Pundits Say Syrian “Intervention” Won’t End Well, Push for War Anyway

  • submit to reddit

In this photo taken on a government organized media tour, a Syrian army soldier walks on a street in the Jobar neighborhood of Damascus, Syria, Saturday, Aug. 24, 2013. (AP Photo)

As we barrel toward the possibility of yet another shooting war in the Middle East, we seem to have forgotten to have a conversation about whether it’s a good idea. The consensus forming among the mainstream chattering class seems to be that the United States simply must use military force in Syria because of a “red line” – because Barack Obama said that deploying chemical weapons against the Syrian people would not be tolerated — and because someone has to do something, anything, to curb the intolerable bloodshed.

But it’s crucial to understand that everyone also seems to agree that no good outcome from U.S. intervention is possible. There are no “good guys” to aid in this bloody and chaotic civil war; if we are successful and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is toppled, we won’t like the people likely to fill the vacuum. A limited strike, most agree, will accomplish little or nothing. A more intense engagement will result in heavy civilian casualties and possibly American service members coming home in caskets. Escalating and internationalizing the conflict will further destabilize an already unstable region.

The Russians are warning of “extremely dangerous” consequences if Syria is attacked, according to a report in Bloomberg News.  The same report cites an analysis by the research firm IHS which concluded that “only sustained military action” has any hope of toppling the regime. Anything short of an all-out war would be a largely symbolic “punitive measure,” according to the researchers.

Last week, Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, wrote that the Syrian civil war is not between two discrete sides, but rather “a deeply-rooted, long-term conflict among many factions,” none of which would advance American national interests in the region if they prevailed. Armed intervention, he concluded, can “change the military balance, but it cannot resolve the underlying” issues fueling the conflict, and “violent struggles for power will continue after Assad’s rule ends.”

Middle East scholar Juan Cole notes that “Syria has stockpiles of chemical weapons, the exact position of which is (sic) unknown; indiscriminate bombing raids on Syrian military facilities could release those chemicals on civilian populations.” He adds that much of the regime’s military hardware is housed in major urban centers and couldn’t be targeted from the air without causing massive civilian casualties. “If you want to see a war go bad real quickly,” he writes, “just kill dozens of innocent civilians in their own home from the air.” Finally, he warns that “flooding Syria with medium or heavy weaponry could destabilize it and its neighbors, including Israel and Palestine.”

In the Washington Post, Eliot Cohen, a prominent neoconservative scholar who pushed hard for the 2003 Iraq invasion as a member of the Committee to Liberate Iraq, acknowledges all of the above. “Already it is late, perhaps too late, to prevent Syria from becoming the new Afghanistan or Yemen, home to rabidly anti-Western jihadis,” he writes. But no matter – chemical weapons have been used, and “U.S. prestige is on the line.” He asks: “Why should anyone, anywhere, take Obama’s threats (or for that matter, his promises) seriously if he does nothing here?”

While Obama clearly painted himself into a corner with his talk of a “red line” – Heather Hurlburt, the executive director of the National Security Network, told me she thought the statement was “more aspirational than operational” at the time – the idea that we simply must launch a large-scale military campaign that’s unlikely to end well because of something as nebulous as “credibility” boggles the mind.

Perhaps if we used plain language to discuss these kinds of military actions – contemplating “bombing the Hell out of Syria” rather than using a bloodless euphemism like “intervention” – there might be less zeal for armed conflict among mainstream pundits. That’s a conversation worth having.

  • submit to reddit
  • Anonymous

    Viet Nam, Iraq, Afganistan. Does anyone still believe we can change the ultimate outcome of countries a world away. If we could I would be 100 % in favor of this. Does anyone believe that we make allies of the local population.

  • Jlaztech

    American casualties, get much deeper in debt, make more enemies, no appreciation
    for what we do, and the outcome may end up worse than the current situation; all
    this vs. American pride. Wow that’s a hard one to figure out. Maybe
    sometimes we just need to learn to swallow our pride and focus on domestic issues
    that have yet to be resolved.

  • Simon Regis TZ (cartoonist)

    i think USA is wrong to intervention Syria

  • Hildegard

    Sadly, I so mistrust the U.S. Government’s motivations. It is all about behind the scenes who sells arms to whom and where can use ours? Yes, the almighty dollar governs. And as Bill Moyers points out repeatedly it is the lives of innocents who are taken or marred for all time. And, yes, I read Noam Chomsky as well.

