British Parliament votes against military action in Syria

[Voronwë the Faithful]

New York GOP representative Peter King thinks that Obama is "abdicating his responsibility" and of “undermining the authority of future presidents” by asking for Congressional authorization.

http://blogs.rollcall.com/goppers/peter ... -on-syria/

[Frelga]

This headline about sums it up. Washington Post, even if it sounds like Onion.

Member of Congress berates Obama for consulting Congress on Syria

And, unfortunately, this quote about sums up the entire situation.

There’s not much of a voter constituency for marginally improving a far-away civil war.

Meanwhile, Kerry says blood and hair samples confirmed the use of sarin.
John Kerry: US 'has evidence of Syrian sarin use'

[River]

The interesting thing about that is I've heard squawking from both the right and left about how Obama (and Bush before him and they were probably saying the same about Clinton but I wasn't paying attention back then) behaves as an Imperial President. So now here he is, going to Congress, the body that allegedly speaks for the people, and a member of Congress is upset. Weird, no?

The fact is, when the Constitution was written, it was Congress who had the power to declare war and/or issue letters of marque. Congress later abdicated that responsibility to such a degree that there has not been a Congressional Declaration of War since WWII. Every military action since has been initiated by the President and later rubber-stamped by Congress. Congress then sits and howls about Presidents not consulting them before taking action and usually it's the party not in the White House doing most of the howling but, at the end of the day, no Congress has made any legitimate effort to restore the power to declare war to Congress. Obama is now making the move and forcing them to put their money where their mouths are. But I suppose that move, when you think about it, isn't going to be popular because it diminishes presidential power and that's not a good precedent for whoever follows Obama, be they a Democrat or Republican.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

To give Rand Paul his due, he said he was proud of the president for doing the right thing by asking for authorization.

Of course Paul in the same interview also praised Assad for his "defense of Christians" while ignoring the abundant evidence (even outside of this particular instance of how Assad has treated his own people.

[yovargas]

Can anybody explain to me, if it is possible to explain these things, why Russia would stand behind Assad??

[River]

Here is a rather short and shallow write-up. Briefly, Russia has a military base in Syria, they have money in Syria, and they're philosophically opposed to outside influence on regime change.

[yovargas]

The last one makes the opposition to intervention a reasonable POV but it's no reason to support an evil regime. The first two I don't get because I'd imagine you'd be able to make deals with whoever happens to come into power. Unless the rebels are anti-Russian?

[River]

They might be. Or Russia might simply be really into dealing with devils they know as opposed to devils they don't.

Today I read Saudi Arabia favors an intervention.

[Túrin Turambar]

My guess -

Syria, like Iraq under Saddam Hussein, is ruled by the socialist Ba’ath Party which was Soviet-aligned during the Cold War. The Arab Socialists are traditional allies of Moscow, in the same way that Israel on the other side of the Arab-Israeli conflict is a traditional ally of Washington. And Russia is fighting an Islamist insurgency in Chechnya and probably has no desire to see others encouraged in the Middle East. Finally, I suspect that Putin has simply taken a hard line against the West and is trying to limit Western influence.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I was interested to see that liberal icon Howard Dean supports a limited strike.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/0 ... ref=topbar

I am not convinced that a limited strike will achieve anything, or that it won't cause my problems that it fixes, and for that reason, I am not ready to say that I support it. However, I certainly understand the rationale. It makes me quite angry to see people compare this situation to Iraq. It simply is not the same, or even similar. And it is fascinating to see that people promoting this action -- Secretary of State Kerry, Secretary of Defense Hegel and the President himself -- are the very ones that were most skeptical of the Iraq war.

[River]

It makes me quite angry to see people compare this situation to Iraq. It simply is not the same, or even similar.

Well, if you want to be extremely superficial, it sort of is. Baathist leaders, chemical weapons, hostility towards Israel, unhappy religious minorities, and maybe a few other similarities. However, Syria has an ongoing and active insurrection going on. Iraq didn't. And the evidence of chemical weapons in Syria is a little more concrete. Also, Assad has much more powerful friends than Hussein did. Finally, no one with the power to actually deploy troops is talking about putting any boots on the ground in Syria.

