage your reading comprehension. I stand by that judgment. If you’re going to take umbrage, at least try to figure out what was said that makes you so wrathful.
PS: Thank you for awarding me a “Kingdom.” I am not worthy of this honor, but will accept it anyway.
Signed: Ngo Rex
Thanks for the link, Sapient. I had in fact forgotten that exchange. I am surprised that you remembered it – remembered me – so vividly, because as I re-read the whole thread, it struck me that my comments were quite mild compared with what others had just been saying to you. Or did they all also make your Enemies List?
For the record, I did not accuse you of being an elevator pervert. I said you were having a “hissy fit,” which certainly was pejorative, if you want something to hold a grudge about for the next two years. The phrase “horny and clueless” not only was not applied to you, but in fact referred specifically to my own younger self. If this was “extremely wrong and rude,” worthy of sanction, you must have far more delicate sensibilities than your own robust rhetoric suggests.
In my previous comment I did disparage your reading comprehension. I stand by that judgment. If you’re going to take umbrage, at least try to figure out what was said that makes you so wrathful.
PS: Thank you for awarding me a “Kingdom.” I am not worthy of this honor, but will accept it anyway.
Signed: Ngo Rex
Thanks for your comment Ngo Rex. I will accept it as a peace treaty, whether or not you meant it that way. That’s because I really do appreciate you and your front page posts.
Thanks for your comment Ngo Rex. I will accept it as a peace treaty, whether or not you meant it that way. That’s because I really do appreciate you and your front page posts.
Pax vobiscum.
Pax vobiscum.
Reading comprehension fail.
Reading comprehension fail.
Hegemony is immoral and unworkable. The US has 5% of the world population and I have no idea why its leadership should decide what is happening in the world. But even if one thought that hegemony was a good idea, the post WW2 foreign policy record of the US is dreadful to say the least, so they are totally unsuitable to be a leading nation. The sooner the US realizes that and reverts to being a normal country that knows its place in a multipolar world the better. It seems to have dawned on the UK recently at least…
Hegemony is immoral and unworkable. The US has 5% of the world population and I have no idea why its leadership should decide what is happening in the world. But even if one thought that hegemony was a good idea, the post WW2 foreign policy record of the US is dreadful to say the least, so they are totally unsuitable to be a leading nation. The sooner the US realizes that and reverts to being a normal country that knows its place in a multipolar world the better. It seems to have dawned on the UK recently at least…
The sooner the US realizes that and reverts to being a normal country that knows its place in a multipolar world the better.
It would help if the rest of the world would step up to complain about the abuse that’s going on in Syria. I’d love to see a condemnatory security council resolution, wouldn’t you?
The sooner the US realizes that and reverts to being a normal country that knows its place in a multipolar world the better.
It would help if the rest of the world would step up to complain about the abuse that’s going on in Syria. I’d love to see a condemnatory security council resolution, wouldn’t you?
When it comes to foreign policy, credibility isn’t all that it is cracked up to be.
When it comes to foreign policy, credibility isn’t all that it is cracked up to be.
This is a pretty good summary, I think.
I also have to say, despite the way it raises temps in blog comments, this long grinding out process is probably the best because while it is taking place, it is really unlikely that there are going to be any attacks with chemicals.
This is a pretty good summary, I think.
I also have to say, despite the way it raises temps in blog comments, this long grinding out process is probably the best because while it is taking place, it is really unlikely that there are going to be any attacks with chemicals.
That’s a good article, bobbyp. Thanks.
That’s a good article, bobbyp. Thanks.
Thank you, Sapient. Here’s another.
Your comments welcome. Pfaff emphasizes several points that I feel are pretty central to this discussion: (1.) The proper role of the USA in world affairs; (2.) This is a civil war, and the outcome can only be decided by Syrians; and (3.) Obama’s invocation of “red lines” was a first class diplomatic blunder.
Regards,
Thank you, Sapient. Here’s another.
Your comments welcome. Pfaff emphasizes several points that I feel are pretty central to this discussion: (1.) The proper role of the USA in world affairs; (2.) This is a civil war, and the outcome can only be decided by Syrians; and (3.) Obama’s invocation of “red lines” was a first class diplomatic blunder.
Regards,
bobbyp, I read the William Pfaff article too, and appreciate his thoughts on this matter. Where I think that he undermines his own credibility is here:
“Nearly all of the Washington political class, since the end of the cold war and above all since the 9/11 attacks, has fed upon notions of permanent war, terror, torture, international lawlessness, executive assassination, illegal apprehensions, punitive sequestrations, indiscriminate civilian murders — with many of its members developing an appetite for all of this. ”
I’m not sure what he means by “Washington political class”, but I think there are plenty of people in Washington (political people included) who are just as tired of war as everyone else, and who never supported torture. His characterization is sloppy and unfair.
Also, rather than grappling with the argument about what to do about the use of chemical weapons, Pfaff denies the strength of the evidence. That’s a convenient way to avoid the decision to act, but not much help as to what to do if chemical weapons were used.
I’m pretty sure that the Obama administration isn’t lying about the evidence, given their reluctance to do anything, and if the evidence is faulty, I think they’d hang on that fact pretty hard. Maybe I’m wrong.
I think they really do believe that the evidence is undeniable. Pfaff doesn’t say what we should do if that’s the case. Red line or not, I think that the use of chemical weapons is a real problem. It’s a lot easier to deny that the problem exists than to grapple with the answer.
bobbyp, I read the William Pfaff article too, and appreciate his thoughts on this matter. Where I think that he undermines his own credibility is here:
“Nearly all of the Washington political class, since the end of the cold war and above all since the 9/11 attacks, has fed upon notions of permanent war, terror, torture, international lawlessness, executive assassination, illegal apprehensions, punitive sequestrations, indiscriminate civilian murders — with many of its members developing an appetite for all of this. ”
I’m not sure what he means by “Washington political class”, but I think there are plenty of people in Washington (political people included) who are just as tired of war as everyone else, and who never supported torture. His characterization is sloppy and unfair.
Also, rather than grappling with the argument about what to do about the use of chemical weapons, Pfaff denies the strength of the evidence. That’s a convenient way to avoid the decision to act, but not much help as to what to do if chemical weapons were used.
I’m pretty sure that the Obama administration isn’t lying about the evidence, given their reluctance to do anything, and if the evidence is faulty, I think they’d hang on that fact pretty hard. Maybe I’m wrong.
I think they really do believe that the evidence is undeniable. Pfaff doesn’t say what we should do if that’s the case. Red line or not, I think that the use of chemical weapons is a real problem. It’s a lot easier to deny that the problem exists than to grapple with the answer.
The thread referred to is notable because it may have been the last time Jesurgislac was among us, much to my regret.
I also thought escalator perverts were sharply underrepresented on that thread.
The thread referred to is notable because it may have been the last time Jesurgislac was among us, much to my regret.
I also thought escalator perverts were sharply underrepresented on that thread.
I must add that “horny and clueless place in the Kingdom of dr. ngo” has a certain evocative music to it regardless of its accuracy. Add “Once upon a time, there was a ….” to the beginning and you would have a page-turner on your hands.
One time, I was on an elevator late at night in a strange city and the stranger in the opposite corner five feet away produced a cellphone and called MY cellphone and asked me to push the button marked 43rd Floor, and indeed there was such a button, but I knew there were only 12 floors in the building.
What ensued was a convergence of two technologies to produce something just to the left of whoopee, which I’d rather not go into at this time.
Last night, I dreamt that I escaped from some sort of containment facility and found my way into a huge mansion in the woods to hide (I’ve seen this place in dreams before) and immediately huge, albino spiders with red eyes began lowering themselves from above.
Forty-three of them.
Apropos of absolutely nothing, it occurred to me out of the blue and for no reason whatsoever that pornographic films are both fiction and documentary.
In closing, allow to observe that remembering specific, accumulating and probably imaginary insults over the years on Obsidian Wings threads would give me completely unnecessary fodder for nightmares if I was didn’t already have a backlog of images to haunt me night after night.
Plus, Brett sleeps like a baby, which I find admirable.
I must add that “horny and clueless place in the Kingdom of dr. ngo” has a certain evocative music to it regardless of its accuracy. Add “Once upon a time, there was a ….” to the beginning and you would have a page-turner on your hands.
One time, I was on an elevator late at night in a strange city and the stranger in the opposite corner five feet away produced a cellphone and called MY cellphone and asked me to push the button marked 43rd Floor, and indeed there was such a button, but I knew there were only 12 floors in the building.
What ensued was a convergence of two technologies to produce something just to the left of whoopee, which I’d rather not go into at this time.
Last night, I dreamt that I escaped from some sort of containment facility and found my way into a huge mansion in the woods to hide (I’ve seen this place in dreams before) and immediately huge, albino spiders with red eyes began lowering themselves from above.
Forty-three of them.
Apropos of absolutely nothing, it occurred to me out of the blue and for no reason whatsoever that pornographic films are both fiction and documentary.
In closing, allow to observe that remembering specific, accumulating and probably imaginary insults over the years on Obsidian Wings threads would give me completely unnecessary fodder for nightmares if I was didn’t already have a backlog of images to haunt me night after night.
Plus, Brett sleeps like a baby, which I find admirable.
Are we still telling Obama what to do?
The structuring delusion of a republic is that the people make policy, directly or indirectly. Structural and institutional because the delusion is there to keep the people from doing actual politics.
Are we still telling Obama what to do?
The structuring delusion of a republic is that the people make policy, directly or indirectly. Structural and institutional because the delusion is there to keep the people from doing actual politics.
“Actual politics” like writing comments on blog posts already several pages long?
“Actual politics” like writing comments on blog posts already several pages long?
Well, Obama has done what many of us were saying that he should do: gone to Congress for a vote before striking. Now we get to see what the members of Congress decide to do with the situation. Especially those who have been screaming for action, but also are determined to oppose the President onanything and everything. What to do, what to do…?
It is amusing to read all the far right commenters who are already taking the position that following the Constitution on this amounts to a lack of leadership. Which presumbaly means that a real leader is a President who ignores the Constitution. Interesting view of the world.
Well, Obama has done what many of us were saying that he should do: gone to Congress for a vote before striking. Now we get to see what the members of Congress decide to do with the situation. Especially those who have been screaming for action, but also are determined to oppose the President onanything and everything. What to do, what to do…?
It is amusing to read all the far right commenters who are already taking the position that following the Constitution on this amounts to a lack of leadership. Which presumbaly means that a real leader is a President who ignores the Constitution. Interesting view of the world.
Well, I wrote an email to Obama and asked him to go to Congress, and to try to get more support from the international community. Although I favor a response to Assad, I think it needed more grounding. I’m sure that mine was not the only note like that. I think he listened to the people.
Well, I wrote an email to Obama and asked him to go to Congress, and to try to get more support from the international community. Although I favor a response to Assad, I think it needed more grounding. I’m sure that mine was not the only note like that. I think he listened to the people.
No-one protesting in the streets? One open thread front page post? You’re not all up in arms? Do I really need to link Obwi posts from ’03? It’s OK because it’s your guy? WTF? (I saw your comments Donald, Turb, Russell and others and I acknowledge your consistency – others though, not so much…)
God, as much as I hate Greenwald he’s earned my respect because he is consistent. I still think he’s a douche-bag but I cannot claim he is a hypocrite.
Not just here – across the spectrum – Code Pink is too tired or broke or some crap. Folks on the left just don’t have the juice to protest O going to war. Even when the goals and authority are very unclear.
But Hey, he means well. Good thing we have that “smart diplomacy” now. And he has a Nobel Peace Prize – so it must be cool. Well, disregard that drone thing…
God forbid that cowboy Bush was still in charge.
Wow. We were all taken for a ride – and I include myself in that “we”. I voted for him too.
We’re Fucked. Oh, Can I say that here?
No-one protesting in the streets? One open thread front page post? You’re not all up in arms? Do I really need to link Obwi posts from ’03? It’s OK because it’s your guy? WTF? (I saw your comments Donald, Turb, Russell and others and I acknowledge your consistency – others though, not so much…)
God, as much as I hate Greenwald he’s earned my respect because he is consistent. I still think he’s a douche-bag but I cannot claim he is a hypocrite.
Not just here – across the spectrum – Code Pink is too tired or broke or some crap. Folks on the left just don’t have the juice to protest O going to war. Even when the goals and authority are very unclear.
But Hey, he means well. Good thing we have that “smart diplomacy” now. And he has a Nobel Peace Prize – so it must be cool. Well, disregard that drone thing…
God forbid that cowboy Bush was still in charge.
Wow. We were all taken for a ride – and I include myself in that “we”. I voted for him too.
We’re Fucked. Oh, Can I say that here?
So I said some stupid stuff off the cuff a couple of months ago – now we’re going to have a response “just muscular enough not to get mocked”. God forbid anyone mock the O.
And you thought it was personal and about ego with Bush?
So I said some stupid stuff off the cuff a couple of months ago – now we’re going to have a response “just muscular enough not to get mocked”. God forbid anyone mock the O.
And you thought it was personal and about ego with Bush?
I protested in the street against the war in Iraq. No problem protesting in the street against bombing Syria.
I voted for Obama in 2008, I was a fool.
I protested in the street against the war in Iraq. No problem protesting in the street against bombing Syria.
I voted for Obama in 2008, I was a fool.
I do not want us to invade Syria. That would be beyond stupid, well into immoral. I don’t think the idea of bombing just to make some sort of point is a good idea either. I am very disappointed that it is under consideration.
I think chaos theory has a lot of application to human affairs. Taking an action because of an intention doesn’t mean the desired intention will happen. Most of the time something else happens because of all of the other factors. The only thing we know for sure about Syria is that we don’t understand it and we sure as hell can’t control it. It isn’t even clear that we can influence it in the desired way.
Thanks for the links upthread bobbyp. I found the Washpo article very informative.
And Hi Steve! It’s great to hear from you again!
I do not want us to invade Syria. That would be beyond stupid, well into immoral. I don’t think the idea of bombing just to make some sort of point is a good idea either. I am very disappointed that it is under consideration.
I think chaos theory has a lot of application to human affairs. Taking an action because of an intention doesn’t mean the desired intention will happen. Most of the time something else happens because of all of the other factors. The only thing we know for sure about Syria is that we don’t understand it and we sure as hell can’t control it. It isn’t even clear that we can influence it in the desired way.
Thanks for the links upthread bobbyp. I found the Washpo article very informative.
And Hi Steve! It’s great to hear from you again!
BTW I think that if Obama does authorize bombing, there will be outrage from the left. It is probably better to express the outrage now, so FWIW I also will send an email. The only people I know who really want some kind of intervention are Christian rightwingers who are concerned about the safety of the Syrian Christian community. And I don’t think that our involvement will help them any more than our involvement in Iraq helped Christians there.
BTW I think that if Obama does authorize bombing, there will be outrage from the left. It is probably better to express the outrage now, so FWIW I also will send an email. The only people I know who really want some kind of intervention are Christian rightwingers who are concerned about the safety of the Syrian Christian community. And I don’t think that our involvement will help them any more than our involvement in Iraq helped Christians there.
President Barack Obama addressed the crisis in Syria on Saturday, saying he has decided the United States should take military action against regime targets, but that he will seek authorization from Congress before taking action.
“I will seek authorization for the use of force from the American people’s representatives in Congress,” Obama said during a press conference in the White House Rose Garden.
Obama said any action would “be designed to be limited in duration and scope.”
Obama referenced an Aug. 21 attack at the start of his remarks, saying “this menace must be confronted.”
“The world watched in horror as men, women and children were massacred in Syria in the worst chemical attack of the 21st century,” Obama said.
“This attack is an assault on human dignity,” Obama said, saying it “risks making a mockery” of the use of chemical weapons.
“Make no mistake — this has implications beyond chemical warfare,” Obama said.
Protesters could be heard outside of the White House before Obama came out to make his statement. AFP reports there were about 100 anti-war protesters and some 50 supporters of the Syrian opposition facing off outside of the White House on Saturday.
There are, apparently, expressions of leftwing oppostion already.
I hope this is all kabuki and posturing. I hope that seeking Congressionsal approval is a way of not getting the approval. But my hopes are frequently dashed.
President Barack Obama addressed the crisis in Syria on Saturday, saying he has decided the United States should take military action against regime targets, but that he will seek authorization from Congress before taking action.
“I will seek authorization for the use of force from the American people’s representatives in Congress,” Obama said during a press conference in the White House Rose Garden.
Obama said any action would “be designed to be limited in duration and scope.”
Obama referenced an Aug. 21 attack at the start of his remarks, saying “this menace must be confronted.”
“The world watched in horror as men, women and children were massacred in Syria in the worst chemical attack of the 21st century,” Obama said.
“This attack is an assault on human dignity,” Obama said, saying it “risks making a mockery” of the use of chemical weapons.
“Make no mistake — this has implications beyond chemical warfare,” Obama said.
Protesters could be heard outside of the White House before Obama came out to make his statement. AFP reports there were about 100 anti-war protesters and some 50 supporters of the Syrian opposition facing off outside of the White House on Saturday.
There are, apparently, expressions of leftwing oppostion already.
I hope this is all kabuki and posturing. I hope that seeking Congressionsal approval is a way of not getting the approval. But my hopes are frequently dashed.
Nice to see you OC, but we still frown on the f-bomb.
I’d be curious to see a comparative timeline between 03 and now. It seems like, in terms of time, this event is much shorter than the build-up in Iran, so getting upset that people are not in the same place as they were at the end of that process seems unfair. Checking Wikipedia, the start for the PR campaign for the 2nd Gulf War began at with Bush’s UN address in Sept 2002 and the invasion commenced in March 2003. On the other hand, the Ghouta attacks occurred less than 2 weeks ago. Doesn’t seem the same.
Nice to see you OC, but we still frown on the f-bomb.
I’d be curious to see a comparative timeline between 03 and now. It seems like, in terms of time, this event is much shorter than the build-up in Iran, so getting upset that people are not in the same place as they were at the end of that process seems unfair. Checking Wikipedia, the start for the PR campaign for the 2nd Gulf War began at with Bush’s UN address in Sept 2002 and the invasion commenced in March 2003. On the other hand, the Ghouta attacks occurred less than 2 weeks ago. Doesn’t seem the same.
There should be a third gauge on the blood pressure cuff to measure a guy’s reaction to ambient hypocrisy circulating like a noxious gas in the surrounding atmosphere.
Diastolic, systolic, hypostolic.
I think getting involved militarily in Syria is unwise, gas or no gas, and when I find out Obama and company have fabricated the basis for war, I’ ll upgrade my disapproval to fucking unwise.
In the meantime, I appreciate the probably temporary absence of wholesale lying, the absolute absence of smirking and testicle hitching that accompanied the last two wars, and the measured reluctance to go to war.
That Congressional approval has been requested is a yawn, considering the Congressional stupidity in rubber stamping the Iraq venture, and if the right side of the aisle does not grant approval, something tells me it’s because the alleged sight of a Muslim bombing Muslims is just too deliciously confirmational even for crackhead fuckwads in the House of Reprehensibles.
When Obama does piss me off, big deal, plus what McManus wrote above.
My hysterics are for the pleasure of my small group of friends here.
There should be a third gauge on the blood pressure cuff to measure a guy’s reaction to ambient hypocrisy circulating like a noxious gas in the surrounding atmosphere.
Diastolic, systolic, hypostolic.
I think getting involved militarily in Syria is unwise, gas or no gas, and when I find out Obama and company have fabricated the basis for war, I’ ll upgrade my disapproval to fucking unwise.
In the meantime, I appreciate the probably temporary absence of wholesale lying, the absolute absence of smirking and testicle hitching that accompanied the last two wars, and the measured reluctance to go to war.
That Congressional approval has been requested is a yawn, considering the Congressional stupidity in rubber stamping the Iraq venture, and if the right side of the aisle does not grant approval, something tells me it’s because the alleged sight of a Muslim bombing Muslims is just too deliciously confirmational even for crackhead fuckwads in the House of Reprehensibles.
When Obama does piss me off, big deal, plus what McManus wrote above.
My hysterics are for the pleasure of my small group of friends here.
I remember the build up to the invasion of Iraq very vividly. To the last minute I just could not believe that we would do something that stupid. I was angrier with the Democrats who supported it than with Bush because I expect better from Democrats.
Another difference is this: so far as I know Obama isn’t lying abou the use of chemical weapons and Bush misled people both about the imaginary connection between Iraq and the 911 event and the weapons of mass destruction.
I remember the build up to the invasion of Iraq very vividly. To the last minute I just could not believe that we would do something that stupid. I was angrier with the Democrats who supported it than with Bush because I expect better from Democrats.
Another difference is this: so far as I know Obama isn’t lying abou the use of chemical weapons and Bush misled people both about the imaginary connection between Iraq and the 911 event and the weapons of mass destruction.
so far as you know
so far as you know
I was not reading ObWi in 2003, but I seem to remember OCSteve being a champion of Mr. “Bomb. bomb, bomb; Bomb, bomb Iran” around here in 2008. McCain has not changed his tune (though he has changed the lyric to Libya, Egypt, and of course Syria) so perhaps it is OCSteve’s taste in music that has changed in recent years. I thought only “folks on the left” were so feckless.
One of the most disgusting photographs in history is the one wherein St. Ronald’s emissary Donald “We know where the weapons are” Rumsfeld is smilingly shaking hands with Saddam Hussein in front of a herd of uniformed Baathists AFTER Saddam had “gassed his own people”. America would be less (bleep)ed if we had the Sainted Reagan back to deal with Assad, I suppose.
–TP
I was not reading ObWi in 2003, but I seem to remember OCSteve being a champion of Mr. “Bomb. bomb, bomb; Bomb, bomb Iran” around here in 2008. McCain has not changed his tune (though he has changed the lyric to Libya, Egypt, and of course Syria) so perhaps it is OCSteve’s taste in music that has changed in recent years. I thought only “folks on the left” were so feckless.
One of the most disgusting photographs in history is the one wherein St. Ronald’s emissary Donald “We know where the weapons are” Rumsfeld is smilingly shaking hands with Saddam Hussein in front of a herd of uniformed Baathists AFTER Saddam had “gassed his own people”. America would be less (bleep)ed if we had the Sainted Reagan back to deal with Assad, I suppose.
–TP
No-one protesting in the streets? One open thread front page post? You’re not all up in arms?
Hey hey OC! Good to see you buddy!
I think things are a bit different this time around. Iraq was a full scale invasion based on literally nothing that involved hundreds of thousands of soldiers taking control of a huge country for a decade. Syria is a few tomahawk missiles fired from some warships. No invasion. No soldiers. No occupation. No decade. Total cost would probably run less than $100million.
So, the two invasions aren’t really comparable. Since they’re not comparable, it shouldn’t be a surprise that the public response isn’t comparable.
That said, I think attacking Syria is stupid and a violation of international law (unless we get UNSC approval which Russia will make sure we don’t get). But compared to other American foreign policy stupid crimes, this is one of the lesser ones.
There actually was a protest rally in downtown Boston this afternoon, but I don’t see much point in it because Obama asking Congress is tantamount to admitting that nothing is going to happen.
No-one protesting in the streets? One open thread front page post? You’re not all up in arms?
Hey hey OC! Good to see you buddy!
I think things are a bit different this time around. Iraq was a full scale invasion based on literally nothing that involved hundreds of thousands of soldiers taking control of a huge country for a decade. Syria is a few tomahawk missiles fired from some warships. No invasion. No soldiers. No occupation. No decade. Total cost would probably run less than $100million.
So, the two invasions aren’t really comparable. Since they’re not comparable, it shouldn’t be a surprise that the public response isn’t comparable.
That said, I think attacking Syria is stupid and a violation of international law (unless we get UNSC approval which Russia will make sure we don’t get). But compared to other American foreign policy stupid crimes, this is one of the lesser ones.
There actually was a protest rally in downtown Boston this afternoon, but I don’t see much point in it because Obama asking Congress is tantamount to admitting that nothing is going to happen.
“Nice to see you, OC, but we still frown on the f-bombs.”
Lest there be charges of hypocrisy, mine are frowned upon as well.
And, it is great to see you OC. Up your dose, and show up more often.
“Nice to see you, OC, but we still frown on the f-bombs.”
Lest there be charges of hypocrisy, mine are frowned upon as well.
And, it is great to see you OC. Up your dose, and show up more often.
I think we should say we bombed Syria, replay some old nighttime Iraq footage on CNN and call it a day. Then, if they start showing video of our misses, we can be sure that we didn’t cause that collateral damage.
We should throw in some nighttime explosions (fireworks)so the foreign press can breathlessly wonder how the campaign is going.
This should accomplish every stated goal of the administration and Congress to do “something” about those chemical weapons. Save some Tomahawks too, they ain’t cheap.
I think we should say we bombed Syria, replay some old nighttime Iraq footage on CNN and call it a day. Then, if they start showing video of our misses, we can be sure that we didn’t cause that collateral damage.
We should throw in some nighttime explosions (fireworks)so the foreign press can breathlessly wonder how the campaign is going.
This should accomplish every stated goal of the administration and Congress to do “something” about those chemical weapons. Save some Tomahawks too, they ain’t cheap.
Oh Marty, I like the way you think. It takes a giant further the strategy of China when it invaded Vietnam in 1979 – after a short while, when things aren’t going so well, just declare victory and go home! (Unfortunately the US didn’t figure this out in our VN invasion, which lasted years, not months.)
Oh Marty, I like the way you think. It takes a giant further the strategy of China when it invaded Vietnam in 1979 – after a short while, when things aren’t going so well, just declare victory and go home! (Unfortunately the US didn’t figure this out in our VN invasion, which lasted years, not months.)
Marty FTW
Marty FTW
but I don’t see much point in it because Obama asking Congress is tantamount to admitting that nothing is going to happen.
mmm… well, let’s hope this is just bluster.
but I don’t see much point in it because Obama asking Congress is tantamount to admitting that nothing is going to happen.
mmm… well, let’s hope this is just bluster.
That said, I think attacking Syria is stupid and a violation of international law (unless we get UNSC approval which Russia will make sure we don’t get). But compared to other American foreign policy stupid crimes, this is one of the lesser ones.
Agreed that it is stupid (I don’t rule out the possibility that there might be a smart way to respond, but I don’t know what it is), but why does UNSC approval determine international law? I’ve always understood that to mean the result of treaties. So, for example, the laws of war as set out by the widely signed Geneva Conventions would be international law. In practice, do we see nations almost universally acting in accordance with UNSC votes?
It seems to me that unless that is generally expected and there are realistic consequences, such votes cannot be held to determine international law.
That said, I think attacking Syria is stupid and a violation of international law (unless we get UNSC approval which Russia will make sure we don’t get). But compared to other American foreign policy stupid crimes, this is one of the lesser ones.
Agreed that it is stupid (I don’t rule out the possibility that there might be a smart way to respond, but I don’t know what it is), but why does UNSC approval determine international law? I’ve always understood that to mean the result of treaties. So, for example, the laws of war as set out by the widely signed Geneva Conventions would be international law. In practice, do we see nations almost universally acting in accordance with UNSC votes?
It seems to me that unless that is generally expected and there are realistic consequences, such votes cannot be held to determine international law.
why does UNSC approval determine international law?
The US is a signatory to the UN Charter, which specifically forbids UN member states from attacking other UN member states (see chapters VI and VII). The only way to do that is to go to the UNSC and get approval.
I’ve always understood that to mean the result of treaties. So, for example, the laws of war as set out by the widely signed Geneva Conventions would be international law.
The UN Charter is a treaty.
In practice, do we see nations almost universally acting in accordance with UNSC votes?
We don’t see people universally respecting homocide statutes but murder is still against the law.
It seems to me that unless that is generally expected and there are realistic consequences, such votes cannot be held to determine international law.
The UN Charter is the law of the land in the United States. It was ratified by the Senate. Now, if the US government wants to withdraw from the UN, it is free to do so, but as long as it stays in the UN, it has to abide by the rules imposed.
why does UNSC approval determine international law?
The US is a signatory to the UN Charter, which specifically forbids UN member states from attacking other UN member states (see chapters VI and VII). The only way to do that is to go to the UNSC and get approval.
I’ve always understood that to mean the result of treaties. So, for example, the laws of war as set out by the widely signed Geneva Conventions would be international law.
The UN Charter is a treaty.
In practice, do we see nations almost universally acting in accordance with UNSC votes?
We don’t see people universally respecting homocide statutes but murder is still against the law.
It seems to me that unless that is generally expected and there are realistic consequences, such votes cannot be held to determine international law.
The UN Charter is the law of the land in the United States. It was ratified by the Senate. Now, if the US government wants to withdraw from the UN, it is free to do so, but as long as it stays in the UN, it has to abide by the rules imposed.
“In practice, do we see nations almost universally acting in accordance with UNSC votes?”
We don’t see people universally respecting homocide statutes but murder is still against the law.
I had obviously mis-phrased my question. Let me try again.
Do we see consequences for not following binding USNC votes applied consistently and equally? It seems to me that if you have laws which say that certain actions are forbidden, but in practice, are not only widely violated, but violations are very unequally enforced, you don’t actually have laws at all – you have legal documents.
Now you could say that only a handful of UN members actually take the rules seriously, and they should be congratulated, but that sounds like the old comment about various laws or rules not being a suicide pact.
Placing rules above immediate self-interest makes a lot of sense when doing so means that almost all others do the same, and are usually punished when they fail to do so. But If many nations violate UN rules when their own interests are at stake, those nations which place the rules ahead of their own national interests are in fact harming their own interests to no real benefit.
“In practice, do we see nations almost universally acting in accordance with UNSC votes?”
We don’t see people universally respecting homocide statutes but murder is still against the law.
I had obviously mis-phrased my question. Let me try again.
Do we see consequences for not following binding USNC votes applied consistently and equally? It seems to me that if you have laws which say that certain actions are forbidden, but in practice, are not only widely violated, but violations are very unequally enforced, you don’t actually have laws at all – you have legal documents.
Now you could say that only a handful of UN members actually take the rules seriously, and they should be congratulated, but that sounds like the old comment about various laws or rules not being a suicide pact.
Placing rules above immediate self-interest makes a lot of sense when doing so means that almost all others do the same, and are usually punished when they fail to do so. But If many nations violate UN rules when their own interests are at stake, those nations which place the rules ahead of their own national interests are in fact harming their own interests to no real benefit.
Fuzzy Face: “Do we see consequences for not following [binding USNC votes] the law applied consistently and equally?”
No. Not in the USA, not today.
Is it therefore your conclusion that none of us are obliged to obey the law? Either perfect justice or complete anarchy?
Fuzzy Face: “Do we see consequences for not following [binding USNC votes] the law applied consistently and equally?”
No. Not in the USA, not today.
Is it therefore your conclusion that none of us are obliged to obey the law? Either perfect justice or complete anarchy?
Either perfect justice or complete anarchy?
I’m guessing Fuzzy Face is exploring a middle, which this question excludes.
Either perfect justice or complete anarchy?
I’m guessing Fuzzy Face is exploring a middle, which this question excludes.
Do you know what we call bombing a country because they violated a norm? A war crime.
Well, ‘we’ dont. Heck, I dont even think an unprovoked suprise attack against another country’s military is a war crime depending on the motivation. The closest I can find on this list are Axis actions in WWII starting wars to acquire territory or absorb other countries. “Crimes Against Peace” is the general category for this accusation, but even that doesn’t seem to fit this case (based on this, since the US wouldn’t be trying to acquire territory or deprive Syria of the ‘prerequisites of statehood’ or soverignty.
I mean, I understand how you’d like to do the Im-rubber-you’re-glue argument here, and respond to allgations of Syria’s gassing civilians as a war crime by claiming that attacking them for doing so is as well. But it’s unsupportable, even if it’s a bad thing it’s not necessarily a war crime.
You can’t just bomb countries for “norm violations” and have it be legal. If you want to bomb countries that have committed serious violations of international law, you need to be able to point to specific treaties they’ve violated.
I believe that you’ve already agreed there are international norms of behavior that are considered binding on all countries regardless of their assent. They are binding on rebel military forces the moment that they graduate from ‘outlaw gang’ to ‘rebel’ (whenever that is). One of those- maybe even the primary one- is not attacking, displacing, etc civilians.
I mean, Id be the first person to admit that the US uses these sorts of causes opportunistically sometimes- it often appears that the first question of whether someone is guilty of war crimes etc in US eyes is how they fit into our geopolitical strategy. But that doesn’t invalidate the entire concept- and even if it did, it would just leave us in the huge gray area in international relations where many things are neither obligations or war crimes.
