;)
Wednesday
Aug282013
The Commentariat -- Aug. 29, 2013
** NEW. Alan Cowell & Stephen Castle of the New York Times: "... United Nations inspectors headed to the outskirts of Damascus for a third day on Thursday, seeking evidence of chemical attacks, while the British authorities took the unusual step of publishing an intelligence assessment blaming the Syrian government for the deadly onslaught." ...
... ** NEW. Kimberly Dozier & Matt Apuzzo of the AP: "The intelligence linking Syrian President Bashar Assad or his inner circle to an alleged chemical weapons attack 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.... A report by the Office of the Director for National Intelligence outlining that evidence against Syria includes a few key caveats -- including acknowledging that the U.S. intelligence community no longer has the certainty it did six months ago of where the regime's chemical weapons are stored, nor does it have proof Assad ordered chemical weapons use." ...
... David Atkins of Hullabaloo: "Intervention in this situation is somewhat perplexing. After watching tens of thousands of Syrians die in a brutal civil war, the United States seems determined to use bombs on a rogue faction of an oppressive regime based on murky intelligence in order not to alter the course of the civil war, but to defend the narrow principle that it's OK to kill people with bombs but not with poisonous gas. That doesn't sound like a great idea." ...
... Ashley Parker of the New York Times: "Lawmakers stepped up their call on Wednesday for President Obama to consult with Congress before ordering a military strike on Syria, with more than 100 House members signing a letter pressing the president to seek a vote before taking action. 'We strongly urge you to consult and receive authorization from Congress before ordering the use of U.S. military force in Syria,' read the letter, signed by 98 Republicans and 18 Democrats."...
... President Obama says he has "not made a decision" on how to proceed regarding Syria:
... Karen DeYoung of the Washington Post: "The Obama administration appeared Wednesday to be forging ahead with preparations to attack Syria. It dismissed a Syrian request to extend chemical weapons inspections there as a delaying tactic and said it saw little point in further discussion of the issue at the United Nations. President Obama said that 'there need to be international consequences' for the Aug. 21 chemical strikes he said he has concluded were carried out by the Syrian government." ...
... Kathleen Hennessey, et al., of the Los Angeles Times: "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." ...
... Lara Seligman of the Hill: "Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) on Wednesday expressed outrage over leaks related to possible air strikes on Syria, calling them 'crazy.' McCain pointed to reports that say U.S. air strikes on Syria could begin as early as Friday.... 'But all of these leaks, when strikes are going to take place, where, what's going to be used, if I were [Syrian President] Bashar Assad, I think I would declare tomorrow a snow day and keep everything from work,' McCain said on Fox News. 'This is crazy. These leaks are just crazy.'" ...
... CW: The "crazy leak" by "a U.S. official" to the L.A. Times which I highlighted above almost certainly comes from a top Republican Congressman. (If you can't figure out how I came to that conclusion, I'll provide a close reading. I think it's obvious.)
... Political scientist Charli Carpenter on the (il)legality of a U.S. attack on Syria. Via Eric Voeten in the Monkey Cage. ...
... New York Times Editors: "Despite the pumped-up threats and quickening military preparations, President Obama has yet to make a convincing legal or strategic case for military action against Syria. While there should be some kind of international response to the chemical weapons attack that killed hundreds of civilians last week, Mr. Obama has yet to spell out how that response would effectively deter further use of chemical weapons. For starters, where is the proof that President Bashar al-Assad of Syria carried out the attack? " ...
... Amy Davidson of the New Yorker: "There have been calls for the President to reconvene Congress and put this one before them, and such calls are right. It might even help the Administration figure out what, exactly, it hopes to accomplish by shooting missiles in the general direction of Damascus." That's just what British PM David Cameron is doing. ...
... Jim Fallows agrees with Davidson. "Completely apart from the procedural nicety of involving the rest of the government in authorizing the use of force, [President Obama] has a compelling political interest in spreading the responsibility for this decision." ...
... Steven Myers of the New York Times: "President Vladimir V. Putin has conspicuously avoided public comment on reports of a chemical weapons attack on civilians outside of Damascus, the Syrian capital.... Instead he has carried on, like many ordinary Russians, as if the civil war in Syria had not reached an ominous new phase.... Mr. Putin's public reticence, though, reflects a calculation that Russia can do little to stop a military intervention if the United States and other countries move ahead without the authorization of the United Nations Security Council -- and that he has little to lose at home, at least, if they do." ...
... John Judis of the New Republic has a good overview of the Syrian quagmire. Thanks to contributor P. D. Pepe for the link. ...
... CW: here's my question & one that I've not seen even contemplated. Rather than our sending in, um, "humanitarian" missiles, why not go to the Security Council for a resolution demanding the destruction of the Syrian chemical weapons arsenal? After all, if using chemical weapons violates international law -- and it does -- then there's absolutely no reason to have any. If Syria refused, then some escalation would be indicated. Responses, please. ...
