Syrian crisis - what should be done?

[RSL]

Which one is it ?

Both.

For presidential candidates to claim such an experience, a country must be in a perpetual state of war. In a rare situation that it isn't, god forbid, candidates must work hard to start a new war, otherwise their political career goes down the drain. Of course, these things will never happen in real life. Oh, wait... damn!

No problem, Slobodan. The world's been in a perpetual state of war since before the beginning of recorded history. History can tell you about the wars after history began to be recorded. Archaeology can tell you about the wars before that.

[Manoli]

Both.

Q.E.D

[Jim Pascoe]

No problem, Slobodan. The world's been in a perpetual state of war since before the beginning of recorded history. History can tell you about the wars after history began to be recorded. Archaeology can tell you about the wars before that.

That's true, but you are assuming that the US has to be involved in them almost continually for your proposal to work.  I honestly cannot see how it would be a good idea for all Presidents to need to have active military service.  When you say they should know what it's like to send men into battle, what is there to gain from that?  From my reading of history, some leaders (soldiers) after a war can always justify more fighting, and others would not send men to war ever again out of principle.  I'm excluding obviously the special case of where a state is directly attacked - like happened in 1939/40. Lots of people join the military just so they can get involved in war and shoot people.  We need leaders (in my opinion) who see any sort of legal or illegal murder as the last possible recourse, and not just another tool of diplomacy.  At the moment the US has the biggest stick - it once was the British, and it has been other nations before and it will be yet others in the future. The claim that Obama might sanction action just so he can be "seen to be doing something" strikes me as madness.

Regarding Syria, we should keep out of any bombing or fighting.  The whole mess in that region is so complicated that any stoking of the fire will have repercussions which nobody honestly can predict.  Yes, it might help, like in Bosnia, or it might backfire as in Iraq - who knows?  Nobody, it would be playing roulette with the only certain outcome that more people are going to die and the arms industry will make a load of money replacing the spent arsenals.

Jim

[Steve Weldon]

Unless you've had that kind of experience, "combat" and "war" are abstractions.

Agreed.   And it's more the "experience" than the knowledge.  Anyone can read and become an expert at war given an adequate IQ and desire, but to actually understand where you're sending your troops.. you need the experience of having done so.  

I don't think many will argue that national defence/sovereignty of the Nation is a Presidents most important role.  The experience of serving, of being either the one who sends or gets sent.. in an invaluable aid no adviser can adequately explain.

I also spent 4 years on the SDPD riding patrol and other various duties.  I quit and went back to the military despite 3x the pay and benefits and frankly I loved the job.  So why go back?  Because the city of San Diego decided to have a civilian shooting review board without any prior law enforcement experience.  I knew in my mind and in my heart they could never know what it was like to be me, walk down that dark alley, face down lopsided numbers, or even walk up to a car you stopped at night.  So how could they adequately represent my decision to shoot? (much less decide my fate, freedom, and future) There is no way they could.  Without having a gun pointed in your face not knowing if the guy was going to pull the trigger or not.. you just can't know what it feels like.  Or what it does to you even years later.  I left and went back in the service.

During all the years I served I noted a huge almost seismic shift in attitude towards the CIC, respect, confidence in actions, and belief in our tasking.. between different Presidents.  Carter was laughed at, Reagan was almost a deity, Bush Sr. was respected, Clinton was hated like no other, and Bush Jr. respected.. though that lessened..  

I'll go further.  I think every man and woman should serve their country for at least a two year stint.  Military, duty in nursing homes, forest firemen/smoke jumpers, duty in a public morgue, and should as a rule do this service away from their home town and support system.  Show me you have what it takes to give back to your country in a way we can believe is a "sacrifice" and I'll give you a chance to lead me.. or follow me.

[Steve Weldon]

What strikes me here is an attitude I’d expect from someone who has never left the farm. All in all, it renders these kinds of threads somewhat moribund from the very start.