For that matter, if using chemical weapons against civilians is a crime against humanity, are we all ready to acknowledge that using nuclear weapons in WWII was also a crime against humanity? Or is that different somehow?
An interesting discussion maybe, but not exactly solving the matter at hand. Unless the matter at hand is ‘venting spleen at the United States’? If I said that some Allied actions during WWII were unjustified in their disregard for civilian casualties, and that this is classified as a war crime, would that change anyone’s view of what to do with Syria?
Is anyone disputing that using poison gas on civilians is a war crime anyway? Or are you only willing to concede that point if it opportunistically allows a dig at the US?
The US is a signatory to the UN Charter, which specifically forbids UN member states from attacking other UN member states (see chapters VI and VII). The only way to do that is to go to the UNSC and get approval.
In an ideal world the UNSC would function this way. It doesnt. Does the US need to withdraw from the UN in order to pursue Syria for war crimes? Pretending that the UNSC is entirely functional and using that as an excuse to not protect civilians is ugly IMO, roughly as ugly as selectively enforcing UN resolutions.
Also afaict (ianaile, but then ianalot and that hasn’t shut me up yet) our obligations under the UN Charter are to 1)attempt to resolve via non-violent means 2)discuss with the SC. We are obliged by the Charter to refrain in [our] international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state– but that’s not what we’re talking about here. At least, as far as a punative strike is concerned.
Do you know what we call bombing a country because they violated a norm? A war crime.
Well, ‘we’ dont. Heck, I dont even think an unprovoked suprise attack against another country’s military is a war crime depending on the motivation. The closest I can find on this list are Axis actions in WWII starting wars to acquire territory or absorb other countries. “Crimes Against Peace” is the general category for this accusation, but even that doesn’t seem to fit this case (based on this, since the US wouldn’t be trying to acquire territory or deprive Syria of the ‘prerequisites of statehood’ or soverignty.
I mean, I understand how you’d like to do the Im-rubber-you’re-glue argument here, and respond to allgations of Syria’s gassing civilians as a war crime by claiming that attacking them for doing so is as well. But it’s unsupportable, even if it’s a bad thing it’s not necessarily a war crime.
You can’t just bomb countries for “norm violations” and have it be legal. If you want to bomb countries that have committed serious violations of international law, you need to be able to point to specific treaties they’ve violated.
I believe that you’ve already agreed there are international norms of behavior that are considered binding on all countries regardless of their assent. They are binding on rebel military forces the moment that they graduate from ‘outlaw gang’ to ‘rebel’ (whenever that is). One of those- maybe even the primary one- is not attacking, displacing, etc civilians.
I mean, Id be the first person to admit that the US uses these sorts of causes opportunistically sometimes- it often appears that the first question of whether someone is guilty of war crimes etc in US eyes is how they fit into our geopolitical strategy. But that doesn’t invalidate the entire concept- and even if it did, it would just leave us in the huge gray area in international relations where many things are neither obligations or war crimes.
For that matter, if using chemical weapons against civilians is a crime against humanity, are we all ready to acknowledge that using nuclear weapons in WWII was also a crime against humanity? Or is that different somehow?
An interesting discussion maybe, but not exactly solving the matter at hand. Unless the matter at hand is ‘venting spleen at the United States’? If I said that some Allied actions during WWII were unjustified in their disregard for civilian casualties, and that this is classified as a war crime, would that change anyone’s view of what to do with Syria?
Is anyone disputing that using poison gas on civilians is a war crime anyway? Or are you only willing to concede that point if it opportunistically allows a dig at the US?
The US is a signatory to the UN Charter, which specifically forbids UN member states from attacking other UN member states (see chapters VI and VII). The only way to do that is to go to the UNSC and get approval.
In an ideal world the UNSC would function this way. It doesnt. Does the US need to withdraw from the UN in order to pursue Syria for war crimes? Pretending that the UNSC is entirely functional and using that as an excuse to not protect civilians is ugly IMO, roughly as ugly as selectively enforcing UN resolutions.
Also afaict (ianaile, but then ianalot and that hasn’t shut me up yet) our obligations under the UN Charter are to 1)attempt to resolve via non-violent means 2)discuss with the SC. We are obliged by the Charter to refrain in [our] international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state– but that’s not what we’re talking about here. At least, as far as a punative strike is concerned.
The sooner the US realizes that and reverts to being a normal country that knows its place in a multipolar world the better.
It appears to be a tangent that we’re already departing on, but I do think that hegemons- regardless of their moral character- provide a great deal of practical stability. When hegemons refuse their role, or during periods of change, there is a great deal of dangerous instability. (Saw an interesting analysis of the Great Depression that assigned some blame to the US -for being the hegemon but wanting to continue to act as an isolated power, not realizing that the UK was no longer in an economic position to do so).
That doesn’t argue for or against this particular intervention. Just that, like it or not, the US is still the biggest dog on the block, and our position gives us obligations of leadership not carried by (wonderful) countries such as New Zealand.
(And entirely tangentially, one of my biggest regrets for the US in the post-Cold War period (or should I say “the period between the Cold Wars”) is that we didn’t take our hegemon status and use it to vitalize and normalize international standards and bodies. Both because I think that would be a positive good regardless of the state of the world, and because I suspect it’ll be critical during the period when our influence wanes vis a vis Europe or China or etc).
The sooner the US realizes that and reverts to being a normal country that knows its place in a multipolar world the better.
It appears to be a tangent that we’re already departing on, but I do think that hegemons- regardless of their moral character- provide a great deal of practical stability. When hegemons refuse their role, or during periods of change, there is a great deal of dangerous instability. (Saw an interesting analysis of the Great Depression that assigned some blame to the US -for being the hegemon but wanting to continue to act as an isolated power, not realizing that the UK was no longer in an economic position to do so).
That doesn’t argue for or against this particular intervention. Just that, like it or not, the US is still the biggest dog on the block, and our position gives us obligations of leadership not carried by (wonderful) countries such as New Zealand.
(And entirely tangentially, one of my biggest regrets for the US in the post-Cold War period (or should I say “the period between the Cold Wars”) is that we didn’t take our hegemon status and use it to vitalize and normalize international standards and bodies. Both because I think that would be a positive good regardless of the state of the world, and because I suspect it’ll be critical during the period when our influence wanes vis a vis Europe or China or etc).
It’s OK because it’s your guy? WTF?
So many wrong things. First, I think you might notice that many (most?) of the liberals on the board oppose this. Second- of course, these aren’t even remotely similar events, one was 100ks of boots on the ground for years over a WMD program that didn’t exist and a rhetorical connection to a terrorist attack on the US. The other is some bombs and missiles and likely zero ground troops, over a demonstrated WMD attack against civilians.
Feel free to repost when the US invades Syria and deposes Assad to the united acclaim of the Democratic Party.
So I said some stupid stuff off the cuff a couple of months ago – now we’re going to have a response “just muscular enough not to get mocked”. God forbid anyone mock the O.
God forbid we take anonymous snarky comments in a newspaper column and treat them like they were the positions of the administration. While we’re at it god forbid we actually analyze our policy decisions in a rational manner, going at them like Montel is much easier on the constitution.
It’s OK because it’s your guy? WTF?
So many wrong things. First, I think you might notice that many (most?) of the liberals on the board oppose this. Second- of course, these aren’t even remotely similar events, one was 100ks of boots on the ground for years over a WMD program that didn’t exist and a rhetorical connection to a terrorist attack on the US. The other is some bombs and missiles and likely zero ground troops, over a demonstrated WMD attack against civilians.
Feel free to repost when the US invades Syria and deposes Assad to the united acclaim of the Democratic Party.
So I said some stupid stuff off the cuff a couple of months ago – now we’re going to have a response “just muscular enough not to get mocked”. God forbid anyone mock the O.
God forbid we take anonymous snarky comments in a newspaper column and treat them like they were the positions of the administration. While we’re at it god forbid we actually analyze our policy decisions in a rational manner, going at them like Montel is much easier on the constitution.
Oh, and OC- good to hear your voice (so to speak), hope things have been going well for you.
Oh, and OC- good to hear your voice (so to speak), hope things have been going well for you.
Is it therefore your conclusion that none of us are obliged to obey the law? Either perfect justice or complete anarchy?
Certainly not. As hairshirthedonist notes, I am looking at a middle case. If the law is largely, albeit imperfectly, enforced, that indicates to me a system of law. While not all culprits face consequences, enough are that we have the realistic appearance of justice.
On the other hand, if only a relative minority of alleged offenders are ever charged with their offenses, while those more powerful and more willing to sneer at the law never face any consequences, we don’t have a system of justice at all. We have a formal method of persecution of the unpopular.
And I believe that this is the actual situation with the UN.
Is it therefore your conclusion that none of us are obliged to obey the law? Either perfect justice or complete anarchy?
Certainly not. As hairshirthedonist notes, I am looking at a middle case. If the law is largely, albeit imperfectly, enforced, that indicates to me a system of law. While not all culprits face consequences, enough are that we have the realistic appearance of justice.
On the other hand, if only a relative minority of alleged offenders are ever charged with their offenses, while those more powerful and more willing to sneer at the law never face any consequences, we don’t have a system of justice at all. We have a formal method of persecution of the unpopular.
And I believe that this is the actual situation with the UN.
FF,
I agree that the existing system is much more about who has powerful allies and which countries want a fig leaf of a cause for intervening in a region/conflict/etc.
otoh
1)We could abandon any pretense of international law and explicitly return to the law of the powerful; Im not sure how that’s better than what we have now- less hypocrisy, but also the very existence of international standards at least allows for *some* pressure over humanitarian causes. Maybe Im optimistic in thinking that a world that pays lip service to humanitarian causes is more likely to evolve into a world that demonstrates real care for them than one that rejects them outright. (When I was young I was sure that international relations were evolving in the ‘right’ direction, now not so sure).
2)I think we ought to worry simultaneously about the nature of international norms etc and also specifically about what we can/should do in Syria. But I wouldn’t want generalized concerns about the fragile and hypocritical nature of the international order to prevent us from acting in Syria if we were to agree that in this particular case action would be more helpful than harmful in the long run.
FF,
I agree that the existing system is much more about who has powerful allies and which countries want a fig leaf of a cause for intervening in a region/conflict/etc.
otoh
1)We could abandon any pretense of international law and explicitly return to the law of the powerful; Im not sure how that’s better than what we have now- less hypocrisy, but also the very existence of international standards at least allows for *some* pressure over humanitarian causes. Maybe Im optimistic in thinking that a world that pays lip service to humanitarian causes is more likely to evolve into a world that demonstrates real care for them than one that rejects them outright. (When I was young I was sure that international relations were evolving in the ‘right’ direction, now not so sure).
2)I think we ought to worry simultaneously about the nature of international norms etc and also specifically about what we can/should do in Syria. But I wouldn’t want generalized concerns about the fragile and hypocritical nature of the international order to prevent us from acting in Syria if we were to agree that in this particular case action would be more helpful than harmful in the long run.
Carleton, thanks for your response. I suspect with regard to (1) that we disagree mostly in degree. I don’t believe that we have much of a pretense of international law, other then when used to prevent the West from acting. It’s sort of the way we would like to believe that we create democracy by having a vote. You’re clearly more optimistic on this than I.
With regard to Syria, I don’t know what the right answer is. Do we have a reasonable chance of making things better (meaning at the very least, better for our national interests and also better for the average resident of the region)? I think that needs to be the minimum criterion. Just acting because of an ill-advised comment about red lines is not good enough.
Carleton, thanks for your response. I suspect with regard to (1) that we disagree mostly in degree. I don’t believe that we have much of a pretense of international law, other then when used to prevent the West from acting. It’s sort of the way we would like to believe that we create democracy by having a vote. You’re clearly more optimistic on this than I.
With regard to Syria, I don’t know what the right answer is. Do we have a reasonable chance of making things better (meaning at the very least, better for our national interests and also better for the average resident of the region)? I think that needs to be the minimum criterion. Just acting because of an ill-advised comment about red lines is not good enough.
FuzzyFace, I’m not quite sure I understand your point. That’s probably my fault.
I think the existing system of international law is deeply, deeply flawed, specifically because powerful bad actors can break the law with impunity. For example, I don’t think the US legally invaded Iraq. But the US is an extremely powerful nation, so we can get away with things like that.
I’m not sure how to fix that problem. To some extent, such problems are inherent in legal systems where there is no ultimate authority. And even in our legal system in the US, powerful people often have far greater abilities to break the law and get away with it than ordinary folk.
In spite of all that, I think our current international law framework helps more than it hurts.
Do we see consequences for not following binding USNC votes applied consistently and equally?
No. But I don’t think we see such behavior in any legal system. I mean, can you point to any legal system in the history of the world in which powerful people did not have significant advantages over the powerless?
Also, in practice, consequences might not matter that much. Having rules in place and a body like the UNSC is useful for establishing norms, and I’m sure there are a bunch of not-so-powerful countries that have avoided (or altered the scope of) aggression because they don’t want to be condemned by the UN. To the extent that countries avoid falling under UNSC scrutiny in the first place, the lack of even-handed consequences might not be a big deal, since int’l aggression is reduced.
It seems to me that if you have laws which say that certain actions are forbidden, but in practice, are not only widely violated, but violations are very unequally enforced, you don’t actually have laws at all – you have legal documents.
Well, how widely violated are the rules against international aggression? It seems that countries starting wars with other nations is a relatively infrequent event, right? And the frequency of international war seems to have declined in recent decades….
Placing rules above immediate self-interest makes a lot of sense when doing so means that almost all others do the same, and are usually punished when they fail to do so.
One thing this analysis misses is that the UNSC is a coordination mechanism for action that might happen anyway. For example, if Australia decided to invade and annex New Zealand and the UNSC didn’t exist, you’d probably see lots of condemnation from other countries. You’d probably see organized efforts at imposing sanctions against Australia and you might even see military intervention. States have an interest in reducing the amount of warfare in the world, totally apart from the UNSC’s existence.
But If many nations violate UN rules when their own interests are at stake, those nations which place the rules ahead of their own national interests are in fact harming their own interests to no real benefit.
I actually think these particular rules are very helpful. Over the last few decades, almost every single time the US has decided that it needed to go to war with another state, it was making a horrific nightmarish mistake. Vietnam was bad. Iraq was bad. Our own conception of our national interest is completely screwed up, because we keep insisting that obvious policy disasters are in our best interests.
FuzzyFace, I’m not quite sure I understand your point. That’s probably my fault.
I think the existing system of international law is deeply, deeply flawed, specifically because powerful bad actors can break the law with impunity. For example, I don’t think the US legally invaded Iraq. But the US is an extremely powerful nation, so we can get away with things like that.
I’m not sure how to fix that problem. To some extent, such problems are inherent in legal systems where there is no ultimate authority. And even in our legal system in the US, powerful people often have far greater abilities to break the law and get away with it than ordinary folk.
In spite of all that, I think our current international law framework helps more than it hurts.
Do we see consequences for not following binding USNC votes applied consistently and equally?
No. But I don’t think we see such behavior in any legal system. I mean, can you point to any legal system in the history of the world in which powerful people did not have significant advantages over the powerless?
Also, in practice, consequences might not matter that much. Having rules in place and a body like the UNSC is useful for establishing norms, and I’m sure there are a bunch of not-so-powerful countries that have avoided (or altered the scope of) aggression because they don’t want to be condemned by the UN. To the extent that countries avoid falling under UNSC scrutiny in the first place, the lack of even-handed consequences might not be a big deal, since int’l aggression is reduced.
It seems to me that if you have laws which say that certain actions are forbidden, but in practice, are not only widely violated, but violations are very unequally enforced, you don’t actually have laws at all – you have legal documents.
Well, how widely violated are the rules against international aggression? It seems that countries starting wars with other nations is a relatively infrequent event, right? And the frequency of international war seems to have declined in recent decades….
Placing rules above immediate self-interest makes a lot of sense when doing so means that almost all others do the same, and are usually punished when they fail to do so.
One thing this analysis misses is that the UNSC is a coordination mechanism for action that might happen anyway. For example, if Australia decided to invade and annex New Zealand and the UNSC didn’t exist, you’d probably see lots of condemnation from other countries. You’d probably see organized efforts at imposing sanctions against Australia and you might even see military intervention. States have an interest in reducing the amount of warfare in the world, totally apart from the UNSC’s existence.
But If many nations violate UN rules when their own interests are at stake, those nations which place the rules ahead of their own national interests are in fact harming their own interests to no real benefit.
I actually think these particular rules are very helpful. Over the last few decades, almost every single time the US has decided that it needed to go to war with another state, it was making a horrific nightmarish mistake. Vietnam was bad. Iraq was bad. Our own conception of our national interest is completely screwed up, because we keep insisting that obvious policy disasters are in our best interests.
In an ideal world the UNSC would function this way. It doesnt. Does the US need to withdraw from the UN in order to pursue Syria for war crimes?
Are you high?
Syria hasn’t committed war crimes. Because it is not involved in a war with another state.
I think that Syria has violated Protocol II of the Geneva Conventions. But I don’t think it makes any sense for the US to punish Syria for that since the US isn’t even a signatory of Protocol II. You can’t punish people for doing something that you don’t accept as wrong.
Pretending that the UNSC is entirely functional and using that as an excuse to not protect civilians is ugly IMO, roughly as ugly as selectively enforcing UN resolutions.
I have never in my entire life seen an entirely functional institution. The UNSC is certainly not one. So I don’t know who is pretending. But you appear to be furiously burning strawmen.
Moreover, I don’t see any reason to believe that lobbing some cruise missiles at Syria will do anything to protect civilians at all. If you want a war, the onus is on you to explain precisely how your proposed war would help protect civilians. But that’s pointless because the US government is explicitly not interested in attacking Syria in order to protect civilians; if they were, they would have intervened last year.
In an ideal world the UNSC would function this way. It doesnt. Does the US need to withdraw from the UN in order to pursue Syria for war crimes?
Are you high?
Syria hasn’t committed war crimes. Because it is not involved in a war with another state.
I think that Syria has violated Protocol II of the Geneva Conventions. But I don’t think it makes any sense for the US to punish Syria for that since the US isn’t even a signatory of Protocol II. You can’t punish people for doing something that you don’t accept as wrong.
Pretending that the UNSC is entirely functional and using that as an excuse to not protect civilians is ugly IMO, roughly as ugly as selectively enforcing UN resolutions.
I have never in my entire life seen an entirely functional institution. The UNSC is certainly not one. So I don’t know who is pretending. But you appear to be furiously burning strawmen.
Moreover, I don’t see any reason to believe that lobbing some cruise missiles at Syria will do anything to protect civilians at all. If you want a war, the onus is on you to explain precisely how your proposed war would help protect civilians. But that’s pointless because the US government is explicitly not interested in attacking Syria in order to protect civilians; if they were, they would have intervened last year.
Also, I think the notion of a norm against chemical weapons is hilarious. The US has designed chemical weapons. It has manufactured vast stores of chemical weapons. It has sold chemical weapons to other countries. It has made extensive battle plans to use chemical weapons. It has trained many thousands of soldiers in how to use chemical weapons.
But it hasn’t actually used them in battle recently.
And from this we’re supposed to conclude that the US is deeply committed to the norm of rejecting chemical weapons? Please.
The US hasn’t needed to use chemical weapons, but it has long planned on using them should the tactical situation require it. Recently, it has abandoned chemical weapons, but that decision stems entirely from their logistical problems rather than from some principled stance.
That’s a bit like meeting a man who insists that he loves his wife dearly. He would never hurt her. But if he ever needs to, he’s prepared to kill her. He’s picked out the knife that he’ll use to slit her throat. Every morning, he kisses her and then practices the throat slitting. Just in case. Because you never know. He can’t even imagine hurting her…except for his daily murder practice sessions. How dare you suggest that maybe he doesn’t love his wife?
Also, I think the notion of a norm against chemical weapons is hilarious. The US has designed chemical weapons. It has manufactured vast stores of chemical weapons. It has sold chemical weapons to other countries. It has made extensive battle plans to use chemical weapons. It has trained many thousands of soldiers in how to use chemical weapons.
But it hasn’t actually used them in battle recently.
And from this we’re supposed to conclude that the US is deeply committed to the norm of rejecting chemical weapons? Please.
The US hasn’t needed to use chemical weapons, but it has long planned on using them should the tactical situation require it. Recently, it has abandoned chemical weapons, but that decision stems entirely from their logistical problems rather than from some principled stance.
That’s a bit like meeting a man who insists that he loves his wife dearly. He would never hurt her. But if he ever needs to, he’s prepared to kill her. He’s picked out the knife that he’ll use to slit her throat. Every morning, he kisses her and then practices the throat slitting. Just in case. Because you never know. He can’t even imagine hurting her…except for his daily murder practice sessions. How dare you suggest that maybe he doesn’t love his wife?
Turbulence,
Let me see if I can clarify.
I think the existing system of international law is deeply, deeply flawed, specifically because powerful bad actors can break the law with impunity.
Agreed – and I think the UN tends to make it worse, not better.
I mean, can you point to any legal system in the history of the world in which powerful people did not have significant advantages over the powerless?
As I’ve said, I don’t expect perfection. Powerful people can hire better lawyers, to be sure. But most judges in a modern democracy are fairly honest. It’s not really unusual to see powerful people put in jail in the US.
Well, how widely violated are the rules against international aggression? It seems that countries starting wars with other nations is a relatively infrequent event, right? And the frequency of international war seems to have declined in recent decades
Well, the Europeans have certainly largely given up invading each other, which probably accounts for most of that.
Maybe the first test of the UN on this front would have been the Chinese invasion of Tibet. I wouldn’t say it was a rousing success. Korean war? Well, there was no veto and the UN authorized war, but again, I find it hard to call the current stalemate, “peace.”
In fact, looking over all the time since the UN was founded, I am hard pressed to think of cases where peace resulted from UN actions. Maybe you can do better.
And I think it has acted more to protect bad actors by preventing action against them. It seems that even when the UN installs “peace keepers” they are easily used as human shields by those not interested in peace.
And by drawing the line at _invasion_ things get worse. There are all kinds of offenses one nation can commit against another (state support for terror, cross-border attacks) that are not invasions, but solving them might require an invasion, which is then declared out of bounds.
wrt Syria, we have an example of something that is clearly not an invasion. If use of chemical weapons is indeed forbidden by international law, how does one enforce such a prohibition? Dictatorships are not notably responsive to economic sanctions, and what allies they have regularly help them evade them in any case.
Turbulence,
Let me see if I can clarify.
I think the existing system of international law is deeply, deeply flawed, specifically because powerful bad actors can break the law with impunity.
Agreed – and I think the UN tends to make it worse, not better.
I mean, can you point to any legal system in the history of the world in which powerful people did not have significant advantages over the powerless?
As I’ve said, I don’t expect perfection. Powerful people can hire better lawyers, to be sure. But most judges in a modern democracy are fairly honest. It’s not really unusual to see powerful people put in jail in the US.
Well, how widely violated are the rules against international aggression? It seems that countries starting wars with other nations is a relatively infrequent event, right? And the frequency of international war seems to have declined in recent decades
Well, the Europeans have certainly largely given up invading each other, which probably accounts for most of that.
Maybe the first test of the UN on this front would have been the Chinese invasion of Tibet. I wouldn’t say it was a rousing success. Korean war? Well, there was no veto and the UN authorized war, but again, I find it hard to call the current stalemate, “peace.”
In fact, looking over all the time since the UN was founded, I am hard pressed to think of cases where peace resulted from UN actions. Maybe you can do better.
And I think it has acted more to protect bad actors by preventing action against them. It seems that even when the UN installs “peace keepers” they are easily used as human shields by those not interested in peace.
And by drawing the line at _invasion_ things get worse. There are all kinds of offenses one nation can commit against another (state support for terror, cross-border attacks) that are not invasions, but solving them might require an invasion, which is then declared out of bounds.
wrt Syria, we have an example of something that is clearly not an invasion. If use of chemical weapons is indeed forbidden by international law, how does one enforce such a prohibition? Dictatorships are not notably responsive to economic sanctions, and what allies they have regularly help them evade them in any case.
Syria hasn’t committed war crimes. Because it is not involved in a war with another state.
And what is the source of such a rule – that war crimes can only take place during an international war? Is it your position that there is no international norm which protects people from actions by the government of the state within whose borders they happen to be?
Syria hasn’t committed war crimes. Because it is not involved in a war with another state.
And what is the source of such a rule – that war crimes can only take place during an international war? Is it your position that there is no international norm which protects people from actions by the government of the state within whose borders they happen to be?
Agreed – and I think the UN tends to make it worse, not better.
With respect, have you read any books about the UN or international law? Taken any classes? Read any papers? I ask because it seems like you have strong opinions about the UN without necessarily having spent a lot of time studying the matter.
I guess I’m not sure how living in a world in which countries had no legal restriction on outright aggression would be better. You want to disband a global treaty (the UN charter) that restricts international aggression…because why exactly?
But most judges in a modern democracy are fairly honest.
Sure. Most honest judges honestly sentence black offenders to much much higher sentences for using the same damn drug as white offenders because of their honesty. See power versus crack cocaine.
I think marginalized people tend to get screwed over in our system and that the honesty of judges doesn’t much ameliorate that.
Well, the Europeans have certainly largely given up invading each other, which probably accounts for most of that.
Actually, that’s not true. You might want to read up on this, for example here.
Maybe the first test of the UN on this front would have been the Chinese invasion of Tibet. I wouldn’t say it was a rousing success. Korean war? Well, there was no veto and the UN authorized war, but again, I find it hard to call the current stalemate, “peace.”
How would disbanding the UN have helped Tibet? I really don’t get this…No one is going to start a war with China, a nuclear armed economic powerhouse. That’s absurd. That basic calculus remains true regardless of whether the UN exists or not.
wrt Syria, we have an example of something that is clearly not an invasion. If use of chemical weapons is indeed forbidden by international law, how does one enforce such a prohibition? Dictatorships are not notably responsive to economic sanctions, and what allies they have regularly help them evade them in any case.
You can bring them to the ICC. There a number of butchers who’ve been dealt with there. The US largely designed the ICC, but oh, wait: the US government is not a signatory and does not accept the legitimacy of the ICC. Too bad that.
And what is the source of such a rule – that war crimes can only take place during an international war?
I picked up that bit of knowledge when I studied war crimes law at Harvard. By all means, check out the conditions specified in the Geneva Conventions for what sort of conflicts apply. You might also investigate why the phrase ‘crimes against humanity’ had to be invented. Note that German armies exterminating civilians in German controlled territory during WWII was not technically a war crime…hence crimes against humanity. Killing another nation’s civilians during a war can be a war crime but killing your own cannot be.
Is it your position that there is no international norm which protects people from actions by the government of the state within whose borders they happen to be?
None that the US government recognizes.
I mean, I think Protocol II of the GC bans such behavior. But the US government refuses to sign onto that.
Also, there are reasons to be wary of such a ban. Perhaps India can decide that Pakistani civilians are being brutally oppressed by the Pakistani government and that international norms require India to invade and administer Pakistan for a short while, you know, to protect those citizens. I mean, it really is true: Pakistan oppresses and kills many of its citizens. No one denies this. So an Indian invasion is justified, right? Int’l law compels them to act, yes?
Have you really thought this through?
Agreed – and I think the UN tends to make it worse, not better.
With respect, have you read any books about the UN or international law? Taken any classes? Read any papers? I ask because it seems like you have strong opinions about the UN without necessarily having spent a lot of time studying the matter.
I guess I’m not sure how living in a world in which countries had no legal restriction on outright aggression would be better. You want to disband a global treaty (the UN charter) that restricts international aggression…because why exactly?
But most judges in a modern democracy are fairly honest.
Sure. Most honest judges honestly sentence black offenders to much much higher sentences for using the same damn drug as white offenders because of their honesty. See power versus crack cocaine.
I think marginalized people tend to get screwed over in our system and that the honesty of judges doesn’t much ameliorate that.
Well, the Europeans have certainly largely given up invading each other, which probably accounts for most of that.
Actually, that’s not true. You might want to read up on this, for example here.
Maybe the first test of the UN on this front would have been the Chinese invasion of Tibet. I wouldn’t say it was a rousing success. Korean war? Well, there was no veto and the UN authorized war, but again, I find it hard to call the current stalemate, “peace.”
How would disbanding the UN have helped Tibet? I really don’t get this…No one is going to start a war with China, a nuclear armed economic powerhouse. That’s absurd. That basic calculus remains true regardless of whether the UN exists or not.
wrt Syria, we have an example of something that is clearly not an invasion. If use of chemical weapons is indeed forbidden by international law, how does one enforce such a prohibition? Dictatorships are not notably responsive to economic sanctions, and what allies they have regularly help them evade them in any case.
You can bring them to the ICC. There a number of butchers who’ve been dealt with there. The US largely designed the ICC, but oh, wait: the US government is not a signatory and does not accept the legitimacy of the ICC. Too bad that.
And what is the source of such a rule – that war crimes can only take place during an international war?
I picked up that bit of knowledge when I studied war crimes law at Harvard. By all means, check out the conditions specified in the Geneva Conventions for what sort of conflicts apply. You might also investigate why the phrase ‘crimes against humanity’ had to be invented. Note that German armies exterminating civilians in German controlled territory during WWII was not technically a war crime…hence crimes against humanity. Killing another nation’s civilians during a war can be a war crime but killing your own cannot be.
Is it your position that there is no international norm which protects people from actions by the government of the state within whose borders they happen to be?
None that the US government recognizes.
I mean, I think Protocol II of the GC bans such behavior. But the US government refuses to sign onto that.
Also, there are reasons to be wary of such a ban. Perhaps India can decide that Pakistani civilians are being brutally oppressed by the Pakistani government and that international norms require India to invade and administer Pakistan for a short while, you know, to protect those citizens. I mean, it really is true: Pakistan oppresses and kills many of its citizens. No one denies this. So an Indian invasion is justified, right? Int’l law compels them to act, yes?
Have you really thought this through?
It’s not really unusual to see powerful people put in jail in the US.
???
It’s not really unusual to see powerful people put in jail in the US.
???
Are you high?
Syria hasn’t committed war crimes. Because it is not involved in a war with another state.
I am not high. Using poison gas on civilians in a military conflict, even an intra-state military conflict, is considered by many to be a war crime.
You may have some idiosyncratic definition of war crimes that only covers situations where the acting party signed a treaty specifying their conduct, and believe Im on good drugs for not adhering to it. I think you’ll find the conversation is both more polite and more useful if you don’t act like everyone is following your definitions (esp when they’ve already said they aren’t) and ask them if they’re nuts for it.
Again, you earlier acknowleded the existence of international standards of behavior that apply to all countries regardless of their assent. Perhaps you merely meant to acknowledge that this concept existed while personally disagreeing with it, but still- it exists, is widely acknwledged, and imaging that people who act or think according to it are on drugs is both misguided and *ahem* askew of the blog policy.
I have never in my entire life seen an entirely functional institution. The UNSC is certainly not one. So I don’t know who is pretending. But you appear to be furiously burning strawmen.
If your solution to the problem of Syria using poison gas on civilians during a civil war is to take it to the UNSC and wait for a resolution authorizing action, then you are pretending that the UNSC is functionally capable of overcoming political issues and deciding such a matter in a fair and impartial (or, at least somewhat fair and impartial) manner. Russia’s interests in Syria appear to preclude the UNSC considering the matter impartially. Regardless of how guilty Assad is demonstrated to be, the UNSC will do nothing.
Maybe this isn’t your position, but it certainly appears to be. If you’ve spent less time venting spleen and more time describing how you think this problem ought to be solved, maybe inference wouldn’t be necessary…
Or maybe you think gassing civilians in a civil war isn’t a problem at all.
Moreover, I don’t see any reason to believe that lobbing some cruise missiles at Syria will do anything to protect civilians at all. If you want a war, the onus is on you to explain precisely how your proposed war would help protect civilians.
Practically, Im not sure that action makes sense here, or it would make things worse. But I also think it’s silly to call the US striking at Assad a war crime (aside: since you’re so strict about what signed treaty etc would classify this as a war crime, perhaps you’d like to expand that thought into something more coherent? No really, you get in a serious snit definiting war crimes and tout your resume on the subject, care to give chapter and verse on that point as well?) or wonder whether it can be used to paint the US in a bad light vis a vis Nagasaki…
But that’s pointless because the US government is explicitly not interested in attacking Syria in order to protect civilians; if they were, they would have intervened last year.