... Time Staff: "On February 9, 1991, the Saturday Night Live cold open captured the press fervor before the Gulf War. As journalists search for scoops before another possible deadly conflict in Syria, it's a sketch worth remembering":
NEW. Ed Pilkington of the Guardian: 'The Obama administration is trying to dissuade federal judges from giving the New York Times reporter James Risen one last chance to avoid having to disclose his source in a criminal trial over the alleged leaking of US state secrets. The Department of Justice has filed a legal argument with the US appeals court for the Fourth Circuit in Richmond, Virginia, in which it strongly opposes any further consideration of Risen's petition. Risen's lawyers have asked the court to convene a full session of the 15-member court.... A three-member panel of the same court last month issued a 2-1 majority ruling in which they found that reporters had no privilege that would safeguard the confidentiality of their sources in a criminal trial."
Peter Baker & Sheryl Gay Stolberg of the New York Times: "President Obama stepped on Wednesday into the space where the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. once stood and summoned his iconic dream of a colorblind society in a celebration of a half-century of progress and a call to arms for the next generation." ...
A great Democracy does not make it harder to vote than to buy an assault weapon. -- President Bill Clinton
... President Jimmy Carter remembers "how it was":
... Dana Milbank: "Rising above it all was Rep. John Lewis, the 73-year-old Georgia Democrat who, as a civil rights leader, spoke at the original march, too. 'When I look out over this diverse crowd and survey the guests on this platform,' he told the audience, 'it seems to realize what Otis Redding was singing about and what Martin Luther King Jr. preached about: This moment in our history has been a long time coming, but a change has come.' It took a voice of '63 to give real meaning to '13."
... The Washington Post's page on the commemoration of the 1963 March on Washington is here. Video of the entire five-hour program is here. ...
... NEW. Remembering J. Edgar Hoover. Annie Laurie of Balloon Juice links to some excellent pieces about Martin Luther King, Jr., & about the government's opposition to him & the civil rights movement. ...
... GOP MIA. Emma Dumain of Roll Call: "Speaker John A. Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor, the House's two most senior Republicans, were invited to speak at the 50th anniversary of the historic March on Washington -- but declined. That wasn't a wise choice, said Julian Bond, a renowned civil rights activist, in an interview with MSNBC on Wednesday afternoon.... 'They asked a long list of Republicans to come,' Bond continued, 'and to a man and woman they said "no." And that they would turn their backs on this event was telling of them, and the fact that they seem to want to get black votes, they're not gonna get 'em this way.'" ...
... Aamer Madhani of USA Today: "Both former Presidents [Bush] were invited to participate in Wednesday's celebration, which will feature speeches from the steps of the Lincoln Memorial by President Obama as well as former presidents Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter. But both Bushes are dealing with health issues and decided it best to skip the event." ...
** Alex Seitz-Wald, in a Washington Post post, has an excellent summary of the Republican no-show scandal. CW: (Seitz-Wald doesn't call it a scandal, but I do.) You don't have to be president of your local MLK fan club to honor one of the most significant events in the civil rights movement, especially when you are invited to do so. The fact that Eric Cantor preferred to "honor" oil industry lobbyists & John Boehner preferred to "honor" GOP donors tells you what you need to know about the Republican party.
... Alex Halperin of Salon: Republicans may have been AWOL for the commemoration, but conservative commentators tweeted their reactions.
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. -- Martin Luther King, Jr., August 28, 1963 ...
... Charles Pierce: "That's the great loophole. It is an otherwise unremarkable sentiment given the context of the entire address, but, for the people who almost certainly would have lined up on the other side of the movement in 1963, it subsequently has been used as an opening through which all manner of historically backsliding mischief has come a'wandering in...." Pierce goes on to excoriate the National Review, [which can't be done too often]. "Lincoln won a war. Dr. King led a revolution. They both fought the same enemy, a stubborn, clever enemy that is not yet vanquished." ...
... Ta-Nehisi Coates: "... whenever I see conservatives [like George Will] embracing [Daniel Patrick] Moynihan, I wonder whether they've actually read the report."
Justice Is Not Color-Blind. Nicole Flatow of Think Progress has the shocking statistics on racial discrimination in our criminal "justice" system.
One of Thousands of Examples of Why We Need a Campaign Reform Amendment. Eric Lipton of the New York Times: "Eight months ago, Congress ordered the Obama administration to eliminate a stark example of federal government waste: more than $500 million a year in excessive drug payments being sent to dialysis clinics nationwide. But ... more than 100 of the same members of Congress who voted in January to impose the cut are now trying to push the Obama administration to reverse it or water it down. The conflicting message is due in part to the lobbying muscle of an industry dominated by two companies -- DaVita Healthcare Partners of Denver and Fresenius, based in Germany -- both of which have seen their bottom lines improve since 2011, when the federal government first started making the excessive payments."
Clara Ritger of the National Journal: "Republicans have long blamed President Obama's signature health care initiative for increasing insurance costs, dubbing it the 'Unaffordable Care Act.' Turns out, they might be right. For the vast majority of Americans, premium prices will be higher in the individual exchange than what they're currently paying for employer-sponsored benefits, according to a National Journal analysis of new coverage and cost data. Adding even more out-of-pocket expenses to consumers' monthly insurance bills is a swell in deductibles under the Affordable Care Act." CW: for a number of reasons, I think this analysis may present a false picture. If some experts respond to the piece, I'll post links.
