Tomahawk Missiles launched at Syria

[Guest]

We've been using our military in and/or for Syria since 2013. We've also been bringing in Syrian refugees, which stopped (supposedly temporarily) in late January.

 

This wasn't the FIRST time we intervened.

I'm not speaking for Paige, but I share her overall sentiment; to me, it's not that we've sat on our hands and done nothing at all for years. It's that the President's own words make it sound like it only just occurred to him that "beautiful little babies" are dying and maimed and suffering. Enormous numbers of people have been suffering and dying in Syria for years. Is it no big deal that there are camps packed with starving and sick people? People who just want some modicum of safety? I confess, horrible as that chemical attack was, I cannot understand anyone, especially leaders who ought to know, behaving as if it just occurred to them that beautiful little babies are dying. Why does it cross lines when it's Sarin gas rather than ordinary starvation or exposure?

 

It's also just really hard for me to see how bombing people is a good way to make a statement about how a country should not harm its own citizens. What the hell does it even mean? Don't kill your people in Sarin gas attacks or else the US will come bomb your people in retaliation?

[Twolittleboys]

The more I think about it, the more do I think the US (or any other country) should follow one of two possible options:

 

a) The "we stay out of other countries' business unless we are personally impacted" approach (which I thought was what the president wanted)

In that case I don't think the US should intervene in Syria even if chemical weapons are used (unless they endanger the US, are "practise" for more widespread aggression/ a UN resolution etc.). Advantages are that there is less risk of getting drawn into conflicts with other nations (Russia, Iran, China, etc.), it is cheaper, and reduces danger for US military. The downside is of course humanitarian (and maybe a loss of status/global influence). On the other hand, getting involved does not necessarily mitigate humanitarian suffering in the long term as even the best intentions can make things worse instead of better. It seems likely that the war in Syria would be over by now if no outside countries had interfered.

 

This option seems kind of cold/cruel (let's just ignore the dying babies) but could be mitigated a bit with humanitarian aid.

 

b) Go all in

If the US does feel this is a matter they need to get involved in, there should be a comprehensive plan and the will and ability to follow through. Be it by helping to stabilize Assad or by getting rid of him and helping someone else to take over.

 

Looking at what I just wrote it is kind of funny because it does make option a) sound better even though I personally am more the "let's take over and fix this problem" personality. As I said, I am kind of unsure what I think would be best but I do think it would be wrong to just get involved without a clear plan, without coordinating with other players, and without the will to see it through.

[Lanny]

Few countries in the world have the capability to do what the USA did, with a surgical strike on that Syrian air base. Russia is on the side of Syria and seems to have been complicit with Syria having Chemical Weapons at this time, despite the 2013 agreement.

 

Probably China has that type of weapon. Possibly the UK and some other NATO allies have some of them.

 

Despite the sad state of Readiness in the U.S. Military (some squadrons with 10 aircraft only have 4 aircraft that can fly, today.) the USA is still strong.

 

Not to get involved, when there are War Crimes, Genocide, is the easiest thing to do. That's frequently done.  In recent times, the USA did nothing to help Jewish people escape from Hitler, for years. More recently, there was a Genocide in an African country. Possibly more than one African country...   The easiest thing to do is to do nothing.

 

If the USA doesn't step up to the plate, then who will? Certainly not the U.N.  With all the major problems and imperfections, and the wide political differences, the USA is the one country who can and will step up to the plate. Not always, infrequently, but much more often than the other countries with the capability to take action. 

The more I think about it, the more do I think the US (or any other country) should follow one of two possible options:

 

a) The "we stay out of other countries' business unless we are personally impacted" approach [

 

b) Go all in

If the US does feel this is a matter they need to get involved in, there should be a comprehensive plan and the will and ability to follow through.

 

I think the above is very wise, and similar to the so-called 'Powell Doctrine', which has a few other components.  My biggest concern with this attack is that there is no stated objective, no goal.  Is it to depose Assad? Stop the indiscriminate killing of civilians?  Only stop the use of chemical weapons against non-combatants?   Allow Assad to only attack ISIS? The airbase that was attacked by the US has already launched airplane strikes on other sites within Syria, and the city that was gassed has been bombed again today, so, what, exactly, are we trying to accomplish?

[Guest]

 

Few countries in the world have the capability to do what the USA did, with a surgical strike on that Syrian air base. Russia is on the side of Syria and seems to have been complicit with Syria having Chemical Weapons at this time, despite the 2013 agreement.

 

Probably China has that type of weapon. Possibly the UK and some other NATO allies have some of them.

 

Despite the sad state of Readiness in the U.S. Military (some squadrons with 10 aircraft only have 4 aircraft that can fly, today.) the USA is still strong.

 

Not to get involved, when there are War Crimes, Genocide, is the easiest thing to do. That's frequently done. In recent times, the USA did nothing to help Jewish people escape from Hitler, for years. More recently, there was a Genocide in an African country. Possibly more than one African country... The easiest thing to do is to do nothing.

 

If the USA doesn't step up to the plate, then who will? Certainly not the U.N. With all the major problems and imperfections, and the wide political differences, the USA is the one country who can and will step up to the plate. Not always, infrequently, but much more often than the other countries with the capability to take action.

Well, this is why it's a conundrum. Does might make right? Because we have more power than many countries, we should go force other governments to manage their population according to our values? That air strikes can even accomplish this goal, were that the goal? And then, how do you decide? Should we intervene only when the country has resources we wish to capitalize upon? If we say we should intervene wherever there are human rights abuses, then, you're right, we've got a lot of catching up to do. But even if we can justify intervening here or there, where do you draw the line. And what gives us the right to do so anyway?

[Lanny]

The use of Chemical Weapons is prohibited by International Laws and Conventions. That is a violation of the Rules of War. Yes, there are Rules of War, but obviously, not always followed, unfortunately.  Assad if captured, could be tried in The Hague, for War Crimes, and executed.  He would like to avoid that...   The previous U.S. Administration had a treaty, signed in 2013, where the Russians were supposed to destroy all Chemical Weapons in Syria, or, remove them from Syria. Apparently that did not happen, or, some of them remained, or they made new ones. Russia wants to keep Assad in power. Iran wants to keep Assad in power.  Very tricky and dangerous situation...

 

"For instance, there are rules protecting non-participants, prisoners and the wounded. These rules are set out in international humanitarian law. Yes, even wars have limits. And attacking civilians constitutes a war crime.Aug 22, 2014"