If it were to help, then it would help, and that would be a good thing. Calling something ‘pointless’ even if it helps because of your political axe-grinding does not make me think you are ‘explicitly’ worried about civilian casualties, either. You appear very concerned to paint the US in a bad light, and here the very idea of helping civilians gets put on the back-burner.
That the US has acted hypocrtically in the past doesn’t poison the fruit of this proposed action- if it helps civilians, it helps.
Also, I think the notion of a norm against chemical weapons is hilarious.
Probably not so much to civilians in Syria, but Im glad *someone* is enjoying it.
The US hasn’t needed to use chemical weapons, but it has long planned on using them should the tactical situation require it.
The US kept them around for a long time as a possible response to the use of them by, well, the USSR. The US finally got rid of them and ‘solved’ the dilemna of how to 1)oppose their use but 2)prevent their use by enemies by promising to retaliate against WMD use by using nukes.
Is that perfect? Maybe not, although it’s a thornier problem than you’d apparently care to admit. Pretty far off-topic.
If the US used war gasses on civilians after WWI, then that would be A Bad Thing. Maybe that’s an arbitrary date. But do you really want to give Assad a pass because the US (and UK etc) developed these weapons, used them, realized they were horrific, and agreed to not use them a long time ago?
I picked up that bit of knowledge when I studied war crimes law at Harvard.
I got mine at ninja school on Mars.
Also, there are reasons to be wary of such a ban. Perhaps India can decide that Pakistani civilians are being brutally oppressed by the Pakistani government and that international norms require India to invade and administer Pakistan for a short while, you know, to protect those citizens. I mean, it really is true: Pakistan oppresses and kills many of its citizens. No one denies this. So an Indian invasion is justified, right? Int’l law compels them to act, yes?
Yes, the alternatives are total adherence to enforcement of anyone’s idiosyncratic definitions of ‘war crimes’ and no enforcement whatsoever by anyone. I know, your stock response is to call those sorts of straight-faced summations of your arguments as ‘strawmen’ though. Taking other people’s positions to ludicrous extremes is ok for you, summarizing your positions is verboten to others.
Have you really thought this through?
The threads get longer and longer (and usually more vitriolic), but you consistently fail to process the things other people say to you. You come in jes knowing what you think, and you leave that way at the end. Unfortunate, maybe they could’ve fixed that at Ha’vahd.
Are you high?
Syria hasn’t committed war crimes. Because it is not involved in a war with another state.
I am not high. Using poison gas on civilians in a military conflict, even an intra-state military conflict, is considered by many to be a war crime.
You may have some idiosyncratic definition of war crimes that only covers situations where the acting party signed a treaty specifying their conduct, and believe Im on good drugs for not adhering to it. I think you’ll find the conversation is both more polite and more useful if you don’t act like everyone is following your definitions (esp when they’ve already said they aren’t) and ask them if they’re nuts for it.
Again, you earlier acknowleded the existence of international standards of behavior that apply to all countries regardless of their assent. Perhaps you merely meant to acknowledge that this concept existed while personally disagreeing with it, but still- it exists, is widely acknwledged, and imaging that people who act or think according to it are on drugs is both misguided and *ahem* askew of the blog policy.
I have never in my entire life seen an entirely functional institution. The UNSC is certainly not one. So I don’t know who is pretending. But you appear to be furiously burning strawmen.
If your solution to the problem of Syria using poison gas on civilians during a civil war is to take it to the UNSC and wait for a resolution authorizing action, then you are pretending that the UNSC is functionally capable of overcoming political issues and deciding such a matter in a fair and impartial (or, at least somewhat fair and impartial) manner. Russia’s interests in Syria appear to preclude the UNSC considering the matter impartially. Regardless of how guilty Assad is demonstrated to be, the UNSC will do nothing.
Maybe this isn’t your position, but it certainly appears to be. If you’ve spent less time venting spleen and more time describing how you think this problem ought to be solved, maybe inference wouldn’t be necessary…
Or maybe you think gassing civilians in a civil war isn’t a problem at all.
Moreover, I don’t see any reason to believe that lobbing some cruise missiles at Syria will do anything to protect civilians at all. If you want a war, the onus is on you to explain precisely how your proposed war would help protect civilians.
Practically, Im not sure that action makes sense here, or it would make things worse. But I also think it’s silly to call the US striking at Assad a war crime (aside: since you’re so strict about what signed treaty etc would classify this as a war crime, perhaps you’d like to expand that thought into something more coherent? No really, you get in a serious snit definiting war crimes and tout your resume on the subject, care to give chapter and verse on that point as well?) or wonder whether it can be used to paint the US in a bad light vis a vis Nagasaki…
But that’s pointless because the US government is explicitly not interested in attacking Syria in order to protect civilians; if they were, they would have intervened last year.
If it were to help, then it would help, and that would be a good thing. Calling something ‘pointless’ even if it helps because of your political axe-grinding does not make me think you are ‘explicitly’ worried about civilian casualties, either. You appear very concerned to paint the US in a bad light, and here the very idea of helping civilians gets put on the back-burner.
That the US has acted hypocrtically in the past doesn’t poison the fruit of this proposed action- if it helps civilians, it helps.
Also, I think the notion of a norm against chemical weapons is hilarious.
Probably not so much to civilians in Syria, but Im glad *someone* is enjoying it.
The US hasn’t needed to use chemical weapons, but it has long planned on using them should the tactical situation require it.
The US kept them around for a long time as a possible response to the use of them by, well, the USSR. The US finally got rid of them and ‘solved’ the dilemna of how to 1)oppose their use but 2)prevent their use by enemies by promising to retaliate against WMD use by using nukes.
Is that perfect? Maybe not, although it’s a thornier problem than you’d apparently care to admit. Pretty far off-topic.
If the US used war gasses on civilians after WWI, then that would be A Bad Thing. Maybe that’s an arbitrary date. But do you really want to give Assad a pass because the US (and UK etc) developed these weapons, used them, realized they were horrific, and agreed to not use them a long time ago?
I picked up that bit of knowledge when I studied war crimes law at Harvard.
I got mine at ninja school on Mars.
Also, there are reasons to be wary of such a ban. Perhaps India can decide that Pakistani civilians are being brutally oppressed by the Pakistani government and that international norms require India to invade and administer Pakistan for a short while, you know, to protect those citizens. I mean, it really is true: Pakistan oppresses and kills many of its citizens. No one denies this. So an Indian invasion is justified, right? Int’l law compels them to act, yes?
Yes, the alternatives are total adherence to enforcement of anyone’s idiosyncratic definitions of ‘war crimes’ and no enforcement whatsoever by anyone. I know, your stock response is to call those sorts of straight-faced summations of your arguments as ‘strawmen’ though. Taking other people’s positions to ludicrous extremes is ok for you, summarizing your positions is verboten to others.
Have you really thought this through?
The threads get longer and longer (and usually more vitriolic), but you consistently fail to process the things other people say to you. You come in jes knowing what you think, and you leave that way at the end. Unfortunate, maybe they could’ve fixed that at Ha’vahd.
You’re clearly more optimistic on this than I
Well, there’s that (I am kind of an optimist in general), and there’s that I don’t see much downside. Although I could see an argument being made that hypocrisy in relation to war crimes etc could tend to erode cases where we really do want to pursue that sort of thing- but if we disavow the very concept, then we’ve abandoned the ability to use it as a rationale.
I think that needs to be the minimum criterion. Just acting because of an ill-advised comment about red lines is not good enough.
I agree, we ought to be able to say exactly what we hope to accomplish etc. I do think that the red-line statement is on the scale too though- ill-advised or not, if we hope to be able to use threats of force to dissuade war crimes in the future, we can hardly afford to have bluffs called. That should weigh on whether threats are made or red lines drawn, but what’s done is done & deabting the wisdom of that declaration won’t put it back into the bottle.
I suppose the utility of that argument depends on whether you think the power of the West will be used mostly for self-aggrandizement or mostly for humanitarian causes. Again, maybe it’s foolish to be optimistic here given history, but the alternative doesn’t offer much hope.
What we really need is for the Russians to condemn Assad. Then I could pretend we were moving towards a world where targeting civilians is just not permitted by civilized countries. But even Im not that optimistic. 😐
You’re clearly more optimistic on this than I
Well, there’s that (I am kind of an optimist in general), and there’s that I don’t see much downside. Although I could see an argument being made that hypocrisy in relation to war crimes etc could tend to erode cases where we really do want to pursue that sort of thing- but if we disavow the very concept, then we’ve abandoned the ability to use it as a rationale.
I think that needs to be the minimum criterion. Just acting because of an ill-advised comment about red lines is not good enough.
I agree, we ought to be able to say exactly what we hope to accomplish etc. I do think that the red-line statement is on the scale too though- ill-advised or not, if we hope to be able to use threats of force to dissuade war crimes in the future, we can hardly afford to have bluffs called. That should weigh on whether threats are made or red lines drawn, but what’s done is done & deabting the wisdom of that declaration won’t put it back into the bottle.
I suppose the utility of that argument depends on whether you think the power of the West will be used mostly for self-aggrandizement or mostly for humanitarian causes. Again, maybe it’s foolish to be optimistic here given history, but the alternative doesn’t offer much hope.
What we really need is for the Russians to condemn Assad. Then I could pretend we were moving towards a world where targeting civilians is just not permitted by civilized countries. But even Im not that optimistic. 😐
You may have some idiosyncratic definition of war crimes that only covers situations where the acting party signed a treaty specifying their conduct,
Syria’s actions aren’t war crimes because the definition of war crimes requires that they occur in an international war, not an internal or civil war. This has nothing to do with customary int’l law or who signed what treaties: it has to do with what criterion the treaties actually define.
Or, as wikipedia writes:
I think you’ll find the conversation is both more polite and more useful if you don’t act like everyone is following your definitions (esp when they’ve already said they aren’t) and ask them if they’re nuts for it.
These aren’t definitions I made up out of thin air. This is how people who deal with int’l law every day understand the terms. I understand that these definitions are not obvious, and I’m sorry about that. But this is true of every legal system: you can’t actually make reasonable statements about what effects the US Constitution has without a fairly huge set of secondary definitions, common practice, etc.
If your solution to the problem of Syria using poison gas on civilians during a civil war is to take it to the UNSC and wait for a resolution authorizing action,
I don’t have a solution. I don’t know of a legal way to end the carnage in Syria.
And frankly that’s OK. People die sometimes. Pointless wars get fought. The universe has no obligation to be fair, or to ensure that solutions to such problems must always exist.
Even putting legality aside, I don’t believe the US is capable of ending, or even mitigating, the carnage in Syria. You have yet to suggest one.
Russia’s interests in Syria appear to preclude the UNSC considering the matter impartially. Regardless of how guilty Assad is demonstrated to be, the UNSC will do nothing.
Indeed, I agree with you here.
If you’ve spent less time venting spleen and more time describing how you think this problem ought to be solved, maybe inference wouldn’t be necessary…
No. I don’t have any control over the US government. It doesn’t matter how I spend my time commenting on the internet, US government policy will not be appreciably changed. I decline to be held responsible for Syrian deaths based on my internet commenting.
Or maybe you think gassing civilians in a civil war isn’t a problem at all.
I think killing civilians is a serious problem. But I don’t think all serious problems must have solutions. I think cancer is a serious problem too, and I also don’t think that all cancers are treatable. Sometimes, there is no good answer. Just because you have untreatable cancer, it does not follow that your local hospital should be destroyed.
You may have some idiosyncratic definition of war crimes that only covers situations where the acting party signed a treaty specifying their conduct,
Syria’s actions aren’t war crimes because the definition of war crimes requires that they occur in an international war, not an internal or civil war. This has nothing to do with customary int’l law or who signed what treaties: it has to do with what criterion the treaties actually define.
Or, as wikipedia writes:
I think you’ll find the conversation is both more polite and more useful if you don’t act like everyone is following your definitions (esp when they’ve already said they aren’t) and ask them if they’re nuts for it.
These aren’t definitions I made up out of thin air. This is how people who deal with int’l law every day understand the terms. I understand that these definitions are not obvious, and I’m sorry about that. But this is true of every legal system: you can’t actually make reasonable statements about what effects the US Constitution has without a fairly huge set of secondary definitions, common practice, etc.
If your solution to the problem of Syria using poison gas on civilians during a civil war is to take it to the UNSC and wait for a resolution authorizing action,
I don’t have a solution. I don’t know of a legal way to end the carnage in Syria.
And frankly that’s OK. People die sometimes. Pointless wars get fought. The universe has no obligation to be fair, or to ensure that solutions to such problems must always exist.
Even putting legality aside, I don’t believe the US is capable of ending, or even mitigating, the carnage in Syria. You have yet to suggest one.
Russia’s interests in Syria appear to preclude the UNSC considering the matter impartially. Regardless of how guilty Assad is demonstrated to be, the UNSC will do nothing.
Indeed, I agree with you here.
If you’ve spent less time venting spleen and more time describing how you think this problem ought to be solved, maybe inference wouldn’t be necessary…
No. I don’t have any control over the US government. It doesn’t matter how I spend my time commenting on the internet, US government policy will not be appreciably changed. I decline to be held responsible for Syrian deaths based on my internet commenting.
Or maybe you think gassing civilians in a civil war isn’t a problem at all.
I think killing civilians is a serious problem. But I don’t think all serious problems must have solutions. I think cancer is a serious problem too, and I also don’t think that all cancers are treatable. Sometimes, there is no good answer. Just because you have untreatable cancer, it does not follow that your local hospital should be destroyed.
Syria’s actions aren’t war crimes because the definition of war crimes requires that they occur in an international war, not an internal or civil war. This has nothing to do with customary int’l law or who signed what treaties: it has to do with what criterion the treaties actually define.
Do you recall the part where you agreed that some people think there are international norms that are binding regardless of which treaties were signed? I hate to belabor this point, but I keep saying it and you keep somehow not hearing it. I dont want to keep saying it, yet I dont know what to do when you categorically refuse to process that argument.
I mean, maybe it’s wrong, but ignoring it doesn’t strengthen the case against it. Saying it “has nothing to do with it” is not an argument, even at Harvard.
Or, as wikipedia writes:
A traditional understanding of war crimes gave no provision for crimes committed by a power on its own citizens.
Harvard taught you to cite wikipedia? 🙂
And that was the ‘traditional understanding’ during the trials immediately after WWII. Little bit of water under the bridge since then maybe, particularly regarding intra-national conflicts. Wasnt much earlier than that Europe was poisoning the crap out of each others’ soldiers.
These aren’t definitions I made up out of thin air. This is how people who deal with int’l law every day understand the terms.
Argument from authority never gets old does it? Does *Obama* deal with international law every day? Does *he* say that Syria has committed war crimes? Then QED, not everyone who deals with international law every day agrees with that position.
Now can you make an actual argument without a bunch of unsupported assertions. That’ll be fun! And novel!
I understand that these definitions are not obvious, and I’m sorry about that.
… and baldfaced lame attempts to condescend when you can’t make your point successfully. Par.
But this is true of every legal system: you can’t actually make reasonable statements about what effects the US Constitution has without a fairly huge set of secondary definitions, common practice, etc.
Confusing the functions of international law with an actual legal system- where outcomes are not transparently manipulated by the participants for their own interests- is not the sort of mistake Id expect from someone who studied international law at Harvard.
I don’t have a solution. I don’t know of a legal way to end the carnage in Syria.
And frankly that’s OK. People die sometimes.
The important thing is that the US sucks, and if some people in Syria die because US intervention would be hypocritical, then so be it. Priorities people!
No. I don’t have any control over the US government. It doesn’t matter how I spend my time commenting on the internet, US government policy will not be appreciably changed. I decline to be held responsible for Syrian deaths based on my internet commenting.
Speaking of strawmen, no one said we were influencing policy here. Im just noting that, based on your earlier comment, even if we can help save civilians it’s “pointless” because the US is hypocritical. That, to me, suggests some serious ugliness roaming around in your skull.
I think killing civilians is a serious problem. But I don’t think all serious problems must have solutions. I think cancer is a serious problem too, and I also don’t think that all cancers are treatable. Sometimes, there is no good answer. Just because you have untreatable cancer, it does not follow that your local hospital should be destroyed.
If that was the sum total of your position we wouldnt have disagreed at all. I am agnostic about whether an intervention will have a practical good effect. I am sure that I support, in principle, US intervention to prevent the massacre of civilians in a civil war. And I am moderately certain that this is both moral and able to fit within reasonable interpretations of international laws. You are arguing that the US would be committing a war crime to militarily intervene in another country’s civil war in order to protect civilians, or to prevent the use of WMDs against them. I think that is a gigantic crock of nonsense.
BTW, are you seriously not going to crack those old Havard books and tell us how the US bombing Syria in response to Syria poisoning civilians in a civil war is a “war crime”? ‘cos I really want to know, if you’re going to do the mock condescending thing you ought to be able to back that up, clear up the confusion for everyone.
Syria’s actions aren’t war crimes because the definition of war crimes requires that they occur in an international war, not an internal or civil war. This has nothing to do with customary int’l law or who signed what treaties: it has to do with what criterion the treaties actually define.
Do you recall the part where you agreed that some people think there are international norms that are binding regardless of which treaties were signed? I hate to belabor this point, but I keep saying it and you keep somehow not hearing it. I dont want to keep saying it, yet I dont know what to do when you categorically refuse to process that argument.
I mean, maybe it’s wrong, but ignoring it doesn’t strengthen the case against it. Saying it “has nothing to do with it” is not an argument, even at Harvard.
Or, as wikipedia writes:
A traditional understanding of war crimes gave no provision for crimes committed by a power on its own citizens.
Harvard taught you to cite wikipedia? 🙂
And that was the ‘traditional understanding’ during the trials immediately after WWII. Little bit of water under the bridge since then maybe, particularly regarding intra-national conflicts. Wasnt much earlier than that Europe was poisoning the crap out of each others’ soldiers.
These aren’t definitions I made up out of thin air. This is how people who deal with int’l law every day understand the terms.
Argument from authority never gets old does it? Does *Obama* deal with international law every day? Does *he* say that Syria has committed war crimes? Then QED, not everyone who deals with international law every day agrees with that position.
Now can you make an actual argument without a bunch of unsupported assertions. That’ll be fun! And novel!
I understand that these definitions are not obvious, and I’m sorry about that.
… and baldfaced lame attempts to condescend when you can’t make your point successfully. Par.
But this is true of every legal system: you can’t actually make reasonable statements about what effects the US Constitution has without a fairly huge set of secondary definitions, common practice, etc.
Confusing the functions of international law with an actual legal system- where outcomes are not transparently manipulated by the participants for their own interests- is not the sort of mistake Id expect from someone who studied international law at Harvard.
I don’t have a solution. I don’t know of a legal way to end the carnage in Syria.
And frankly that’s OK. People die sometimes.
The important thing is that the US sucks, and if some people in Syria die because US intervention would be hypocritical, then so be it. Priorities people!
No. I don’t have any control over the US government. It doesn’t matter how I spend my time commenting on the internet, US government policy will not be appreciably changed. I decline to be held responsible for Syrian deaths based on my internet commenting.
Speaking of strawmen, no one said we were influencing policy here. Im just noting that, based on your earlier comment, even if we can help save civilians it’s “pointless” because the US is hypocritical. That, to me, suggests some serious ugliness roaming around in your skull.
I think killing civilians is a serious problem. But I don’t think all serious problems must have solutions. I think cancer is a serious problem too, and I also don’t think that all cancers are treatable. Sometimes, there is no good answer. Just because you have untreatable cancer, it does not follow that your local hospital should be destroyed.
If that was the sum total of your position we wouldnt have disagreed at all. I am agnostic about whether an intervention will have a practical good effect. I am sure that I support, in principle, US intervention to prevent the massacre of civilians in a civil war. And I am moderately certain that this is both moral and able to fit within reasonable interpretations of international laws. You are arguing that the US would be committing a war crime to militarily intervene in another country’s civil war in order to protect civilians, or to prevent the use of WMDs against them. I think that is a gigantic crock of nonsense.
BTW, are you seriously not going to crack those old Havard books and tell us how the US bombing Syria in response to Syria poisoning civilians in a civil war is a “war crime”? ‘cos I really want to know, if you’re going to do the mock condescending thing you ought to be able to back that up, clear up the confusion for everyone.
Carelton or FuzzyFace or Sapient or someone: could you please cite which specific treaty (including section) you think Syria violated? I’m not talking about norms: I’m talking about a specific legal document. And yes, if it is a treaty that falls under customary int’l law, I fully understand that Syria need not be a party to it.
Before the US goes to war to address a serious violation of int’l law, is it really too much to ask to have a cite to the specific treaty text that was violated?
Carelton, by the way, can you explain why Protocol II of the Geneva Conventions even exists? I believe that in your understanding, PII is completely unnecessary, right? Do you think 167 countries in the world are just ignorant about int’l law works?
Carelton or FuzzyFace or Sapient or someone: could you please cite which specific treaty (including section) you think Syria violated? I’m not talking about norms: I’m talking about a specific legal document. And yes, if it is a treaty that falls under customary int’l law, I fully understand that Syria need not be a party to it.
Before the US goes to war to address a serious violation of int’l law, is it really too much to ask to have a cite to the specific treaty text that was violated?
Carelton, by the way, can you explain why Protocol II of the Geneva Conventions even exists? I believe that in your understanding, PII is completely unnecessary, right? Do you think 167 countries in the world are just ignorant about int’l law works?
if we hope to be able to use threats of force to dissuade war crimes in the future, we can hardly afford to have bluffs called.
Please see the article I linked to above. The “credibilityness” of our future threats to deter war crimes/whatever will be determined by those future circumstances and the perceptions and judgements of our opponents at that time, not our past “caving” in this particular instance. As the world’s pre-eminent power, we certainly can afford to have our bluffs called once in a while. (to head off inevitable poker analogies: If you don’t get caught bluffing it’s because you never try, and if you never try, you will lose against seasoned players-just saying).
Of all the arguments used to justify direct intervention in the Syrian civil war, this is one of the weakest.
if we hope to be able to use threats of force to dissuade war crimes in the future, we can hardly afford to have bluffs called.
Please see the article I linked to above. The “credibilityness” of our future threats to deter war crimes/whatever will be determined by those future circumstances and the perceptions and judgements of our opponents at that time, not our past “caving” in this particular instance. As the world’s pre-eminent power, we certainly can afford to have our bluffs called once in a while. (to head off inevitable poker analogies: If you don’t get caught bluffing it’s because you never try, and if you never try, you will lose against seasoned players-just saying).
Of all the arguments used to justify direct intervention in the Syrian civil war, this is one of the weakest.
Do you recall the part where you agreed that some people think there are international norms that are binding regardless of which treaties were signed?
Not really. Customary int’l law exists. And norms exist. That doesn’t mean that violation of any particular norm justifies a war. Can you quote what specific bit I said and explain why you think I’ve contradicted myself please?
Harvard taught you to cite wikipedia? 🙂
Harvard exposed me to ignorant assholes. The practice has served me well in the world 😉
Then QED, not everyone who deals with international law every day agrees with that position.
I think your argument here proves a bit too much. It would suggest that the US has never violated international law, that torture is totally cool, etc. I don’t think that’s true.
… and baldfaced lame attempts to condescend when you can’t make your point successfully. Par.
I apologize. I did not intend to condescend. I personally find these definitions to be difficult, contradictory, and nonsensical. When discussing these issues with people who work in the field (including some who work at the UN or for the State Dept), I have often raised those issues. I do not fault anyone for being surprised that int’l law works the way I describe, because I find it surprising.
The important thing is that the US sucks, and if some people in Syria die because US intervention would be hypocritical, then so be it. Priorities people!
People in Syria are going to die no matter what. I have yet to see an explanation for how the kind of military attack being discussed will reduce civilian deaths in Syria. Can you explain? I’ve asked several times before and you haven’t responded.
tell us how the US bombing Syria in response to Syria poisoning civilians in a civil war is a “war crime”?
Did I say it was a war crime? I honestly don’t think I did, but I might have made a mistake…
I don’t think it would be a war crime, just a violation of int’l law. Not all such violations are war crimes. Most aren’t.
Do you recall the part where you agreed that some people think there are international norms that are binding regardless of which treaties were signed?
Not really. Customary int’l law exists. And norms exist. That doesn’t mean that violation of any particular norm justifies a war. Can you quote what specific bit I said and explain why you think I’ve contradicted myself please?
Harvard taught you to cite wikipedia? 🙂
Harvard exposed me to ignorant assholes. The practice has served me well in the world 😉
Then QED, not everyone who deals with international law every day agrees with that position.
I think your argument here proves a bit too much. It would suggest that the US has never violated international law, that torture is totally cool, etc. I don’t think that’s true.
… and baldfaced lame attempts to condescend when you can’t make your point successfully. Par.
I apologize. I did not intend to condescend. I personally find these definitions to be difficult, contradictory, and nonsensical. When discussing these issues with people who work in the field (including some who work at the UN or for the State Dept), I have often raised those issues. I do not fault anyone for being surprised that int’l law works the way I describe, because I find it surprising.
The important thing is that the US sucks, and if some people in Syria die because US intervention would be hypocritical, then so be it. Priorities people!
People in Syria are going to die no matter what. I have yet to see an explanation for how the kind of military attack being discussed will reduce civilian deaths in Syria. Can you explain? I’ve asked several times before and you haven’t responded.
tell us how the US bombing Syria in response to Syria poisoning civilians in a civil war is a “war crime”?
Did I say it was a war crime? I honestly don’t think I did, but I might have made a mistake…
I don’t think it would be a war crime, just a violation of int’l law. Not all such violations are war crimes. Most aren’t.
I am hard pressed to think of cases where peace resulted from UN actions.
Please go through this surprisingly long list and tell us which ones were unmitigated disasters.
The U.N. has a thankless job, given the bedrock principle of national sovereignty in the context of international relations. That it has been able to achieve what is has is fairly remarkable….and really, it’s still a pretty new institution. Give it a little time.
Thanks.
I am hard pressed to think of cases where peace resulted from UN actions.
Please go through this surprisingly long list and tell us which ones were unmitigated disasters.
The U.N. has a thankless job, given the bedrock principle of national sovereignty in the context of international relations. That it has been able to achieve what is has is fairly remarkable….and really, it’s still a pretty new institution. Give it a little time.
Thanks.
“I am not high. Using poison gas on civilians in a military conflict, even an intra-state military conflict, is considered by many to be a war crime. ”
If I understand Turb’s position he’s saying this–
1. Syrian use of poison gas (assuming it was Assad) is not a war crime, because this is a civil war, not a war between states.
2. It is a violation of protocol II of the Geneva Conventions, which was written because so many atrocities are committed in civil wars, including by both sides in the Syrian conflict, atrocities which did not fit the legal definition of war crimes.
3. The US hasn’t signed Protocol II, so we aren’t the ones to enforce it.
I don’t think the proposed US intervention is about international law anyway–it’s mainly about credibility. (Whether that matters or not ) Some of it is probably about shaking a stick at Iran.
“I am not high. Using poison gas on civilians in a military conflict, even an intra-state military conflict, is considered by many to be a war crime. ”
If I understand Turb’s position he’s saying this–
1. Syrian use of poison gas (assuming it was Assad) is not a war crime, because this is a civil war, not a war between states.
2. It is a violation of protocol II of the Geneva Conventions, which was written because so many atrocities are committed in civil wars, including by both sides in the Syrian conflict, atrocities which did not fit the legal definition of war crimes.
3. The US hasn’t signed Protocol II, so we aren’t the ones to enforce it.
I don’t think the proposed US intervention is about international law anyway–it’s mainly about credibility. (Whether that matters or not ) Some of it is probably about shaking a stick at Iran.
Well, see, I didn’t study international law at Harvard; neither, I suspect, did the ICRC, but they do seem to think that chemical weapon use is unquestionably banned by international law.
http://www.icrc.org/eng/war-and-law/weapons/chemical-biological-weapons/overview-chemical-biological-weapons.htm
I will defer to their expertise.
Well, see, I didn’t study international law at Harvard; neither, I suspect, did the ICRC, but they do seem to think that chemical weapon use is unquestionably banned by international law.
http://www.icrc.org/eng/war-and-law/weapons/chemical-biological-weapons/overview-chemical-biological-weapons.htm
I will defer to their expertise.
I’ll ask again: can someone please answer the questions I asked here?
Isn’t it kind of absurd that we’re talking about starting a war against a country for violating int’l law but we don’t seem able to cite which specific legal code they violated? Does anyone else find that to be nutty? Every parking ticket I get cites the relevant code…you’d think that a war would be a little more important….
I’ll ask again: can someone please answer the questions I asked here?
Isn’t it kind of absurd that we’re talking about starting a war against a country for violating int’l law but we don’t seem able to cite which specific legal code they violated? Does anyone else find that to be nutty? Every parking ticket I get cites the relevant code…you’d think that a war would be a little more important….
AIPAC is in favor of intervening-as they say, in part this is because they want to send a message to Iran and Hezbollah.
AIPAC press release
AIPAC is in favor of intervening-as they say, in part this is because they want to send a message to Iran and Hezbollah.
AIPAC press release
I’m just about to depart to a place where the internet access is uncertain (the city doesn’t have Google street view is my clue to that) and my schedule isn’t very clear, so a few points.
-Despite my conviction that metaphor is the basis of our communicative ability, in a discussion like this, they should be deployed carefully with lots of footnotes and caveats, if at all.
-I hope that after a moment’s reflection, phrases like ‘Are you high?’ don’t really help us understand what is at issue here.
I’ll be back in 10 days (though I hope to have a friday post from my secrit location) so I look forward to seeing this question solved so we can move on to other things.
I’m just about to depart to a place where the internet access is uncertain (the city doesn’t have Google street view is my clue to that) and my schedule isn’t very clear, so a few points.
-Despite my conviction that metaphor is the basis of our communicative ability, in a discussion like this, they should be deployed carefully with lots of footnotes and caveats, if at all.
-I hope that after a moment’s reflection, phrases like ‘Are you high?’ don’t really help us understand what is at issue here.
I’ll be back in 10 days (though I hope to have a friday post from my secrit location) so I look forward to seeing this question solved so we can move on to other things.
I forgot to add that the Onion lays out the case pretty well here
I forgot to add that the Onion lays out the case pretty well here
neither, I suspect, did the ICRC, but they do seem to think that chemical weapon use is unquestionably banned by international law.
For the record, it appears that Syria is not a party to Protocol II. They signed, but have not ratified, the 1972 Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention. They did not sign the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention.
All of which does not speak well of them. But I don’t understand how they can be considered to be bound by the conditions outlined in any of those treaties or conventions.
Maybe somebody else can explain it to me.
We may choose to drop some bombs on Syria to make the point that we are against the use of chemical weapons. That might actually be a point worth making. I don’t know.
But IMO it is not so great for individual countries to decide that they need to Make A Point and Send A Message by bombing other countries.
If some kind of action is appropriate because of international norms and treaties, it seems, to me, to require at a minimum that it be taken as an international action.
Moral imperatives aside, somebody needs to explain to me what the legal basis is for us to decide, unilaterally and without not only UN sanction but without even UN consideration, to drop bombs on Syria.
And the reason I say ‘moral imperatives aside’ is because the moral imperatives point in more than one direction.
neither, I suspect, did the ICRC, but they do seem to think that chemical weapon use is unquestionably banned by international law.
For the record, it appears that Syria is not a party to Protocol II. They signed, but have not ratified, the 1972 Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention. They did not sign the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention.
All of which does not speak well of them. But I don’t understand how they can be considered to be bound by the conditions outlined in any of those treaties or conventions.
Maybe somebody else can explain it to me.
We may choose to drop some bombs on Syria to make the point that we are against the use of chemical weapons. That might actually be a point worth making. I don’t know.
But IMO it is not so great for individual countries to decide that they need to Make A Point and Send A Message by bombing other countries.
If some kind of action is appropriate because of international norms and treaties, it seems, to me, to require at a minimum that it be taken as an international action.
Moral imperatives aside, somebody needs to explain to me what the legal basis is for us to decide, unilaterally and without not only UN sanction but without even UN consideration, to drop bombs on Syria.
And the reason I say ‘moral imperatives aside’ is because the moral imperatives point in more than one direction.
Might makes right.
Might makes right.
