Syria: Still Voting No

Here’s a “no”.

John Bolton is saying “no”.

Tea Partiers, “no”.

Jim Geraghty:

The desire to punish a murderous brutal dictator for using abominable weapons is good and noble and right. But it’s insufferable to be told that we have to do this, by the crowd that a half-decade ago kept telling us how wrong we were about Bashar Assad, and how he was just a misunderstood, reasonable reformer. ……………………………Yesterday Senator Ron Johnson (R., Wis.), asked a devastating question: “You say this is the world’s red line, not ours, and I agree. So how many partners will we have with us?”

If sending troops is the price of stopping chemical attacks, almost all of the nations in the world are actually perfectly okay with chemical attacks, as long as they’re not downwind.

Amen to that. But here’s a key question. Why in all of these insufferable arguments about the horrors of chemical warfare is it apparently an unwritten rule to only mention the Bush intelligence errors and the not the very clear evidence for the use of chemical weapons in Iraq, pre invasion, on the Kurds!?

Somehow, while the world was setting “red lines” and Obama was gearing up to actually say “red line”, Bush is the devil for taking seriously a red line.

It is horrible for Assad to do what he’s done. If I had a president I trusted to follow through on whatever is needed, I’d probably be behind him. But I don’t. The Syrian people need to know and understand this. If they don’t want to be gassed, they may need to surrender. That is the way of war.

UPDATE: Here is a “yes” via the WSJ and William Galston. But let’s take a look. First he mentions the “disaster” and horrible decision of Iraq.

Only now is America reckoning the full cost of the disaster in Iraq—friends in the Middle East doubting our competence, our closest ally unwilling to stand with us in Syria, our people weary and fearful of entanglements that could prove open-ended.

check.

He mentions our capacities, without mentioning the fact, that we are never allowed to actually use our full capacity to win anything.

The stark fact is that the U.S. is the only country in the world with the capacity to respond to Assad’s outrageous use of chemical weapons in a way that might deter him from repeating it.

Then he mentions our responsibilities as the US of A.

For better or worse (mostly for better, I believe), the United States is the guarantor of the global order, which we took the lead in creating. In that role, we provide global public goods—forms of stability and security, such as freedom of the seas, from which other nations benefit, not just us.

check.

Then he makes clear it will all be easy peasy, so quit worrying and just vote.

Some things are clear. The president’s aim in Syria is deterrence, not regime change. The means cannot include boots on the ground, and the actions taken must minimize the risk that any Americans will fall into Assad’s hands.

check

Wellllll, it might involve a little more, but it will be nothing like Iraq.

Some things are clear. The president’s aim in Syria is deterrence, not regime change. The means cannot include boots on the ground, and the actions taken must minimize the risk that any Americans will fall into Assad’s hands.

So we all need to just do the right thing. Where the hell was this guy while the Kurds were being gassed I wonder. Oh, he was not thinking of making a statement about the horrors of gassing. Instead he was writing on the perils of preemptive war.
Capture

Sadly, the link doesn’t work. So, let’s get this straight.
Iraqi Kurds did not deserve one iota of thought. Iraqi nuclear ambitions don’t count because our intelligence thought they were farther along than they were. The was in Iraq was disastrous even though we ousted Sadaam and definitely took them back to where they are no longer a threat to their neighbors, let alone us. BUT – we should vote for a limited strike on Syria to make a statement about chemical weapons used there because we are good. Somehow the statement will work and there is no need to think further along those lines because, because, because…..Iraq/Bush intervention bad, Syria/Obama intervention smart.

Leave a Reply