Rob C

With respect, until this last part your flawed views could be forgiven as being from someone who just doesn't know..  But this crosses the line of civiity imo.   Perhaps from someone who has never visited a farm..

[Steve Weldon]

Rob, do you really expect me to look up to a man as the "broadly experienced in the ways of the world" who cheated on a cancer-stricken wife, while using her for a sympathy bump in his campaign? Who fathered a child but didn't take responsibility for it until the very tabloids you so despise forced him to?

The morality of the modern age might have relaxed a number of old axioms, but there are still certain core values that most decent man share. The above is definitely not one of those core values, and I, for one, do not want a leader with "values" like that. On the other hand, I am much less concerned with an occasional BJ in the Oval Office.

A Farm Boy

Agreed in concept.   Your examples could be argued.  It's well known that people with sick, disabled, coma stricken, spouses.. will seek a much needed physical release while still loving their spouse and doing whatever else they can to be there for them.  You could even argue such a relationship allows them the mental state to be a better spouse.  Though.. combined with other known facts I don't like the guy either.   The occasional BJ in the office.. with an otherwise or even purported healthy relationship.. shows a deep disrespect to the office he holds.  And a breech of trust to every parent sending their 19 year old to intern at the White House.  But even that didn't reach the level for impeachment in my mind.. it was the lying to Congress.  The House he needed to be on working terms with for the benefit of our nation.. and he goes and lies under oath.. so sad.

[Peter Stacey]

Regarding Syria, we should keep out of any bombing or fighting.  The whole mess in that region is so complicated that any stoking of the fire will have repercussions which nobody honestly can predict.  Yes, it might help, like in Bosnia, or it might backfire as in Iraq - who knows?  Nobody, it would be playing roulette with the only certain outcome that more people are going to die and the arms industry will make a load of money replacing the spent arsenals.

I don't personally see my views as being any more valid than anyone else's and the kind of society I live in doesn't automatically mean everyone else should chose to live under the same model.

As a result, I'm generally for letting others sort out their own problems in their own way, no matter who they are.

However, there are some lines that globally we have agreed cannot be crossed. In relation to the use of chemical weapons, that's one line that as early as the first Hague Conference in 1899 we said that should be illegal under international law. That was reaffirmed at the second Hague Conference in 1907, then the Geneva Convention in 1925 and many conventions since. We have fallen down on that commitment a number of times, but not at a state level since the 1980s.

The use of chemical weapons is an abhorrent way to conduct war and by not stepping in to prevent it happening further in Syria, it makes it harder to step in the next time another state or sub-state group uses/or threatens to use them. The position of all Governments becomes weaker when we chose to do nothing in relation to this particular class of weapon.

For me, the ideal here would be to find an appropriate way to prevent any further chemical attacks in the current conflict and once the conflict is resolved, to ensure that Syria signs and ratifies the Chemical Weapons Convention (as they are 1 of only 5 countries in the World left to do so - the others being Egypt, North Korea, South Sudan (only recently an independent state) and Angola; with 2 countries signed but never ratified - Israel and Myanmar). Full universality and compliance inspections would be the best way to help prevent anything in the future. While complete prevention will never be possible, the verification and destruction regime makes it more difficult.

[BernardLanguillier]

I wonder whether we would be discussing this if the exact same Syria were not located next to Israel?

Now, the Tomahawks are aging, need to find a way to clear the stock.

Cheers,
Bernard

[hjulenissen]

I wonder whether we would be discussing this if the exact same Syria were not located next to Israel?

"Humanity" and "loving your next" seems to be intimately connected with ones religious, economic, political interests. Not surprisingly, the actions of national states seems to reflect this.

One might hope for the UN to be some kind of "neutral grounds", setting super-national rules that will be enforced when broken, rules that can be accepted by vastly different cultures. Currently, this seems to not be the case.

-h

[hjulenissen]

Try telling that to the people in Western Europe who were overrun by the Nazis.

My country was one of them. You don't need to tell me.