International law has traditionally been based on customs and treaties (because it has its origins in vague notions of “natural law”). Just as English common law had “common law crimes” where elements of the crime were matters of judge-made case law, international law has been based (in part) on similar (but much more fluid) “customs” or “norms” (as well as treaties, which are specific promises made by one country with another). For example, well before the UN, there were certain customary laws of war, there was customary diplomatic immunity, customary laws of the sea, anti-piracy laws, etc. These customary laws are still recognized by international courts.
An attempt was made in the 20th century to “codify” customary laws through the United Nations treaties, and to create better enforcement mechanisms. The United States has been a leader, and certainly cooperative with this effort in many ways, but reluctant to cede its sovereignty in some cases. There are instances when doing so would be at odds with the Constitution, so it’s not always as simple as “America bad.”
Obviously, international law has always had an enforcement problem. The UN is the preferred way to legitimize the use of force in response to a perceived violation of international law. Aside from retaliation in response to attack, the only gold-standard “legal” military action is one approved by the UN. Clearly, the Security Council is somewhat dysfunctional, so there are times when the UN is incapable of meaningful action, even when it’s necessary. The question is whether it’s better to ignore blatant horrors, or try to find justification outside of the UN structure to make the use of force “legitimate” (not necessarily “legal”).
To analogize, taking measures with UN approval is like sending the cops in, whereas taking measures without UN approval may or may not be justified, like “self-defense” is sometimes justified against people invading one’s home. It’s really not “legal” to shoot people anytime, but it may be “justified” depending on the circumstances.
I think (for example) that the NATO action in Kosovo was justified even though there was no UN approval. I believe that if genocide is being committed, it would be justified for a coalition of countries to intervene, even if the intervention was vetoed. I think that if a number of countries were to approve a strike on Syria to enforce the norm against the use of chemical weapons, it would be justified. Obviously, the more countries supporting such a thing, the more substantiated a claim of enforcing “norms” would be, and the more proportionate the action, the more justified it would be.
So, sure, might does and always has made right in international law to a certain extent. Where international law has evolved for the good is 1) obtaining the imprimatur of the UN (which is always very positive, if at all possible) or 2) having a justification that has been brought before the UN and other nations, and garnering the support of a substantial number of countries in the world community.
Even if an action is legitimate, or even legal, doesn’t mean it’s a good idea.
International law has traditionally been based on customs and treaties (because it has its origins in vague notions of “natural law”). Just as English common law had “common law crimes” where elements of the crime were matters of judge-made case law, international law has been based (in part) on similar (but much more fluid) “customs” or “norms” (as well as treaties, which are specific promises made by one country with another). For example, well before the UN, there were certain customary laws of war, there was customary diplomatic immunity, customary laws of the sea, anti-piracy laws, etc. These customary laws are still recognized by international courts.
An attempt was made in the 20th century to “codify” customary laws through the United Nations treaties, and to create better enforcement mechanisms. The United States has been a leader, and certainly cooperative with this effort in many ways, but reluctant to cede its sovereignty in some cases. There are instances when doing so would be at odds with the Constitution, so it’s not always as simple as “America bad.”
Obviously, international law has always had an enforcement problem. The UN is the preferred way to legitimize the use of force in response to a perceived violation of international law. Aside from retaliation in response to attack, the only gold-standard “legal” military action is one approved by the UN. Clearly, the Security Council is somewhat dysfunctional, so there are times when the UN is incapable of meaningful action, even when it’s necessary. The question is whether it’s better to ignore blatant horrors, or try to find justification outside of the UN structure to make the use of force “legitimate” (not necessarily “legal”).
To analogize, taking measures with UN approval is like sending the cops in, whereas taking measures without UN approval may or may not be justified, like “self-defense” is sometimes justified against people invading one’s home. It’s really not “legal” to shoot people anytime, but it may be “justified” depending on the circumstances.
I think (for example) that the NATO action in Kosovo was justified even though there was no UN approval. I believe that if genocide is being committed, it would be justified for a coalition of countries to intervene, even if the intervention was vetoed. I think that if a number of countries were to approve a strike on Syria to enforce the norm against the use of chemical weapons, it would be justified. Obviously, the more countries supporting such a thing, the more substantiated a claim of enforcing “norms” would be, and the more proportionate the action, the more justified it would be.
So, sure, might does and always has made right in international law to a certain extent. Where international law has evolved for the good is 1) obtaining the imprimatur of the UN (which is always very positive, if at all possible) or 2) having a justification that has been brought before the UN and other nations, and garnering the support of a substantial number of countries in the world community.
Even if an action is legitimate, or even legal, doesn’t mean it’s a good idea.
“An attempt was made in the 20th century to “codify” customary laws through the United Nations treaties, and to create better enforcement mechanisms. The United States has been a leader, and certainly cooperative with this effort in many ways, but reluctant to cede its sovereignty in some cases. There are instances when doing so would be at odds with the Constitution, so it’s not always as simple as “America bad.”
Obviously, international law has always had an enforcement problem.”
Because might makes right. Powerful countries don’t get punished and powerful countries can keep their allies from being punished. Serbia got bombed because Russia had lost its superpower status and couldn’t stop it. Turkey was doing the same sorts of things to the Kurds in the 90’s (with US weapons) and nobody bombed them.
“An attempt was made in the 20th century to “codify” customary laws through the United Nations treaties, and to create better enforcement mechanisms. The United States has been a leader, and certainly cooperative with this effort in many ways, but reluctant to cede its sovereignty in some cases. There are instances when doing so would be at odds with the Constitution, so it’s not always as simple as “America bad.”
Obviously, international law has always had an enforcement problem.”
Because might makes right. Powerful countries don’t get punished and powerful countries can keep their allies from being punished. Serbia got bombed because Russia had lost its superpower status and couldn’t stop it. Turkey was doing the same sorts of things to the Kurds in the 90’s (with US weapons) and nobody bombed them.
I think (for example) that the NATO action in Kosovo was justified even though there was no UN approval.
First, there was no UNSC approval, so the war was illegal.
Second, the war was an enormously stupid waste of resources. A bit like spending $1000 at Vegas so you could win $100 and feeling proud of yourself. After three months of intensive bombing by the most powerful military force in history, Serbia ended up taking a deal slightly better than what we had offered them before the bombing. And they folded specifically because people started talking about a ground invasion.
I understand that Americans love the idea of sending our air force to go blow stuff up in foreign countries, in the desperate hope that this will somehow fix problems. But besides being usually against the law, this is not a very effective technique.
I note that the questions I raised here still haven’t been addressed. I guess we can go to war even if no one can cite what specific treaty justifies our killing people. Oh well, treaties are for the weak, amiright? Strong nations like us needn’t bother with treaties or laws.
I think (for example) that the NATO action in Kosovo was justified even though there was no UN approval.
First, there was no UNSC approval, so the war was illegal.
Second, the war was an enormously stupid waste of resources. A bit like spending $1000 at Vegas so you could win $100 and feeling proud of yourself. After three months of intensive bombing by the most powerful military force in history, Serbia ended up taking a deal slightly better than what we had offered them before the bombing. And they folded specifically because people started talking about a ground invasion.
I understand that Americans love the idea of sending our air force to go blow stuff up in foreign countries, in the desperate hope that this will somehow fix problems. But besides being usually against the law, this is not a very effective technique.
I note that the questions I raised here still haven’t been addressed. I guess we can go to war even if no one can cite what specific treaty justifies our killing people. Oh well, treaties are for the weak, amiright? Strong nations like us needn’t bother with treaties or laws.
I understand that Americans love the idea of sending our air force to go blow stuff up in foreign countries, in the desperate hope that this will somehow fix problems. But besides being usually against the law, this is not a very effective technique.
A good number of the survivors would disagree.
I understand that Americans love the idea of sending our air force to go blow stuff up in foreign countries, in the desperate hope that this will somehow fix problems. But besides being usually against the law, this is not a very effective technique.
A good number of the survivors would disagree.
Turkey was doing the same sorts of things to the Kurds in the 90’s (with US weapons) and nobody bombed them.
I love the argument that because not everyone has been bombed, inaction is always the right answer.
Turkey was doing the same sorts of things to the Kurds in the 90’s (with US weapons) and nobody bombed them.
I love the argument that because not everyone has been bombed, inaction is always the right answer.
the Chemical Weapons Convention specifies a procedure for enforcement. we’re not following it. why not?
the Chemical Weapons Convention specifies a procedure for enforcement. we’re not following it. why not?
I think you overly dramatize things, here. People are just optimistic that there exist simple, remote-control solutions to complicated problems. But if you have a cite to research that shows that Americans love to do these things, please share it.
Granted, this is an unwarranted optimism.
OTOH, this:
sounds exactly like something Charles Bird would have said. It’s self-reassurance that in fact we are helping someone. I’m sure there are survivors who would disagree, but I don’t have any confidence at all that, net/net, we’re doing the good that we tell ourselves we are doing.
Sapient, you seem to think that there is some participation on our part that will result in a good or even less bad outcome. Me, I’d want to know what the plan is, and what the expected outcome is, before I form any kind of opinion. The problem with selected bombing is this: if Syria is at all smart or even merely clever, it has by now distributed its military hardware far and wide. Where do you want the bombs to land? Do you even know?
I think you overly dramatize things, here. People are just optimistic that there exist simple, remote-control solutions to complicated problems. But if you have a cite to research that shows that Americans love to do these things, please share it.
Granted, this is an unwarranted optimism.
OTOH, this:
sounds exactly like something Charles Bird would have said. It’s self-reassurance that in fact we are helping someone. I’m sure there are survivors who would disagree, but I don’t have any confidence at all that, net/net, we’re doing the good that we tell ourselves we are doing.
Sapient, you seem to think that there is some participation on our part that will result in a good or even less bad outcome. Me, I’d want to know what the plan is, and what the expected outcome is, before I form any kind of opinion. The problem with selected bombing is this: if Syria is at all smart or even merely clever, it has by now distributed its military hardware far and wide. Where do you want the bombs to land? Do you even know?
cleek, I think the relevant provision is this one (although I’m no expert).
It seems, from looking through the provisions of the convention, that it has done tremendous good in encouraging member states (of which Syria is not one) to destroy their stockpiles.
cleek, I think the relevant provision is this one (although I’m no expert).
It seems, from looking through the provisions of the convention, that it has done tremendous good in encouraging member states (of which Syria is not one) to destroy their stockpiles.
The hedging begins:
Sure, we have to be cognizant that our actions over there might lead to some outcome where ground troops are the obvious answer to prevent even worse things from happening. But I don’t think Kerry has considered that people have seen this kind of reasoning so recently that it might sound familiarly overly hopeful.
The hedging begins:
Sure, we have to be cognizant that our actions over there might lead to some outcome where ground troops are the obvious answer to prevent even worse things from happening. But I don’t think Kerry has considered that people have seen this kind of reasoning so recently that it might sound familiarly overly hopeful.
Alternate cite if you’re averse to depending on the Examiner for news.
Alternate cite if you’re averse to depending on the Examiner for news.
Sapient, you seem to think that there is some participation on our part that will result in a good or even less bad outcome.
Actually, I’m not sure about that. I have a lot of reservations. Action and inaction have consequences, and the consequences of inaction might be worse than action. When in doubt, do nothing, sometimes seems like a sensible course. I’m not sure that it does in this case. I’m happy that we’re taking a bit of time to argue about it.
Sapient, you seem to think that there is some participation on our part that will result in a good or even less bad outcome.
Actually, I’m not sure about that. I have a lot of reservations. Action and inaction have consequences, and the consequences of inaction might be worse than action. When in doubt, do nothing, sometimes seems like a sensible course. I’m not sure that it does in this case. I’m happy that we’re taking a bit of time to argue about it.
Thanks for clarifying, sapient.
Outcomes I can see that are obvious:
-Assad’s holding of power is not substantially jeopardized, and things continue as they were.
-Assad’s holding of power is substantially decreased, resulting in an ongoing state of civil war without any kind of resolution
-Assad’s position is weakened to the point where the government is overthrown by rebels. We step in to keep the order while the new government sets itself up. Insurgency occurs, requiring our continued involvement.
-Assad’s position is so weakened that rebel forces overturn the regime, and without any additional involvement at all make a spontaneous, orderly transition to democratic rule.
The last one sounds familiar. It may be that I cribbed it from somewhere.
Thanks for clarifying, sapient.
Outcomes I can see that are obvious:
-Assad’s holding of power is not substantially jeopardized, and things continue as they were.
-Assad’s holding of power is substantially decreased, resulting in an ongoing state of civil war without any kind of resolution
-Assad’s position is weakened to the point where the government is overthrown by rebels. We step in to keep the order while the new government sets itself up. Insurgency occurs, requiring our continued involvement.
-Assad’s position is so weakened that rebel forces overturn the regime, and without any additional involvement at all make a spontaneous, orderly transition to democratic rule.
The last one sounds familiar. It may be that I cribbed it from somewhere.
Sure, we have to be cognizant that our actions over there might lead to some outcome where ground troops are the obvious answer to prevent even worse things from happening.
Again, we might be drawn into Syria in a larger way if Syria implodes whether or not we strike now. For example, if Turkey is threatened, we have an immediate NATO responsibility to intervene.
Sure, we have to be cognizant that our actions over there might lead to some outcome where ground troops are the obvious answer to prevent even worse things from happening.
Again, we might be drawn into Syria in a larger way if Syria implodes whether or not we strike now. For example, if Turkey is threatened, we have an immediate NATO responsibility to intervene.
If Turkey is
threatenedattacked,weNATO has a responsibility to intervene.If Turkey is
threatenedattacked,weNATO has a responsibility to intervene.Correction noted. Thanks. “We” means we in NATO.
Correction noted. Thanks. “We” means we in NATO.
The inevitability of a NATO response is something Assad is doubtless aware of, and will avoid at all costs. In that case, there would be absolutely dozens (2+) of countries whose response would be justified and mandated by treaty.
Therefore: that will never happen. Assad is a lot of things, but he’s not unaware of the peril, there.
The inevitability of a NATO response is something Assad is doubtless aware of, and will avoid at all costs. In that case, there would be absolutely dozens (2+) of countries whose response would be justified and mandated by treaty.
Therefore: that will never happen. Assad is a lot of things, but he’s not unaware of the peril, there.
But I don’t think Kerry has considered that people have seen this kind of reasoning so recently that it might sound familiarly overly hopeful.
Indeed.
The operation seems to be morphing from ‘just muscular enough to avoid mockery’ to ‘we need a credible (!) threat of escalation so we better have a really open-ended AUMF’. As Dan Nexon points out, the current attack concept requires the implicit threat of much more force than a few cruise missiles.
Credibility will be the death of us all.
But I don’t think Kerry has considered that people have seen this kind of reasoning so recently that it might sound familiarly overly hopeful.
Indeed.
The operation seems to be morphing from ‘just muscular enough to avoid mockery’ to ‘we need a credible (!) threat of escalation so we better have a really open-ended AUMF’. As Dan Nexon points out, the current attack concept requires the implicit threat of much more force than a few cruise missiles.
Credibility will be the death of us all.
cleek, I think the relevant provision is this one
right. now tell us how many news articles you’ve read about us going to the OPCW Executive Council. and tell us which measures the Council recommended. and, tell us the decision made by the UN per OPCW request.
none of that has happened?
yeah, like i said: we aren’t following that process. or any UN process.
cleek, I think the relevant provision is this one
right. now tell us how many news articles you’ve read about us going to the OPCW Executive Council. and tell us which measures the Council recommended. and, tell us the decision made by the UN per OPCW request.
none of that has happened?
yeah, like i said: we aren’t following that process. or any UN process.
The administration is not gaining any credibility by citing illusory increased security threats to the US, Turkey, Israel (among others) if we don’t respond militarily.
I’m not sure how this is supposed to work. Surely Assad knows if he, for example, launched a chemical weapon attack against any of those countries that would be the end of his regime. So, as Slarti notes, that will never happen.
Indeed, it seems to me, that the more likely result of a US bombing campaign is that sufficiently weakens Assad so that he loses control over his chemical weapons stockpile (if he hasn’t already), such that some of it ends up in the hands of a non-state actor who doesn’t have anything to lose.
Or suppose Assad believes that a US bombing campaign is a prelude to an invasion, and decides “well, I’m going down anyway, might as well go out with bang,” and then launches chemical weapons attacks all over the region. I suppose that would then immediately be cited as proof of the wisdom of bombing.
The administration is not gaining any credibility by citing illusory increased security threats to the US, Turkey, Israel (among others) if we don’t respond militarily.
I’m not sure how this is supposed to work. Surely Assad knows if he, for example, launched a chemical weapon attack against any of those countries that would be the end of his regime. So, as Slarti notes, that will never happen.
Indeed, it seems to me, that the more likely result of a US bombing campaign is that sufficiently weakens Assad so that he loses control over his chemical weapons stockpile (if he hasn’t already), such that some of it ends up in the hands of a non-state actor who doesn’t have anything to lose.
Or suppose Assad believes that a US bombing campaign is a prelude to an invasion, and decides “well, I’m going down anyway, might as well go out with bang,” and then launches chemical weapons attacks all over the region. I suppose that would then immediately be cited as proof of the wisdom of bombing.
The Vlad Putin/Rush Limbaugh Axis of Evil, according to Kevin Drum, has been torn asunder this morning as Putin opens a window to action against the Assad regime, given conditions, and shows a willingness to work with Obama.
Limbaugh, meanwhile, changes his tune from claiming, on the basis of evidence pulled from his fundament, that the rebels released the gas (that it might be true is in another universe from Limbaugh/Putin claiming it to be so) to accusing Barack Hussein Obama of ordering the gassing of the Syrian opposition.
Meanwhile, the issue of whether to bomb Palm Beach or Boca Raton, or wherever America’s foremost internal enemy lurks unmolested, first, before bombing Syria, or to wait until the Red State bloggers are received at Limbaugh’ s manse for tea and cottage cheese has been placed on a back burner by the always accommodative Obama Administration.
The Vlad Putin/Rush Limbaugh Axis of Evil, according to Kevin Drum, has been torn asunder this morning as Putin opens a window to action against the Assad regime, given conditions, and shows a willingness to work with Obama.
Limbaugh, meanwhile, changes his tune from claiming, on the basis of evidence pulled from his fundament, that the rebels released the gas (that it might be true is in another universe from Limbaugh/Putin claiming it to be so) to accusing Barack Hussein Obama of ordering the gassing of the Syrian opposition.
Meanwhile, the issue of whether to bomb Palm Beach or Boca Raton, or wherever America’s foremost internal enemy lurks unmolested, first, before bombing Syria, or to wait until the Red State bloggers are received at Limbaugh’ s manse for tea and cottage cheese has been placed on a back burner by the always accommodative Obama Administration.
“I love the argument that because not everyone has been bombed, inaction is always the right answer.”
That isn’t the point, though I can understand how it could be read that way. The point is that whatever motivates these demands for humanitarian interventions, it’s not anything resembling a consistent set of moral principles. Now one could perfectly well support this or that intervention if it seems like it might do some good, even if most of the people calling for it are hypocrites (as is usually the case). But there’s been no very convincing argument that bombing Syria is a good idea.
“I love the argument that because not everyone has been bombed, inaction is always the right answer.”
That isn’t the point, though I can understand how it could be read that way. The point is that whatever motivates these demands for humanitarian interventions, it’s not anything resembling a consistent set of moral principles. Now one could perfectly well support this or that intervention if it seems like it might do some good, even if most of the people calling for it are hypocrites (as is usually the case). But there’s been no very convincing argument that bombing Syria is a good idea.
“I love the argument that because not everyone has been bombed, inaction is always the right answer.”
And incidentally, I love the idea that it’s either inaction or bombing. It really is much easier for the US to bomb some country than it is for us to cut back on weapons sales, for instance, nevermind the crazy notion of holding our own officials to account. That’s the only way your position makes sense–a tacit recognition, indeed an embrace of the idea that we must “do something” always means “we must bomb politically unsavory dictators that nobody in the West really likes”, but never “we must cut aid to Turkey or Egypt or Israel or whoever until they stop using our weapons to kill innocents” or “we must make sure that US officials fear the prospect of a criminal investigation if they commit war crimes or other atrocities”.
“I love the argument that because not everyone has been bombed, inaction is always the right answer.”
And incidentally, I love the idea that it’s either inaction or bombing. It really is much easier for the US to bomb some country than it is for us to cut back on weapons sales, for instance, nevermind the crazy notion of holding our own officials to account. That’s the only way your position makes sense–a tacit recognition, indeed an embrace of the idea that we must “do something” always means “we must bomb politically unsavory dictators that nobody in the West really likes”, but never “we must cut aid to Turkey or Egypt or Israel or whoever until they stop using our weapons to kill innocents” or “we must make sure that US officials fear the prospect of a criminal investigation if they commit war crimes or other atrocities”.
And though it kills me to say it, the moustache of understanding (aka Tom Friedman) had an interesting column today. I don’t have time to post a link. Doing something doesn’t have to mean “bomb, bomb, bomb” Ir…excuse me, Syria.
And though it kills me to say it, the moustache of understanding (aka Tom Friedman) had an interesting column today. I don’t have time to post a link. Doing something doesn’t have to mean “bomb, bomb, bomb” Ir…excuse me, Syria.
Not that I liked all of it. The arming of rebels was “interesting” in a bad way.
Not that I liked all of it. The arming of rebels was “interesting” in a bad way.
Carelton, by the way, can you explain why Protocol II of the Geneva Conventions even exists? I believe that in your understanding, PII is completely unnecessary, right? Do you think 167 countries in the world are just ignorant about int’l law works?
Are you seriously arguing that explicitly agreeing to something that was already implicit (or became implicit later) is nonsensical, or that redundancy anywhere indicates that something is wrong?
Let’s have more fun with Authoritative Source wikipedia:
Similar concepts [to war crimes], such as perfidy, have existed for many centuries as customs between civilized countries, but these customs were first codified as international law in the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907.
Turb logic tells us that there cannot have been international norms later codified by a treaty, so this is clearly wrong. And furthermore, me thinking that international norms preceded the Hague Conventions just shows how I don’t understand international law.
Carelton or FuzzyFace or Sapient or someone: could you please cite which specific treaty (including section) you think Syria violated?
Reading comprehension check. I just wrote and you are responding to:
Do you recall the part where you agreed that some people think there are international norms that are binding regardless of which treaties were signed? I hate to belabor this point, but I keep saying it and you keep somehow not hearing it. I dont want to keep saying it, yet I dont know what to do when you categorically refuse to process that argument.
I mean, maybe it’s wrong, but ignoring it doesn’t strengthen the case against it.
I suspect that you think you’re making some clever rhetorical point by repeatedly asking a question that’s been answered rather than responding to that answer. I assure you, it does not look clever- it looks like you either aren’t reading other comments, or don’t want to engage on this point.
Not really. Customary int’l law exists. And norms exist. That doesn’t mean that violation of any particular norm justifies a war. Can you quote what specific bit I said and explain why you think I’ve contradicted myself please?
When you keep asking for a specific treaty signed by both parties, as if that were a requirement here, when Ive said repeatedly that I am not talking about a violation of a specific signed treaty. I didn’t say that you’d contradicted yourself, just that you earlier mentioned the existence of norms and had suddenly reverted to the above position where you repeatedly asked for a cite of a specific line as if that were the only possible justification.
Whether or not any particular violation of international norms justifies military intervention is a judgment call, since there isn’t a specific agreement to cite in support of it. It is put before the collective judgment of the population of that country and the international community; if it is transparently false, then it will be treated as such. If it is marginally true but transparently used with ulterior motives? Etc.
Is that the best system of international relations we could have? No, it isn’t. But it is actually the system that we have.
Harvard exposed me to ignorant assholes. The practice has served me well in the world
But not to the concept of politeness, apparently. I suppose I shouldnt be surprised that humility isn’t taught there though.
I think your argument here proves a bit too much. It would suggest that the US has never violated international law, that torture is totally cool, etc. I don’t think that’s true.
You’re thinking of your argument- note that I didn’t say this proved my position was correct, just that your assertion was wrong. I didn’t say everyone agrees with my position, just that everyone doesn’t agree with yours.
You see, you asserted that This is how people who deal with int’l law every day understand the terms. That is, you made a blanket assertion. Ive demonstrated that at least some people who deal with international law every day disagree with you, thus moving your argument from the specious attempt to assert authority to a place where you have to actually debate the point at hand.
I, personally, agree that many people have different views on the subject. Im glad you agree now too, although Im confused as to why you had to project your confusion on this point onto me before you could see it and correct it.
I apologize. I did not intend to condescend.
First rule of apologies- don’t follow them up by BSing. If you didn’t intend to condescend, then you have a serious communications problem. That, I mean genuinely- either you suck at apologies or your writing style is unintentionally offensive. But then, I suppose “are you on drugs?” was intended as medical advice/concern? Oops again, there.
People in Syria are going to die no matter what. I have yet to see an explanation for how the kind of military attack being discussed will reduce civilian deaths in Syria. Can you explain? I’ve asked several times before and you haven’t responded.
Really? I “haven’t responded”? Because what I see just above this is:
Practically, Im not sure that action makes sense here, or it would make things worse.
And similar statements further upthread. Several of them.
Because Im able to distinguish between whether the US would be justified in military action (ie what we’re arguing about) and whether it would be a good idea (ie what we’re not arguing about because I have no idea).
These are two entirely different things. Illegal and stupid are not synonyms.
don’t seem able to cite which specific legal code they violated? Does anyone else find that to be nutty? Every parking ticket I get cites the relevant code…you’d think that a war would be a little more important….
International law experts will tell you- international law is not like domestic law. It’s more like ‘domestic law’ during the hunter/gatherer or early agricultural human periods, where there are some rules about fairness and some ability for the group to pressure individuals who get out of line, but also blatant power grabs and widely varied enforcement of norms based on relationships.
People who make analogies to domestic law IMO are saying “I do not understand how international law works”. When are we going to throw Pakistan in Country Jail goddangit?
Did I say it was a war crime? I honestly don’t think I did, but I might have made a mistake…
And again- are you telling me that you don’t think that you did, but you didn’t look to see? Even though it’s quoted on this very page?
Do you know what we call bombing a country because they violated a norm? A war crime.
That’s you. Being more clearly, undeniably wrong about these matters than anyone else in the thread afaict. Which doesn’t mean you lose the right to argue your positions or anything, but maybe try not citing yourself as an authority quite so much?
I notice that this response is littered with places where you conveniently fail to notice things that have already been said by you or by others. This is a profoundly annoying pattern of behavior.
Carelton, by the way, can you explain why Protocol II of the Geneva Conventions even exists? I believe that in your understanding, PII is completely unnecessary, right? Do you think 167 countries in the world are just ignorant about int’l law works?
Are you seriously arguing that explicitly agreeing to something that was already implicit (or became implicit later) is nonsensical, or that redundancy anywhere indicates that something is wrong?
Let’s have more fun with Authoritative Source wikipedia:
Similar concepts [to war crimes], such as perfidy, have existed for many centuries as customs between civilized countries, but these customs were first codified as international law in the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907.
Turb logic tells us that there cannot have been international norms later codified by a treaty, so this is clearly wrong. And furthermore, me thinking that international norms preceded the Hague Conventions just shows how I don’t understand international law.
Carelton or FuzzyFace or Sapient or someone: could you please cite which specific treaty (including section) you think Syria violated?
Reading comprehension check. I just wrote and you are responding to:
Do you recall the part where you agreed that some people think there are international norms that are binding regardless of which treaties were signed? I hate to belabor this point, but I keep saying it and you keep somehow not hearing it. I dont want to keep saying it, yet I dont know what to do when you categorically refuse to process that argument.
I mean, maybe it’s wrong, but ignoring it doesn’t strengthen the case against it.
I suspect that you think you’re making some clever rhetorical point by repeatedly asking a question that’s been answered rather than responding to that answer. I assure you, it does not look clever- it looks like you either aren’t reading other comments, or don’t want to engage on this point.
Not really. Customary int’l law exists. And norms exist. That doesn’t mean that violation of any particular norm justifies a war. Can you quote what specific bit I said and explain why you think I’ve contradicted myself please?
When you keep asking for a specific treaty signed by both parties, as if that were a requirement here, when Ive said repeatedly that I am not talking about a violation of a specific signed treaty. I didn’t say that you’d contradicted yourself, just that you earlier mentioned the existence of norms and had suddenly reverted to the above position where you repeatedly asked for a cite of a specific line as if that were the only possible justification.
Whether or not any particular violation of international norms justifies military intervention is a judgment call, since there isn’t a specific agreement to cite in support of it. It is put before the collective judgment of the population of that country and the international community; if it is transparently false, then it will be treated as such. If it is marginally true but transparently used with ulterior motives? Etc.
Is that the best system of international relations we could have? No, it isn’t. But it is actually the system that we have.
Harvard exposed me to ignorant assholes. The practice has served me well in the world
But not to the concept of politeness, apparently. I suppose I shouldnt be surprised that humility isn’t taught there though.
I think your argument here proves a bit too much. It would suggest that the US has never violated international law, that torture is totally cool, etc. I don’t think that’s true.
You’re thinking of your argument- note that I didn’t say this proved my position was correct, just that your assertion was wrong. I didn’t say everyone agrees with my position, just that everyone doesn’t agree with yours.
You see, you asserted that This is how people who deal with int’l law every day understand the terms. That is, you made a blanket assertion. Ive demonstrated that at least some people who deal with international law every day disagree with you, thus moving your argument from the specious attempt to assert authority to a place where you have to actually debate the point at hand.
I, personally, agree that many people have different views on the subject. Im glad you agree now too, although Im confused as to why you had to project your confusion on this point onto me before you could see it and correct it.
I apologize. I did not intend to condescend.
First rule of apologies- don’t follow them up by BSing. If you didn’t intend to condescend, then you have a serious communications problem. That, I mean genuinely- either you suck at apologies or your writing style is unintentionally offensive. But then, I suppose “are you on drugs?” was intended as medical advice/concern? Oops again, there.
People in Syria are going to die no matter what. I have yet to see an explanation for how the kind of military attack being discussed will reduce civilian deaths in Syria. Can you explain? I’ve asked several times before and you haven’t responded.
Really? I “haven’t responded”? Because what I see just above this is:
Practically, Im not sure that action makes sense here, or it would make things worse.
And similar statements further upthread. Several of them.
Because Im able to distinguish between whether the US would be justified in military action (ie what we’re arguing about) and whether it would be a good idea (ie what we’re not arguing about because I have no idea).
These are two entirely different things. Illegal and stupid are not synonyms.
don’t seem able to cite which specific legal code they violated? Does anyone else find that to be nutty? Every parking ticket I get cites the relevant code…you’d think that a war would be a little more important….
International law experts will tell you- international law is not like domestic law. It’s more like ‘domestic law’ during the hunter/gatherer or early agricultural human periods, where there are some rules about fairness and some ability for the group to pressure individuals who get out of line, but also blatant power grabs and widely varied enforcement of norms based on relationships.
People who make analogies to domestic law IMO are saying “I do not understand how international law works”. When are we going to throw Pakistan in Country Jail goddangit?
Did I say it was a war crime? I honestly don’t think I did, but I might have made a mistake…
And again- are you telling me that you don’t think that you did, but you didn’t look to see? Even though it’s quoted on this very page?
Do you know what we call bombing a country because they violated a norm? A war crime.
That’s you. Being more clearly, undeniably wrong about these matters than anyone else in the thread afaict. Which doesn’t mean you lose the right to argue your positions or anything, but maybe try not citing yourself as an authority quite so much?
I notice that this response is littered with places where you conveniently fail to notice things that have already been said by you or by others. This is a profoundly annoying pattern of behavior.
Are you seriously arguing that explicitly agreeing to something that was already implicit (or became implicit later) is nonsensical, or that redundancy anywhere indicates that something is wrong?
Let me be clear:
I don’t think a “norm” is sufficient justification for killing someone or bombing a country or starting a war. I think that doing any of those things requires explicit legal authorization. That assessment is based on what I’ve read about how int’l law is constructed and understood by participants.
My neighbor is emotionally abusive to his wife. He’s an asshole. But he hasn’t committed any crimes and even though he’s violated the “be decent to your family” norm, I’m not justified in beating him up or firebombing his house. I’m just not. You can’t threaten people with lethal violence for violating unwritten rules…this is foundational. If you want to hold people accountable to rules, you write them down. If the int’l community doesn’t have enough of consensus to write down “norms” as treaties, then…
Likewise, we cannot justify a war based on an unwritten norm. Wars, if they’re going to be legal, require explicit legal authorization in the form of written treaties. Norms beyond what is written down can certainly exist, but cannot be used to legally justify killing people.
