There has been lots of talk this week about the situation in Syria and how the international community should respond. Now that there’s almost certain proof of the use of chemical weapons, something Obama called a “red line” in a speech a year ago, some sort of violent intervention seems inevitable.
In today’s New York Times, there’s a rather unsettling op-ed by professor and author Ian Hurd, titled bluntly, “Bomb Syria, Even if It Is Illegal.” Hurd presents an argument for circumventing the UN Security Council and intervening (bombing) in Syria.
To his credit, his language is direct. Hurd says, “I believe the Obama administration should intervene in Syria. But it should not pretend that there is a legal justification in existing law.” No Iraq War obfuscation here! Still, Hurd does not really go into detail about what would be accomplished by said bombing. Seeing how his focus is International Law, I’m guessing it’s outside of his concern, though on Twitter he makes sure to clarify that intervention (bombing) is “means not end.”
But betraying a hint of nuance on Twitter is not the same as penning an op-ed for an international newspaper detailing why a country should bomb another country. For nuance, thoughtfulness, and candor I would recommend instead reading George Packer’s debate with himself on The New Yorker’s website. Packer poses questions about this horrible and sensitive situation while acknowledging how complicated it all is. His commentary is the kind of thoughtful piece we deserve if we want to better understand the conditions and complications of international intervention.
If you have any more great reads on this situation please share them.
What is going on in Syria? Two scenarios …
Assad, who knows it would be suicide if his government were ever to use chemical weapons, and has been consistently on record claiming the Syrian military is not, nor has not used chemical weapons, decided to unleash them anyway at the precise moment when UN chemical weapons inspectors arrived in country, and then deployed them literally fifteen minutes from where the inspectors were staying in a hotel. Or …
The US backed rebels staged the attack (if there even was one), just as they have done not once but twice over the past two years, to implicate the Syrian government and justify a full scale US invasion. You know, the type of bloody ground invasion our war pig, bankster run government has been salivating over ever since they realized the couldn’t just light up Iran like they did Libya and Iraq, and need the strategic position of Syria (who has a mutual defense pact with Iran) neutralized in order to continue the full-spectrum dominance over the Middle East.
Now I wonder which one it could be?
Our last big intervention in the Middle East went so well, I can see why people would want to ensure that a toxic cloud of nerve gas drifts over innocents in Jordan, Iraq, Turkey, and Iran. After all, the US has infinite money and power and doesn’t need to allocate things so that its influence helps the greatest number of people.
Heck, I bet this would finally patch up things with Russia as well. It’s not like they’re down to just one friendly regime in the area.
Well, there are horrible things happening over there, so I can understand the urge to help. But…who are ‘good’ guys in this fight? And what could we really accomplish?
@Spindles What makes more sense: the rebels attacked themselves with chemical weapons and surface-to-surface missiles they don’t possess OR Assad’s incompetent goons launched another chemical attack at the wrong moment to terrorize the rebels?
Let’s be very clear, the Obama administration is NOT starting a war with Syria. They’re NOT pursuing regime change with this strike (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/27/…). And they’re NOT acting to protect the Syrian rebels. The reason Obama is going to launch several cruise missiles into Syria is to protect his red line against the use of chemical weapons. That’s it.
Assad can continue to kill as many people as he wants–as long as he does it with bombs and bullets.
After you read Packer’s piece, read this piece in the TNR by Leon Wieseltier: http://www.newrepublic.com/article/113460/… It argues why we should intervene more forcefully in Syria, and why Syria is NOT Iraq. Then read the rest of TNR excellent coverage on Syria: http://www.newrepublic.com/tags/syria
The WSJ had a good analysis piece on this yesterday. It said the main reason was actually Iran. Iran has nuclear and (I would presume) chemical weapons. It is also Assad’s biggest regional supporter militarily. Obama thinks that allowing Assad to use chemical weapons sets a bad precedent for Iran was the thesis.
Personally, I think that a bombing is probably a good idea, but more in depth involvement is not.
The big problem is these people can’t govern themselves, and no amount of intervention is going to fix that. Stability is more important than idealistic pursuits like “democracy” or “freedom.” These are just words. Stability = peace= less people dying and more food and basic necessities being met. If it comes at the cost of ideals, so be it.
The rebellion can prevail if it proves it can rule first by getting enough support to win. If not, Assad should stay. But use of chemical weapons should not be tolerated by the international community.
Here’s a good assessment by a respectable author, Tony Cartalucci. He’s been spot on about Libya, Syria and Iran.
http://www.intifada-palestine.com/2013/08/…
Anybody who has been watching understands that the evidence for Assad’s use of chemical weapons is mighty thin. Of course, you have the MOSSAD claiming to intercept a telephone conversation, but they would never lie to us, would they?