Steve Benen: "... there seems to be a pattern when it comes to the Tea Party: far-right activists are motivated by misleading claims they don't know to be false." The latest is the fake IRS "scandal," which, it turns out, was fueled by Tea Party-produced-and-paid-for complainants. ...
... Speaking of falsehoods that foment the foolish.... Texas Troopers Lie about Shit. Alex Seitz-Wald of Salon: During the Texas state senate battle over a new, restrictive antiabortion law, "the Texas Department of Public safety said that it had confiscated 'one jar suspected to contain urine [and] 18 jars suspected to contain feces.'" After pro-choice protesters denied the claim, the AP investigated: "Texas Department of Public Safety documents show troopers seized no jars of urine or feces from Capitol visitors the day of debate of controversial abortion bill. That's counter to a DPS statement issued the night of the July 12 debate and filibuster...."
Timothy Lee of the Washington Post explains how hackers took down the New York Times Website. Basically, they redirected the domain name (DNS) to another IP address. ...
... Paresh Dave of the Los Angeles Times has a less comprehensible but more specific explanation.
Gail Collins, Sports Sleuth: Yes, Billie Jean King really did beat Bobby Riggs in the 1973 tennis match dubbed "Battle of the Sexes." Don't believe everything you hear on ESPN. Collins notes that to realize the significance of the match, "You had to be there." I was working at ABC-TV at the time, & I watched the game with the handsome guy who played Dr. Ben Casey on a TV show of approximately the same name. I can't remember the actor's name, but I recall the match & my joy at Billie Jean's win.
News Ledes
Daily Telegraph: "Kim Jong-un's ex-girlfriend was among a dozen well-known North Korean performers who were executed by firing squad nine days ago, according to South Korean reports. Hyon Song-wol, a singer, rumoured to be a former lover of the North Korean leader, is said to have been arrested on Aug 17 with 11 others for violating laws against pornography. 'They were executed with machine guns while the key members of the Unhasu Orchestra, Wangjaesan Light Band and Moranbong Band as well as the families of the victims looked on,' said a Chinese source reported in the newspaper."
Reuters: "Fast-food workers went on strike and protested outside McDonald's, Burger King and other restaurants in 60 U.S. cities on Thursday, in the largest protest of an almost year-long campaign to raise service sector wages. Rallies were held in cities from New York to Oakland and stretched into the South, historically difficult territory for organized labor. The striking workers say they want to unionize without retaliation in order to collectively bargain for a 'living wage.'"
New York Times: "The N.F.L. agreed to pay $765 million to settle a lawsuit brought by more than 4,500 retirees with advanced dementia and other health problems as well as the families of players who have died from what they claimed were the long-terms effects of head trauma."
Guardian: "The US Department of Defense announced on Thursday it has released two men from Guantánamo Bay prison to their home nation of Algeria. A Pentagon statement said that the men, Nabil Said Hadjarab and Mutia Sadiq Ahmad Sayyab, had been approved for transfer after a review directed by President Obama.... The move brings the number of detainees in Guantánamo down to 164."
AP: "Striving to take action where Congress would not, the Obama administration announced new steps Thursday on gun control, curbing the import of military surplus weapons and proposing to close a little-known loophole that lets felons and others circumvent background checks by registering guns to corporations."
Share Article
Comments for this entry have been disabled. Additional comments may not be added to this entry at this time.
Reader Comments (39)
Is anyone on the big media outlets discussing the no-show status of Republicans to March on Washington? Or do these folks get a free pass? The GOP is like a healthy guy on a bus who won't get up and give his seat to his grandmother.
Geez Marie--lucky you to be standing next to Vince Edwards (Ben Casey, MD on the Tee Vee). How could you possibly forget his name? I had a mad crush on him!
As for the Billie Jean King, Bobby Riggs match--I watched it (also on the Tee Vee). As a once very small-time tennis player, I can tell you the match was not "rigged!" Billie Jean beat that misogynistic creep fair and square. Absolutely. She was the better player--and, let's face it, much younger. And she has made all the difference for women's tennis!
Now, speak about what it was like to stand next to Vince Edwards at the match! Was he really so sexy and adorable? Sigh.......
Good argument for staying out of Syria:
JOHN MEARSHEIMER, University of Chicago:
"I think that the United States has no strategic interest in this particular
case. Our core strategic interests are not at stake. There's no compelling
moral case for intervening in Syria. And, very importantly, it's not clear
that using military force is going to do any good.
When President Obama was asked what this strike is likely to accomplish, he
basically had no good answer to that question. So my bottom line is that the
United States should work diplomatically to try and settle this war, but it
should stay out militarily, to include a limited strike with cruise
missiles.
Well, first of all, you don't have nations of the world coming together.
The Arab League has not sanctioned an attack. You can't get Security Council
approval. The Russians and the Chinese will veto it. And, in fact, if we do
go to war, it will not be a legal war. This is why President Obama talked
about norms ad nauseam in his comments and didn't talk about international
law, because he knows he can't do this legally.
