September 4, 2013

At the very least, it's time to admit we SUCK AT THIS.

Even if we wanted to assume we have the right to try to control the Middle East, because oil or because Russia or because Muslams hate our freedums, what further evidence do we need beyond two trillions-spent, millions-dead, world-enmity-earning, massive failures, one of which is still a scorched, blood-soaked ruin, and the other of which grinds on for reasons no one can even articulate anymore.

WE ARE NOT THE GUARDIANS OF THE MIDDLE EAST. Not for selfish purposes, and not for selfless ones. We can not drone and Tomahawk our way to a better world, for us, or for anyone else.

September 3, 2013

What do people favoring Syrian intervention envision as the result?

What are the possible outcomes here, theoretically?

If we do what Obama says he wants -- a limited "punishment bombing" or whatever we're calling it, what's the goal? What will be the state of things when it is "over?"

A few bombs and missiles -- assuming anyone believes that will be the case -- will fall. A few structures destroyed. A few Assad loyalists blown up with morally upright explosives, rather than evil gas. And then what will be the story?

The world will see that a "punishment" was carried out and ... what? If chemical weapons aren't used again in this conflict, we're heroes? We can assume if more chemicals are used, we'll be back with another "limited strike," which could go on indefinitely, but assume it goes better than that. What if Assad, properly chastened from the use of gas, continues to slaughter his own people by only conventional means, and the rebels continue with the liver eating and Kurd beheading?

How meaningful is avenging "1,000 deaths" by gas, in a war at 100,000 deaths and counting?

Are we now committing to purely symbolic military action?

But if we do what McCain wants -- continue and expand a military intervention with the goal of toppling Assad, but without "boots on the ground," what then? So now we're in with a concrete goal, which granted is better in a way than a symbolic punishment bombing. But now we've spent real money, likely caused large-scale (albeit non-gaseous) casualties ourselves, and we can 't really quit until the entire war is resolved, unless we want to admit defeat.

But we're supposed to believe that full-bore committment to beating Assad will not involve U.S. troops, at any point? Because that's not going to work. We can't drone our way to a sterile, U.S. - casualty - free victory in a full-scale war. The robot killing machines are not quite that good yet.

So now we're either failing at a non-invasion strategy, or we're invading.

So we invade, with another "coalition of the willing" providing even less support than in Iraq. Micronesia will cheer us on from the sidelines. A handful of French will do ... something, because they still feel some sense of ownership in their former occupied territory.

And then what? Assad goes down. Or Assad doesn't go down. Either way, this conflict is already an ethnic slaughter between the Alawites and the other, previously repressed ethnic groups in the country. So genocide and revenge killings will ensue.

NPR interviewed some little children in a camp of refugees fleeing Assad a while back, and they spoke of annhiliating every Alawaite man, woman and child. These are the kids saying this.

And all of this because it would have been too embarrassing for Obama to back off on his "red line" speech?

How important is the preservation of the Presidential ego and image here?

How many Syrian deaths would be justified?

How many American?

How much more ammunition will we hand to the "Well, we have no money for anything but wars" Republicans?

Let's hear the "best case" scenarios people are envisioning. Because I'm seeing another heavy-handed, selfishly motivated, guaranteed-to-deepen-anti-American-resentment, MIC-enriching, bloody interventionist boondoggle in the making.

Syria has been on the wish list of the supporters of perennial U.S. military involvement for a long time. It's even in order, if I'm remembering right. Or maybe Iran was supposed to be next, and then Syria.

Who's seeing a quick, decisive, good result from this thing being sold to us where we launch a few noble anti-WMD strikes and retire to the portico for congratulations and a cool victory toast?

Really?

September 1, 2013

Wait. What are we doing about the children the other side is killing?

http://www.trust.org/item/20130819095403-vmywc/

You don't seriously think the Assad regime's atrocities, whether gas was used or not, are the only horrendous deaths occurring in Syria. The other side includes violent Islamic militants who are eating people's livers on camera and slaughtering Christians and Kurds.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10275441/Syria-conflict-and-Commons-vote-as-it-happened.html

NOTE: Religion is not the point. The point is that this is an ethnic conflict now. The horrors are evenly distributed.

So if the point is that "we" can't "allow" horrendous deaths, the question is why would we pretend firing a few missiles at Assad is going to fix it?

What "we" are really talking about is trying, once again, to win someone else's civil war for the "right" side.

And that's worked so well in the past, hasn't it?