I no longer trust Kerry. His hawkishness towards Syria belies his earlier anti-war activities during Vietnam, and even his sincerity there I am questioning. I don't think the administration has made a very good case for war. While the use of chemical weapons is clear. Who used them and why is not, nor will it probably ever be, and the U.S, intelligence community has lost too much credibility to go to war on its information. The administration has taken too long presenting the “evidence,” which they have apparently had but have not been forthcoming with because of the supposed danger to “national security.” The real danger is that the administration would have to make decisions more transparently. Something that President Obama promised to do, by the way. Nor do I buy this appeal-to-the-greater-good-type argument that we must not let the use of chemical weapons go unpunished. That type of argument is only valid when it is certain that the outcome will be positive, in spite of the sacrifice. That is not the case here by a long shot, although the administration is misusing this type of argument in the usual way by claiming that its actions might be a means to a positive outcome. The only way that could happen is if the United States committed to a ground invasion and an occupation of the country.
I think that if the expectations were merely for an end to the civil war that the U.S. would let the U.N. deal with it because in this situation Russia could use its influence with Syria to bring Assad to the negotiating table. However, this does not seem to be the U.S.'s objective. This is also why I don't believe that the U.S. really cares about the plight of the civilians, but is merely using it as a pretext to implement their real goals. The administration knows that chemical weapons are a hot button issue that might stir up public opinion in its favor. I don't think that the administration is being honest with the public about its long term strategy, because if it were, the public would not support it. The less obvious goal is to create a failed state similar to Iraq. The benefit of this is that the war making capabilities of the country are effectively diminished to the point where only internal disputes result in armed actions. Who except for the Iraqis care about the bombs going off in Baghdad today? This may also be why no infrastructure was rebuilt. On the other hand, the most obvious goal would be a regime change, but to what purpose. It will just be a government that the U.S. will have to prop up and put itself more in debt to maintain. It is cruely ironic that our government can't find money for Head Start here, but it can find money to bomb a country where it is likely that some of those bombs will kill children. It's happened too many times before. And besides, the United States has not gotten directly involved in may horrendous civil wars: East Timor, Mozambique, Sri Lanka, Congo, Rwanda, Darfur and many others. Where was our moral imperative in these wars.
If the U.S. actually cared about the citizens of Syria, they would have supported a diplomatic solution through the U.N. form the beginning. It would have been easier to get Assad to the negotiation table, especially when the rebels were doing well. Why didn't we? Again, it is apparently because that is not what our government wants. It doesn't want Assad to remain. That is why our government supported and gave arms to the rebels in the first place. And we probably give them intel and weapons training too.
Obama must have know that drawing a red line would have dire consequences, which he would have had to be willing to see through. He may not have expected the public resistance, however. A shrewd leader would have foreseen this possibility and done the advanced PR to get the public on his side, if indeed his wanting to get involved in Syria is the case, but the President too often seems to think that his motives and policies are self evident and need no explanation. To be fair to Obama, I'm not really sure that he wants this war because of all of the foot dragging he's done and is still doing. This doesn't make me feel good however, because if he is not in control of our foreign policy then who is. This is the problem with a government that conducts itself in secrecy. How can such a government ask for the trust of its citizens.
Therefore, I say no to any military intervention in Syria. This is the red line that the American people need to give to President Obama and the Congress. If they cross it, it is going to bring about unforeseen changes. In fact it already has. It is a "government of the people, by the people and for the people," after all.