But the fact is that the United States has no vested interest in what is
going on in Syria. This is not a strategically important country. It's
deeply regrettable that people are being killed. It's deeply regrettable
that's there's a civil war going on, but it's not the United States'
responsibility to get into the middle of it, because every time we do this,
we end up in a situation like Afghanistan, a situation like Iraq.
We take a situation that's bad and we just make it worse. The idea that we
have some magic formula that can fix these problems is simply not the case.
And the historical record is very clear on this. So my bottom line is, stay
out militarily, and do everything that we can to shut it down
diplomatically.
JEFFREY BROWN: Well, so, John Mearsheimer, is there any scenario in which
either in Syria or a larger eruption in the region as we're talking about in
which you could see a stronger U.S. responsibility, a stronger interest?
JOHN MEARSHEIMER: Not at this point in time.
But I would like to point out that all of this discourse about chemical
weapons being so special is, I think, wrong. I think it's, again,
regrettable that chemical weapons have been used. But chemical weapons are
not weapons of mass destruction, like nuclear weapons are. The reason that
chemical weapons were not used in World War II wasn't because someone like
Adolf Hitler was above using them for moral reasons.
They weren't used because they have very little military utility. Anybody
who has been in the Army knows that chemical weapons just don't buy you much
on the battlefield. And, in fact, the United States used nuclear weapons in
World War II. So the norms could not have been very powerful in that war.
And what we have here in Syria is a case where it appears that about 1,000
people were killed by chemical weapons. But I would estimate that roughly
40,000 people have been killed by conventional weapons before these thousand
people were regrettably killed by chemical weapons.
I ask you, what's the difference between killing somebody with shrapnel or
bullets vs. killing them with chemical weapons? I don't see any meaningful
difference. If we're so concerned about the fact that people have been
killed, we should have intervened a long time ago in Syria. And, of course,
we didn't because we don't want to get in the middle of this situation
because we have no way to fix it.
And the idea that chemical weapons have suddenly changed the nature of the
game and therefore we should get involved now, I think, is a specious
argument."
@P.D.Pepe, et al.: when you make an extensive citation, PLEASE PROVIDE THE SOURCE. I had to search for the above to decide whether or not Pepe's copying exceeded the fair-use exception. Because the text is from a PBS show supported by viewers like me, because Mearsheimer raises highly timely & important issues, & mostly because the segment from which Pepe copied was pretty long, I've decided to let it stand, tho it's way into the "iffy" side of fair use.
BTW, I'm aware that the King family has copyrighted the "I Have a Dream" speech & that courts have upheld their copyright. I don't fault the King family for wanting to profit from their father's work product, and I don't fault them for wanting to control the usage of his speeches. (Should Steve King be allowed to use it in a campaign ad? I don't think so.) But it was a political speech delivered in public on public land & is an important element in our political history. I don't feel sorry at all for reproducing it here, especially as I don't profit materially from it. People need to hear it. Call me a hypocrite.
Marie
And here is John Judis from the New Republic: "Not Sure how to Feel [think] about Syria? These are the Six questions you should ask:
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/114508/syria-intervention-primer-all-your-questions-answered
@Kate
I too was an avid small-time tennis player for a small town high school. King was quite an inspiration for me! I was the first young girl to make it on what had historically been an all male team. I was nicknamed Jelly Bean King (no I didn't eat jelly beans).
@Kate Madison: I'm afraid my comment was misleading. I didn't go to the match with Edwards. As I recall, I ran into him on the ABC West Coast lot & he asked me if I knew where there was a big teevee ("big" back in the day being about 25") to watch the match (which was about to begin), & I found one for him. Since the set I found was in the office of a friend of mine, Edwards naturally invited me to join him. A few other people joined us, too; I can't recall who-all.
My recollection is that Edwards was quite nice & just as good-looking as he appeared to be on the teevee show. Of course, this was Hollywood, so there were a lot of nice, good-looking men around & I only remember him now because he was a relatively well-known nice, good-looking guy.
Marie
@Marie: yeah, you're right. Sorry––meant to acknowledge source, but forgot. As you pointed out it was from PBS (to which, I, too, am a contributor) News last night in a discussion with two other guests whose arguments were for intervening. I wanted to get all of Mearsheimer's argument on page because it spells out so clearly the negative aspects of intervening and because some days ago here on R.C. there was a question from someone asking the difference between chemical warfare and regular warfare's rules of war.
If.... President Obama goes about violating international law regarding military attacks, and if.... some day in the future power bases shift as in Chili, what would you bet Obama's indictment would come up before G.W. Bush's?
Here's a comment just made to the "Forewarned Is Forearmed" post by one Wirdel Brumpfd:
"Count me among the readers disappointed with Marie here (whose work I admire a lot otherwise). I totally agree with cowichan who based his comments on 'Marie's 'spying on our friends and enemies alike is a legitimate and necessary function'". Alliances need trust to function; in the long run, the bully who thinks he can break treaties (like the one regarding the seat of the UN) at will will lose the allies' trust."
@ Wirdel Brumpfd: My short response is "Oh, for Pete's sake." But a longer response goes like this:
Try to be realistic. Countries spy on each other to preserve their self-interests (and, as JGG & others pointed out, to preserve the interests of their industrial & commercial magnates). Everybody breaks the few "no-spying" treaties that are out there. And every government knows it. Our government would be foolish & remiss in its duty to protect the American public if it did not also do so.