  • John Patrick Huie

    I was adamantly against US invasion of Iraq, and very dubious about Afghanistan… but I’ve thought from the first we should have aided the Syrian rebellion… which (at least at first) was a grassroots uprising against a brutal dictator. But having been misled and manipulated about overseas adventurism going back to Vietnam, Americans have no taste for, nor facility for judging the merits of, foreign involvments. I think the political turning point was Somalia… regardless of the merits, we withdrew after photos emerged of American soldiers dragged behind vehicles. Decades of conducting US foreign policy by whim or ideology (or to please political or economic constituencies at home) now drown out any discussion on the merits, and make politically impossible any sustained intervention, even if justified.

  • Roger S.J. Sattler

    Please, God, help us STOP ALL WARS and save the planet! It appears humanity has lost its ability to think rationally and make good decisions on behalf of the common good. It is wrong and it is insanity. What greater mockery can we make o…f tomorrow’s 50th anniversary of non-violent peace making prophet, Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., than to increase our murderous rampages! Thank you, Bill, for reminding us to stop to remind ourselves war is NEVER the answer.

  • Anonymous

    The problem is we keep selling the world that an American style Democracy is a one size fits all solution. The other problem is we [the western world] is either willfully ignoring history or political correctness trumped the realities of what is required in post war governance. If you look at successful post war reconstruction nations like Germany and Japan, western forces not only occupied those countries but helped draft their Constitutions, helped rebuild their economies and forced “cultural” changes. These are all things that we don’t do anymore, because of cultural sensitivities.

    I’m not saying the same tactics will work in the middle east (all signs point to it not working), but I think the one thing that western governments are afraid to require newly liberated nations is the drafting of a secular Constitution and the separation of Church and State. We can already see in Egypt and Afghanistan and in some ways the United States, what happens when religion tries to impose their influence into governance. If the West wants to avoid another Rwanda and intervene, then there needs to be some concessions on post war governance, like adopting a secular Constitution and a liberal Democracy, otherwise what is the end game for the West?

  • Harry Proudfoot

    I’m not sure where I am on this, but I do agree these are questions we all need to think about.

    I do think all of us need to spend some time actually thinking about this rather than engaging in meaningless posturing.

    On the one hand, I really do object to governments–any governments–killing members of their populations–by means of either bullets or nerve gas.

    On the other hand, I don’t like committing the people in our military to an open-ended struggle with no clear military or political objectives that make sense. They may be troops to everyone else, but to me they are precious human beings who should not be put in harm’s way on a whim.

    On the other hand, I really do have this problem with allowing genocide.

    On the other hand, I don’t like the way we seem to make selective decisions about which genocides to end and which genocides to allow to continue. We seem more likely to intervene in genocides when there is some resource reward involved.

    On the other hand, every day we fail to intervene in this particular conflict, more innocents are slaughtered.

    On the other hand, we cannot be the world’s policeman.

    On the other hand, who else will do the job of preventing the slaughter of civilians if we don’t do it?

    On the other hand…

    This is a complicated problem that, for me at least, has no easy solution. I love all the people on both sides of the issue. I wish I had their moral certitude about what the right thing is to do here. But the one certainty I took out of the Iraq War is there is no simple answer to these questions.

    We all need to think about these questions–and their complexities–in detail. We need to examine carefully not only the motives and reasoning of those on the other side but our own motives and reasoning as well. Anyone–on either side–who wants to play the moral certainty card, probably has not done this.

  • John Killilea

    we would be making war on Christians to aid al quaida- ridiculous

  • guest

    Every time I hear the news about Syria, I just have to shake my head about another war and say, “Not again!” Kerry comments about the chemicals used against Syrian citizens is not different than the drones which kill. Couple days ago, I think it was on Meet The Press program when one politician mentioned “Our interests” which is exactly what it is under the fog of making another war. Perhaps making Israel, as one news caster said, “A fortified fortress” in the whole area of the M.E.

  • Daniel Heilborn

    “Syria has stockpiles of chemical weapons, the exact position of which
    is (sic) unknown; indiscriminate bombing raids on Syrian military
    facilities could release those chemicals on civilian populations.” What is the “sic” for? “…position” is singular. It’s only wrong if he said, “the exact positions of which is….”