I think this is a fundamental disagreement between you and I. I don’t think we’re going to resolve it here, so I’m going to let the matter drop.
You originally claimed that Syria’s actions constitute a war crime, even though they took place in a civil war. My claim is that if your analysis was correct, Protocol II doesn’t make any sense: if killing civilians in a civil war has always been a war crime, why bother codify it in Protocol II? The reality is clear: before PII, the Geneva Conventions’ definition of war crimes was understood to not apply in civil wars.
Finally, I don’t understand how the US can start a war against Syria for killing civilians in a civil war when the US doesn’t believe that such conduct is wrong. If the US did believe such conduct was wrong, it would have ratified Protocol II, just like almost every other country in the world. But the US government hasn’t done that.
Are you seriously arguing that explicitly agreeing to something that was already implicit (or became implicit later) is nonsensical, or that redundancy anywhere indicates that something is wrong?
Let me be clear:
I don’t think a “norm” is sufficient justification for killing someone or bombing a country or starting a war. I think that doing any of those things requires explicit legal authorization. That assessment is based on what I’ve read about how int’l law is constructed and understood by participants.
My neighbor is emotionally abusive to his wife. He’s an asshole. But he hasn’t committed any crimes and even though he’s violated the “be decent to your family” norm, I’m not justified in beating him up or firebombing his house. I’m just not. You can’t threaten people with lethal violence for violating unwritten rules…this is foundational. If you want to hold people accountable to rules, you write them down. If the int’l community doesn’t have enough of consensus to write down “norms” as treaties, then…
Likewise, we cannot justify a war based on an unwritten norm. Wars, if they’re going to be legal, require explicit legal authorization in the form of written treaties. Norms beyond what is written down can certainly exist, but cannot be used to legally justify killing people.
I think this is a fundamental disagreement between you and I. I don’t think we’re going to resolve it here, so I’m going to let the matter drop.
You originally claimed that Syria’s actions constitute a war crime, even though they took place in a civil war. My claim is that if your analysis was correct, Protocol II doesn’t make any sense: if killing civilians in a civil war has always been a war crime, why bother codify it in Protocol II? The reality is clear: before PII, the Geneva Conventions’ definition of war crimes was understood to not apply in civil wars.
Finally, I don’t understand how the US can start a war against Syria for killing civilians in a civil war when the US doesn’t believe that such conduct is wrong. If the US did believe such conduct was wrong, it would have ratified Protocol II, just like almost every other country in the world. But the US government hasn’t done that.
I’m trying to get a handle on this whole ‘norms justify wars’ thing. We have norms. OK. How much int’l consensus do we need on those norms before they’re strong enough to justify a war?
I mean, we have a norm that dictatorships are unjust, right? Everyone here (I assume?) agrees with that norm. Does that provide every democracy in the world with legal justification for overthrowing any dictatorship they want? Like, Russia (a nominal democracy) could overthrow Saudi Arabia tomorrow, and it be totally legal?
I assume it doesn’t…so why not? How many countries have to agree to a norm before it can be used to justify a war? Or is the threshold based on population size? Also, I’m unclear on how we know that countries actually believe in norms absent a formal commitment (like a treaty). Do we just assume that all countries approve of all norms?
I’m trying to get a handle on this whole ‘norms justify wars’ thing. We have norms. OK. How much int’l consensus do we need on those norms before they’re strong enough to justify a war?
I mean, we have a norm that dictatorships are unjust, right? Everyone here (I assume?) agrees with that norm. Does that provide every democracy in the world with legal justification for overthrowing any dictatorship they want? Like, Russia (a nominal democracy) could overthrow Saudi Arabia tomorrow, and it be totally legal?
I assume it doesn’t…so why not? How many countries have to agree to a norm before it can be used to justify a war? Or is the threshold based on population size? Also, I’m unclear on how we know that countries actually believe in norms absent a formal commitment (like a treaty). Do we just assume that all countries approve of all norms?
The President’s words:
” What message will we send if a dictator can gas hundreds of children to death in plain sight and pay no price? What’s the purpose of the international system that we’ve built if a prohibition on the use of chemical weapons that has been agreed to by the governments of 98 percent of the world’s people and approved overwhelmingly by the Congress of the United States is not enforced?
Make no mistake–this has implications beyond chemical warfare. If we won’t enforce accountability in the face of this heinous act, what does it say about our resolve to stand up to others who flout fundamental international rules? To governments who would choose to build nuclear arms? To terrorists who would spread biological weapons? To armies who carry out genocide?”
They resonate with me. All good, compelling points. However, taken to their logical conclusion, symbolic acts are just slightly less immoral than doing nothing. The only moral act is prevention, or something in that general class.
These are words whose first audience should be the UN, with a bold call for a true international force that will prevent/punish this a future uses of WMD against civilians.
If the UN won’t listen, then his audience is the American people, seeking a mandate to build a permanent coalition to prevent/punish this kind of conduct.
If he opts for neither, then these are empty words, from an empty president hoist by his own rhetoric.
The President’s words:
” What message will we send if a dictator can gas hundreds of children to death in plain sight and pay no price? What’s the purpose of the international system that we’ve built if a prohibition on the use of chemical weapons that has been agreed to by the governments of 98 percent of the world’s people and approved overwhelmingly by the Congress of the United States is not enforced?
Make no mistake–this has implications beyond chemical warfare. If we won’t enforce accountability in the face of this heinous act, what does it say about our resolve to stand up to others who flout fundamental international rules? To governments who would choose to build nuclear arms? To terrorists who would spread biological weapons? To armies who carry out genocide?”
They resonate with me. All good, compelling points. However, taken to their logical conclusion, symbolic acts are just slightly less immoral than doing nothing. The only moral act is prevention, or something in that general class.
These are words whose first audience should be the UN, with a bold call for a true international force that will prevent/punish this a future uses of WMD against civilians.
If the UN won’t listen, then his audience is the American people, seeking a mandate to build a permanent coalition to prevent/punish this kind of conduct.
If he opts for neither, then these are empty words, from an empty president hoist by his own rhetoric.
I don’t think a “norm” is sufficient justification for killing someone or bombing a country or starting a war. I think that doing any of those things requires explicit legal authorization. That assessment is based on what I’ve read about how int’l law is constructed and understood by participants.
Countries obviously went to war long before there were treaties codifying international law. Perhaps all of those wars were ‘illegal’. I believe that you’re saying that if the US had attacked Germany to prevent/stop the Holocaust that we would’ve been in the wrong, since there was no treaty preventing the Germans from committing genocide. Correct?
The idea that treaties form some sort of international legal structure is relatively new- based on what Ive read etc countries use the legal/legitimacy structures available to them (eg the Balkans intervention under NATO auspices). This is what actually happens, partially because countries aren’t restricted by academic interpretation of treaties and partially because international law is just not codified and interpreted in a consistent way that would allow for a universally recognized violation (let alone enforcement) regime.
You can grant some of these military actions/justifications your personal stamp of legitimacy and deny it to others. I don’t even mean that facetiously, everyone makes judgments about what they think is a legitimate use of military force based on treaties, norms, precedents, threats, etc. For example, Bush II’s invocation of the principle of use of force to forestall an ‘imminent threat’ from Iraq in 2003 was IMO very wrong. But that’s just IMO, there’s no court to sit in judgment over the case. I find myself arguing the specifics of the matter, and don’t think there’d be much point in just saying “It’s an illegal expansion of the definition of imminent threat and all the experts agree with me.”
My claim is that if your analysis was correct, Protocol II doesn’t make any sense: if killing civilians in a civil war has always been a war crime, why bother codify it in Protocol II? The reality is clear: before PII, the Geneva Conventions’ definition of war crimes was understood to not apply in civil wars.
And my counter is that international norms existed before the Hague Conventions. Written rules and unwritten norms can coexist, and either can come before the other. They certainly do influence each other. Your argument appears to me to be that they cannot coexist, or specifically that a written agreement cannot become an unwritten norm over time.
I agree that, in the past when these rules were created, they didn’t apply to civil wars. If there are any unwritten international norms, then surely there was a time when those norms didn’t exist, and if that nonexistent period invalidates this norm then it invalidates all norms.
I dont know why you feel the need to put the silly statement “killing civilians in a civil war has always been a war crime” in my mouth, other than it is much easier to argue against than what I actually said. Norms evolve. They can even evolve from treaties. There is no logic to your assertion that Protocol II prevents there from being a current norm against attacks on civilians during a civil war.
Also, from the wikipedia article on Protocol II: According to an appeal by the International Committee of the Red Cross in 1997, a number of the articles contained in both protocols are recognized as rules of customary international law valid for all states, whether or not they have ratified them.
The International Committee of the Red Cross- yet another group of people who don’t understand the basics of international law and advocate for an obviously nonsensical position about international norms. I mean, here they are saying that the some of the standards of a signed treaty have become norms, when that clearly is illogical to anyone who’s taken a class on the subject. Maybe they’re on drugs?
Finally, I don’t understand how the US can start a war against Syria for killing civilians in a civil war when the US doesn’t believe that such conduct is wrong. If the US did believe such conduct was wrong, it would have ratified Protocol II, just like almost every other country in the world. But the US government hasn’t done that.
I don’t know why the US hasn’t ratified protocol II (all I can recall is some disputes over the definitions of internal conflicts, and I dont even remember where I read that). I don’t know that “hasn’t ratified protocol II” and “believes that gassing your own population in a civil war is grounds for intervention” are necessarily mutually exclusive. And Im certain that statements such as “the US believes X” are fundamentally flawed, there are a multitude of opinions in the US, and it’s perfectly possible for eg the President to believe this while the Senate does not, or even for the President and a majority of the Senate to believe it, but not the supermajority required to ratify a treaty.
I don’t think a “norm” is sufficient justification for killing someone or bombing a country or starting a war. I think that doing any of those things requires explicit legal authorization. That assessment is based on what I’ve read about how int’l law is constructed and understood by participants.
Countries obviously went to war long before there were treaties codifying international law. Perhaps all of those wars were ‘illegal’. I believe that you’re saying that if the US had attacked Germany to prevent/stop the Holocaust that we would’ve been in the wrong, since there was no treaty preventing the Germans from committing genocide. Correct?
The idea that treaties form some sort of international legal structure is relatively new- based on what Ive read etc countries use the legal/legitimacy structures available to them (eg the Balkans intervention under NATO auspices). This is what actually happens, partially because countries aren’t restricted by academic interpretation of treaties and partially because international law is just not codified and interpreted in a consistent way that would allow for a universally recognized violation (let alone enforcement) regime.
You can grant some of these military actions/justifications your personal stamp of legitimacy and deny it to others. I don’t even mean that facetiously, everyone makes judgments about what they think is a legitimate use of military force based on treaties, norms, precedents, threats, etc. For example, Bush II’s invocation of the principle of use of force to forestall an ‘imminent threat’ from Iraq in 2003 was IMO very wrong. But that’s just IMO, there’s no court to sit in judgment over the case. I find myself arguing the specifics of the matter, and don’t think there’d be much point in just saying “It’s an illegal expansion of the definition of imminent threat and all the experts agree with me.”
My claim is that if your analysis was correct, Protocol II doesn’t make any sense: if killing civilians in a civil war has always been a war crime, why bother codify it in Protocol II? The reality is clear: before PII, the Geneva Conventions’ definition of war crimes was understood to not apply in civil wars.
And my counter is that international norms existed before the Hague Conventions. Written rules and unwritten norms can coexist, and either can come before the other. They certainly do influence each other. Your argument appears to me to be that they cannot coexist, or specifically that a written agreement cannot become an unwritten norm over time.
I agree that, in the past when these rules were created, they didn’t apply to civil wars. If there are any unwritten international norms, then surely there was a time when those norms didn’t exist, and if that nonexistent period invalidates this norm then it invalidates all norms.
I dont know why you feel the need to put the silly statement “killing civilians in a civil war has always been a war crime” in my mouth, other than it is much easier to argue against than what I actually said. Norms evolve. They can even evolve from treaties. There is no logic to your assertion that Protocol II prevents there from being a current norm against attacks on civilians during a civil war.
Also, from the wikipedia article on Protocol II: According to an appeal by the International Committee of the Red Cross in 1997, a number of the articles contained in both protocols are recognized as rules of customary international law valid for all states, whether or not they have ratified them.
The International Committee of the Red Cross- yet another group of people who don’t understand the basics of international law and advocate for an obviously nonsensical position about international norms. I mean, here they are saying that the some of the standards of a signed treaty have become norms, when that clearly is illogical to anyone who’s taken a class on the subject. Maybe they’re on drugs?
Finally, I don’t understand how the US can start a war against Syria for killing civilians in a civil war when the US doesn’t believe that such conduct is wrong. If the US did believe such conduct was wrong, it would have ratified Protocol II, just like almost every other country in the world. But the US government hasn’t done that.
I don’t know why the US hasn’t ratified protocol II (all I can recall is some disputes over the definitions of internal conflicts, and I dont even remember where I read that). I don’t know that “hasn’t ratified protocol II” and “believes that gassing your own population in a civil war is grounds for intervention” are necessarily mutually exclusive. And Im certain that statements such as “the US believes X” are fundamentally flawed, there are a multitude of opinions in the US, and it’s perfectly possible for eg the President to believe this while the Senate does not, or even for the President and a majority of the Senate to believe it, but not the supermajority required to ratify a treaty.
I’m trying to get a handle on this whole ‘norms justify wars’ thing. We have norms. OK. How much int’l consensus do we need on those norms before they’re strong enough to justify a war?
….
How many countries have to agree to a norm before it can be used to justify a war?
I think this is based on the idea that there is a coherent legal order to relations between nations. But there is no impartial court that can hear these cases, no body of law by which to judge, no codified punishments to apply. The international community is (as I said) like a small group of people on an island. They may have some agreements, and some customs, and some standards of behavior. They may agree collectively on some cases and disagree strongly about others. Force and faction play as much (or more) of a role in determining what’s done and what’s legitimate than custom or treaty.
Even you, in saying that X is an illegal action or Y is not, are acting as a judge over events. Which I would say is what we all do- countries and individuals. But there is no actual, legitimated court to issue an authoritative judgment that your view is correct or not.
Id be very happy with a coherent, respected legal structure to interational relations. One that had enough legitimacy to inspire cooperation even when individual nations disagreed with decisions. One that could count on its consituent countries to back it up with the force required to make its pronouncements stick.
But that is not the world we live in, and we’re not even close. So yes, we’re stuck in a world where countries take actions and articulate their grounds for doing so, and other countries (and populations) decide how valid those grounds are- and what the risks and implications of intervening are- and act accordingly.
So I think it’s fine for you to say that you don’t think we have grounds to intervene in Syria, either because we havent ratified P2 or because we should act through the UNSC or whatever else you might have for an opinion. I would disagree, but I disagree much more vehemently with the assertion that this is all agreed to by people who ‘really understand’ international law, or that there are robust international institutions which have the legitimacy to decide these matters.
I suppose Im impassioned about this point precisely because I do hope for stronger international standards and coordinated actions someday. The idea that Assad is fine to commit whatever barbarities in Syria that he’d like, immune from intervention by other countries because there isn’t a specific treaty covering this situation does not work for me.
I’m trying to get a handle on this whole ‘norms justify wars’ thing. We have norms. OK. How much int’l consensus do we need on those norms before they’re strong enough to justify a war?
….
How many countries have to agree to a norm before it can be used to justify a war?
I think this is based on the idea that there is a coherent legal order to relations between nations. But there is no impartial court that can hear these cases, no body of law by which to judge, no codified punishments to apply. The international community is (as I said) like a small group of people on an island. They may have some agreements, and some customs, and some standards of behavior. They may agree collectively on some cases and disagree strongly about others. Force and faction play as much (or more) of a role in determining what’s done and what’s legitimate than custom or treaty.
Even you, in saying that X is an illegal action or Y is not, are acting as a judge over events. Which I would say is what we all do- countries and individuals. But there is no actual, legitimated court to issue an authoritative judgment that your view is correct or not.
Id be very happy with a coherent, respected legal structure to interational relations. One that had enough legitimacy to inspire cooperation even when individual nations disagreed with decisions. One that could count on its consituent countries to back it up with the force required to make its pronouncements stick.
But that is not the world we live in, and we’re not even close. So yes, we’re stuck in a world where countries take actions and articulate their grounds for doing so, and other countries (and populations) decide how valid those grounds are- and what the risks and implications of intervening are- and act accordingly.
So I think it’s fine for you to say that you don’t think we have grounds to intervene in Syria, either because we havent ratified P2 or because we should act through the UNSC or whatever else you might have for an opinion. I would disagree, but I disagree much more vehemently with the assertion that this is all agreed to by people who ‘really understand’ international law, or that there are robust international institutions which have the legitimacy to decide these matters.
I suppose Im impassioned about this point precisely because I do hope for stronger international standards and coordinated actions someday. The idea that Assad is fine to commit whatever barbarities in Syria that he’d like, immune from intervention by other countries because there isn’t a specific treaty covering this situation does not work for me.
All of which does not speak well of them. But I don’t understand how they can be considered to be bound by the conditions outlined in any of those treaties or conventions.
Maybe somebody else can explain it to me.
How about this: if Assad invented an entirely new class of weapons- not covered by any treaty- and deployed it against his own civilians, then I think we/NATO/the UN would have cause to intervene. Not because of a particular treaty, but because mass killing of civilians is an evil thing that should be prevented if possible and punished if possible.
It would be great if everyone signed a treaty that said this, even better if it had mandatory enforcement mechanisms. It would be much better if such things were enforced globally without regard to alliances and politics.
But I still regard this as a true thing. And contra Turb, I believe that this is a widely-held view of legitimate action (at least in the West). After WWII, we literally made up new categories of ‘crimes’ to deal with the way that our view of the world had changed. This is consistent with that new worldview- not a novel invention of yesterday to deal with the situation in Syria.
All of which does not speak well of them. But I don’t understand how they can be considered to be bound by the conditions outlined in any of those treaties or conventions.
Maybe somebody else can explain it to me.
How about this: if Assad invented an entirely new class of weapons- not covered by any treaty- and deployed it against his own civilians, then I think we/NATO/the UN would have cause to intervene. Not because of a particular treaty, but because mass killing of civilians is an evil thing that should be prevented if possible and punished if possible.
It would be great if everyone signed a treaty that said this, even better if it had mandatory enforcement mechanisms. It would be much better if such things were enforced globally without regard to alliances and politics.
But I still regard this as a true thing. And contra Turb, I believe that this is a widely-held view of legitimate action (at least in the West). After WWII, we literally made up new categories of ‘crimes’ to deal with the way that our view of the world had changed. This is consistent with that new worldview- not a novel invention of yesterday to deal with the situation in Syria.
Countries obviously went to war long before there were treaties codifying international law. Perhaps all of those wars were ‘illegal’.
I don’t think those wars were illegal; if you do something that is not against the law, you’re not breaking the law.
I believe that you’re saying that if the US had attacked Germany to prevent/stop the Holocaust that we would’ve been in the wrong, since there was no treaty preventing the Germans from committing genocide. Correct?
Wrong.
I’m saying that if, in 1942, the US had ratified the UN Charter and committed itself to not starting wars unless they were in self-defense or with UNSC approval, then invading Germany (absent UNSC approval) would have been illegal. That’s different than saying it would have been wrong. Legality is different than morality.
Of course, the US did not and would not invade Germany to stop the Holocaust. The US generally doesn’t care about genocide. Note its behavior during Rwanda.
Written rules and unwritten norms can coexist, and either can come before the other. They certainly do influence each other.
Certainly norms and formal rules can coexist. I agree with you that they both feedback on each other: formal rules are unlikely to be written and widely adopted in the absence of norms with strong consensus. And getting everyone to sign on to a treaty cements those norms. The flip side though is that in the absence of formal written agreements, norms can easily be…ephemeral. Who is to say what is a norm and what the consequences for violation should be?
That’s what I’m trying to get at with my Russia invading Saudi Arabia question: we have a widely shared norm. If widely shared norms are sufficient to justify wars, then why would that war be wrong? If your answer is ‘powerful countries decide these things according to their own interests’, then why bother with rulemaking and treaties at all? We can just let powerful countries decide everything on a case by case basis…
Your argument appears to me to be that they cannot coexist, or specifically that a written agreement cannot become an unwritten norm over time.
I don’t follow you here…written agreements reflect norms. Norms can certainly evolve over time. But that doesn’t change the treaty text. Norms don’t bind anyone the way written treaties do. If you want to update a treaty as a norm changes over time, then you do what the PII folks did and get countries to ratify an extension. If you can’t do that, then your claims about the norm evolving are wrong.
I agree that, in the past when these rules were created, they didn’t apply to civil wars.
Thank you for that.
If there are any unwritten international norms, then surely there was a time when those norms didn’t exist, and if that nonexistent period invalidates this norm then it invalidates all norms.
I don’t think we disagree on whether norms exist. They certainly do. We disagree on whether norms, by themselves, can justify a war.
There is no logic to your assertion that Protocol II prevents there from being a current norm against attacks on civilians during a civil war.
I have never made this assertion. I have claimed that PII’s existence means that the int’l community did not believe that the GC protections of civilians applied to civil wars before PII.
a number of the articles contained in both protocols are recognized as rules of customary international law valid for all states, whether or not they have ratified them.
Yes, I agree with that. I’ve written several times in this thread about customary int’l law. I thought I’d been clear, but I’ll reiterate my position: what Syria did violates PII, and regardless of whether they’ve ratified it, I think that means they’ve committed a war crime.
My point here is that US government does not think that’s true.
I mean, here they are saying that the some of the standards of a signed treaty have become norms, when that clearly is illogical to anyone who’s taken a class on the subject.
No. They do not say those standards “have become norms”. They say that those treaties are treated as customary int’l law. Which means that the treaty text is considered binding on all countries, regardless of whether they’ve ratified the treaty. The thing that is binding is the treaty, not the norm. Customary int’l law (really the subset that is jus cogens — apologies for my sloppy mixing of the two terms earlier) refers to specific treaties.
Countries obviously went to war long before there were treaties codifying international law. Perhaps all of those wars were ‘illegal’.
I don’t think those wars were illegal; if you do something that is not against the law, you’re not breaking the law.
I believe that you’re saying that if the US had attacked Germany to prevent/stop the Holocaust that we would’ve been in the wrong, since there was no treaty preventing the Germans from committing genocide. Correct?
Wrong.
I’m saying that if, in 1942, the US had ratified the UN Charter and committed itself to not starting wars unless they were in self-defense or with UNSC approval, then invading Germany (absent UNSC approval) would have been illegal. That’s different than saying it would have been wrong. Legality is different than morality.
Of course, the US did not and would not invade Germany to stop the Holocaust. The US generally doesn’t care about genocide. Note its behavior during Rwanda.
Written rules and unwritten norms can coexist, and either can come before the other. They certainly do influence each other.
Certainly norms and formal rules can coexist. I agree with you that they both feedback on each other: formal rules are unlikely to be written and widely adopted in the absence of norms with strong consensus. And getting everyone to sign on to a treaty cements those norms. The flip side though is that in the absence of formal written agreements, norms can easily be…ephemeral. Who is to say what is a norm and what the consequences for violation should be?
That’s what I’m trying to get at with my Russia invading Saudi Arabia question: we have a widely shared norm. If widely shared norms are sufficient to justify wars, then why would that war be wrong? If your answer is ‘powerful countries decide these things according to their own interests’, then why bother with rulemaking and treaties at all? We can just let powerful countries decide everything on a case by case basis…
Your argument appears to me to be that they cannot coexist, or specifically that a written agreement cannot become an unwritten norm over time.
I don’t follow you here…written agreements reflect norms. Norms can certainly evolve over time. But that doesn’t change the treaty text. Norms don’t bind anyone the way written treaties do. If you want to update a treaty as a norm changes over time, then you do what the PII folks did and get countries to ratify an extension. If you can’t do that, then your claims about the norm evolving are wrong.
I agree that, in the past when these rules were created, they didn’t apply to civil wars.
Thank you for that.
If there are any unwritten international norms, then surely there was a time when those norms didn’t exist, and if that nonexistent period invalidates this norm then it invalidates all norms.
I don’t think we disagree on whether norms exist. They certainly do. We disagree on whether norms, by themselves, can justify a war.
There is no logic to your assertion that Protocol II prevents there from being a current norm against attacks on civilians during a civil war.
I have never made this assertion. I have claimed that PII’s existence means that the int’l community did not believe that the GC protections of civilians applied to civil wars before PII.
a number of the articles contained in both protocols are recognized as rules of customary international law valid for all states, whether or not they have ratified them.
Yes, I agree with that. I’ve written several times in this thread about customary int’l law. I thought I’d been clear, but I’ll reiterate my position: what Syria did violates PII, and regardless of whether they’ve ratified it, I think that means they’ve committed a war crime.
My point here is that US government does not think that’s true.
I mean, here they are saying that the some of the standards of a signed treaty have become norms, when that clearly is illogical to anyone who’s taken a class on the subject.
No. They do not say those standards “have become norms”. They say that those treaties are treated as customary int’l law. Which means that the treaty text is considered binding on all countries, regardless of whether they’ve ratified the treaty. The thing that is binding is the treaty, not the norm. Customary int’l law (really the subset that is jus cogens — apologies for my sloppy mixing of the two terms earlier) refers to specific treaties.
I don’t know why the US hasn’t ratified protocol II (all I can recall is some disputes over the definitions of internal conflicts, and I dont even remember where I read that).
We’re going to kill people based on this norm even though we don’t agree what it is?
I don’t know that “hasn’t ratified protocol II” and “believes that gassing your own population in a civil war is grounds for intervention” are necessarily mutually exclusive.
PII is older than I am. It has been over three decades. In that time, the US has failed to ratify PII. It has failed to offer up an alternative version that it could support. It has failed to get PII amended. It has failed to even explain why it refuses to ratify PII. At some point, after three decades of failure, we have to be willing to look at the US government and say ‘they don’t care about this’.
And Im certain that statements such as “the US believes X” are fundamentally flawed, there are a multitude of opinions in the US, and it’s perfectly possible for eg the President to believe this while the Senate does not, or even for the President and a majority of the Senate to believe it, but not the supermajority required to ratify a treaty.
I get that different presidents have different priorities. I get that the Senate is where common sense legislation goes to die. I get that treaty ratifications can be tough. But you know what? The US still ratifies lots of treaties. WIPO is a big deal. Bilateral trade treaties get signed regularly.
Consider the statement “the US government believes in free trade”. Is that true? There are, after all, multiple opinions in the US. And yet the US has signed and ratified lots of free trade treaties, etc.
I don’t know why the US hasn’t ratified protocol II (all I can recall is some disputes over the definitions of internal conflicts, and I dont even remember where I read that).
We’re going to kill people based on this norm even though we don’t agree what it is?
I don’t know that “hasn’t ratified protocol II” and “believes that gassing your own population in a civil war is grounds for intervention” are necessarily mutually exclusive.
PII is older than I am. It has been over three decades. In that time, the US has failed to ratify PII. It has failed to offer up an alternative version that it could support. It has failed to get PII amended. It has failed to even explain why it refuses to ratify PII. At some point, after three decades of failure, we have to be willing to look at the US government and say ‘they don’t care about this’.
And Im certain that statements such as “the US believes X” are fundamentally flawed, there are a multitude of opinions in the US, and it’s perfectly possible for eg the President to believe this while the Senate does not, or even for the President and a majority of the Senate to believe it, but not the supermajority required to ratify a treaty.
I get that different presidents have different priorities. I get that the Senate is where common sense legislation goes to die. I get that treaty ratifications can be tough. But you know what? The US still ratifies lots of treaties. WIPO is a big deal. Bilateral trade treaties get signed regularly.
Consider the statement “the US government believes in free trade”. Is that true? There are, after all, multiple opinions in the US. And yet the US has signed and ratified lots of free trade treaties, etc.
The lefty rag “Jacobin” casts some doubt on the humanitarian accomplishments of the Libyan intervention–
link
The lefty rag “Jacobin” casts some doubt on the humanitarian accomplishments of the Libyan intervention–
link
are you ready?
are you up for some regime change?
are you ready?
are you up for some regime change?
So, assuming there were some solution to the problems in Syria the United States could implement, could it be morally justified in doing so, even if it weren’t legal?
And what does legality mean, other than you can do whatever you can get away with, given the internationally perceived legality of what you do, or whether anyone cares enough either way to do something about it?
My thinking is that law is means by which morality can be enforced, even if not a perfect means. Depending on how imperfect, it may still be worthwhile, though no guarantee.
Yes, willful violation of the law, simply because of the lack of consequences, can weaken the law. But it’s a matter of perception, which depends on how egregious others think the violation is.
It’s more like a bungy cord than a chain. A chain either stops you short or you break it. A bungy cord can be stretched to a point, and the stronger you are, the further you can stretch it short of breaking it.
Codification makes the bungy cord stronger, by making perceptions less subjective, given the point of view of the observer or the passage of time. Continuing to stretch it repeatedly and/or closer to its breaking point weakens it.
I don’t think anyone is suggesting that the United States should ignore completely codified international law simply because it just doesn’t matter. I think people are simply saying that there are other considerations, based on morality and how much international support that morality buys.
It’s also possible that doing something that is, strictly speaking, “illegal,” according to international law, as written, could lead to the law itself being changed for the better.
With all that, I think our options for doing anything good in Syria are FUBAR.
So, assuming there were some solution to the problems in Syria the United States could implement, could it be morally justified in doing so, even if it weren’t legal?
And what does legality mean, other than you can do whatever you can get away with, given the internationally perceived legality of what you do, or whether anyone cares enough either way to do something about it?
My thinking is that law is means by which morality can be enforced, even if not a perfect means. Depending on how imperfect, it may still be worthwhile, though no guarantee.
Yes, willful violation of the law, simply because of the lack of consequences, can weaken the law. But it’s a matter of perception, which depends on how egregious others think the violation is.
It’s more like a bungy cord than a chain. A chain either stops you short or you break it. A bungy cord can be stretched to a point, and the stronger you are, the further you can stretch it short of breaking it.
Codification makes the bungy cord stronger, by making perceptions less subjective, given the point of view of the observer or the passage of time. Continuing to stretch it repeatedly and/or closer to its breaking point weakens it.
I don’t think anyone is suggesting that the United States should ignore completely codified international law simply because it just doesn’t matter. I think people are simply saying that there are other considerations, based on morality and how much international support that morality buys.
It’s also possible that doing something that is, strictly speaking, “illegal,” according to international law, as written, could lead to the law itself being changed for the better.
With all that, I think our options for doing anything good in Syria are FUBAR.
make that “bungee”
make that “bungee”
Thanks, Cleek,
Yikes. This is shaping up to deja vu all over again. Some air strikes to say, “You bad!” are one thing. Language that opens the door to boots on the ground for regime change is something else altogether.
Once again, I just can’t believe it. I just can’t believe that the US would stupid enough to get involved in another regime change fiasco. But maybe I’m the stupid one for having unrealistic expectations. I am about to write to my Senators about this.
Thanks, Cleek,
Yikes. This is shaping up to deja vu all over again. Some air strikes to say, “You bad!” are one thing. Language that opens the door to boots on the ground for regime change is something else altogether.
Once again, I just can’t believe it. I just can’t believe that the US would stupid enough to get involved in another regime change fiasco. But maybe I’m the stupid one for having unrealistic expectations. I am about to write to my Senators about this.
what Syria did violates PII, and regardless of whether they’ve ratified it, I think that means they’ve committed a war crime.
Ok, first, I have a hard time fitting that in with your earlier statement: Syria hasn’t committed war crimes. Because it is not involved in a war with another state. Link so you won’t have to wonder whether you actually wrote that. At the time, you made quite the fuss about how your Havard class on war crimes law made your determination quite definitive.
You have an admirable dedication to whatever point you happen to be making at a given point in time, I will grant you that.
what Syria did violates PII, and regardless of whether they’ve ratified it, I think that means they’ve committed a war crime.
Ok, first, I have a hard time fitting that in with your earlier statement: Syria hasn’t committed war crimes. Because it is not involved in a war with another state. Link so you won’t have to wonder whether you actually wrote that. At the time, you made quite the fuss about how your Havard class on war crimes law made your determination quite definitive.
You have an admirable dedication to whatever point you happen to be making at a given point in time, I will grant you that.
Continuing on though- are you saying that if the US had ratified GC PII, that we’d be justified in using force? I don’t see that that follows from your other statements, it seems like our membership in the UN would continue to preclude action.