For instance, nobody, despite cowichan's suggestion, expects Israel to invade the U.S. or launch missiles against us. We are, after all, Israel's BFF. Well, make that Israel's BF, because -- as Barbarossa pointed out in the FIF thread -- no alliance is "forever." Despite the fact that our interests & Israel's align in many respects, it would be ridiculous to suggest that they always align. Israel is highly dependent upon the U.S. for support, so -- according to your argument -- Israel will do everything it can to maintain our "trust" in its government. Surely, Israel would never spy on us. Oh, wait.
Is Israel just "worse than France" or something? Nope. But out of necessity it has a more effective & more aggressive intelligence operation.
I wouldn't bother to respond to this comment, because it basically just repeats cowichan's faulty thinking, but this is more-or-less this mindset that set the naive Edward Snowden down his ignominious path. Remember, Snowden was not just upset that the NSA was likely illegally spying on Americans; he also wanted to -- and has -- exposed some of our programs to spy on other countries & international organizations. He has stated in so many words (haven't got time to look up the citation) that, like the commenter here, spying on our allies is wrong. The fewer people who hold to this political posture, the better.
Marie
Marie, a response to your "get the Syrian Chemical Weapons (CW)" concept:
-- it is analagous to, almost a copy of, the approach the US took in 2002/3 with regard to Iraq WMDs.
-- it is difficult to imagine that the UNSC (China, Russia) would endorse the use of force failing Syria's acquiescence in destruction
-- the time it would take to do all that would ensure that Syria would have time to hide some portion of their CW stocks (although doing so would be a strategic error on their part). The fact that they could do so would lead to the fear that they did so, so by definition the "problem" would remain unresolved
-- if Syria did not acquiesce, and the UNSC did authorize forcible destruction, someone would need to engage in a ground war to get to the CW stocks. You can't bomb CW stocks without creating the hazard you seek to remove. If your ostensible purpose is to protect Syrians from their government, you will kill Syrians to do that. If your ostensible purpose is to prevent Syria from using CW on (Israelis? Lebanese? Turks?) you would first have to show that they have a long-range delivery system. So far, it appears they don't.
So the bottom line is that pursuing such a strategy just gets you back to where you were, after a few months working on it. In which time, of course, the horse could talk!!! So if what you want to do is buy time in the Micawberesque hope that something will turn up, it is as good an approach as any (except for that echo of Secretary Powell at the UN before the Iraq invasion.) It would be one more extension of what we have been doing for the past six months.
For what it is worth, my opinion is that we will do better to swallow our rhetoric rather than send SLCMs to Syria. I am reminded of 1964 and how bombing NVN would set their minds right.
My apologies for this addendum to my previous comments:
-- We could think that there is no real analogy between our Iraq-WMD casus belli in 2003, and a Syria-CW justification, because we know that there ARE CWs in Syria, and there were no WMDs in Iraq. However, the perception in the ME would be that going after CW in Syria would be just a pretext, in that the analogy holds
I'm hopeful that Obama is stalling and that he stalls some more and more after that. Like the comments here and in numerous links have pointed out, there isn't an upside to intervention. Any intervention comes with a whole set of other potential problems and no benefits. We are not the world's policemen and everyone doesn't love us, a lot don't even like us. Regardless of McCain's most fervent desires to rush in and save the wimmin and children, the world is no longer the parochial domain of the US and its Western way of thinking. The unfortunate truth for Obama is he has to lead a country that has a significant lack of emotional maturity (my way or the highway), feels that other cultures have no relevance or legitimacy and has no understanding of complex relationships.
The cherry on the cake is a goodly number of our elected officials can't poor piss out of a boot with directions on the heel.
No wonder Obama is almost completely gray.
@Patrick. Thanks very much for your comments. You're right about the delay my question/suggestion would cause, but as @Diane points out, that would not necessarily be such a bad thing. We think of our country as hopelessly divided, but Middle Eastern countries are surely more fractured than ours, (here only half of the people are convinced God is on their side). So whatever we do (or don't do) in the Middle East, somewhere around half of the people in the affected country will hate us more.
The difference between Iraq -- where Saddam had apparently already destroyed his chemical weapons caches -- and Syria -- where Assad has not -- seems pretty significant to me. Sure, Assad could try to hide some caches & could probably succeed, though since his has actual chemicals to hide (as opposed to Saddam, who was plumb out of them) anti-Assad people (& the CIA!) just might notice those convoys passing by carrying loads of drums marked XXX.
I do think there would be little blowback against our imperious selves if the U.N. Security Council told Assad the chemicals had to go & if U.N. personnel removed & destroyed them. And I don't think it's beyond the realm of possibility that that could happen. If Assad loses the support of Russia & China, what's he got? (Besides, ah, chemical weapons.)
While all this was playing out, it seems to me there's a good chance that Assad & his forces would refrain from using chemical weapons. And that, after all, is the idea, isn't it?
Marie
Duck! Inhofeing Coming In... (See Charlie Pierce video at http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/This_One_Works_For_Me )
Sorry to be off-thread message as usual (I know, today's topic: Syria), but there is a must-see video over on Charlie Pierce today with a great idea.