  • Arturo Cortez

    On this the 27th of August, 2013

    By Arturo Cortez

    The Eagle when it flies tells it’s prey it’s coming so they can run and hide,

    Syria, the world must know that the American Eagle will soon fly the sky’s over Syria, foreigners should be advised to leave Syria, targets to be destroyed should be made public, domestic populations should be advised of time and place of strategic bombardments for evacuation of possible collateral damage, the domestic populations must see fire rain from the havens by day, for Syrian humans of mankind to see a new tomorrow, the massage must be clear “the Eagle does because it can.” Que Viva La gente” El Centrolista,

  • Anonymous

    I agree with Hurlburt. Perhaps it is time to take the “kid gloves” from our tongues and typewriters first. Intervention? Please define that. “Well, more than likely, we will drop a few tons of bombs on what we ‘hope’ are areas where we can hurt the Assad regime and not have any serious ‘collateral damage’… you know like killing hundreds of innocent civilians. If that fails we will just be ‘forced’ to send in the world ‘s best equipped and mightiest military machine. Send in the troops! You know so they can teach Assad a lesson and control the various factions opposing him. Sort of like we did in Iraq and Afghanistan: drones blazing and and spending money and our soldiers’ blood like there is no tomorrow. “Which,unfortunately, there very well may not be if we follow this predictable path!
    Does that make it sound like it is worth following this path for “principle”?

  • JonThomas

    Ok, it’s true, I can be very dense at times and not understand the obvious, but what exactly are you saying?

    Are you romanticizing war by using a majestic animal that only hunts for survival?

  • Anonymous

    I agree with your premise. I would love to be able to think there is a chance we could, as a nation, offer some “cover’ for the “…grassroots uprising”. You are also correct that the fiasco in Somalia was the culmination of the media giving the citizens of this country a ‘boots on the ground’ view of war. A view without the cruelty, our own as well as our enemy’s, being hidden in the shadows. A view that shows the bloody, limb strewn battle fields that we have always sent our young men away to die upon. If the American people agree and have the stomachs ( which I feel we really don’t) to handle the “truth” of what is going on when we insert ourselves into a situation without any real benefit to this society, then I will say ,”Okay. Let’s go.”
    We have so many issues that we hide from in our own country: the ‘capitalization of of our government at all levels, the bombardment of our formerly peaceful lives by a hyper media invaded by propagandists from every political spectrum. We are living in a society where facts and ideas are being replaced by volume and slogans. Something needs to be and quickly but perhaps not in Syria!

  • ArchMatt

    Well said- this is a no win situation. Why can’t we learn from the past, the recent past?

  • Anonymous

    Um, and just who is going to help those innocents evacuate and to where? And you know all this can’t happen totally from the sky without any other support. I am sure you are equating a “mini-WWII’ scenario. Well , today is different. Forget Japan. Look at pictures of Europe. Great, centuries old cities flattened…burned. Dresden comes to mind… ever see those pictures? There was nowhere to evacuate to. Just as there wouldn’t be for your “strategy” to succeed.

  • Arturo Cortez

    This massage is not meant for every reader to understand please keep trying,..

  • Humphrey Blackburn

    Meanwhile, while we dither and discuss, this madman is using chemical weapons, long recognized as a scourge to the very concept of civilization, on his own people.

  • JonThomas

    Lol…I was thinking the same thing. Is he hoping someone will massage his kink for violence out of his nature?

  • Preston

    Bill, the longer this lingers, the more evident we have a double
    standard. Now is that standard based on race, religion or foreign
    policy? We stopped the slaughter of the Libyan civilian populace, but
    now all I hear is; “Let them all kill each other”, which always is the
    case in any proximity to Israel. Bill, I think it’s become a
    humanitarian obligation that we must intervene in some form, be it a
    no-fly zone or taking out Assad’s artillery. We MUST stop the slaughter

  • JonThomas

    So, you are all for killing in the name of your subjective sense of justice, but when it comes to a person asking simply for an explanation of your words, that’s a bridge too far? Does the idiom confuse you? Ask, and I’ll explain, I’m just that type of nutter..