I think that this would give the UNSC far too much power, and would exacerbate the current problem where only poor nations without strong patrons have international standards enforced upon them. Speaking practically.
Continuing on though- are you saying that if the US had ratified GC PII, that we’d be justified in using force? I don’t see that that follows from your other statements, it seems like our membership in the UN would continue to preclude action.
I think that this would give the UNSC far too much power, and would exacerbate the current problem where only poor nations without strong patrons have international standards enforced upon them. Speaking practically.
No. They do not say those standards “have become norms”. They say that those treaties are treated as customary int’l law. Which means that the treaty text is considered binding on all countries, regardless of whether they’ve ratified the treaty. The thing that is binding is the treaty, not the norm.
Im not sure there is a technical definition for “international norms” that excludes customs derived from existing treaties. Quoth the wikipedia:
Norms of international law have their source in either:
1)custom, or customary international law (consistent state practice accompanied by opinio juris),
2)globally accepted standards of behaviour (peremptory norms known as jus cogens or ius cogens), or
3)codifications contained in conventional agreements, generally termed treaties.
If this whole fuss has been about the use of the words “international norms” rather than “customary international law”, well !!!!!
If you want to update a treaty as a norm changes over time, then you do what the PII folks did and get countries to ratify an extension. If you can’t do that, then your claims about the norm evolving are wrong.
Written treaties and unwritten norms are two different things, and I think you’re defining the one based on the other in a way that Im not. It’s not unreasonable for changes in unwritten norms to be later reflected in changes to a treaty, but it is not necessary because they are not the same thing.
If you’ve accepted the existence of norms only insofar as they inform treaty conditions, then I think we still don’t agree on their function in international relations. Which is fine, I suppose.
And getting everyone to sign on to a treaty cements those norms. The flip side though is that in the absence of formal written agreements, norms can easily be…ephemeral. Who is to say what is a norm and what the consequences for violation should be?
Yes, unwritten norms don’t have written terms and conditions, they don’t have codified punishments, and they are subject to interpretation (as, unfortuantely, are written treaties eg Bush II’s invocation of preemptive self-defense in Iraq).
Being nebulous etc are problems with norms, but they either exist or they don’t. Earlier you said they did, then you ignored that for a while and repeated asked for chapter and verse of the treaty Syria was violating, then you agreed that there are norms, but now you’re saying they’re so nebulous that they don’t really mean anything?
I have never made this assertion. I have claimed that PII’s existence means that the int’l community did not believe that the GC protections of civilians applied to civil wars before PII.
Hang on, first you say that norms change and then we get updates to treaties, now I think you’re saying that we only know that the norms have changed because the treaty changes. So it looks to me like you ‘accept’ norms, but only in a purely theoretical sense. Like a magnetic field, we know them by the influence they have on ‘real’ things (ie treaties), not because they can affect events (other than treaty terms) directly. The only non-treaty effect that I see you acknowledge is that treaties can become enforceable against countries even if they don’t sign them, by the weight of the international community.
And I think that, if the weight of the international community can do that, it can also modify terms in other ways. I understand your concern about the nebulous nature of that process, but once we accept the principle of enforcing norms on non-consenting nations Im not sure what the objection on principle would be.
Again, that’s fine, I think we can disagree on that point.
No. They do not say those standards “have become norms”. They say that those treaties are treated as customary int’l law. Which means that the treaty text is considered binding on all countries, regardless of whether they’ve ratified the treaty. The thing that is binding is the treaty, not the norm.
Im not sure there is a technical definition for “international norms” that excludes customs derived from existing treaties. Quoth the wikipedia:
Norms of international law have their source in either:
1)custom, or customary international law (consistent state practice accompanied by opinio juris),
2)globally accepted standards of behaviour (peremptory norms known as jus cogens or ius cogens), or
3)codifications contained in conventional agreements, generally termed treaties.
If this whole fuss has been about the use of the words “international norms” rather than “customary international law”, well !!!!!
If you want to update a treaty as a norm changes over time, then you do what the PII folks did and get countries to ratify an extension. If you can’t do that, then your claims about the norm evolving are wrong.
Written treaties and unwritten norms are two different things, and I think you’re defining the one based on the other in a way that Im not. It’s not unreasonable for changes in unwritten norms to be later reflected in changes to a treaty, but it is not necessary because they are not the same thing.
If you’ve accepted the existence of norms only insofar as they inform treaty conditions, then I think we still don’t agree on their function in international relations. Which is fine, I suppose.
And getting everyone to sign on to a treaty cements those norms. The flip side though is that in the absence of formal written agreements, norms can easily be…ephemeral. Who is to say what is a norm and what the consequences for violation should be?
Yes, unwritten norms don’t have written terms and conditions, they don’t have codified punishments, and they are subject to interpretation (as, unfortuantely, are written treaties eg Bush II’s invocation of preemptive self-defense in Iraq).
Being nebulous etc are problems with norms, but they either exist or they don’t. Earlier you said they did, then you ignored that for a while and repeated asked for chapter and verse of the treaty Syria was violating, then you agreed that there are norms, but now you’re saying they’re so nebulous that they don’t really mean anything?
I have never made this assertion. I have claimed that PII’s existence means that the int’l community did not believe that the GC protections of civilians applied to civil wars before PII.
Hang on, first you say that norms change and then we get updates to treaties, now I think you’re saying that we only know that the norms have changed because the treaty changes. So it looks to me like you ‘accept’ norms, but only in a purely theoretical sense. Like a magnetic field, we know them by the influence they have on ‘real’ things (ie treaties), not because they can affect events (other than treaty terms) directly. The only non-treaty effect that I see you acknowledge is that treaties can become enforceable against countries even if they don’t sign them, by the weight of the international community.
And I think that, if the weight of the international community can do that, it can also modify terms in other ways. I understand your concern about the nebulous nature of that process, but once we accept the principle of enforcing norms on non-consenting nations Im not sure what the objection on principle would be.
Again, that’s fine, I think we can disagree on that point.
hth,
Yes, that sounds like exactly what I think.
hth,
Yes, that sounds like exactly what I think.
Long story short:
The US is Tony Soprano – no really.
(Oh, and Iran is still a very rich country, despite its economic problems – Mali is a poor country. You don’t have to peddle nonsense to be against US imperialism in the ME or elsewhere, Turb.
Long story short:
The US is Tony Soprano – no really.
(Oh, and Iran is still a very rich country, despite its economic problems – Mali is a poor country. You don’t have to peddle nonsense to be against US imperialism in the ME or elsewhere, Turb.
According to the CIA factbook, Iran is 100th (out of 229) in per capita income. (Kosovo is dead last. I don’t understand that.) That seems neither rich nor poor.
link
The sanctions are causing a lot of harm, last I read, but I haven’t looked for a link. Just more of the US enforcing its humanitarian will on the world.
According to the CIA factbook, Iran is 100th (out of 229) in per capita income. (Kosovo is dead last. I don’t understand that.) That seems neither rich nor poor.
link
The sanctions are causing a lot of harm, last I read, but I haven’t looked for a link. Just more of the US enforcing its humanitarian will on the world.
The US breaks the law when it wants, so if we’re going to go into Syria then I hope we can at least do it without all the garbage about how international law compels us or justifies it or how our higher morality gives us the right. Try justifying it on the grounds that the wonderful results that will no doubt follow once we start exporting explosives are justification enough–the US objected when Vietnam broke international law by invading and overthrowing the government of Cambodia in 1979, but others were glad the Khmer Rouge had been toppled. So maybe we’re like communist Vietnam in our devotion to human rights. I could get behind that analogy, except I think the chances of Vietnam doing some good in 1979 are somewhat better than our chances now.
The US breaks the law when it wants, so if we’re going to go into Syria then I hope we can at least do it without all the garbage about how international law compels us or justifies it or how our higher morality gives us the right. Try justifying it on the grounds that the wonderful results that will no doubt follow once we start exporting explosives are justification enough–the US objected when Vietnam broke international law by invading and overthrowing the government of Cambodia in 1979, but others were glad the Khmer Rouge had been toppled. So maybe we’re like communist Vietnam in our devotion to human rights. I could get behind that analogy, except I think the chances of Vietnam doing some good in 1979 are somewhat better than our chances now.
Donald, I’m not sure what you are getting at with the Vietnam/Khmer Rouge example. US bad, Vietnam bad, both bad?
Donald, I’m not sure what you are getting at with the Vietnam/Khmer Rouge example. US bad, Vietnam bad, both bad?
Honestly, Donald, I don’t get you. Do you think we (the US) have a duty to trade with Iran, even if we don’t like their political policies? Hell, I don’t trade with my local Chic Fil A if they’re hating on gay people, etc.
You’re a good person, and your instincts are good, but your grip on reality (how things work in real life) seems tenuous to me. I encourage you to live in a country that has no international influence or political power. It’s easy to make all of the correct decisions if you don’t have to make any.
Honestly, Donald, I don’t get you. Do you think we (the US) have a duty to trade with Iran, even if we don’t like their political policies? Hell, I don’t trade with my local Chic Fil A if they’re hating on gay people, etc.
You’re a good person, and your instincts are good, but your grip on reality (how things work in real life) seems tenuous to me. I encourage you to live in a country that has no international influence or political power. It’s easy to make all of the correct decisions if you don’t have to make any.
Carleton Wu: “…it seems like our membership in the UN would continue to preclude action.”
Then case closed, what? Or are you asserting that some ‘norms’ are more ‘enormous’ than others? Actually, I would agree with the above statement. The ‘norm’ of abiding by the norms of our membership in the UN are paramount if we are to retain any credibility beyond that of a self centered, my way or the highway, hegemon.
The “norm” in this instance is this: If we proceed unilaterally, we loose all credibility regarding the UN, it’s mission, and it’s mandate, because it is flatly illegal wrt the UN Charter (as amended).
The long run. It matters. Thanks.
Carleton Wu: “…it seems like our membership in the UN would continue to preclude action.”
Then case closed, what? Or are you asserting that some ‘norms’ are more ‘enormous’ than others? Actually, I would agree with the above statement. The ‘norm’ of abiding by the norms of our membership in the UN are paramount if we are to retain any credibility beyond that of a self centered, my way or the highway, hegemon.
The “norm” in this instance is this: If we proceed unilaterally, we loose all credibility regarding the UN, it’s mission, and it’s mandate, because it is flatly illegal wrt the UN Charter (as amended).
The long run. It matters. Thanks.
I encourage you to live in a country that has no international influence or political power. It’s easy to make all of the correct decisions if you don’t have to make any.
Well, no. In fact nearly all of the countries on the face of the earth do not have the power to make some (very vital) decisions, correct or not, collectively or individually. It’s not that they don’t have to make them, it’s that they cannot. This is a vital distinction.
The USofA, on the other hand, can invoke various distinctions pretty much at whim, and has the power to enforce them, and rather arbitrarily at that. That is the whole point.
This is not to say we are hypocrites. It is to say we are very powerful, and get our way most of the time, “norms”, or treaties notwithstanding.
I encourage you to live in a country that has no international influence or political power. It’s easy to make all of the correct decisions if you don’t have to make any.
Well, no. In fact nearly all of the countries on the face of the earth do not have the power to make some (very vital) decisions, correct or not, collectively or individually. It’s not that they don’t have to make them, it’s that they cannot. This is a vital distinction.
The USofA, on the other hand, can invoke various distinctions pretty much at whim, and has the power to enforce them, and rather arbitrarily at that. That is the whole point.
This is not to say we are hypocrites. It is to say we are very powerful, and get our way most of the time, “norms”, or treaties notwithstanding.
Ok, first, I have a hard time fitting that in with your earlier statement: Syria hasn’t committed war crimes.
From the perspective of the US government, I don’t think it makes sense to say that Syria has committed war crimes, because the USG doesn’t accept Protocol II. Now, I personally do accept it, so I think they’ve committed war crimes. But we’re not talking about my plans to bomb Syria or Belgium’s plans to bomb Syria: we’re talking about the USG, the people who don’t believe that PII is valid.
are you saying that if the US had ratified GC PII, that we’d be justified in using force?
I think ratifying PII would be a necessary but not sufficient condition for using force. I mean, I don’t think it makes any sense to bomb people for violating a treaty that we don’t accept as valid: that implies we’d be bombing them for conduct which we believe we’re entitled to commit.
it seems like our membership in the UN would continue to preclude action.
Yes, I think that’s right.
I think that this would give the UNSC far too much power, and would exacerbate the current problem where only poor nations without strong patrons have international standards enforced upon them. Speaking practically.
Shrug. I agree.
The institutional structure is pretty clearly broken. But I’d say it is broken because it reflects the power imbalance of the world, not random idiotic mistakes at the founding of the UN. And I don’t see a better alternative: letting the US do whatever it wants because it is powerful and can literally get away with murder doesn’t help the problem.
Maybe we just disagree about the efficacy of bombing for addressing civilian killing campaigns.
If this whole fuss has been about the use of the words “international norms” rather than “customary international law”, well !!!!!
I don’t think that’s the issue. Customary international law is based on a bunch of things, but the parts that are universally binding (jus cogens) are generally formally written down treaties. I’m not aware of any cases where norms, as distinct from formal treaties, where considered jus cogens in the last half century. Can you point to any such cases?
Written treaties and unwritten norms are two different things, and I think you’re defining the one based on the other in a way that Im not.
Again, I personally am unwilling to sentence a man to death for violating unwritten laws. If you feel otherwise, that’s fine, but I don’t think we’re going to agree on much if we can’t get past that foundational issue. I think entities as large as nations can’t reason effectively about their obligations unless those obligations are written down and formally committed to.
Earlier you said they did, then you ignored that for a while and repeated asked for chapter and verse of the treaty Syria was violating, then you agreed that there are norms, but now you’re saying they’re so nebulous that they don’t really mean anything?
Let’s take an example. There is a norm against using killing civilians in a conflict. Everyone agrees with that. So, did the US violate that norm in Iraq? There is much disagreement. What exactly do you mean by civilians? What is the standard used to gauge their treatment? Norms are sentences and treaties are much longer and for good reason. So sure, norms exist. But your understanding of a norm probably isn’t the same as mine which probably isn’t the same as Russia’s. People from very different cultures who speak different languages are likely to interpret norms in different ways.
I mean, if I wanted to run an international business, buying and selling things in different countries where different languages are spoken and cultural assumptions vary widely, I’d be completely nuts to rely on norms rather than written contracts. I don’t see why we should use a much lower standard when deciding when to start wars than we’d accept for when to buy coffee beans.
Plus norms don’t have consequences attached. Is Syria’s chemical weapons use worse than Italy’s dumping of toxic waste off the coast of Somalia or Somalian piracy? How can you tell? Aside from the US, most countries in the world don’t think we should do anything about Syrian chemical weapons: are they confused about the norm, or are we? If we all agreed on what the norm was, shouldn’t we come to consensus on how to respond to norm violations?
The only non-treaty effect that I see you acknowledge is that treaties can become enforceable against countries even if they don’t sign them, by the weight of the international community.
Let me be clear: this only applies to a tiny tiny fraction of treaties. It doesn’t apply to all treaties. We’re talking genocide, slavery, piracy, the laws of war and that’s about it. The vast majority of int’l law is not jus cogens. In fact, I’m not even sure that the use of chemical weapons against military forces even qualifies.
Ok, first, I have a hard time fitting that in with your earlier statement: Syria hasn’t committed war crimes.
From the perspective of the US government, I don’t think it makes sense to say that Syria has committed war crimes, because the USG doesn’t accept Protocol II. Now, I personally do accept it, so I think they’ve committed war crimes. But we’re not talking about my plans to bomb Syria or Belgium’s plans to bomb Syria: we’re talking about the USG, the people who don’t believe that PII is valid.
are you saying that if the US had ratified GC PII, that we’d be justified in using force?
I think ratifying PII would be a necessary but not sufficient condition for using force. I mean, I don’t think it makes any sense to bomb people for violating a treaty that we don’t accept as valid: that implies we’d be bombing them for conduct which we believe we’re entitled to commit.
it seems like our membership in the UN would continue to preclude action.
Yes, I think that’s right.
I think that this would give the UNSC far too much power, and would exacerbate the current problem where only poor nations without strong patrons have international standards enforced upon them. Speaking practically.
Shrug. I agree.
The institutional structure is pretty clearly broken. But I’d say it is broken because it reflects the power imbalance of the world, not random idiotic mistakes at the founding of the UN. And I don’t see a better alternative: letting the US do whatever it wants because it is powerful and can literally get away with murder doesn’t help the problem.
Maybe we just disagree about the efficacy of bombing for addressing civilian killing campaigns.
If this whole fuss has been about the use of the words “international norms” rather than “customary international law”, well !!!!!
I don’t think that’s the issue. Customary international law is based on a bunch of things, but the parts that are universally binding (jus cogens) are generally formally written down treaties. I’m not aware of any cases where norms, as distinct from formal treaties, where considered jus cogens in the last half century. Can you point to any such cases?
Written treaties and unwritten norms are two different things, and I think you’re defining the one based on the other in a way that Im not.
Again, I personally am unwilling to sentence a man to death for violating unwritten laws. If you feel otherwise, that’s fine, but I don’t think we’re going to agree on much if we can’t get past that foundational issue. I think entities as large as nations can’t reason effectively about their obligations unless those obligations are written down and formally committed to.
Earlier you said they did, then you ignored that for a while and repeated asked for chapter and verse of the treaty Syria was violating, then you agreed that there are norms, but now you’re saying they’re so nebulous that they don’t really mean anything?
Let’s take an example. There is a norm against using killing civilians in a conflict. Everyone agrees with that. So, did the US violate that norm in Iraq? There is much disagreement. What exactly do you mean by civilians? What is the standard used to gauge their treatment? Norms are sentences and treaties are much longer and for good reason. So sure, norms exist. But your understanding of a norm probably isn’t the same as mine which probably isn’t the same as Russia’s. People from very different cultures who speak different languages are likely to interpret norms in different ways.
I mean, if I wanted to run an international business, buying and selling things in different countries where different languages are spoken and cultural assumptions vary widely, I’d be completely nuts to rely on norms rather than written contracts. I don’t see why we should use a much lower standard when deciding when to start wars than we’d accept for when to buy coffee beans.
Plus norms don’t have consequences attached. Is Syria’s chemical weapons use worse than Italy’s dumping of toxic waste off the coast of Somalia or Somalian piracy? How can you tell? Aside from the US, most countries in the world don’t think we should do anything about Syrian chemical weapons: are they confused about the norm, or are we? If we all agreed on what the norm was, shouldn’t we come to consensus on how to respond to norm violations?
The only non-treaty effect that I see you acknowledge is that treaties can become enforceable against countries even if they don’t sign them, by the weight of the international community.
Let me be clear: this only applies to a tiny tiny fraction of treaties. It doesn’t apply to all treaties. We’re talking genocide, slavery, piracy, the laws of war and that’s about it. The vast majority of int’l law is not jus cogens. In fact, I’m not even sure that the use of chemical weapons against military forces even qualifies.
Forgot to add, Carelton, you’re right in that I don’t think norms are externally observable except insofar as they affect treaties. I mean, a norm is something like “don’t use chemical weapons” which leaves a lot unspecified. If I build a million pounds of chemical weapons and train my army to use them, am I violating the norm? Lots of people who say yes. Many would say no.
I’ve seen enough technical discussions where everyone agrees on the one sentence summary (the norm you might say) but when you try and hammer out the details, it turns out everyone had radically different interpretations in mind and the devil is in the details. I’ve seen business deals fall through for that reason. So this idea that we can literally start killing people just because their country violated an unwritten rule sounds completely crazy to me.
Forgot to add, Carelton, you’re right in that I don’t think norms are externally observable except insofar as they affect treaties. I mean, a norm is something like “don’t use chemical weapons” which leaves a lot unspecified. If I build a million pounds of chemical weapons and train my army to use them, am I violating the norm? Lots of people who say yes. Many would say no.
I’ve seen enough technical discussions where everyone agrees on the one sentence summary (the norm you might say) but when you try and hammer out the details, it turns out everyone had radically different interpretations in mind and the devil is in the details. I’ve seen business deals fall through for that reason. So this idea that we can literally start killing people just because their country violated an unwritten rule sounds completely crazy to me.
I’ll be back in 10 days..
Easy for you to say. 🙂 Give my regards to D. Cheney at this undisclosed location. Rest assured this issue will be settled by the time you return.
In the meantime, I shall return to my normsal life, comforted by the thought that my normal life is, well, pretty normal, and will….with a fairly significant degree of certainty, remain that way (the drink excepted). The norms shall not be exceeded, transgressed, abused, or ignored.
As an American, they will simply be taken for granted. That’s the way we are entitled to roll.
I’ll be back in 10 days..
Easy for you to say. 🙂 Give my regards to D. Cheney at this undisclosed location. Rest assured this issue will be settled by the time you return.
In the meantime, I shall return to my normsal life, comforted by the thought that my normal life is, well, pretty normal, and will….with a fairly significant degree of certainty, remain that way (the drink excepted). The norms shall not be exceeded, transgressed, abused, or ignored.
As an American, they will simply be taken for granted. That’s the way we are entitled to roll.
are you ready?
The Senate Resolution.
Looks like McCain’s amendments are sections 5 and 6, beginning about page 8.
All of a sudden, we’ve picked a side in the civil war, and have moved from “responding to a chemical attack” to supporting the Free Syrian Army and seeking the removal of Assad.
Here we go again…
are you ready?
The Senate Resolution.
Looks like McCain’s amendments are sections 5 and 6, beginning about page 8.
All of a sudden, we’ve picked a side in the civil war, and have moved from “responding to a chemical attack” to supporting the Free Syrian Army and seeking the removal of Assad.
Here we go again…
“o you think we (the US) have a duty to trade with Iran, even if we don’t like their political policies? ”
You might try reading how sanctions work in the real world. You could start with the article in the current issue of Harper’s, which isn’t online unfortunately. You could also go to Joy Gordon’s website on how the sanctions on Iraq actually worked
invisible war
I’ll quote from the Harper’s piece–
” Cohen insisted that his organization would not ban such aid ‘The reality is that our sanctions do no forbid the export to Iran of food, medicines or medical devices, whether it’s some US company or some foreign company that wants to export those humanitarian goods. There’s nothing that forbids that.’
Reality gives the lie to these assertions. Simply put, licenses and waivers are irrelevant, because the excision of Iranian banks from the global financial system makes it practically impossible for anyone exporting medical supplies to Iran to get paid.”
“o you think we (the US) have a duty to trade with Iran, even if we don’t like their political policies? ”
You might try reading how sanctions work in the real world. You could start with the article in the current issue of Harper’s, which isn’t online unfortunately. You could also go to Joy Gordon’s website on how the sanctions on Iraq actually worked
invisible war
I’ll quote from the Harper’s piece–
” Cohen insisted that his organization would not ban such aid ‘The reality is that our sanctions do no forbid the export to Iran of food, medicines or medical devices, whether it’s some US company or some foreign company that wants to export those humanitarian goods. There’s nothing that forbids that.’
Reality gives the lie to these assertions. Simply put, licenses and waivers are irrelevant, because the excision of Iranian banks from the global financial system makes it practically impossible for anyone exporting medical supplies to Iran to get paid.”
“I encourage you to live in a country that has no international influence or political power. It’s easy to make all of the correct decisions if you don’t have to make any.”
I agree with this, though not in the sense that you intended. If one is not part of the Washington elite and if one doesn’t identify vicariously with one of the two political parties to such a strong extent it clouds one’s judgment, then it’s easy to step outside the usual narrow range of thinking and see that much of what the US does is morally and pragmatically crazy. Sometimes just morally crazy, as one of the benefits of being a superpower is that you can make decisions that inflict vast harm on people overseas and not necessarily pay any price for it.
“I encourage you to live in a country that has no international influence or political power. It’s easy to make all of the correct decisions if you don’t have to make any.”
I agree with this, though not in the sense that you intended. If one is not part of the Washington elite and if one doesn’t identify vicariously with one of the two political parties to such a strong extent it clouds one’s judgment, then it’s easy to step outside the usual narrow range of thinking and see that much of what the US does is morally and pragmatically crazy. Sometimes just morally crazy, as one of the benefits of being a superpower is that you can make decisions that inflict vast harm on people overseas and not necessarily pay any price for it.
McCain is still fighting Vietnam. He thinks that there’s a side in the Syrian Civil War worth allying ourselves to, and there’s a cause there worth sending people to die for.
McCain is still fighting Vietnam. He thinks that there’s a side in the Syrian Civil War worth allying ourselves to, and there’s a cause there worth sending people to die for.
I think that all of Carleton’s and Turbulence’s disagreements have been sorted through and addressed, save the question of whether Carleton is/was on drugs at any time during this discussion.
It’s an important question, evidently.
I think that all of Carleton’s and Turbulence’s disagreements have been sorted through and addressed, save the question of whether Carleton is/was on drugs at any time during this discussion.
It’s an important question, evidently.
I agree with this, though not in the sense that you intended.
We think our crap doesn’t smell, and there’s nobody else in the room big enough to tell us different.
McCain is still fighting Vietnam.
Yes, that or something like that is likely so. I’m also open to giving him the benefit of the doubt as to motive that you generously offer him.
The bad thing is that “still fighting Vietnam” is now sections 5 and 6 of the Senate resolution.
This has gone in fairly short order from limited air strikes to make a point about using chemical weapons, to engagement in a civil war about a third of the way around the world. And, a civil war with about 11 sides to it.
We’re going to ‘vet’ the folks we supply with arms and other support, but I also notice that the Free Syrian Army has transformed themselves from ‘evil cyber terrorists’ to ‘our best friends’ in about 3 days. Quite a makeover.
If we’re gonna actually do something, I hope we do it soon, before every other dude with an agenda has a chance to shoehorn their own wish list into it.
Next stop: Axis of Evil!! Who will be on the short list this time?
Sweep it all up, things related and not.
I agree with this, though not in the sense that you intended.
We think our crap doesn’t smell, and there’s nobody else in the room big enough to tell us different.
McCain is still fighting Vietnam.
Yes, that or something like that is likely so. I’m also open to giving him the benefit of the doubt as to motive that you generously offer him.
The bad thing is that “still fighting Vietnam” is now sections 5 and 6 of the Senate resolution.
This has gone in fairly short order from limited air strikes to make a point about using chemical weapons, to engagement in a civil war about a third of the way around the world. And, a civil war with about 11 sides to it.
We’re going to ‘vet’ the folks we supply with arms and other support, but I also notice that the Free Syrian Army has transformed themselves from ‘evil cyber terrorists’ to ‘our best friends’ in about 3 days. Quite a makeover.
If we’re gonna actually do something, I hope we do it soon, before every other dude with an agenda has a chance to shoehorn their own wish list into it.
Next stop: Axis of Evil!! Who will be on the short list this time?
Sweep it all up, things related and not.
And if he was (1) what kind, and (2) where can I get some?
These things matter, folks.
And if he was (1) what kind, and (2) where can I get some?
These things matter, folks.
…the Free Syrian Army has transformed themselves from ‘evil cyber terrorists’ to ‘our best friends’ in about 3 days.
This may be the purest distillation of US foreign policy, by way of example, I’ve seen. I’m stealing it.
…the Free Syrian Army has transformed themselves from ‘evil cyber terrorists’ to ‘our best friends’ in about 3 days.
This may be the purest distillation of US foreign policy, by way of example, I’ve seen. I’m stealing it.
This has gone in fairly short order from limited air strikes to make a point about using chemical weapons, to engagement in a civil war about a third of the way around the world. And, a civil war with about 11 sides to it.
Yes, and in similarly short order, I’m turning against it. This isn’t the kind of action I would support.
Donald (quoting Harpers article): “Reality gives the lie to these assertions. Simply put, licenses and waivers are irrelevant, because the excision of Iranian banks from the global financial system makes it practically impossible for anyone exporting medical supplies to Iran to get paid.” Just as you don’t think there’s any duty to do anything in Syria to stop the chemical weapons attacks, I don’t think we have a responsibility to trade with Iran. Iran is a powerful country, at peace, and not terribly poor. They can figure it out themselves.
This has gone in fairly short order from limited air strikes to make a point about using chemical weapons, to engagement in a civil war about a third of the way around the world. And, a civil war with about 11 sides to it.
Yes, and in similarly short order, I’m turning against it. This isn’t the kind of action I would support.
Donald (quoting Harpers article): “Reality gives the lie to these assertions. Simply put, licenses and waivers are irrelevant, because the excision of Iranian banks from the global financial system makes it practically impossible for anyone exporting medical supplies to Iran to get paid.” Just as you don’t think there’s any duty to do anything in Syria to stop the chemical weapons attacks, I don’t think we have a responsibility to trade with Iran. Iran is a powerful country, at peace, and not terribly poor. They can figure it out themselves.
I’d like to see a debate between John Kerry and John Kerry of 1971-ish days on this matter.
I’ll bring enough popcorn for everyone.
I’d like to see a debate between John Kerry and John Kerry of 1971-ish days on this matter.
I’ll bring enough popcorn for everyone.
BTW I am seeing some of my right-wing friends & acquaintances post stuff to the effect that these were the WMD that we were looking for in Iraq.
It’s one of those things that would be magically convenient if true. Therefore, as a matter of policy heavily influenced by a history of embarrassing mistakes on my part, I am assuming that it’s dead wrong until proven otherwise.
And given that that’s just the kind of thing that would be needed to gain widespread support from the Right to authorize any action in Syria, I’d want to see it independently verified by a couple of other sources.
Even then I’d look at it all askance-like.
BTW I am seeing some of my right-wing friends & acquaintances post stuff to the effect that these were the WMD that we were looking for in Iraq.
It’s one of those things that would be magically convenient if true. Therefore, as a matter of policy heavily influenced by a history of embarrassing mistakes on my part, I am assuming that it’s dead wrong until proven otherwise.
And given that that’s just the kind of thing that would be needed to gain widespread support from the Right to authorize any action in Syria, I’d want to see it independently verified by a couple of other sources.
Even then I’d look at it all askance-like.
Aside from the US, most countries in the world don’t think we should do anything about Syrian chemical weapons: are they confused about the norm, or are we?
While this may be intended to demonstrate the general matter of disagreement over loosely defined or undefined norms, if I take as it applies to the specific case of Syria, I’d say this weighs very heavily against the use of force by the United States. But, if nearly every other country in the world agreed that Syria violated some norm and that the United States, or any other country with the ability to do so, should use force, that would weigh in the opposite direction.
Disclaimer: The above is not intended to argue that the United States acts or can be expected to act in a morally coherent manner, be it acting based on norms, treaties or otherwise.
Aside from the US, most countries in the world don’t think we should do anything about Syrian chemical weapons: are they confused about the norm, or are we?
While this may be intended to demonstrate the general matter of disagreement over loosely defined or undefined norms, if I take as it applies to the specific case of Syria, I’d say this weighs very heavily against the use of force by the United States. But, if nearly every other country in the world agreed that Syria violated some norm and that the United States, or any other country with the ability to do so, should use force, that would weigh in the opposite direction.
Disclaimer: The above is not intended to argue that the United States acts or can be expected to act in a morally coherent manner, be it acting based on norms, treaties or otherwise.
McCain reportedly was playing online poker during the Senate hearings on the Syria resolution and then complained/boasted he lost big money.
These guys supply their own irony to go with the reality they foist on the rest of us.
I see the developing outlines of the upcoming budget negotiations: pay for the sudden spike in the Free Syrian Army’s healthcare claims by decommissioning ObamaCare and the healthcare of tens of millions of Americans, or we take the government down.
Maybe McCain can run for President of Syria in the upcoming elections. He can balance their f&cking budget by jotting down another debit entry in the U. S. Treasury’s balance sheet.
I now see how the North Vietnamese regretted shooting this bastard down as they endured his constant complaining about the concierge service at the Hanoi Hilton.
I hate, I hate.
McCain reportedly was playing online poker during the Senate hearings on the Syria resolution and then complained/boasted he lost big money.
These guys supply their own irony to go with the reality they foist on the rest of us.
I see the developing outlines of the upcoming budget negotiations: pay for the sudden spike in the Free Syrian Army’s healthcare claims by decommissioning ObamaCare and the healthcare of tens of millions of Americans, or we take the government down.
Maybe McCain can run for President of Syria in the upcoming elections. He can balance their f&cking budget by jotting down another debit entry in the U. S. Treasury’s balance sheet.
I now see how the North Vietnamese regretted shooting this bastard down as they endured his constant complaining about the concierge service at the Hanoi Hilton.
