![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Like most Americans, I am really not thrilled with the idea of intervening in Syria. It has all the hallmarks of a world-class mess, and there's no indication that Assad's eventual replacement will be any more amenable to US interests.
Unfortunately, if the President says use of chemical weapons is a "red line," then crossing said red line has to have some consequences. So, apparently the Powers That Be are debating as to what those consequences will be. It appears that we're limiting the consequences to a quick punitive bombing campaign, which is more than I personally want to do but infinitely preferable to committing us to regime change.
The Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy (tm) called (I keep waiting for the damn check they promised) and apparently I'm supposed to make approving noises about this article. The title is largely the tl;dr version Kerry's Chem Speech: Old School Empire. Well, I generally don't approve.
Yes, it is rather high-handed of us to disapprove of how Assad conducts his civil war. It's also high-handed to object to bank robbery, at least from the point of view of the robber. And yes, Assad has been killing civilians quite efficiently without using chemical weapons. The point of objecting to chemical weapons is part of a long effort to "civilize" warfare. That may be an oxymoron along the lines of "military intelligence" but it is justifiable on non-imperial grounds.
The author then goes on to discuss and off-handedly condemn both the US atomic bomb attacks and Allied mass-bombings in WWII. Here's the thing - I disapprove of hitting people in the genitals. However, if you're trying to kill me, I will hit you in the genitals repeatedly and with all the vigor I can. Frankly, my life is important to me, and I have a right to live it.
Thus with WWII. That war was a great rarity - an unambiguous fight to the death between democracy and evil. We had every right to do what we needed to do to survive. Assad, as a dictator, doesn't have that right, although in his mind he does. (See the bank robber above.)
This ties in with an interview of General Wesley Clark that I heard on the way to work, where he made a great point. Simply put, if we want to do something effective, we need to offer Assad a way out. Otherwise, he'll just keep fighting.
Unfortunately, if the President says use of chemical weapons is a "red line," then crossing said red line has to have some consequences. So, apparently the Powers That Be are debating as to what those consequences will be. It appears that we're limiting the consequences to a quick punitive bombing campaign, which is more than I personally want to do but infinitely preferable to committing us to regime change.
The Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy (tm) called (I keep waiting for the damn check they promised) and apparently I'm supposed to make approving noises about this article. The title is largely the tl;dr version Kerry's Chem Speech: Old School Empire. Well, I generally don't approve.
Yes, it is rather high-handed of us to disapprove of how Assad conducts his civil war. It's also high-handed to object to bank robbery, at least from the point of view of the robber. And yes, Assad has been killing civilians quite efficiently without using chemical weapons. The point of objecting to chemical weapons is part of a long effort to "civilize" warfare. That may be an oxymoron along the lines of "military intelligence" but it is justifiable on non-imperial grounds.
The author then goes on to discuss and off-handedly condemn both the US atomic bomb attacks and Allied mass-bombings in WWII. Here's the thing - I disapprove of hitting people in the genitals. However, if you're trying to kill me, I will hit you in the genitals repeatedly and with all the vigor I can. Frankly, my life is important to me, and I have a right to live it.
Thus with WWII. That war was a great rarity - an unambiguous fight to the death between democracy and evil. We had every right to do what we needed to do to survive. Assad, as a dictator, doesn't have that right, although in his mind he does. (See the bank robber above.)
This ties in with an interview of General Wesley Clark that I heard on the way to work, where he made a great point. Simply put, if we want to do something effective, we need to offer Assad a way out. Otherwise, he'll just keep fighting.