War and economy tends to go hand in hand. If you run your economy poorly, going to war is one way of trying to regain what was lost (or divert the attention of your voters. As practiced by a range of US presidents).

I believe that US voters agree with me; my impression is that US presidential elections tends to be won on economy, not on foreign policy. Having a war veteran with poor economic skills seems like a naiive approach. Like one might expect from the image of gun-slinging, wild-west, self-sufficient, thoughtless image that is sometimes (often wrongly) attributed to people from the US.

-h

[Steve Weldon]

I believe that US voters agree with me; my impression is that US presidential elections tends to be won on economy, not on foreign policy. Having a war veteran with poor economic skills seems like a naiive approach. Like one might expect from the image of gun-slinging, wild-west, self-sufficient, thoughtless image that is sometimes (often wrongly) attributed to people from the US.

-h

1.  No more naive than thinking they are necessarily exclusive, or that "advisors" for war fighting could be any less effective than advisors for economics.

The lack of intellectual honesty is stunning for the sake of making a rather weak point

2.  It would warm my heart to know they exist outside our country. 

[Manoli]

My country was one of them. You don't need to tell me.

What is (or was) your country ?

[Rob C]

1.  With respect, until this last part your flawed views could be forgiven as being from someone who just doesn't know..  But this crosses the line of civiity imo.   

2.  Perhaps from someone who has never visited a farm..

1,  Exactly what I’d expect from you, so congratulations on consistency.

2. For my sins – and pleasures – we bought right next to a farm thirty-two years ago. Since that time, the local farmer (Spanish) has been paid by the European Community to slaughter all his animals and to stop growing produce. The farm was consequently abandoned, and is now turning into a pine forest. Pine grows very rapidly, in direct proportion to the loss of our view, you might say.

Funny thing: if you drive the length of France, top-to-bottom, you will see more working farms than you could possibly imagine; I’m told that Germans can get allowances for owning even two farm animals, but I can’t vouch for the veracity of that. However, guess which two countries in the EEC have the major clout and pretty much control the Agricultural Policy…

But to be more serious: I have travelled to many countries and lived in several. I do have a fairly good grasp of the realities of life in different cultures. It seems to me that most writers here do not have that knowledge and experience, just the crap that hits them from the tv or the press, which isn’t their fault and doesn’t make me any better: I just led a different life from the day I was born; my experiences are just different. In a sense, international gypsies, but comfortably so, you might say. Fortunately or otherwise, insularity and blind national patriotism hasn’t been my lot.

;-)

Rob C

[Rob C]

Rob, do you really expect me to look up to a man as the "broadly experienced in the ways of the world" who cheated on a cancer-stricken wife, while using her for a sympathy bump in his campaign? Who fathered a child but didn't take responsibility for it until the very tabloids you so despise forced him to?

The morality of the modern age might have relaxed a number of old axioms, but there are still certain core values that most decent man share. The above is definitely not one of those core values, and I, for one, do not want a leader with "values" like that. On the other hand, I am much less concerned with an occasional BJ in the Oval Office.

A Farm Boy

Slobodan, if you pray for a saint in office, your prayer will go unanswered. 'Saints' don't seek power; they abhor it.

Better a man with worldly experience than one with religious bigotry; as they say, one too heavenly to be of any Earthly use?

Rob C

[BernardLanguillier]

Rob,

I don't question your wisdom or life experiences, but you seem uninterested/unaware of the risks and consequences of de facto totalitarianism.

Have you read novels from Gombrovicz or Kundera?

They are eye opening and describe with minute details the early days of Eastern Europe, the self imposed censorship, group pressure to be good citizens,... and all these things we see happening in the West nowadays.

Only it was better back then because people were probably more educated and typically had more personal time available to think.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Jim Pascoe]

I don't personally see my views as being any more valid than anyone else's and the kind of society I live in doesn't automatically mean everyone else should chose to live under the same model.

As a result, I'm generally for letting others sort out their own problems in their own way, no matter who they are.