  • Bill Britton

    Without a doubt, poison gas is a terrible thing. But avenging Syrian deaths with “precision” missile and bomb attacks will be no less terrible. As much as our government and our collusive and cooperative press tries to sanitize this aspect …of our military might, collateral damage—the killing of innocent civilians—will most assuredly occur. And, of course, where will such air strikes lead? Another Vietnam? Iraq? Afghanistan? The biggest beneficiaries will be the likes of Halliburton and Lockheed-Martin.See More

  • Lalee

    “U.S. prestige is on the line.” He asks: “Why should anyone, anywhere,
    take Obama’s threats (or for that matter, his promises) seriously if he
    does nothing here?” The same horrible, sociopathic, self-interested logic that Kissinger used to keep up the slaughter in Vietnam after it was clear the U.S. had lost. The same murderous logic that justified nuking HIroshima and Nagasaki. The vanity of the high and mighty.

  • JonThomas

    By slaughtering more people?

    Too many people watch movies and think that ‘taking out …artillery’ is a matter of ease.

    If the drone strikes, which use relatively small yield devices, kill innocent civilians, how much more uncontrollable are the consequences from using the types of weapons needed to ‘take out’ artillery?

  • David D

    Well, the problem with an “easy” or categorical answer like you are suggesting (never intervene), is that there have been successful multilateral actions, i.e., Bosnia, Libya. There have also been many ill-considered disasters from Vietnam to Afghanistan. I don’t think we can just abdicate from any intervention efforts while such a humanitarian horror proceeds. Witness what happened in Uganda. Like it or not, the world does look to us for leadership when these horrible events take place. Leadership, not unilateral action. Although we have few examples in our recent past as proof, there is nothing to suggest that we can’t act intelligently and forthrightly to at least stop the use of poison gas by the Assad regime. Limited action, limited goals, multiple partners, and clear messaging.

  • Cyrus the Mede

    At this time it appears the US is hell bent on
    military intervention in Syria. Are we being duped again? One is
    reminded of the false flag operation known as the second Gulf of Tonkin
    “incident” that led to greater embroilment of the US in Vietnam.
    We know what that cost. There are also echoes of Bush’s non-existent
    “weapons of mass destruction” and Condi Rice’s evocation of a “mushroom
    cloud” prior to the Iraqi invasion which eventually turned out to be an
    utter failure for the US in terms of lives lost, reputation sullied and
    continuing agony for Iraq after the eventual American withdrawal. The
    mainstream media and politicians on both sides of the aisle were
    complicit in these debacles. Now the drumbeats are sounding again. No
    doubt Assad is a bad guy but there are numerous bad guys around the
    world and some of them happen to be our allies. Assad is a very bad guy
    but why would he cross the red line that the US administration imposed
    on his regime by using chemical weapons on his own people? Doe he stand
    to gain? I don’t think so. He may be crazy but crazy like a fox. Who
    stands to gain? I can think of a few. To start with how about the
    autocratic Saudi and Qatari regimes who are allies of the US? Both of
    them are dominated by Sunnis who hate Shiites, Christians, secularists
    and indeed anyone who is not a Sunni of the exteme salafist or
    wahhabbist variety. They are backing the rebel groups including
    Jihadists against the secular regime of Assad. They also wish to weaken
    the influence of Assad’s ally Iran in the Arab world. Assad happens to
    be an Alawite which is an offshoot of Shia Islam which also happens to
    be the dominant religion in Iran. All religious groups are tolerated by
    Assad, bad as he is. We now have Christians being beheaded by jihadist
    rebel groups including the Al-Queda linked group known as the Al-Nusra
    Front. An attack on the Assad regime would surely help the Al-Queda
    linked rebels.
    Who else stands to benefit from American
    intervention? Fifty years ago or so President Eisenhower warned us about
    what he called the “military industrial complex”. They are still
    around. Every cruise missile fired costs from $1.41 million to $3
    million each. There could be hundreds fired. Money in the bank for
    Boeing Defense and other arms purveyors. The “military-industrial
    complex” stands to benefit. To quote an article in an Israeli newspaper
    Haaretz talking about American intervention in Syria “An offensive that
    includes limited long-range strikes could cost billions of dollars over
    time, and the enforcement of a no-fly zone, that require “shooting down
    government warplanes and destroying airfields and hangars” could reach
    $1 billion a month.” Our tax dollars go to the merchants of death or if
    you prefer “the military industrial complex”. These dollars would be
    better spent here in the US. Our bridges need repair for one thing. The
    rail system is unworthy of the world’s largest economy.
    there is another possible beneficiary: Israel. Intervention in Syria
    would obscure continued atrocities against the Palestinians on the West
    Bank and derailment of the so called “peace process”. Netanyahu does not
    believe in the two state solution and America has never been an honest
    broker for the most part. His aim is to push the Palestinians into ever
    shrinking “Bantustans” on the West Bank and Gaza. Netanyahu is also
    interested in weakening an ally of Iran as Syria is.Perhaps he would be
    encouraged to launch an air strike against Iran as he has threatened to
    do previously in order to prevent them creating one nuclear weapon? Not
    to mention that Israel has from 300-400 nuclear weapons themselves
    despite a GDP less than Denmark’s and around the same as Ireland’s. How
    can they afford it? Answer; the US taxpayer and the politicians who give
    our tax dollars away. The politicians in Washington on both sides of
    the aisle with a few exceptions fall over themselves to kiss the boots
    of the lobbyists from AIPAC (American Israeli Political Action
    Committee) . It is most unseemly but what can one expect from the
    dishonorable careerists in Washington. There is not enough outrage and
    by and large the Fourth Estate will act like they did during the Iraq
    war when they acted as cheer leaders for “shock and awe”.
    “intelligence” according to Secretary of State John Kerry is absolutely
    sure that Assad used nerve gas but can we trust the CIA after what they
    told us about Iraq and what they failed to find out about Al Queda prior
    to 9/11?. Whoever turns out to be responsible for the nerve gas attack
    in Damascus ought to brought before the International Court in The Hague
    for war crimes whether the culprits for this particular atrocity are
    the the Assad regime or someone else. In the meantime Syria descends
    into hell. Let us hope along with Pope Francis that dialogue will
    continue. It may be a time for another peace march from MSU to the
    Capitol here in Lansing as happened before the Iraq debacle. There may
    be no “boots on the ground” to start with but that could change. Too
    many lives have been lost including American lives. One thing is for
    sure the US does not need to get involved again militarily.