@James Singer & @MAG. I embedded this video two days ago, thanks to a heads-up from Julie L. See the August 27 Commentariat. And, yeah, I too think it's terrific.
Marie
P.S. to Marie. Maybe some day I'll tell the tale of my 'missed adventure' with Omar Sharif!
Marie, we are on the same page (I think), but acting as if the main problem in Syria is CW, when that is just one aspect of the mess. If that becomes the handle by which we get involved (even under UN blessing), we will have entered into a multi-faction civil war, a la Lebanon early-80s -- and we have proven at least three times in the past 30 years that we don't do that well. Wouldn't it be nice if the French would handle their old proteges, so we don't have to?
Speaking as one who fought a war that had no good end, (I think Patrick backs me on this) I see no good coming from a military strike on Syria. These things never turn out well for anyone. Let the hawks scream at the President if he does nothing. If he does do something, let it be with Congressional authorization, as the Constitution requires.
Interesting question you raise, Marie, about asking the United Nations for a resolution calling for the destruction of Syria's chemical weapons.
I'm for it in theory, but I'm afraid theory is as far as it would go.
Two reasons: First, I'd wager the Security Council would never agree to it. At least two of its members are unlikely to agree with much of anything we would propose, sensible or not. They have other geo-political agendas, a prominent one of which is to poke a stick in Uncle Sam's eye at every opportunity.
Second. I doubt such a proposal would even be made because any move that empowers the United Nations to act meaningfully on the world stage would be opposed by the international corporate interests that control so much of what we do both within and outside our borders. Notice which international bodies have real teeth: The IMF, the World Bank and the WTO, all of which serve corporate masters, are far more powerful than the UN and that's the way international corporations like it. They certainly don't want to empower any body or agency that might step on their toes, mounting campaigns for basic human rights for a large instance.
Imagine what such a foolish idea would do to business interests!
Syria. Nothing good can come of this. Nothing.
I posted this comment yesterday--from Ray McGovern (on Consortium), but it is more relevant to today's discussion.
Of course, he is accused (in the comments) of being anti-Israel. Balanced view, IMHO, about our likely invasion of Syria and the Iran/Israel implications. Also the still thriving Neo-Con influence.
http://consortiumnews.com/2013/08/27/the-broader-stakes-of-syrian-crisis/#comment-154855
@Ken Winkes: you may well be right about Russia & China. But it would certainly be embarrassing to them to do an about-face & argue that it's okay for Syria to have chemical weapons after all. China has already "expressed support for an independent and objective investigation by the UN into allegations of the use of chemical weapons in Syria. China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi stressed that China resolutely opposes the use of chemical weapons no matter who uses them...." AND "Russian President Vladimir Putin and Iranian counterpart Hassan Rouhani agree that chemical weapon use is 'impermissible' but oppose intervention in their ally Syria, the Kremlin said after the two held telephone talks." They are the only countries that are Syrian allies & have veto power over SC resolutions.
Marie
@Marie. You know I wonder if China and Russia's positions against the use of chemical weapons can be taken a step further. Instead of a UN resolution for some type of force, how about a resolution to remove and destroy chemical weapons with China and/or Russia providing oversight. Of course, either followed up by or in concert with the UN inspection teams. That would put the big boys between a rock and hard place. If they refuse or change positions, as you suggest, major global shit on their faces. If China and Russia let Syria hide and retain the weapons and they are used again, they lose all face.
I think the amount of energy being exerted around to bomb or not to bomb (US, GB) is indicative of the utter uselessness of the idea in the first place rather than careful thought.
@Diane: that's similar to what (Patrick &) I were more-or-less suggesting this morning: that a U.N. team would oversee the destruction of Syria's chemical stash, a team which would presumably include members & observers from numerous countries. Ken Winkes thought this was a pie-in-the-sky idea, but I can't see much of an upside for China or Russia backing Syria's "right" to maintain a chemical weapon arsenal, which could end/already has ended up in the "wrong" hands.
If it was a "rogue element" who unleashed the attack last week, Assad should be happy to get rid of the stuff, even if he blusters about invasion of a sovereign nation, etc.
Marie
On the use and misuse of language for political purposes.
A piece in the current New Yorker by Teju Cole on the ways in which clichéd approaches to language result in trite and defective thought processes led me to consider the way political expositions are currently being used in the run up to whatever the hell it is we are planning in Syria.
It also reminded me of two old friends who have expressed similar trepidations regarding language and thinking, George Orwell and Ludwig Wittgenstein.
Wittgenstein concerned himself with the limits and uses of language in two of his most important works. As a gunnery soldier in WWI he spent much time considering the problems of locution and propositions thereby expressed. This work became the “Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus”. He later, in his “Philosophical Investigations” reexamined much of his thinking on language and explored how inaccurate use and understanding of the limitations of language could lead to unsound and imprecise thinking.
George Orwell, in an essay on “Politics and the English Language” reached pretty much the same conclusions albeit in a more congenial fashion. He was concerned that sloppy, unclear language begets similarly sloppy thinking and demonstrates (hilariously) how clichéd political language is used to hide rather than rectify spurious thinking underlying terribly erroneous decisions.