However, there are some lines that globally we have agreed cannot be crossed. In relation to the use of chemical weapons, that's one line that as early as the first Hague Conference in 1899 we said that should be illegal under international law. That was reaffirmed at the second Hague Conference in 1907, then the Geneva Convention in 1925 and many conventions since. We have fallen down on that commitment a number of times, but not at a state level since the 1980s.

The use of chemical weapons is an abhorrent way to conduct war and by not stepping in to prevent it happening further in Syria, it makes it harder to step in the next time another state or sub-state group uses/or threatens to use them. The position of all Governments becomes weaker when we chose to do nothing in relation to this particular class of weapon.

For me, the ideal here would be to find an appropriate way to prevent any further chemical attacks in the current conflict and once the conflict is resolved, to ensure that Syria signs and ratifies the Chemical Weapons Convention (as they are 1 of only 5 countries in the World left to do so - the others being Egypt, North Korea, South Sudan (only recently an independent state) and Angola; with 2 countries signed but never ratified - Israel and Myanmar). Full universality and compliance inspections would be the best way to help prevent anything in the future. While complete prevention will never be possible, the verification and destruction regime makes it more difficult.

Peter - I quite understand all you are saying.  However deplorable chemical weapons are, is it really much different to the victims in the end?  I mean bullets, shrapnel, fuel-air munitions, mines, they are all pretty awful if you are the victim.  In the Syrian case we have the added emotional impact of the children too.  But I seem to remember the carnage wrought in other countries recently by US weapons on the population where targeting information went wrong or innocent children just happened to be 'in the wrong place at the wrong time'.  To see the pictures of the rags of bodies left over from such strikes is pitiful - and they weren't hit by chemical weapons.  And of course for every dead victim there are probably more maimed for life - both physically and possibly mentally too.

In principle I cannot quite see why the 'Red Line' is set depending on the type of weapons used.  The armaments industry spends enormous sums on researching the most effective and efficient killing devices possible, and then we say that chemical weapons are banned.  The Red Line seems arbitrary and my worry is, as in the past, the West is looking for an excuse to wade in and start bombing people.  Perhaps we only sanction weapons that we ourselves are easily capable of defending ourselves against.  Chemical, nuclear and biological weapons are hard to control and defend against, except by pre-emptive action.  Therefore we in the West make sure that the guys we don't like are not able to build, store or have the means to deliver any nasty weapons outside of there own borders.  Just give them guns and they can happily kill themselves as much as they like.

Jim

[BernardLanguillier]

Peter - I quite understand all you are saying.  However deplorable chemical weapons are, is it really much different to the victims in the end?  I mean bullets, shrapnel, fuel-air munitions, mines, they are all pretty awful if you are the victim.  In the Syrian case we have the added emotional impact of the children too.  But I seem to remember the carnage wrought in other countries recently by US weapons on the population where targeting information went wrong or innocent children just happened to be 'in the wrong place at the wrong time'.  To see the pictures of the rags of bodies left over from such strikes is pitiful - and they weren't hit by chemical weapons.  And of course for every dead victim there are probably more maimed for life - both physically and possibly mentally too.

In principle I cannot quite see why the 'Red Line' is set depending on the type of weapons used.  The armaments industry spends enormous sums on researching the most effective and efficient killing devices possible, and then we say that chemical weapons are banned.  The Red Line seems arbitrary and my worry is, as in the past, the West is looking for an excuse to wade in and start bombing people.  Perhaps we only sanction weapons that we ourselves are easily capable of defending ourselves against.  Chemical, nuclear and biological weapons are hard to control and defend against, except by pre-emptive action.  Therefore we in the West make sure that the guys we don't like are not able to build, store or have the means to deliver any nasty weapons outside of there own borders.  Just give them guns and they can happily kill themselves as much as they like.

My thoughts as well.

What do we do about Egypt, North Korea, Myanmar, Ethiopia,... and the countless other countries where thousands of people are killed every year for bad reasons without using "chemical" weapons.

What do we tell our children when the most powerful people on earth act this way?