  • Anonymous

    Obama should say that although he is personally committed to stopping the chemical attacks on civilians, the people in America have spoken and until that civil war becomes a national security threat, I will not commit troops or resources into that region. History has shown us that without a clearcut winner in a revolution, revolutions simply wind down for awhile only to flare up later when the losing side reloads.

  • azactivist

    I wondered that same thing. Clearly there is something wrong with the sentence. I think “stockpiles” might actually be the object here and it is plural. I think “position” should be positions and that would mean “are” instead of “is”.

  • Anonymous

    I think there’s also a common point here that people seem to keep forgetting that America has allies, part of what made Bosnia and Libya work was that they were supported by the international community. I think an intervention of this scale must be undertaken by a global community, even then there’s no guarantee of success but I personally believe that will garner for support and success than blind aggression. I have hope that we as a global populace can make Syria a better place, but it will take coordination, intel and most unfortunately of all for the Syrian opposition; time.

  • Mark

    I learned a valuable thing from a Senior Vice President I used to work for many years ago. He told me that not all principles are worth fighting for or even dying for. They have to be weighed in terms of the consequent gains and/or losses which ultimately determine their value. It doesn’t pay to be inflexibly principled. And, when it comes to saving face, it’s all a matter of egotistical pride.

  • Mary Pishney

    No, I think we need to do much more than have a Pepsi break (surely wouldn’t be “A pause that refreshes”). To say I’m disenchanted wouldn’t touch how angry I am with his new, abrasive, attitude and actions. Cut SS, but NOT THE DEFENSE BUDGET?
    Really? Is that standing up for the middle class? What a joke! Now he is parroting the same rotten rhetoric that “W” drug out to LIE us into Iraq. His much touted, but NEVER seen “proof” is ludicrous! Our pristine, national conscience sure never fluttered when we GAVE Hussein chemical weapons which he used on thousands of his people…course that was under the first Bush that heralded the NWO and wrecked havoc! His expectation that the country would just trust him and hit battlefield insults the intelligence of the nation. It all so reminds me of “WAG THE DOG!” ENOUGH ALREADY!

  • Mark

    War has become business as usual since the last century.

