- The US shouldn't commit an act of war without
- Clear, public evidence
- A connection between the act and a just goal
- A Congressional declaration of war
- A U.N. resolution that provides for force
and even then, the "world police" aspect rankles. Killing to stop killing, great.
- I'm glad President Obama decided to have Congress weigh in. That said, the decision shouldn't be his to make—legitimate power to declare war, or not to, lies with Congress. Obama and Secretary of State Kerry still reserve the power to make war regardless, which is wrong except in a "might makes right" way. The best part of this is that Congress is asserting itself, at least somewhat. Can't picture that they'd make a real effort to stop an exercise of power like that, though (cough, Libya, cough).
- Before the UN inspectors' report, pretty much all the actual evidence we had tying Assad to the chemical weapons attack is "just trust us" and "look at how awful it was," which didn't come close to cutting it. The Bushies presented more evidence about going to war with Iraq, even if it was lies. That said, and I haven't read the report itself, but from the press around it, it's likeliest that Assad's forces did it. Whether Assad himself ordered it, we don't know yet, although even if he didn't he bears a large part of the responsibility.
- American intelligence agencies had as much as three days' notice on the attack, and they didn't warn the Syrian people? It's not as though anyone thinks the NSA can't intercept communications these days.
- Bombing wouldn't destroy the chemical weapons, nor would it personally punish whoever it is who ordered and carried out the attack. It would be "eye for an eye" retribution on some buildings, military equipment, and unfortunate low-level people and bystanders. Consequential acts would be to go in and secure the weapons and/or capture the responsible people, which pretty much means invade, which of course would be disastrous. How about the threat of an International Criminal Court indictment?
- This business about attacking just to maintain both America's and Obama's credibility because of a "red line" Obama drew a couple of years ago was ridiculous. Both those ships have sailed, the former a long time ago. The traditional press's harping on it has been even more ridiculous. Also, "Munich moment," my ass. Kerry is a terrible liar (so bad at it that it goes around the bend and makes it believable, like when he pretended that the deal for Syria to give up its chemical weapons was a surprise). Anyway, given the significant chance of war, I guess he learned how to ask someone to be the first man to die for a mistake.
- I'm glad if peacefully getting rid of Syria's chemical weapons was Obama's goal all along (he did have a decent nuclear nonproliferation record as a senator), and the ends justify some level of deception, but not all of it. I know, I know, Nixon's "madman theory" and all that—I'm not buying it. It was just too dangerous to leave the US open to the possibility of being "forced" to attack. And it might well suck us into another murderous quagmire, regardless of the protestations of how limited it would be.
- The idea that Assad having and using chemical weapons presents a threat to the US that merits a self-defense war justification is far too much of a stretch and a dangerous precedent to re-up, in the wake of the Iraq invasion.
- If Assad keeps the weapons and Russia vetoes a UN resolution, then too bad, no attack. If we're going to enforce international "norms," it's got to be according to international norms, not fiat. I do think the UN is important, in this case as the vehicle to legitimize the use of force for humanitarian or international law-enforcement (i.e. other than for real [not extrapolative] self-defense) purposes. The USA has zero credibility for either, not unless we start prosecuting our own torture architects, stop propping up murderously oppressive regimes like in Bahrain, etc. Even if one were to argue that Russia and China are worse (questionable given the war with Iraq and all the rest), that by itself of course doesn't make the USA right. Beyond that, if the USA were right on the merits of the case this once and bypassed the UN, the institutional precedent for the next time would be too dangerous.
If Russia and China stand on Syria's side when everyone else wants to attack, everyone can make the case that Russia and China are acting in support of gassing people, and maybe the next time someone uses chemical weapons, the veto won't happen. An awful situation, perhaps, but the alternatives are worse (and I don't think an attack would produce constructive results anyway). In a way, going around the UN would let Russia and China escape accountability.
If the UN General Assembly/Security Council system is obsolete, an idea to which I'm open, then let's negotiate an update. (Make Denmark the benevolent dictator of the world? Wait, time to read Hamlet again, heh...)
- We should get the hell out of Syria, as with most of our other tentacles of military-economic empire. I don't see a way the US can constructively help democracy activist Syrians win, and I doubt that's the US government's main goal anyway (look at how great Libya turned out!). Humanitarian aid to the refugees should be pretty much it. And we should join the International Criminal Court, ban white phosphorus weapons, ban land mines, ban cluster bombs, stop terrorizing whole towns with drones... Instead in Syria we're doing Afghanistan circa 1981 all over again, only this time the blowback may come faster.
- Guess we have all the money we need to repeal the sequester, if we can contemplate more military misadventures like this one.
I wrote most of this post before the potential deal for Syria to give up its chemical weapons became public, but I think the issues and principles are still important, especially because the USA seems to have a tough time breaking the habit on this sort of thing.