Is Syria under any kind of economic sanction? Why are strategic bombings and invasions the only options under discussion? I realize that, if it is proven that chemical attacks happened the world does need to send the message that that is most emphatically not cool, but why aren't we being a little more, I don't know, creative about this? If the idea is to deprive Syria of chemical weapons, is blowing up the putative depots really the best way to do it? Wouldn't that just release the gas? And finally, let's assume that chemical weapons were used and Assad's regime is responsible...do we know for sure he even has more to deploy? What if this was the most effed up chemical weapons disposal scheme that ever happened?

[Frelga]

I find it interesting that France confirms that the chemical weapons have been used.

Complication #5,189 is that removing Assad would not solve the problem. I don't think we want chemical weapons in the hands of those who are likely that succeed him.

[River]

When we were getting ready to enter Iraq, I had a gut feeling that all the claims about WMDs were all b.s. I've had the same feeling about Iran's nuclear "capabilities". But with this Syria thing...I've got a gut feeling it's legit. And that terrifies me because bombing them won't change a damn thing about where those weapons are and who will eventually get control of them.

[Holbytla]

I understand, I think, the willingness of our leaders to propose intervention in Syria. Apparently the use of chemical weapons crosses some sort of threshold that is found to be intolerable and that is something I can wrap my head around.

I don't know enough about military strategy to know if a limited intervention will have any lasting effect or if it will lead to some sort of escalation. IIRC there is a Russian carrier on its way to the area, so that leads me to believe that some sort of escalation is already underway.

We certainly have the resources, military and otherwise, that enables us to intervene. We have, for lack of a better term, been playing "world cop" for quite a long time now, with and without the UN or ally backing. I'm not surprised we find ourselves in the position of going it alone in this instance, given recent history with regards to Iraq and the decade + long involvements in strife in the Mideast. Nor am I surprised by the President's and Congress' willingness to act.

What troubles me is the seeming hypocrisy or lack of honest truth.
Maybe it is both, and maybe it is neither, but there certainly have been instances in which we have stood aside and let genocide and mass murder roll merrily along without so much as lifting a military finger.

I don't know why killing 1400 civilians with sarin gas poses a bigger threat to humanity than decades and decades of racial annihilation in Tibet. Nor how it surpasses genocide in Rwanda or the former USSR or Guatemala or any other of a number of atrocities that have been committed while we did little or nothing.

This isn't about morality or justice. This is about the Middle-East and our interests there. If this were Central Africa or South America or some resource poor country, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

I am far beyond the point of expecting the truth from anyone in DC, I'm far beyond the point of playing world cop in the Middle East, and there are few if any situations where I think it is a good idea for us to intervene militarily. The sarin gas attack was the excuse we have been looking for to "stabilize" yet another Mid-East country.

Bleh.

Enough already. This perpetual war stuff is getting really old.

Yup I'm still cynical.

[River]

Forget cynical! I was wondering if you were still alive!

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Holby? Long time no see!

And good post. With some quibbles, I largely agree with you.

[Holbytla]

Reports of my death have been greatly exaggerated.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

The quibbles that I have relate to the fact that I don't believe that you can fully equate this administration with past administrations. For instance, the Obama administration has fairly quietly continually ramped up the U.S. military presence in Africa with the goal of addressing human rights abuses (as well as combatting terrorism threats). Would this administration have acted differently had it been in power during the genocide in Rwanda? Obviously, we will never know, but I think a good argument can be made that they would have. That he would have.

[Holbytla]

I have no idea, but I was speaking only of my life experience and what was and what is. It doesn't really matter to me who was in power or when, it is just what has happened and what is happening.

I suspect a grieving mother doesn't really care who the president was or what country her child was killed in, nor do I suspect that a Cruise missile detonating in Beirut or Damascus or Kigali acts differently depending on the morality of the issue. As a country we have been grossly inconsistent with meting out our justice, and I see not enough difference today to believe that the tail wagging the dog is not our own political interest in the Middle-East.

Death begets death I suppose, but maybe someday someone will be truly changed and say enough is enough. On any side.

As much as we would like, anything short of genocide, which we are trying to prevent, would likely result in little change and more deaths. We aren't going to change the philosophy of the Middle-East without eradicating whole races of people. Nor should we. The nonsensical battles over religion have to stop at some point and at some point someone has to be different and say no more. Regardless of political affiliation.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I agree with you, and for that reason among others I don't support the military action. Though I suspect that it is a closer call for me than for many here.