    My spiritual teacher was right when he said that the problem of global peace is beyond a HUMAN solution (that was back in the early 1960s). Look at the proliferation of nuclear weapons for an example: The nuke club membership has grown over the years with more trying to get in. And if every country in the world could afford it, I wouldn’t be surprised if all countries had at least a couple to launch just in case. Now which country in its right mind would give up its arsenal of nukes under the circumstances?

    BUT my teacher also said that even though the problem was way beyond a human solution, it was still very much susceptible of a spiritual solution. He was confident that such a solution was just around the corner, no farther than this century. I don’t know how this would come about, assuming he was correct. It could be through a sudden or swiftly occurring change in the global consciousness of mankind. It could also come as the renaissance that will follow the dark age of a nuclear holocaust.

    From a purely human perspective, the world’s future prospects for peace and freedom look grim. (Note: I wrote “purely human.” Go figure.) :/

  • Mark

    Absurd and bizarre indeed. But then, perfectly possible with humans.

  • Mark

    “But the one certainty I took out of the Iraq War is there is no simple answer to these questions.”

    That’s right. So, let’s not even raise the questions by not creating the situations which give rise to those questions.

  • Mark

    Could it be because we have an extremely short memory? Or can it be because we are very guilt-stricken by our past, perhaps in denial of it?

    Or have we as a nation become possessed by evil, requiring an exorcism? https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=425215724255577&id=405869902856826

    Or, quite simply, have we become impoverished of integrity, truth, and the better side of our humanity? https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=425218254255324&id=405869902856826

  • Mark

    War has become business as usual since the last century.

    My spiritual teacher was right when he said that the problem of global peace is beyond a HUMAN solution (that was back in the early 1960s). Look at the proliferation of nuclear weapons for an example: The nuke club membership has grown over the years with more trying to get in. And if every country in the world could afford it, I wouldn’t be surprised if all countries had at least a couple to launch just in case. Now which country in its right mind would give up its arsenal of nukes under the circumstances?

    BUT my teacher also said that even though the problem was way beyond a human solution, it was still very much susceptible of a spiritual solution. He was confident that such a solution was just around the corner, no farther than this century. I don’t know how this would come about, assuming he was correct. It could be through a sudden or swiftly occurring change in the global consciousness of mankind. It could also come as the renaissance that will follow the dark age of a nuclear holocaust.

    From a purely human perspective, the world’s future prospects for peace and freedom look grim. (Note: I wrote “purely human.” Go figure.) :/

  • Daniel Heilborn

    “stockpiles” is the indeed the object of the main clause of the sentence; “position” is the subject of the subordinate clause. None of this really matters, though, given the immense importance of the issue.

  • Spend @ home

    before you go across the street [or the other side of the world in this case] to interfere in your neighbor’s business, shouldn’t your AFFAIRS AT HOME be tended to first? What of our infrastructure, borders, crime, roads, bridges etc?

  • Spend @ home

    and the US did not in Iraq? No white phosphorous? No napalm-like substances?

  • Spend @ home

    I…think I get it. The ridiculousness of your statement is used as a literary device to highlight just how ludicrous this premise is. These events would never literally happen & people are gonna die. If not please explain…

  • war

    warrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr warrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr i love warrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :)

  • war

    warrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr Hollandddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd dutch holland

  • Marty Faulkner

    If Obama wants to send the message to al-Assad it can be accomplished by a freezing of all of his assets by UN Nations that wish to participate. Past that the President’s only real option is to launch a two-fold strike that destroys al-Assad’s residences and the Syrian Air Force. This will force him further underground and limit his capability to continue using WMDs.

  • Lord Byng

    So the Egyptian military arresting their elected President and shooting a few thousand of its own people doesn’t compare? Clearly that was a calculated, deliberate act of terror, and much more effective besides, by all appearances. Shooting down unarmed protesters would seem like a scourge to civilization as well. However, plenty of dithering and no talk of bombing them, as we see.

  • Lord Byng

    Also worth noting in these situations that half the Syrian army is composed of conscripts. So even when you get at the military a good number of the people you vaporize are not there willingly.