Our contemporary political discourse is not much better. Euphemisms such as “collateral damage”, “limited strike” “Shock and Awe” and “symbolic attack” obscure the linguistic landscape in clouds of dusty metaphor. But if you’re talking about dropping bombs as a symbol, I’d have to say that most symbols I’m familiar with don’t kill people. Poor or willfully misleading expressions of bad ideas lead inevitably to regrettable outcomes (see: War, Iraq).
If we are intent on sending a message of international disapproval, because that’s pretty much all this is (no regime change intended, at least so we say), specifically because of the use of chemical agents, then why have we not sent “messages” to other regimes whose intentions and actions toward their own people have been equally nefarious and deadly?
A more accurate and careful use of language, that is, an approach that jettisons clichés and anodyne, mystical euphemisms would demand clearer, more nuanced thinking. Defaulting to political bromide-speak serves only to cloud the goals and methods and offers little opportunity for judicious, rigorous thought. And if such issues have already been carefully parsed then the employment of political, euphemistic language to sway public opinion presents its own set of problems, namely, that of inaccurately describing intentions and methods, as ruefully seen during the Bush debacle.
A sidebar on chemical warfare: I’m not entirely convinced that chemical agents are that much worse than bombs, bullets, and rockets (but I’m open to opposition on this). Granted it’s much harder to protect oneself from a chemical attack, but if one’s house has rockets raining down on it there ain’t a much better chance of surviving attacks by conventional weaponry. And consider this, we didn’t care when Iraq gassed the Iranians. In fact, we helped. We didn’t care when Saddam gassed the Kurds. We shrugged our shoulders. Sure he was an evil prick, but he was our evil prick. And there are plenty of other evil pricks in the world besides Assad. Do we go after all of them? No one cared about genocide in Rwanda or the Congo or Cambodia (conventional weapons like machetes and AKs are equally useful for killing hundreds of thousands, even millions). So why here, why now? (The question is rhetorical.)
Chemical warfare has been used for centuries dating back to the use of poisoned arrows, which does not, of course, make it okay (don’t ask me to explain what part of any war is “okay”), but is rather an acknowledgement that chemicals in war have a long history. The original (fictional) Akhilleus, was felled by a poison arrow. German tribes being attacked by Roman Legions poisoned their water supplies, a move first decried then gleefully adopted by Rome. In 1899, a Hague Convention declared the use of chemical warfare out of bounds, with only one nation voting against it, the United States, whose representative was the influential military envoy Alfred Mahan. Captain Mahan's rationale for opposition was the desire not to tie the hands of future US weapons makers, improvements in the industrial manufacture of cool new chemical agents offering many exciting options for killing a shitload of people at once.
And after all, would a cloud of sarin gas have been worse than the firebombing of Dresden? The end result would still have been tens of thousands killed.
But, as I said, this is a sidebar. This isn’t to say that the Geneva Conventions should be set aside, but let’s be clear. It’s a weapon. It kills. That’s its purpose. Sure it guarantees a maximum impact against the enemy with little or no exposure (so to speak) for those using the weapon. But drone strikes do something similar (not on the same scale, of course).
And if we attack a country that offers us no imminent threat, other than some made up bullshit, then this is no better than what Bush and Cheney did in Iraq. It doesn’t take an enormous facility with clear language and clarity of thought to arrive at that conclusion, but it would help us think through this situation and perhaps allow us to either defenestrate this plan and come up with something that we (and the world) find more acceptable (such as what Marie suggests), both strategically as well as philosophically and politically, or find a clearer, more supportable rationale for moving ahead with the current plan of “symbolic bombing” , minus the weasel words and threadbare thinking.
It’s clear that the Obama administration feels that they are in a "damned if they do, damned if they don’t" situation, but that’s just another way of defaulting to clichéd thinking. There doesn’t have to be only those two outcomes. Clearer heads may very well come up a way of thinking and talking about this problem that will pry us free from clunky ideas and poorly examined options. And keep Orwell from another spin cycle in his grave.
And what would Wittgenstein say? He famously concludes his Tractatus by declaring that there are things that even the best language cannot accommodate:
“Concerning that of which we cannot speak, we must remain silent.”
In other words, just because you CAN say something, doesn’t mean it should be said or that it has any useful meaning in the world.
Advice rarely followed by politicians. Or political commentators.
Syria is not a signatory to the 15 year old Chemical Weapons Convention. AFAIK this means the ban is not applicable to them. Russia is reported to have just requested a security council meeting so perhaps some here will see their wishes materialize. As an aside I would say that allowing the big 5 members of the security council to protect their friends by casting a veto on their behalf is one of the biggest faults of the UN.
Re: Country of origin; Sure would like to see the chemical make-up of the CW used by the Syrians. Not too many chem. labs in Syria I'll guess. Proper labeling might just read. "assembled in Syria from products manufactured in the following countries; Germany, Italy, Russia, United States, Iran, Great Britain, Poland and others yet to be named."
Remember class if you mix those two compounds together the reaction could be trouble.
We sold them how many kilos of (fill in blank); no shit!?