Cheers,
Bernard

[Tim Lookingbill]

However deplorable chemical weapons are, is it really much different to the victims in the end?  I mean bullets, shrapnel, fuel-air munitions, mines, they are all pretty awful if you are the victim.

In principle I cannot quite see why the 'Red Line' is set depending on the type of weapons used.

You know what it feels like to come close to dying from not being able to control your nervous system to the point you're grasping for every breath and suffering from violent convulsions/seizures worse than going through electro shock therapy without anesthesia? Yeah, I'ld say there's a big differences by comparison to being cut down by shrapnel or a bullet. I'ld bet anyone suffering under those conditions would prefer a bullet to the head without question.

It's the kind of torture we don't inflict on animals or any living creature but seem to rationalize in discussions of this sort with it being done to children. Having hard time rationalizing that on its own.

Aside from that point I think it would be important to know why any member of the al-Assad regime would stop using such a torturous weapon seeing how efficient it was at getting the job done. Why not keep using it? What stopped them? Why hasn't the Syrian President made an effort at tracking down who gained access to these weapons if he's so against using them?

These questions need to be answered before we bomb Syria because this doesn't add up. Things aren't what they appear.

And if it wasn't anyone within the regime that did this then how was access to these weapons made so easy for this one particular use and if it was this easy, what is to prevent other folks getting to them and using them on us and any other country.

I think we should punish al-Assad for not answering these questions as well as not showing due diligence to the rest of the world that he has full control over the members of his military regime in making sure it won't happen again.

[Rob C]

Rob,

1.  I don't question your wisdom or life experiences, but you seem uninterested/unaware of the risks and consequences of de facto totalitarianism.

2.  Only it was better back then because people were probably more educated and typically had more personal time available to think.

Cheers,
Bernard

1.  Bernard, however you dress it, it comes down to the simple fact that life is ever difficult and countries are always in competition if not outright hostilities.

We all, as nations, have to do the best for ourselves. That might fly in the face of the current tree-hugging ethos, but it’s the reality all actually in public office have to accept and deal with as best they can. Perceived weakness is as instantly exploited internationally as it is in the schoolyard, only it can actually hurt you even more out of school.

Totalitarianism. That’s a bit of a stretch! As for being without care or unaware, maybe; I don’t believe in the Don Quixote syndrome anymore: for me it never worked - I just wasted many years tilting at the windmills of my own mind. I don’t believe that the concept of dictatorship will arrive in Europe any day soon. We have become a land of the self-centred, given to instant gratification and the desire to get as much as possible for the minimum of effort, and especially do we cherish the notion of getting it through the efforts of others. People like this aren’t about to vote in anyone offering blood, sweat and tears! If anything, I see coalition after weak coalition… I don’t know enough about the States to be sure, but I still believe they care more there about the need to do things for yourself than we Europeans do – that was one of the early seductions of the EEC… let’s share our problems and magnify our benefits. The only benefits I see magnified are for those politicos with tax-free benefits and unlimited expense accounts.

2.   I’m not sure how far back ‘then’ lies in your mind; I suspect it was a time before even I was an adult! As I understand it, on average, people came home from work, had something to eat, washed at the kitchen sink (if there was a kitchen sink), braved the outside toilet for as brief a moment as they could manage and took themselves off to bed where they either began the next generation that they couldn’t afford or simply zonked into unconsciousness. Probably not a lot of difference either way.

Books cost money; they also demand that you can read. So yeah, maybe you do have a point after all! Except that that point indicates that only the educated wealthy would really be advanced enough to have a worthwhile political say…

;-)

Rob C

[Vladimirovich]

to ensure that Syria signs and ratifies the Chemical Weapons Convention (as they are 1 of only 5 countries in the World left to do so - the others being Egypt, North Korea, South Sudan (only recently an independent state) and Angola; with 2 countries signed but never ratified - Israel and Myanmar).

so why don't we start w/ 2 reciepents of our dollars - that is Egypt and Israel ? huh ?