I hate, I hate.
why does the norm about not attacking countries which haven’t attacked or threatened your own get such little attention? surely violating that one would cost some of our precious
bodily fluidscredibility ?why does the norm about not attacking countries which haven’t attacked or threatened your own get such little attention? surely violating that one would cost some of our precious
bodily fluidscredibility ?I can’t wait to start code-enforcing more local norms. Like this norm that I and a lot of my friends have about not having to look at guys wearing their pants pulled halfway down to the knees.
It’s a kneecapping offense, normally.
I can’t wait to start code-enforcing more local norms. Like this norm that I and a lot of my friends have about not having to look at guys wearing their pants pulled halfway down to the knees.
It’s a kneecapping offense, normally.
And, to answer one of the other obvious questions about all of this:
h/t digby
It really is remarkable how quickly things turn to crap after they enter the good old sausage factory.
I do, however, admire and appreciate the staffer’s candor.
And, to answer one of the other obvious questions about all of this:
h/t digby
It really is remarkable how quickly things turn to crap after they enter the good old sausage factory.
I do, however, admire and appreciate the staffer’s candor.
“Just as you don’t think there’s any duty to do anything in Syria to stop the chemical weapons attacks, I don’t think we have a responsibility to trade with Iran.”
You’re kinda missing the point there. We’re doing more than just not trading with Iran. We’re trying to prevent others from doing so and hurting ordinary Iranians. I guess I shouldn’t have bothered–anyway, back to talking about our Moral Duty (which never seems to involve doing anything about our own crimes.)
On chemical weapons, I actually think it is a good idea to have a red line against their use, but it doesn’t follow that US enforcement with cruise missiles is a good idea. See various comments in this thread. And there are all these other moral norms and red lines I also think should be honored and enforced, some against us. But that doesn’t matter, I guess.
Kristof in the NYT today wrote a pro-bombing piece, not so much about the chemical weapons moral norm but more based on the idea that maybe we’d weaken Assad and lessen his ability to inflict atrocities in general. He didn’t say what we’d do if the rebels gained the upper hand and then started committing atrocities on a larger scale than they do already. Presumably we’d bomb them to restore the balance.
“Just as you don’t think there’s any duty to do anything in Syria to stop the chemical weapons attacks, I don’t think we have a responsibility to trade with Iran.”
You’re kinda missing the point there. We’re doing more than just not trading with Iran. We’re trying to prevent others from doing so and hurting ordinary Iranians. I guess I shouldn’t have bothered–anyway, back to talking about our Moral Duty (which never seems to involve doing anything about our own crimes.)
On chemical weapons, I actually think it is a good idea to have a red line against their use, but it doesn’t follow that US enforcement with cruise missiles is a good idea. See various comments in this thread. And there are all these other moral norms and red lines I also think should be honored and enforced, some against us. But that doesn’t matter, I guess.
Kristof in the NYT today wrote a pro-bombing piece, not so much about the chemical weapons moral norm but more based on the idea that maybe we’d weaken Assad and lessen his ability to inflict atrocities in general. He didn’t say what we’d do if the rebels gained the upper hand and then started committing atrocities on a larger scale than they do already. Presumably we’d bomb them to restore the balance.
Part of the problem here is this notion that “action” is synonymous with “bombing”, which is the only way we can show that we care, apparently, and also demonstrate that if we had lived in the 1930’s we’d have stopped Hitler before he got started. Or something like that. Anyway, James Fallows has been letting various people guest post and here’s the latest, by Robert Pastor, outlining another option.
link
Part of the problem here is this notion that “action” is synonymous with “bombing”, which is the only way we can show that we care, apparently, and also demonstrate that if we had lived in the 1930’s we’d have stopped Hitler before he got started. Or something like that. Anyway, James Fallows has been letting various people guest post and here’s the latest, by Robert Pastor, outlining another option.
link
Anyway, James Fallows has been letting various people guest post and here’s the latest, by Robert Pastor, outlining another option.
I read that article, and appreciate the link, but it seems to me that Assad’s earlier response to diplomatic efforts have been fatally disappointing. It was after Assad began massacring the opposition that the “Assad must go” mantra began. As the article points out, the strongmen argument won out. I see no reason why Assad would think that he’s less vulnerable now to eventual annihilation by the opposition.
I would be all for try, try again, although making concessions to Assad and his supporters in response to his chemical weapons attack seems a bit off.
My understanding of the original reasoning behind the strike was to “bring Assad to the table.” If the military effort actually worked to bring that about, that would be a good thing.
Sometimes diplomacy has to work hand in hand with the threat of military action. When we were about to invade Iraq, and our military was waiting in the wings as the UN inspectors were looking for WMD, that was IMO the perfect situation for us to hold Saddam Hussein at check. There was no reason to go further, and even though there was a cost to having our military sitting their twiddling their thumbs, it was obviously much more costly in so many ways to invade.
What I hope happens with Syria is that we use diplomacy and military threat in tandem. I think that may be what’s actually going on.
Anyway, James Fallows has been letting various people guest post and here’s the latest, by Robert Pastor, outlining another option.
I read that article, and appreciate the link, but it seems to me that Assad’s earlier response to diplomatic efforts have been fatally disappointing. It was after Assad began massacring the opposition that the “Assad must go” mantra began. As the article points out, the strongmen argument won out. I see no reason why Assad would think that he’s less vulnerable now to eventual annihilation by the opposition.
I would be all for try, try again, although making concessions to Assad and his supporters in response to his chemical weapons attack seems a bit off.
My understanding of the original reasoning behind the strike was to “bring Assad to the table.” If the military effort actually worked to bring that about, that would be a good thing.
Sometimes diplomacy has to work hand in hand with the threat of military action. When we were about to invade Iraq, and our military was waiting in the wings as the UN inspectors were looking for WMD, that was IMO the perfect situation for us to hold Saddam Hussein at check. There was no reason to go further, and even though there was a cost to having our military sitting their twiddling their thumbs, it was obviously much more costly in so many ways to invade.
What I hope happens with Syria is that we use diplomacy and military threat in tandem. I think that may be what’s actually going on.
First, I don’t think that’s what you were saying at the time. More context:Syria’s actions aren’t war crimes because the definition of war crimes requires that they occur in an international war, not an internal or civil war. This has nothing to do with customary int’l law or who signed what treaties: it has to do with what criterion the treaties actually define..
Second, I don’t know of any legal principle where something is a crime, but this can’t be enforced because other parties also break that law. Except maybe when differential enforcement is used as a pretext for eg racial bias (eg ‘driving while black’ bc not breaking nitpick driving laws is almost impossible). It’s quite a convoluted position to say you think Syria has (objectively?) committed war crimes (but have you signed PII?) but the US can’t agree with you on that point.
Third, if you think it’s a war crime, then if (counter to what you think now) the US could intervene and it would be beneficial, would you still argue that we shouldnt or couldnt because of our bad past actions? Or because of the UN Charter? Im fine with leaving our disagreement over whether we should hold the Russian veto higher than a humanitarian cause- I don’t mean that snarkily, I mean it makes sense to say that adding legitimacy to the UN is more important than this particular cause even if I might disagree.
that implies we’d be bombing them for conduct which we believe we’re entitled to commit.
I still think that the specifics of the US ratification process (2/3rd of the Senate) means that ‘the US’ can think things which can’t get acceptance from that 1/3rd. But it’s true that the 1/3rd can’t even manage to articulate a counterproposal; Im certainly not arguing that it’s a good thing.
Also, just bc the US doesn’t ratify the treaty doesn’t mean we don’t respect parts of it, and (if as we both believe those parts have universal applicability) attempt to enforce those parts.
The institutional structure is pretty clearly broken. But I’d say it is broken because it reflects the power imbalance of the world, not random idiotic mistakes at the founding of the UN. And I don’t see a better alternative: letting the US do whatever it wants because it is powerful and can literally get away with murder doesn’t help the problem.
I agree, although Id lay it less at power imbalance (which I expect will always be the case) than at an unwillingness of the powerful to give any legitimacy to those internationali institutions. And yes, the US ignoring the UNSC’s theoretically proper role in this is one more example of that.
Otoh, will the US refraining from any effort to stop Syrian war crimes moderate China’s behavior in the South China Sea, or towards Tibet? etc. The UNSC doesn’t have much legitimacy at this point, and Im not sure this particular intervention (to the extent that it’s not self-serving, which is I think mostly) is the straw that breaks the camel’s back. Id look to eg the US’s blanket support for Israeli violations of UNSC directives as much more of a sticking point.
On the third hand, Ive been arguing that repairing the US’s reputation has to begin somewhere, and exactly the same argument holds for building the credibility of the UN as an international institution.
Let’s take an example. There is a norm against using killing civilians in a conflict. Everyone agrees with that. So, did the US violate that norm in Iraq? There is much disagreement.
There’s a norm against unnecessarily (ie with reckless disregard) or intentional killing civilians in a conflict. Collateral deaths that occur during military operations working towards reasonable military objectives are still acceptable by law.
And that disagreement- well, that seems to me to parallel the problem that we must have a clearly-defined letter of the law- naturally there’s going to be much dispute. And unfortunately, we still don’t have a standard judicial interpretation of these agreements or a court that tries them. So we end up (as with nebulous norms) with all manner of self-serving definitions. Was Iraq an imminent threat to the US in 2003? Of course not, except we said so, and there was no place to dispute that claim (since the UN Charter gives all nations unilateral rights to self-defense, basically a 100% loophole if one is willing to lie barefaced).
I’ve seen enough technical discussions where everyone agrees on the one sentence summary (the norm you might say) but when you try and hammer out the details, it turns out everyone had radically different interpretations in mind and the devil is in the details.
Again, the same is true of written treaties; what contitutues a ‘clear violation’ is often in dispute, and afaict the ability of one party to force another to toe the line is more dependent on power relationships (or desired goodwill) than some inner drive to interpret the text in a unbiased manner.
Plus norms don’t have consequences attached
afaict the treaties we’re talking about don’t either. There’s no set punishment for using chemical weapons or attacks on civilians or mistreating POWs iirc.
First, I don’t think that’s what you were saying at the time. More context:Syria’s actions aren’t war crimes because the definition of war crimes requires that they occur in an international war, not an internal or civil war. This has nothing to do with customary int’l law or who signed what treaties: it has to do with what criterion the treaties actually define..
Second, I don’t know of any legal principle where something is a crime, but this can’t be enforced because other parties also break that law. Except maybe when differential enforcement is used as a pretext for eg racial bias (eg ‘driving while black’ bc not breaking nitpick driving laws is almost impossible). It’s quite a convoluted position to say you think Syria has (objectively?) committed war crimes (but have you signed PII?) but the US can’t agree with you on that point.
Third, if you think it’s a war crime, then if (counter to what you think now) the US could intervene and it would be beneficial, would you still argue that we shouldnt or couldnt because of our bad past actions? Or because of the UN Charter? Im fine with leaving our disagreement over whether we should hold the Russian veto higher than a humanitarian cause- I don’t mean that snarkily, I mean it makes sense to say that adding legitimacy to the UN is more important than this particular cause even if I might disagree.
that implies we’d be bombing them for conduct which we believe we’re entitled to commit.
I still think that the specifics of the US ratification process (2/3rd of the Senate) means that ‘the US’ can think things which can’t get acceptance from that 1/3rd. But it’s true that the 1/3rd can’t even manage to articulate a counterproposal; Im certainly not arguing that it’s a good thing.
Also, just bc the US doesn’t ratify the treaty doesn’t mean we don’t respect parts of it, and (if as we both believe those parts have universal applicability) attempt to enforce those parts.
The institutional structure is pretty clearly broken. But I’d say it is broken because it reflects the power imbalance of the world, not random idiotic mistakes at the founding of the UN. And I don’t see a better alternative: letting the US do whatever it wants because it is powerful and can literally get away with murder doesn’t help the problem.
I agree, although Id lay it less at power imbalance (which I expect will always be the case) than at an unwillingness of the powerful to give any legitimacy to those internationali institutions. And yes, the US ignoring the UNSC’s theoretically proper role in this is one more example of that.
Otoh, will the US refraining from any effort to stop Syrian war crimes moderate China’s behavior in the South China Sea, or towards Tibet? etc. The UNSC doesn’t have much legitimacy at this point, and Im not sure this particular intervention (to the extent that it’s not self-serving, which is I think mostly) is the straw that breaks the camel’s back. Id look to eg the US’s blanket support for Israeli violations of UNSC directives as much more of a sticking point.
On the third hand, Ive been arguing that repairing the US’s reputation has to begin somewhere, and exactly the same argument holds for building the credibility of the UN as an international institution.
Let’s take an example. There is a norm against using killing civilians in a conflict. Everyone agrees with that. So, did the US violate that norm in Iraq? There is much disagreement.
There’s a norm against unnecessarily (ie with reckless disregard) or intentional killing civilians in a conflict. Collateral deaths that occur during military operations working towards reasonable military objectives are still acceptable by law.
And that disagreement- well, that seems to me to parallel the problem that we must have a clearly-defined letter of the law- naturally there’s going to be much dispute. And unfortunately, we still don’t have a standard judicial interpretation of these agreements or a court that tries them. So we end up (as with nebulous norms) with all manner of self-serving definitions. Was Iraq an imminent threat to the US in 2003? Of course not, except we said so, and there was no place to dispute that claim (since the UN Charter gives all nations unilateral rights to self-defense, basically a 100% loophole if one is willing to lie barefaced).
I’ve seen enough technical discussions where everyone agrees on the one sentence summary (the norm you might say) but when you try and hammer out the details, it turns out everyone had radically different interpretations in mind and the devil is in the details.
Again, the same is true of written treaties; what contitutues a ‘clear violation’ is often in dispute, and afaict the ability of one party to force another to toe the line is more dependent on power relationships (or desired goodwill) than some inner drive to interpret the text in a unbiased manner.
Plus norms don’t have consequences attached
afaict the treaties we’re talking about don’t either. There’s no set punishment for using chemical weapons or attacks on civilians or mistreating POWs iirc.
Bosnia.
Bosnia.
Then case closed, what? Or are you asserting that some ‘norms’ are more ‘enormous’ than others?
I was making a tentative summary of Turb’s position to make sure I understood it. So no, what.
What I personally think is that we’re weighing two important obligations:
1)How our ignoring the UN impacts the legitimacy of the UN
2)How our ignoring Syrian war crimes impacts the ability of this and future bad actors to commit war crimes
f you want to consider both and, in the balance, think point #2 is less important, that’s fine. Im sympathetic to that point of view, I feel strongly that international institutions are important and should be empowered when possible by choice in order to improve their position.
Im not so Ok with your position that point #2 doesn’t exist at all; one of the good things that’s come out of the 20th century’s wars was the idea that nations ought not be idle bystanders to crimes against humanity. It is a norm that is enforced so patchily and with such attention to national self-interest that it’s clearly weak. Weaker than it should be. And today, with many countries focused internally due to economic strains, with the US’s leadership tarnished one again due to a poorly-chosen war, it’d be easy to ignore it completely.
But I think it is important. Important enough to at least be considered.
Then case closed, what? Or are you asserting that some ‘norms’ are more ‘enormous’ than others?
I was making a tentative summary of Turb’s position to make sure I understood it. So no, what.
What I personally think is that we’re weighing two important obligations:
1)How our ignoring the UN impacts the legitimacy of the UN
2)How our ignoring Syrian war crimes impacts the ability of this and future bad actors to commit war crimes
f you want to consider both and, in the balance, think point #2 is less important, that’s fine. Im sympathetic to that point of view, I feel strongly that international institutions are important and should be empowered when possible by choice in order to improve their position.
Im not so Ok with your position that point #2 doesn’t exist at all; one of the good things that’s come out of the 20th century’s wars was the idea that nations ought not be idle bystanders to crimes against humanity. It is a norm that is enforced so patchily and with such attention to national self-interest that it’s clearly weak. Weaker than it should be. And today, with many countries focused internally due to economic strains, with the US’s leadership tarnished one again due to a poorly-chosen war, it’d be easy to ignore it completely.
But I think it is important. Important enough to at least be considered.
I think that all of Carleton’s and Turbulence’s disagreements have been sorted through and addressed, save the question of whether Carleton is/was on drugs at any time during this discussion.
It’s an important question, evidently.
I am just trying to figure how he found out, apparently we’ve had a breakdown in operational security here.
I think that all of Carleton’s and Turbulence’s disagreements have been sorted through and addressed, save the question of whether Carleton is/was on drugs at any time during this discussion.
It’s an important question, evidently.
I am just trying to figure how he found out, apparently we’ve had a breakdown in operational security here.
Carleton: [O]ne of the good things that’s come out of the 20th century’s wars was the idea that nations ought not be idle bystanders to crimes against humanity. It is a norm that is enforced so patchily and with such attention to national self-interest that it’s clearly weak. Weaker than it should be. And today, with many countries focused internally due to economic strains, with the US’s leadership tarnished one again due to a poorly-chosen war, it’d be easy to ignore it completely.
But I think it is important. Important enough to at least be considered.
I agree with this. And because I agree with this, I think we should start with the premise that we shouldn’t stand idly by. Then we should ask the question what must we do? “Bomb” isn’t necessarily the answer, although it could be, if “bomb” means that we have then have leverage to force a diplomatic solution that will help to end the killing.
Carleton: [O]ne of the good things that’s come out of the 20th century’s wars was the idea that nations ought not be idle bystanders to crimes against humanity. It is a norm that is enforced so patchily and with such attention to national self-interest that it’s clearly weak. Weaker than it should be. And today, with many countries focused internally due to economic strains, with the US’s leadership tarnished one again due to a poorly-chosen war, it’d be easy to ignore it completely.
But I think it is important. Important enough to at least be considered.
I agree with this. And because I agree with this, I think we should start with the premise that we shouldn’t stand idly by. Then we should ask the question what must we do? “Bomb” isn’t necessarily the answer, although it could be, if “bomb” means that we have then have leverage to force a diplomatic solution that will help to end the killing.
I’ll repeat cleek’s question: isn’t there a norm about not attacking countries which haven’t attacked or threatened your own?
I would add, or at least without UN security council approval? How does that norm stack up against the norm of non-use of chemical weapons?
I’ll repeat cleek’s question: isn’t there a norm about not attacking countries which haven’t attacked or threatened your own?
I would add, or at least without UN security council approval? How does that norm stack up against the norm of non-use of chemical weapons?
I’ll repeat cleek’s question: isn’t there a norm about not attacking countries which haven’t attacked or threatened your own [except when collective international action is authorized by the UNSC]?
There certainly is, and there’s a great deal of tension between that norm and the norm that says that the world shouldn’t turn a blind eye to a strongman who’s gassing civilians. It’s a quandary, and there are plenty of people chiming in supporting favoring one over the other.
I happen to be in the camp that says we shouldn’t turn a blind eye, and I believe that NATO’s action in Bosnia is the prototype that we should perhaps be following. But that’s tempered by the fact that we don’t have NATO, and the situation is full of scary possibilities.
I just think that rejecting the idea that we have a responsibility of some kind is the wrong approach. Diplomacy would obviously be the best approach, but it hasn’t been working, and the situation is dire enough that a different approach should perhaps be considered.
I’ll repeat cleek’s question: isn’t there a norm about not attacking countries which haven’t attacked or threatened your own [except when collective international action is authorized by the UNSC]?
There certainly is, and there’s a great deal of tension between that norm and the norm that says that the world shouldn’t turn a blind eye to a strongman who’s gassing civilians. It’s a quandary, and there are plenty of people chiming in supporting favoring one over the other.
I happen to be in the camp that says we shouldn’t turn a blind eye, and I believe that NATO’s action in Bosnia is the prototype that we should perhaps be following. But that’s tempered by the fact that we don’t have NATO, and the situation is full of scary possibilities.
I just think that rejecting the idea that we have a responsibility of some kind is the wrong approach. Diplomacy would obviously be the best approach, but it hasn’t been working, and the situation is dire enough that a different approach should perhaps be considered.
Ugh,
I believe that’s the core of the issue. I do think that, even in the absence of the UNSC, we’d be justified in intervening to prevent or address a crime against humanity.
There are things that could make this case stronger:
-If we could drum up more support among allies and make the hypothetical Russian veto clearly isolated self-interest.
-If we would actually present the case to the UNSC and demonstrate the broken process rather than assuming that it’s broken. Esp if we can show a enough support to succeed in the UNSC if not for the veto.
-If we would have &$^%&#@ ratified the treaty justifying this intervention
-If we were even marginally consistent about enforcing these norms even when opposed to self-interest
We can’t fix the last two right now, but we could certainly take this through the process with good faith and try to make it work.
otoh, if we go to the UNSC and Russia vetoes despite good evidence, and then we refuse to act, we’ve done bad things I think:
-just by allowing crimes to be committed and unaddressed; as Turb said not all wrongs can be righted but not trying makes it unclear if this is a case of no good answer or not enough interest
-it makes us look like we’re washing our hands, using the UNSC as an excuse not to act. If selective enforcement is bad, and using the UN to justify selective enforcement is just as bad
-I dont want to set the precedent that war crimes etc are ok if you have a patron on the UNSC who can veto to protect you. US included.
Ugh,
I believe that’s the core of the issue. I do think that, even in the absence of the UNSC, we’d be justified in intervening to prevent or address a crime against humanity.
There are things that could make this case stronger:
-If we could drum up more support among allies and make the hypothetical Russian veto clearly isolated self-interest.
-If we would actually present the case to the UNSC and demonstrate the broken process rather than assuming that it’s broken. Esp if we can show a enough support to succeed in the UNSC if not for the veto.
-If we would have &$^%&#@ ratified the treaty justifying this intervention
-If we were even marginally consistent about enforcing these norms even when opposed to self-interest
We can’t fix the last two right now, but we could certainly take this through the process with good faith and try to make it work.
otoh, if we go to the UNSC and Russia vetoes despite good evidence, and then we refuse to act, we’ve done bad things I think:
-just by allowing crimes to be committed and unaddressed; as Turb said not all wrongs can be righted but not trying makes it unclear if this is a case of no good answer or not enough interest
-it makes us look like we’re washing our hands, using the UNSC as an excuse not to act. If selective enforcement is bad, and using the UN to justify selective enforcement is just as bad
-I dont want to set the precedent that war crimes etc are ok if you have a patron on the UNSC who can veto to protect you. US included.
And if you had to choose which norm is more strongly, uh, normed, which would you choose?
And if you had to choose which norm is more strongly, uh, normed, which would you choose?
That’s a pretty tough one. If I can’t make the US go the UNSC and make their case etc, and just have to choose between unilaterally using military force to discourage war crimes and doing nothing…
I think I take the former. The UNSC is too vulnerable to self-interested veto, and it’s not like this particular ‘illegal’ war is precedent-setting in a way that Iraq II etc were not. I don’t see this having a tremendous impact on the structure of international law, so I would pick the one where just maybe we deter attacks on civilians in the future.
But I am not at all sure, and Im definitely less sure then when I joined this conversation.
That’s a pretty tough one. If I can’t make the US go the UNSC and make their case etc, and just have to choose between unilaterally using military force to discourage war crimes and doing nothing…
I think I take the former. The UNSC is too vulnerable to self-interested veto, and it’s not like this particular ‘illegal’ war is precedent-setting in a way that Iraq II etc were not. I don’t see this having a tremendous impact on the structure of international law, so I would pick the one where just maybe we deter attacks on civilians in the future.
But I am not at all sure, and Im definitely less sure then when I joined this conversation.
Although I have to admit, Id checked out the thread in the hopes that there would be a smart advocate of an actual bombing/etc campaign who would argue the merits. So far Ive either seen gung-ho-ness, or something like my or sapient’s agreement-in-principle-but-lets-see-the-details.
Personally, I think this position is pretty vulnerable to accusations that Im wanting to have my cake etc, saying that some abstract campaign would be acceptable but leaving myself room to object on implementation *if* things dont go well. It’s easy to object to details or mistakes, but no implementation will be free of mistakes or meet my personal design criteria perfectly- and Ill say, even with those concerns, Id still lean towards doing it. I would rather be wrong trying to stop an atrocity than wrong in letting it occur.
[Im sure that last bit is a huge consolation to those who would suffer from my choice.]
But I would *much* rather go the UN first and try. The “*much*” is mostly due to talking to people here.
At the risk of prolonging a pretty long thread, let’s flip this around on its head: Russia stops being the biggest @sshole at the grownup table, and the UNSC actually passes a resolution condemning Assad and authorizing something (say, punitive strikes or a no-fly zone). If the diplomatic objections were cleared, would people here think it a good idea? (Assuming we get no actual help from anyone else, just moral support). Or do you think trying to punch this particular tarbaby ends badly however we go about it and with whatever blessings we can gather?
Although I have to admit, Id checked out the thread in the hopes that there would be a smart advocate of an actual bombing/etc campaign who would argue the merits. So far Ive either seen gung-ho-ness, or something like my or sapient’s agreement-in-principle-but-lets-see-the-details.
Personally, I think this position is pretty vulnerable to accusations that Im wanting to have my cake etc, saying that some abstract campaign would be acceptable but leaving myself room to object on implementation *if* things dont go well. It’s easy to object to details or mistakes, but no implementation will be free of mistakes or meet my personal design criteria perfectly- and Ill say, even with those concerns, Id still lean towards doing it. I would rather be wrong trying to stop an atrocity than wrong in letting it occur.
[Im sure that last bit is a huge consolation to those who would suffer from my choice.]
But I would *much* rather go the UN first and try. The “*much*” is mostly due to talking to people here.
At the risk of prolonging a pretty long thread, let’s flip this around on its head: Russia stops being the biggest @sshole at the grownup table, and the UNSC actually passes a resolution condemning Assad and authorizing something (say, punitive strikes or a no-fly zone). If the diplomatic objections were cleared, would people here think it a good idea? (Assuming we get no actual help from anyone else, just moral support). Or do you think trying to punch this particular tarbaby ends badly however we go about it and with whatever blessings we can gather?
Carleton: Im not so Ok with your position that point #2 doesn’t exist at all
I do not believe I have ever expressed that position here, and I am not Turbulence. Please put down that pipe and back away…slowly, very slowly, and keep your hands visible.
I have also never denied this was a tough policy choice. Please allow me choose my own words to put in my mouth or stumble over.
My position is pretty straightforward: Unilateral military action, absent UN approval, is/would be unwise, ineffective, raise significantly the probability of negative blowback due to our taking sides, and illegal to boot. Even with UN approval, success would be dicey.
What’s not to like?
Our current policy of selective intervention, based upon our haphazard and quite self serving analysis of the level of humanitarian outrage smacks of the worst of Wilsonian diplomacy, critiques of which there are legion. And what really chaps my hide is the oft repeated assertion that for some select humanitarian disasters (cf civil war in Congo) we are just “helpless” reinforcing the belief (true of not) that politics drives these military urges…nothing more.
Other than that, your comment at 3:51 above is greatly appreciated. Thanks.
Oh, and my policy?
(Inhales deeply): Continue to investigate. Support for (some) elements of the opposition. Take the case to the U.N.—repeatedly. Spend a couple of billion (chicken feed to us) to alleviate the suffering of the refugees and help those who are housing them in their country. Continue to work to isolate the Assad regime diplomatically. Continue to work to eliminate these weapons from world arsenals (which actually has been a very great international success). I’m sure there are other non-violent means we could adopt.
If it came down to a couple of illegal cruise missiles, my choice would be the Saudi palace in Riyadh, but that’s just me.
Carleton: Im not so Ok with your position that point #2 doesn’t exist at all
I do not believe I have ever expressed that position here, and I am not Turbulence. Please put down that pipe and back away…slowly, very slowly, and keep your hands visible.
I have also never denied this was a tough policy choice. Please allow me choose my own words to put in my mouth or stumble over.
My position is pretty straightforward: Unilateral military action, absent UN approval, is/would be unwise, ineffective, raise significantly the probability of negative blowback due to our taking sides, and illegal to boot. Even with UN approval, success would be dicey.
What’s not to like?
Our current policy of selective intervention, based upon our haphazard and quite self serving analysis of the level of humanitarian outrage smacks of the worst of Wilsonian diplomacy, critiques of which there are legion. And what really chaps my hide is the oft repeated assertion that for some select humanitarian disasters (cf civil war in Congo) we are just “helpless” reinforcing the belief (true of not) that politics drives these military urges…nothing more.
Other than that, your comment at 3:51 above is greatly appreciated. Thanks.
Oh, and my policy?
(Inhales deeply): Continue to investigate. Support for (some) elements of the opposition. Take the case to the U.N.—repeatedly. Spend a couple of billion (chicken feed to us) to alleviate the suffering of the refugees and help those who are housing them in their country. Continue to work to isolate the Assad regime diplomatically. Continue to work to eliminate these weapons from world arsenals (which actually has been a very great international success). I’m sure there are other non-violent means we could adopt.
If it came down to a couple of illegal cruise missiles, my choice would be the Saudi palace in Riyadh, but that’s just me.
It would be a slightly less bad idea if it had UN blessing. The people in Syria we end up bombing aren’t going to care one way or the other. It’s not going to sway the balance (or “momentum” – what is this an NBA game?) toward Assad’s opposition and, even if it did, are we sure that’s better than the current situation?
Where are all those chemical weapons going to end up in the inevitable chaos that will follow Assad losing power?
It would be a slightly less bad idea if it had UN blessing. The people in Syria we end up bombing aren’t going to care one way or the other. It’s not going to sway the balance (or “momentum” – what is this an NBA game?) toward Assad’s opposition and, even if it did, are we sure that’s better than the current situation?
Where are all those chemical weapons going to end up in the inevitable chaos that will follow Assad losing power?
If the diplomatic objections were cleared, would people here think it a good idea?
i’d be much less opposed if it was a truly international effort.
a big part of my resistance to the US going at it alone is because i don’t like the idea of thumbing our nose at treaties and agreements which outline procedures we should follow in cases like this. i also want the US to stop playing the role of self-appointed policeman. and i especially want the US to stop stomping around the ME.
i also think getting the rest of the world to help with this might lead to a better eventual outcome because Assad won’t be able to credibly turn it into a Syria vs the US issue – especially if Arab countries get involved. it would seriously isolate him – maybe even enough to get him to start negotiating.
it would also add far more oomph to the idea that CW use will not be tolerated. pissing off the US is one thing, pissing off the entire world is another.
i still don’t like the idea of military action, but if it’s a UN (or Arab League!) force instead of a US force, the politics might get Assad to wind-down faster.
IMO. $.02. ymmv. etc.
If the diplomatic objections were cleared, would people here think it a good idea?
i’d be much less opposed if it was a truly international effort.
a big part of my resistance to the US going at it alone is because i don’t like the idea of thumbing our nose at treaties and agreements which outline procedures we should follow in cases like this. i also want the US to stop playing the role of self-appointed policeman. and i especially want the US to stop stomping around the ME.
i also think getting the rest of the world to help with this might lead to a better eventual outcome because Assad won’t be able to credibly turn it into a Syria vs the US issue – especially if Arab countries get involved. it would seriously isolate him – maybe even enough to get him to start negotiating.
it would also add far more oomph to the idea that CW use will not be tolerated. pissing off the US is one thing, pissing off the entire world is another.
i still don’t like the idea of military action, but if it’s a UN (or Arab League!) force instead of a US force, the politics might get Assad to wind-down faster.
IMO. $.02. ymmv. etc.
Where are all those chemical weapons going to end up in the inevitable chaos that will follow Assad losing power?
yeah. that’s the $64B question.
that’s why i think just driving Assad out would be a huge mistake. it seems like the Syrian military has to remain intact, just to keep their hardware under control.
Where are all those chemical weapons going to end up in the inevitable chaos that will follow Assad losing power?
yeah. that’s the $64B question.
that’s why i think just driving Assad out would be a huge mistake. it seems like the Syrian military has to remain intact, just to keep their hardware under control.
Here’s another question: would you rather have Assad’s chemical weapons stockpile in his hands, or spread among the opposition currently fighting him?
Here’s another question: would you rather have Assad’s chemical weapons stockpile in his hands, or spread among the opposition currently fighting him?
i also think getting the rest of the world to help with this might lead to a better eventual outcome because Assad won’t be able to credibly turn it into a Syria vs the US issue – especially if Arab countries get involved.
Strong point, esp with the example of Gulf War I. Sounds like we are getting verbal support from some ME countries already, but I imagine it’s a loooong way from them actually participating. Although even nominal participation would be a huge factor.