@cowichan: I have never signed a document vowing not to gas you should you wander onto my property to say "howdy" or whatever; ergo, expect to be gassed.
Since you tend to take things literally, I suppose I should explain that this is not a threat; it is merely an extension of your "logic." You are way too hung up on legalities.
In 1968 Syria did, BTW, sign the 1925 Geneva Protocol prohibiting the use of chemical weapons. Since the Geneva Protocol concerns war between or among countries, I suppose you could argue that it's okay for a country to use them against its own people, as long as the fumes don't cross an international border. It's a pretty stupid argument.
Marie
@Marie: The 1925 protocol does not address the use of chemical or biological weapons within one's borders in a civil strife.
@cowichan: Read what I write, please, before "correcting" me.
Your comments are not helping here. You need to think about whether or not you want to continue.
Marie
A tad off topic, but if we take Marie, Vince Foster, Billie Jean King, Bobby Riggs, the symbols for man, woman, birth, death, and infinity (the famous opening of Ben Casey), the search for a big screen TV, and sexual politics, you have the makings of a TC Boyle short story.
Add poison gas and it becomes a Raymond Carver story.
Or maybe a Sylvia Plath poem.
So it appears the Brits have some sense even if the colonies don't.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/30/world/middleeast/syria.html?emc=edit_na_20130829
Oh shit...I wrote "Vince Foster" when I meant "Vince Edwards".
As interesting as Vince Edwards would be in a story line, Vince Foster would be killer.
Oh, fuck me. Did I really say that?
Just call me Akhilleus Mellon Scaife.
@Akhilleus: Ah, Vince Edwards. I wondered where Vince Foster came from. I think Boyle. Though we could probably all work on a Carver story, round-robin style & come up with something. (You might have some trouble paring your words a la Carver, tho.) I'd have to study up on some Boyle short stories to parody him.
Marie
Update: Okay, I studied up. I think I can do it. Unfortunately, I don't have time.
@safari: Excellent summary. Here's hoping Obama is as smart as you are.
Marie
Regarding the question of why are CW worse than bullets...
The bodies lined up and shrouded are horrible, but the film of a child coughing his lungs out, suffocating, are the worse things I have ever seen. It feels so very different - so very cruel.
Excellent dialogue today, folks. To paraphrase the inimitable Yogi Berra: In theory there's no difference between theory and practice - in practice there is.
@ Marie: Sorry about that. Type in haste (late for an appointment), repent in leisure. Your second last sentence did not register at all.
We are in agreement then that the 1925 accord pertains to war between states. Furthermore the accord does not set forth any punitive actions for breaking the accord beyond being labeled a cad. The Chemical Weapons Convention 1997 is under the aegis of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, an independent organization in the Hague. So nothing to do with the UN and not signed by Syria and no provisions for penalties. AFAIK the only legal cover for an operation against Syria is the UN humanitarian grounds which seems pretty weak considering 100,000 died before the 1,000 casualties of poison gas. Russia and China have consistently vetoed anything allowing international intervention in any countries internal affairs (not just to aggravate the US). I would expect them to veto UN Security Council approval to intervene in this case. They want a free hand in internal repression and do not want to start down this path of UN intervention. I hear your 'hung up on legalities' but if a force from the US and a few allies moves against Syria without any legal backing where are we? Yesterday it was Libya, today is Syria and tomorrow? Back to the 1900's for international relations? The League of Nations and the United Nations is a response to a perceived need, not by the big powers but by the big and small. The world cannot function if military power rules and we, the small powers, must align with the most ideologically sympathetic power to survive. The world leaders of 1945 could see the instability of that system. Hopefully that's not something we need relearn.
So, where do we go from here? If the US and a select few allies drop some bombs on Syria what do they achieve? Reduce 1 building or 1000 to rubble, do you think Assad cares? He's destroyed 10s of 1000s. Destroying his airforce would be nice but he still will have his chemical weapons. Russia and China will be pissed off. Some Syrians will be dead. America will be $100,000,000 poorer. Hamas and al Qaeda will gain 100's of new fanatics. Nothing will be really resolved.
I don't see the UN sending anyone to remove Syrian poison chemicals from a war zone. Operating in a war zone is not the UN way. Historically since the Suez crisis of '59 (?) the blue helmets have served to patrol between forces which have battered each other to a stalemate. In Syria they have already shown that at the first gunshot they will run for cover. They will be fair game for Syrian, Hamas, al Qaeda, and rebel forces each of which has a reason to kill while wearing a uniform of face-scarf, tee shirt, jeans, and running shoes. To be politically independent they will need their own protection force with its own support staff and shelter etc, etc. None of the UN personnel can be sourced from NATO countries so we can expect Hans Blix and a cast of thousands from somewhere to be determined. Not an overnight undertaking.
My recommendation would be to do nothing. It's the course of action that got us where we are now. If Assad never uses another drop of poison gas it will have been the correct response. If, in the future, he kills 1 or 1000 with poison gas it will have been the wrong course. My hope is that Cameron, who doesn't require parliamentary approval, decides against intervention and gives Obama an out. My hail mary play would be Russia and China voting to remove chemical weapons from Syria. That would be the best for all and the least likely to happen.