  • Arturo Cortez

    Jon Thomas, my messages at a global settings are very public based on my my personal Presidential advice to POTUS, please be my friend @ http://www.face.book/arturocortez7146 you will fine that i am humanist centralist by political ideology, it is my honor to advice POTUS and relieve my beliefs. I have been doing so since the summer of 2008, Of course, it is for POTUS to read or not read my writings,
    I do apologize for my comment to your comment on my massage on Syria, meant to bring attention to Syria and the Syrian people, I do maintain layman perception towards this issue my writings are based on the American right thing to do, symmenticial, grammatical or acceptable literary perfection of my writings is not the primary concern of the massage, thank for reading my writings,

  • JonThomas

    Well Thank you very much for your invitation. However, I do not use facebook. That’s another way I’m a bit of a nutter. I am more of the ‘develop actual friendships over time’ kind of person.

    I suppose it’s good to communicate, and even socialize through this media we call the internet, but I’m a bit slow, and extremely cautious in whom I place ‘friendship.’ Please don’t take that as an insult, I enjoy good dialogue, and I read everyone’s writings on this site.

    It’s obvious that you are passionate in your desire to assist the Syrian people. I however, would urge that you, the ‘POTUS’ and anyone else be cautious about going to war, or using any form of aggression.

    The U.S. Constitution only provides for basically 2 types of instances in which the Armed Forces can be used against another nation…

    1) Defense.

    2) Treaty.

    Now, I’m sure there are many treaties that have been signed over the years which would provide legal cover for the U.S. to act against the Syrian nation, but the question inherent in those types of treaties is… ‘just because we can, should we…?’

    It seems like your argument is 2 fold and both revolve around the use of chemical weapons. There is not yet any proof that Syrian President Assad actually used the weapons. From what I understand, only 300 people were killed, and up to 1000 affected.

    If the U.S. enters the arena, you can count on those casualties sky rocketing. The other casualties of that civil war are of no consequence to the legitimacy of the U.S. entering into the conflict. The U.S. has no right or mandate to intervene. Including no right to intervene in ‘prophylactic defense.’

    Btw…the word ‘civil’ in it’s use there has nothing to do with ‘politeness,’ or ‘how to act in public.’ It refers to a war among the PEOPLE within a nation.

    Over-all, it seems to me that the U.S. posturing, or commitment, is not based on the ‘American-right-thing-to-do,’ but rather a convenient opportunity to assert itself, and it’s interests into a delicate situation.

    Poor kids. Once again they become fodder for the games.

  • JonThomas

    How about the innocent civilians which are going to be killed by the U.S.? Could you squeeze word in for them as you ask others to pray to the God that ordered his followers to ‘beat their swords into plowshares?’

    However, if you follow the God that you are asking others to pray to, and who through his son, gave the principle…’all those who take the sword will perish by the sword,’ you put yourself into an interesting position.

    Even if you don’t go into the battle, as soon as you advocate such action, you become much like Satan himself…pushing other people to engage in actions that you won’t directly be doing.

    Unless of course you are speaking of a different God?

  • Arturo Cortez

    Jon i pray three times daily to the same God Christ prayed too, Jehovah God, My friend personly

  • Arturo Cortez

    i don’t always respond to messengers with incognito profile images this is why i don’t usually visit this page with respect to what you write i must say that there is no nuts or American humane pride in what you write about typical of a incognito personality,

  • Anonymous

    Syria still has a functioning central government after 2 long years being besieged by terrorists sponsored by Saudi/Qatar/’West’. This is completely unacceptable to the sponsors who were working towards a fractured non-functioning state paupered by a war amongst bretheren. The preposterous idea that our leaders behave ethically is forwarded as a given. Unfortunately, there are few takers.
    It seems that the Arab League too is tiring of waiting and are opposing US direct intervention. This includes Jordan which has denied overflying privileges to US war planes, after providing a base to train terrorists for operations within Syria, over the last 2 years. Iraq did the same yesterday.
    The only countries keen on bombing Syria illegally seem to be US, France and UK.

  • peacekeeper

    I’m praying that America would attack Syria and of course, your apprehensions will come to pass, but, ONE MORE American war of aggression would permanently or at least for the foreseeable future, cripple it morally, financially, militarily (psychologically), and THEN, maybe the world will know peace, and that is a situation I can’t say I regret.

  • JonThomas

    Ty, very kind of you to say. Btw, I have no problem with the name you used, it is even found in KJB. I’m not sure why it was deleted.

  • JonThomas

    Nevermind, I see it’s back :)