CW use will not be tolerated
What’d I do this time?
i also think getting the rest of the world to help with this might lead to a better eventual outcome because Assad won’t be able to credibly turn it into a Syria vs the US issue – especially if Arab countries get involved.
Strong point, esp with the example of Gulf War I. Sounds like we are getting verbal support from some ME countries already, but I imagine it’s a loooong way from them actually participating. Although even nominal participation would be a huge factor.
CW use will not be tolerated
What’d I do this time?
I do not believe I have ever expressed that position here, and I am not Turbulence.
Sorry- I inferred it from your quote of my statement (“it seems like our membership in the UN would continue to preclude action”) and you’re “then case closed”, not from confusing you with Turb. When you say one thing, then reach a conclusion with ‘case closed’, that sounded to me like other factors aren’t part of the decision. Maybe reading too much into a cute turn of phrase.
I do not believe I have ever expressed that position here, and I am not Turbulence.
Sorry- I inferred it from your quote of my statement (“it seems like our membership in the UN would continue to preclude action”) and you’re “then case closed”, not from confusing you with Turb. When you say one thing, then reach a conclusion with ‘case closed’, that sounded to me like other factors aren’t part of the decision. Maybe reading too much into a cute turn of phrase.
On the self-serving side, I don’t see how bombing Syria is self-serving. By that, I don’t mean that there isn’t some attempt to be self-serving among those who are pushing for it. I just don’t see that it would get us a damned thing, other than a bunch of trouble. I mean, we can’t even pull off being selfish… unless I’m missing something.
Anyone?
On the self-serving side, I don’t see how bombing Syria is self-serving. By that, I don’t mean that there isn’t some attempt to be self-serving among those who are pushing for it. I just don’t see that it would get us a damned thing, other than a bunch of trouble. I mean, we can’t even pull off being selfish… unless I’m missing something.
Anyone?
Where are all those chemical weapons going to end up in the inevitable chaos that will follow Assad losing power?
Yeah, I was just reading a thing this morning that suggested actually getting or disposing of the chemical agents would mean boots on the ground for sure. As opposed to smashing the stockpiles open from the air or just knocking Assad’s forces down
and letting the AQ-afilliated resistance groups go get them for free.otoh, Im not sure that ‘intervention’ without dealing with the chemical agents makes sense. Do we impose a no-fly zone & knock down his SAMs and airfields as a punishment and warn that further attacks on civilians will lead to worse outcomes, or is that kinda silly?
Of course, even if we don’t intervene AQ groups may get their hands on chemical agents or they could be used again, so we shouldn’t necessarily view the risk of us hitting Assad without securing the weapons in isolation. But once we get boots on the ground it’ll inevitably mean some coordination with the rebels, some ongoing exchanges with Assad, and some territory under our direct control (with all of the associated complications). Tarbaby time.
And officially for the One-Millionth time I wish we had kept our powder dry in 2003, I cant help wondering if we’d have a better reputation, more chance of attracting allies, and more stomach for a fairly serious undertaking when we actually might have wanted to do it.
Where are all those chemical weapons going to end up in the inevitable chaos that will follow Assad losing power?
Yeah, I was just reading a thing this morning that suggested actually getting or disposing of the chemical agents would mean boots on the ground for sure. As opposed to smashing the stockpiles open from the air or just knocking Assad’s forces down
and letting the AQ-afilliated resistance groups go get them for free.otoh, Im not sure that ‘intervention’ without dealing with the chemical agents makes sense. Do we impose a no-fly zone & knock down his SAMs and airfields as a punishment and warn that further attacks on civilians will lead to worse outcomes, or is that kinda silly?
Of course, even if we don’t intervene AQ groups may get their hands on chemical agents or they could be used again, so we shouldn’t necessarily view the risk of us hitting Assad without securing the weapons in isolation. But once we get boots on the ground it’ll inevitably mean some coordination with the rebels, some ongoing exchanges with Assad, and some territory under our direct control (with all of the associated complications). Tarbaby time.
And officially for the One-Millionth time I wish we had kept our powder dry in 2003, I cant help wondering if we’d have a better reputation, more chance of attracting allies, and more stomach for a fairly serious undertaking when we actually might have wanted to do it.
On the self-serving side, I don’t see how bombing Syria is self-serving.
Well, insofar as they’re a Russian client and friendly with Iran, I can. We don’t win if an AQ-friendly regime takes control, but we might be happier with something more moderate yet still free from Iranian or Russian influence- or just a big crunchy bowl of chaos where Syria used to be.
[nb I dont think we actually would benefit from Syria being chaotic, but some people might argue for it; certainly Ive seen people suggest that prolonging the war is in our interests].
Plus, big message to Iran- we can do this, and we will do this if we have to.
On the self-serving side, I don’t see how bombing Syria is self-serving.
Well, insofar as they’re a Russian client and friendly with Iran, I can. We don’t win if an AQ-friendly regime takes control, but we might be happier with something more moderate yet still free from Iranian or Russian influence- or just a big crunchy bowl of chaos where Syria used to be.
[nb I dont think we actually would benefit from Syria being chaotic, but some people might argue for it; certainly Ive seen people suggest that prolonging the war is in our interests].
Plus, big message to Iran- we can do this, and we will do this if we have to.
some abstract campaign would be acceptable but leaving myself room to object on implementation *if* things dont go well.
I think in any military situation you have to assume that a non-trivial number of things will not go well.
Non-military situations, too, but there is something about blowing stuff up that makes Murphy’s law kick in in especially spectacular ways.
From the small amount of involvement I’ve ever had with military folks, they never ever assume perfect execution, much less perfect results even if execution is perfect.
Sh*t, as the bumper stickers say, happens.
That’s as true for doing nothing as it is for the opposite, BTW, so it’s not necessarily an argument for or against.
It’s just the reality. You can’t decide about stuff like this based on assumptions about how well it will go.
In for a penny (on whichever side of the fence), in for a pound.
some abstract campaign would be acceptable but leaving myself room to object on implementation *if* things dont go well.
I think in any military situation you have to assume that a non-trivial number of things will not go well.
Non-military situations, too, but there is something about blowing stuff up that makes Murphy’s law kick in in especially spectacular ways.
From the small amount of involvement I’ve ever had with military folks, they never ever assume perfect execution, much less perfect results even if execution is perfect.
Sh*t, as the bumper stickers say, happens.
That’s as true for doing nothing as it is for the opposite, BTW, so it’s not necessarily an argument for or against.
It’s just the reality. You can’t decide about stuff like this based on assumptions about how well it will go.
In for a penny (on whichever side of the fence), in for a pound.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/history-lesson-when-the-united-states-looked-the-other-way-on-chemical-weapons/2013/09/04/0ec828d6-1549-11e3-961c-f22d3aaf19ab_blog.html
http://www.theguardian.com/world/iran-blog/2013/sep/02/iran-chemical-weapons-wmd-sanctions
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/history-lesson-when-the-united-states-looked-the-other-way-on-chemical-weapons/2013/09/04/0ec828d6-1549-11e3-961c-f22d3aaf19ab_blog.html
http://www.theguardian.com/world/iran-blog/2013/sep/02/iran-chemical-weapons-wmd-sanctions
“Continue to investigate. Support for (some) elements of the opposition. Take the case to the U.N.—repeatedly. Spend a couple of billion (chicken feed to us) to alleviate the suffering of the refugees and help those who are housing them in their country. Continue to work to isolate the Assad regime diplomatically. Continue to work to eliminate these weapons from world arsenals (which actually has been a very great international success). I’m sure there are other non-violent means we could adopt.”
I’d go along with this, except maybe that support for (some) elements of the opposition, if that means weapons. I’m just a little tired of us supporting “freedom fighters”, even if the cause is good. I doubt we’re really all that competent at picking out the groups who will fight a guerilla war cleanly, if indeed such a thing has ever been done.
And a quote from novakant’s second link, about the plight of Iranian victims of Iraqi poison gas attacks that we supported due to the sanctions–
“In theory, medicine is exempt from western sanctions against Iran; in practice, however, with blanket international sanctions on Iranian banking and shipping, it is extremely difficult for any pharmaceutical company to arrange for payment and shipment. Iranian government mismanagement and corruption have only exacerbated the problem.”
Of course our moral duty to help doesn’t extend to helping people we’ve hurt.
“Continue to investigate. Support for (some) elements of the opposition. Take the case to the U.N.—repeatedly. Spend a couple of billion (chicken feed to us) to alleviate the suffering of the refugees and help those who are housing them in their country. Continue to work to isolate the Assad regime diplomatically. Continue to work to eliminate these weapons from world arsenals (which actually has been a very great international success). I’m sure there are other non-violent means we could adopt.”
I’d go along with this, except maybe that support for (some) elements of the opposition, if that means weapons. I’m just a little tired of us supporting “freedom fighters”, even if the cause is good. I doubt we’re really all that competent at picking out the groups who will fight a guerilla war cleanly, if indeed such a thing has ever been done.
And a quote from novakant’s second link, about the plight of Iranian victims of Iraqi poison gas attacks that we supported due to the sanctions–
“In theory, medicine is exempt from western sanctions against Iran; in practice, however, with blanket international sanctions on Iranian banking and shipping, it is extremely difficult for any pharmaceutical company to arrange for payment and shipment. Iranian government mismanagement and corruption have only exacerbated the problem.”
Of course our moral duty to help doesn’t extend to helping people we’ve hurt.
“about the plight of Iranian victims of Iraqi poison gas attacks that we supported due to the sanctions”
Poorly phrasing. I meant Iranian victims of the Iraqi poison gas attacks that we tacitly supported–they now have difficulty obtaining medicine. In a saner world, there would be discussion of this sort of thing amongst our noble political class, so eager they are to help innocent people overseas. But it might involve uncomfortable discussions of things we’ve done, so nevermind.
“about the plight of Iranian victims of Iraqi poison gas attacks that we supported due to the sanctions”
Poorly phrasing. I meant Iranian victims of the Iraqi poison gas attacks that we tacitly supported–they now have difficulty obtaining medicine. In a saner world, there would be discussion of this sort of thing amongst our noble political class, so eager they are to help innocent people overseas. But it might involve uncomfortable discussions of things we’ve done, so nevermind.
“Poorly phrasing”.
Good lord.
“Poorly phrasing”.
Good lord.
Just want to say to the folks here that I so much appreciate the thoughtfulness with which so many people are thinking about this. Thanks for providing me a place to read and to comment.
A lot of people (me included) seem to be somewhat conflicted, trying to sort out the responsibility of the US versus the obvious potential for disaster. I deeply think we should do something, and not to turn a blind eye. I hope that what we do looks like Bosnia (because I’m proud of what we did there, on behalf of friends I know who survived). I don’t want what we do to look like Iraq.
I do believe that the competence and priorities of the President makes a difference (although luck and circumstances play a bit part as well). Hoping for the best …
Just want to say to the folks here that I so much appreciate the thoughtfulness with which so many people are thinking about this. Thanks for providing me a place to read and to comment.
A lot of people (me included) seem to be somewhat conflicted, trying to sort out the responsibility of the US versus the obvious potential for disaster. I deeply think we should do something, and not to turn a blind eye. I hope that what we do looks like Bosnia (because I’m proud of what we did there, on behalf of friends I know who survived). I don’t want what we do to look like Iraq.
I do believe that the competence and priorities of the President makes a difference (although luck and circumstances play a bit part as well). Hoping for the best …
And this.
And this.
Plus, big message to Iran- we can do this, and we will do this if we have to.
Disagree. It only sends a message to them to hunker down and find ways to thwart our efforts as they see them opposing heir perceived national interests. It may (I stress may) make them more cautious, but it will most likely harden their resolve.
You want to blunt the mullahs? Embrace them. Print up tons of money and give it to them (hey, it’s just paper). BUY THEM OFF. This is a tried and true technique used by countries, political machines, and well organized criminal gangs for, like forever. Sometimes it even works! Immerse them in a such an overpowering and strangling web of profitable commercial and social interactions that they will do anything we tell them to. In other words, work to modify their national interests.
Instead we have plowed our substantial economic surplus into a military establishment that sucks up vast resources, blunts democracy, and lulls us into a false sense of security. When confronted with a problem, we reach for threats and guns first, and think only when forced to.
It is manifestly stupid, but alas, all too predictable. We are not the first to travel down this road.
Plus, big message to Iran- we can do this, and we will do this if we have to.
Disagree. It only sends a message to them to hunker down and find ways to thwart our efforts as they see them opposing heir perceived national interests. It may (I stress may) make them more cautious, but it will most likely harden their resolve.
You want to blunt the mullahs? Embrace them. Print up tons of money and give it to them (hey, it’s just paper). BUY THEM OFF. This is a tried and true technique used by countries, political machines, and well organized criminal gangs for, like forever. Sometimes it even works! Immerse them in a such an overpowering and strangling web of profitable commercial and social interactions that they will do anything we tell them to. In other words, work to modify their national interests.
Instead we have plowed our substantial economic surplus into a military establishment that sucks up vast resources, blunts democracy, and lulls us into a false sense of security. When confronted with a problem, we reach for threats and guns first, and think only when forced to.
It is manifestly stupid, but alas, all too predictable. We are not the first to travel down this road.
Where are all those chemical weapons going to end up in the inevitable chaos that will follow Assad losing power?
If I had to bet, I’d say Israel.
Where are all those chemical weapons going to end up in the inevitable chaos that will follow Assad losing power?
If I had to bet, I’d say Israel.
or this.
or this.
Disagree. It only sends a message to them to hunker down and find ways to thwart our efforts as they see them opposing heir perceived national interests.
Im not saying I agree with that, just that if someone suspects the US to have an ulterior motive it’s a candidate motive.
If I had to bet, I’d say Israel.
You mean, the Israelis will go get them, or they’ll be used against Israel? Or, I guess, both could happen.
Disagree. It only sends a message to them to hunker down and find ways to thwart our efforts as they see them opposing heir perceived national interests.
Im not saying I agree with that, just that if someone suspects the US to have an ulterior motive it’s a candidate motive.
If I had to bet, I’d say Israel.
You mean, the Israelis will go get them, or they’ll be used against Israel? Or, I guess, both could happen.
“Plus, big message to Iran- we can do this, and we will do this if we have to.”
“Disagree. It only sends a message to them to hunker down and find ways to thwart our efforts as they see them opposing heir perceived national interests.”
Sending a message to Iran is clearly AIPAC’s motive. I suspect it would be one of the US government’s motives, probably pretty high on the list.
link to politico story
“Plus, big message to Iran- we can do this, and we will do this if we have to.”
“Disagree. It only sends a message to them to hunker down and find ways to thwart our efforts as they see them opposing heir perceived national interests.”
Sending a message to Iran is clearly AIPAC’s motive. I suspect it would be one of the US government’s motives, probably pretty high on the list.
link to politico story
From DJ’s politico link:
Officials say that some 250 Jewish leaders and AIPAC activists will storm the halls on Capitol Hill beginning next week to persuade lawmakers that Congress must adopt the resolution or risk emboldening Iran’s efforts to build a nuclear weapon.
Oh good lord. If anything, I would think bombing Syria would accelerate Iran’s efforts to build a nuclear weapon.
From DJ’s politico link:
Officials say that some 250 Jewish leaders and AIPAC activists will storm the halls on Capitol Hill beginning next week to persuade lawmakers that Congress must adopt the resolution or risk emboldening Iran’s efforts to build a nuclear weapon.
Oh good lord. If anything, I would think bombing Syria would accelerate Iran’s efforts to build a nuclear weapon.
Im not saying I agree with that, just that if someone suspects the US to have an ulterior motive it’s a candidate motive.
I guess my question was aimed at motives people here thought were justified and could support. Also, that one could say made the effort a net good thing, not whether the were any good outcomes at all, while ignoring all the costs/bad stuff.
I mean, we’d probably destroy something or kill someone that, from a purely self-interest-based perspective, we’d like to see destroyed or killed, even if the effort were patently wrong-headed (which it probably will be).
Im not saying I agree with that, just that if someone suspects the US to have an ulterior motive it’s a candidate motive.
I guess my question was aimed at motives people here thought were justified and could support. Also, that one could say made the effort a net good thing, not whether the were any good outcomes at all, while ignoring all the costs/bad stuff.
I mean, we’d probably destroy something or kill someone that, from a purely self-interest-based perspective, we’d like to see destroyed or killed, even if the effort were patently wrong-headed (which it probably will be).
I should add that I’m not looking to be convinced, just for something that’s at least plausible, rather than ridiculous.
I should add that I’m not looking to be convinced, just for something that’s at least plausible, rather than ridiculous.
My reading is that Putin is starting to feel boxed in by the overwhelming evidence of guilt of the Syrian military and wants to make a deal. He is also moving ships into the region to reinforce his point of view–make a deal, don’t open hostilities!
Under the circumstances, it certainly makes sense for Obama to test him and see whom he is willing to throw over for war crimes prosecution (not Assad, I presume, but someone).
My reading is that Putin is starting to feel boxed in by the overwhelming evidence of guilt of the Syrian military and wants to make a deal. He is also moving ships into the region to reinforce his point of view–make a deal, don’t open hostilities!
Under the circumstances, it certainly makes sense for Obama to test him and see whom he is willing to throw over for war crimes prosecution (not Assad, I presume, but someone).
You mean, the Israelis will go get them, or they’ll be used against Israel?
Yes,the first. I would assume if even extremist rebels won the civil war that they would not use them…their first effort would be to consolidate power. But you know the Prime Directive: Don’t assume.
You mean, the Israelis will go get them, or they’ll be used against Israel?
Yes,the first. I would assume if even extremist rebels won the civil war that they would not use them…their first effort would be to consolidate power. But you know the Prime Directive: Don’t assume.
Plus, big message to Iran- we can do this, and we will do this if we have to.
Glad we have our own Tom Friedman on board now.
Plus, big message to Iran- we can do this, and we will do this if we have to.
Glad we have our own Tom Friedman on board now.
Under the circumstances, it certainly makes sense for Obama to test him
That’s called “poking a bear with a stick”. And the bear has nukes.
Under the circumstances, it certainly makes sense for Obama to test him
That’s called “poking a bear with a stick”. And the bear has nukes.
Alan Grayson complaining in the NYT today about how little information the Administration is giving to Congress, even in classified form–
link
Alan Grayson complaining in the NYT today about how little information the Administration is giving to Congress, even in classified form–
link
shorter AIPAC: let’s you and him fight!
shorter AIPAC: let’s you and him fight!
Glad we have our own Tom Friedman on board now.
I will save time quoting my response to that general sentiment from the day before your comment:
Im not saying I agree with that, just that if someone suspects the US to have an ulterior motive it’s a candidate motive.
Glad we have our own Tom Friedman on board now.
I will save time quoting my response to that general sentiment from the day before your comment:
Im not saying I agree with that, just that if someone suspects the US to have an ulterior motive it’s a candidate motive.
well, that’s unexpected.
Russia asks Syria to hand over its chemical weapons.
well, that’s unexpected.
Russia asks Syria to hand over its chemical weapons.
That’s got to be a real Joel-get-off-the-babysitter moment for the administration, if true.
That’s got to be a real Joel-get-off-the-babysitter moment for the administration, if true.
if true
Indeed. Interesting turn of events–almost *unimaginable*: that SecState would run a hypo up the flagpole, that Putin would immediately salute and that Assad would then fall into line within moments. Problem solved, nothing to see here folks, let’s move along. Let’s go find LJ!
if true
Indeed. Interesting turn of events–almost *unimaginable*: that SecState would run a hypo up the flagpole, that Putin would immediately salute and that Assad would then fall into line within moments. Problem solved, nothing to see here folks, let’s move along. Let’s go find LJ!
that SecState would run a hypo up the flagpole
and he did it sarcastically!
so strange.
that SecState would run a hypo up the flagpole
and he did it sarcastically!
so strange.
Is Obama going to have to re-tape his media blitz interviews now?
Is Obama going to have to re-tape his media blitz interviews now?
12 dimensional chess.
12 dimensional chess.
From what I’ve read, Assad could publicly dispose of half of his gas arsenal and still have plenty. If the attack was an error, I’m sure there is some internal punishment going on and all incentives are to stick it out. If it was a “one off” then deterrence worked! No more attacks! Otherwise, I’d wager his Russian allies leaned on him hard to knock it off.
The Russian initiative couldn’t have been timed better. It really set the admin and Congress on its heels, and has effectively delayed any vote. Support for armed intervention can only disperse, like poison gas in the wind.
Despite what most Americans believe, our foreign adversaries weren’t born yesterday. They, too, know how to play The Great Game and nth dimensional chess.
The Russian initiative is a master stroke.
From what I’ve read, Assad could publicly dispose of half of his gas arsenal and still have plenty. If the attack was an error, I’m sure there is some internal punishment going on and all incentives are to stick it out. If it was a “one off” then deterrence worked! No more attacks! Otherwise, I’d wager his Russian allies leaned on him hard to knock it off.
The Russian initiative couldn’t have been timed better. It really set the admin and Congress on its heels, and has effectively delayed any vote. Support for armed intervention can only disperse, like poison gas in the wind.
Despite what most Americans believe, our foreign adversaries weren’t born yesterday. They, too, know how to play The Great Game and nth dimensional chess.
The Russian initiative is a master stroke.
The Russian initiative is a master stroke.
Not sure why we have to see this as combat. If it makes people stop using chemical weapons, good! The US is still a credible proponent of an effort to keep behind the “red line”, good! International cooperation, good! US the world’s advocate, but not policeman, good!
Nothing bad about any of this if it 1) makes Syria make some concessions (without the worry of US bombing), and 2) exemplifies cooperation between adversaries.
I don’t really see a downside.
The Russian initiative is a master stroke.
Not sure why we have to see this as combat. If it makes people stop using chemical weapons, good! The US is still a credible proponent of an effort to keep behind the “red line”, good! International cooperation, good! US the world’s advocate, but not policeman, good!
Nothing bad about any of this if it 1) makes Syria make some concessions (without the worry of US bombing), and 2) exemplifies cooperation between adversaries.
I don’t really see a downside.
Also, the fact that Obama was making a strong case for military action is what brought this about.
I hope it works.
Also, the fact that Obama was making a strong case for military action is what brought this about.
I hope it works.
“Nothing bad about any of this if it 1) makes Syria make some concessions (without the worry of US bombing), and 2) exemplifies cooperation between adversaries.
I don’t really see a downside.”
It’s probably the best that could be expected–now the killing can go on with conventional weapons, but yea, it’d be nice to keep a red line in place here or there, at least for countries that aren’t our allies.
I give Obama this much credit–I think he badly wants this to work, because I don’t think he wanted to go into Syria and felt trapped by his own rhetoric, not expecting when he drew his red line that someone would actually then use poison gas and kill a large number of people. As digby (I think) pointed out the other day, Obama seems to like the covert style of violence–drones and so forth and whatever one thinks of that, he hasn’t shown the Bush-like neocon propensity to jump headlong into full scale wars. Not yet anyway.
“Nothing bad about any of this if it 1) makes Syria make some concessions (without the worry of US bombing), and 2) exemplifies cooperation between adversaries.
I don’t really see a downside.”
It’s probably the best that could be expected–now the killing can go on with conventional weapons, but yea, it’d be nice to keep a red line in place here or there, at least for countries that aren’t our allies.
I give Obama this much credit–I think he badly wants this to work, because I don’t think he wanted to go into Syria and felt trapped by his own rhetoric, not expecting when he drew his red line that someone would actually then use poison gas and kill a large number of people. As digby (I think) pointed out the other day, Obama seems to like the covert style of violence–drones and so forth and whatever one thinks of that, he hasn’t shown the Bush-like neocon propensity to jump headlong into full scale wars. Not yet anyway.
I don’t really see a downside.
implementation will be pretty difficult.
I don’t really see a downside.
implementation will be pretty difficult.
I don’t really see a downside.
Practically, assuming Putin can carry this through, the big loser here is the rebels I think. I suspect the US Congresspeople who were for a strike, then turned against it, and it (hopefully) turned out to be a useful threat havent covered themselves in glory either.
More seriously, it’s less of a punishment than Id like to see for mass murder, and that’s a pretty big negative, but not one worth fixing at the price.
Weirdly, this response has played out almost ideally from my perspective:
-a US President has paid more than lip service to the War Powers Act; after Libya and the ongoing Drone War I wouldn’t have guessed this was a possibility for this administration
-a bunch of hawks in the US publicly got cold feet (speaking of bluffs being called)
-the world community is now taking non-violent intervention due to civilian massacre seriously, at least in this case, again hopefully setting a precedent
-Assad gets publicly spanked and takes a prestige hit, with the Russians on our side rather than opposed to us; thus we get the cake of kick Assad in the nuts while building on our relationship with Russia rather than tearing it down
-any action in Syria would presumably have the blessings of the UN; the US acting (hopefully in conjunction with others) under UN auspices to remove CW from Syria is something I think (hope) most people in the world can support
I admit to not understanding the Russian position though- maybe Putin fears the loss of face if he can only talk or make token responses to US airstrikes etc? Also, Im suspicious as to whether this was planned rather than a lucky break- if this was an outcome the Russians preferred to airstrikes, then they could’ve easily said to in public or private. They didn’t need to wait for Kerry to suggest it offhandedly. Im not sure what sense it would make to make it appear like a lucky break though- maybe the Russians insisted that the offer come from the Americans, and the Americans didn’t want to appear weak by headlining the offer because that looks too much like a backpedal?
I don’t really see a downside.
Practically, assuming Putin can carry this through, the big loser here is the rebels I think. I suspect the US Congresspeople who were for a strike, then turned against it, and it (hopefully) turned out to be a useful threat havent covered themselves in glory either.
More seriously, it’s less of a punishment than Id like to see for mass murder, and that’s a pretty big negative, but not one worth fixing at the price.
Weirdly, this response has played out almost ideally from my perspective:
-a US President has paid more than lip service to the War Powers Act; after Libya and the ongoing Drone War I wouldn’t have guessed this was a possibility for this administration
-a bunch of hawks in the US publicly got cold feet (speaking of bluffs being called)
-the world community is now taking non-violent intervention due to civilian massacre seriously, at least in this case, again hopefully setting a precedent
-Assad gets publicly spanked and takes a prestige hit, with the Russians on our side rather than opposed to us; thus we get the cake of kick Assad in the nuts while building on our relationship with Russia rather than tearing it down
-any action in Syria would presumably have the blessings of the UN; the US acting (hopefully in conjunction with others) under UN auspices to remove CW from Syria is something I think (hope) most people in the world can support
I admit to not understanding the Russian position though- maybe Putin fears the loss of face if he can only talk or make token responses to US airstrikes etc? Also, Im suspicious as to whether this was planned rather than a lucky break- if this was an outcome the Russians preferred to airstrikes, then they could’ve easily said to in public or private. They didn’t need to wait for Kerry to suggest it offhandedly. Im not sure what sense it would make to make it appear like a lucky break though- maybe the Russians insisted that the offer come from the Americans, and the Americans didn’t want to appear weak by headlining the offer because that looks too much like a backpedal?
i’m skeptical of the idea that this was all orchestrated.
but,
… ” maybe the Russians insisted that the offer come from the Americans, and the Americans didn’t want to appear weak by headlining the offer because that looks too much like a backpedal”…
… is about the only way it makes sense to me.
i’m skeptical of the idea that this was all orchestrated.
but,
… ” maybe the Russians insisted that the offer come from the Americans, and the Americans didn’t want to appear weak by headlining the offer because that looks too much like a backpedal”…
… is about the only way it makes sense to me.
Carleton. It strikes me you are overthinking this.
Sapient. I’m glad you are happy.
But consider. This episode demonstrates to me that Russia’s willingness to see Assad win is much greater than our willingness to see him lose. So, how much of our precious ‘national interest’ is really at stake here? Not much? A little? Some modicum?
This move buys Assad what he needs most: (1.) No U.S. military strikes; and (2.)Time to finish the job and win his war.
Assad could care less about his international reputation, and Putin comes off looking good, too. Win-win for him I guess.
On to boycotting the Olympics!
Carleton. It strikes me you are overthinking this.
Sapient. I’m glad you are happy.
But consider. This episode demonstrates to me that Russia’s willingness to see Assad win is much greater than our willingness to see him lose. So, how much of our precious ‘national interest’ is really at stake here? Not much? A little? Some modicum?
This move buys Assad what he needs most: (1.) No U.S. military strikes; and (2.)Time to finish the job and win his war.
Assad could care less about his international reputation, and Putin comes off looking good, too. Win-win for him I guess.
On to boycotting the Olympics!
One can spin this various ways.
Helena Cobban’s summary
Whether anyone deserves much credit depends on whether the next step is that there is pressure on both sides (the regime and the rebels) to reach a political solution of some sort.
One can spin this various ways.
Helena Cobban’s summary
Whether anyone deserves much credit depends on whether the next step is that there is pressure on both sides (the regime and the rebels) to reach a political solution of some sort.
bobbyp, I agree this is a loss for the rebels and a win for Assad, at least in the short term (medium-term, I think being publicly defanged by the US (and hopefully others) will be pretty humiliating and damage his status). And that Russia has more of a stake (or, at least perceives more of a stake) in the matter.
And Id *love* to see Assad lose, nevertheless I don’t see getting that without a lot more in the way of negative consequences. Russia presumably will keep any such operation from getting UN sanction.
Do you not think this is an excellent resolution (if it works)?
As for overthinking- I agree, I tend to be skeptical when people imagine scenarios of how events could’ve unfolded behind the scenes. It’s just too easy to imagine the scenario you’d prefer or one that fits nicely into a narrative. Sometimes the Reichstag just catches on fire.
otoh, the alternative is pretty odd too- if this happened the way that it appeared to, unscripted, then neither the US or the Russians were talking at even the most basic level, or even thinking “how can we get the other guys on our side?”, and then Kerry slipped into saying something that everyone was super-happy about.
So yeah, also possible- but then they should fire everyone in the State Dept (and corresponding Russians) whose job it was to think of things such as this. I think everyone was assuming something like this couldn’t be in play because- of course they talked this over, right?
Maybe in 50 years we’ll get the secret docs released of how Snowden hacked into Kerry’s computer to plant that his his statement and then blackmailed Putin with those embarrassing heels-and-garters pictures (see The Sun July 17, 2018) into jumping for the deal.
bobbyp, I agree this is a loss for the rebels and a win for Assad, at least in the short term (medium-term, I think being publicly defanged by the US (and hopefully others) will be pretty humiliating and damage his status). And that Russia has more of a stake (or, at least perceives more of a stake) in the matter.
And Id *love* to see Assad lose, nevertheless I don’t see getting that without a lot more in the way of negative consequences. Russia presumably will keep any such operation from getting UN sanction.
Do you not think this is an excellent resolution (if it works)?
As for overthinking- I agree, I tend to be skeptical when people imagine scenarios of how events could’ve unfolded behind the scenes. It’s just too easy to imagine the scenario you’d prefer or one that fits nicely into a narrative. Sometimes the Reichstag just catches on fire.
otoh, the alternative is pretty odd too- if this happened the way that it appeared to, unscripted, then neither the US or the Russians were talking at even the most basic level, or even thinking “how can we get the other guys on our side?”, and then Kerry slipped into saying something that everyone was super-happy about.
So yeah, also possible- but then they should fire everyone in the State Dept (and corresponding Russians) whose job it was to think of things such as this. I think everyone was assuming something like this couldn’t be in play because- of course they talked this over, right?
Maybe in 50 years we’ll get the secret docs released of how Snowden hacked into Kerry’s computer to plant that his his statement and then blackmailed Putin with those embarrassing heels-and-garters pictures (see The Sun July 17, 2018) into jumping for the deal.
This is an interesting article about the background of the CW proposal.
There are a few observations from my location in Kyrgyzstan (good on everyone for figuring it out!) but alas, are too small to fit into this comment box. Maybe when I get back home.
ps I note that a few comments by Duff Clarity were caught up in the spam folder and I’ve released them. Sorry I haven’t been checking as I usually do, but there is no internet where I am working, and when I do get to a cafe with wifi, checking the spam folder is a bit down the list.
This is an interesting article about the background of the CW proposal.
There are a few observations from my location in Kyrgyzstan (good on everyone for figuring it out!) but alas, are too small to fit into this comment box. Maybe when I get back home.
ps I note that a few comments by Duff Clarity were caught up in the spam folder and I’ve released them. Sorry I haven’t been checking as I usually do, but there is no internet where I am working, and when I do get to a cafe with wifi, checking the spam folder is a bit down the list.