The Bishop and the Butterfly: Murder, Politics, and the End of the Jazz Age

    285 to 272

    By Flavius on Fri, 08/30/2013 - 8:20am |

    was the vote in the House of Commons against the UK supporting military action against Syria in response to the use of chemical war fare measures allegedly by the regime.

    Cameron immediately responded essentially that while he disagreed with this implied instruction of the  House  he was required to be guided by it.

    The response from Obama's spokesmen is that we do what we think is right.

    That reminded me of the  UK's "Suez" debate of 1956. The most memorable moment came when Nye Bevan said that Britain had once had to fight alone, then paused, lowered his voice and said: "but then we had honor on our side".

    Comments

    Meanwhile, French President Francois Hollande said his country could go ahead with a strike on Syria for allegedly using chemical weapons against his own people in an attack that killed hundreds of people.

    "The chemical massacre of Damascus cannot and must not remain unpunished," Hollande said in an interview with the newspaper Le Monde, published on Friday and reported by CBS News.

    Hollande said France wants a "proportional and firm action" but said when asked about the type of intervention that "all options are on the table."

    from USA Today Cameron regrets Syria vote, France says strike still on.

    More on what Hollande said @ The NYT.

    The second Socialist President of the Fifth French Republic is far from a peacenik, methinks.

    Edit to add: Germany says nobody asked them yet, but no thanks anyways.


    by artappraiser on Fri, 08/30/2013 - 10:14am

    Shopper: "How much is the liver today?"

    Butcher:"75 cents a pound"

    S: "That's too much. Trader Joe sells it for 50 cents".

    B: "Then why not buy it at Trader Joe's?"

     S: They're out of it"

    B: When I'm out of it I also sell it for 50 cents"

     

     

     


    by Flavius on Fri, 08/30/2013 - 10:37am

    So, the American public seems against this.  I say that with some uncertainty because I think that, if Obama acts and things go well, there is no real negative, as with Libya.  The public won't punish success.  But is this really a case where a Democratic government is justified acting without public support?


    by Michael Maiello on Fri, 08/30/2013 - 12:23pm

    don't you mean small "d" democratic?

    by jollyroger on Fri, 08/30/2013 - 12:34pm

    Fat fingers, high hopes.


    by Michael Maiello on Fri, 08/30/2013 - 1:06pm

    Of course there's a negative side, Michael. People will die, lines will harden, and the civil war will intensify. What you mean is "no real domestic political negative." I'm not sure you're right about that, either. This is a bit simplistic, but it's important people understand how little a "surgical" strike will accomplish: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/08/29/9-questions...


    by acanuck on Fri, 08/30/2013 - 2:48pm

    What people? I haven't spoken to anyone who thinks that a surgical strike will turn the tide of the war. But that doesn't mean that such a strike is pointless. My pov, nicely presented in the piece you linked to, is this:

    Here’s the deal: war is going to happen. It just is. But the reason that the world got together in 1925 for the Geneva Convention to ban chemical weapons is because this stuff is really, really good at killing civilians but not actually very good at the conventional aims of warfare, which is to defeat the other side. You might say that they’re maybe 30 percent a battlefield weapon and 70 percent a tool of terror. In a world without that norm against chemical weapons, a military might fire out some sarin gas because it wants that battlefield advantage, even if it ends up causing unintended and massive suffering among civilians, maybe including its own. And if a military believes its adversary is probably going to use chemical weapons, it has a strong incentive to use them itself. After all, they’re fighting to the death.

    So both sides of any conflict, not to mention civilians everywhere, are better off if neither of them uses chemical weapons. But that requires believing that your opponent will never use them, no matter what. And the only way to do that, short of removing them from the planet entirely, is for everyone to just agree in advance to never use them and to really mean it. That becomes much harder if the norm is weakened because someone like Assad got away with it. It becomes a bit easier if everyone believes using chemical weapons will cost you a few inbound U.S. cruise missiles.

    That’s why the Obama administration apparently wants to fire cruise missiles at Syria, even though it won’t end the suffering, end the war or even really hurt Assad that much.


    by Michael Wolraich on Fri, 08/30/2013 - 3:09pm

    Ah yes, credibility is the reason we should kill some Syrian soldiers.

    Certainly McCain and Assad will both claim that Obama is a cream puff if he doesn't spend $50 million and kill an appropriate number of Syrian soldiers to validate the seriousness of an Obama red line.

    Yawn.

    Question

    What animal has black and white stripes, tusks and big floppy ears?

    Contestant: Gosh I don't know what animal does have black and white stripes,tusks etc?

    Flavius.An elephant. I was lying about the black and white stripes.

    No matter what he does about this red line, the next time Obama establishes one the other side will wonder whether he means it or not. Not worth the bones of one Pomeranian Grenadier, is it?.

     


    by Flavius on Fri, 08/30/2013 - 3:43pm

    Neither I nor the article said anything about credibility. Please read the comment again.


    by Michael Wolraich on Fri, 08/30/2013 - 5:54pm

    Not credibility as in backing up Obama's red line.  But credibility in that, if you use this stuff, you're asking for Tomahawk missiles courtesy of the U.S.  Or, in other words, the establishment of consequences, or a credible threat, if you cross the international line.  

    But is a peck of cruise missiles a credible threat?  In the situation at hand, at least, I'm not so sure.  And why do we have to go on and on and on with beating each other with clubs anyhow?  Can't we use our brains, or try to, and do something like what Acanuck proposes?  It's brilliant. 

     


    by anna am on Fri, 08/30/2013 - 11:57pm

    As I mentioned to Ac, his proposal is not much different from what we already did because it depends on the threat of attack.

    In other words, Obama already said, "Don't use your chemical weapons or else..." Now you're suggesting that he say, "Give up your chemical weapons or else..." But either way, it's the "or else" that's at issue here, and if Assad ignored the first "or else," I don't see why he would concern himself with the second.


    by Michael Wolraich on Sat, 08/31/2013 - 5:36pm

    I didn't make that suggestion so did you mean to respond to me? 


    by anna am on Sat, 08/31/2013 - 11:52pm

    The deterrence argument is the most nearly persuasive argument for intervention. But suppose Assad isn't impressed, and doubles down? Do we bomb again? At some point, that ends up turning the tide of the war. Do we really want the rebels to win? Now?

    Because the biggest problem is not the sporadic use of chemical weapons. Whoever wins, the chemical stockpiles remain. The idea that the West can determine who rules post-Assad Syria (without putting many, many boots on the ground) is delusional. There will be a scramble to control the WMD, and my money is on the jihadis. Not a preferred outcome.

    Here's an idea: instead of butting heads with the Russians over UN authorization to "punish" Assad, admit that the Syrian WMD stockpiles are the real concern. Agree to let Russia sequester them at its Tartus naval base, with the ultimate plan to destroy them. In return, the U.S. doesn't bomb, and Syria can pretend to be a responsible citizen of the world. Russia, for its part, gets a UN-mandated reason to hold on to its base. Win-win-win.

    The U.S. and Russia could even frame the deal with their own pledges to speed up destruction of their own stockpiles -- leaving North Korea as the world's final holdout. Call me a dreamer.

     

     


    by acanuck on Fri, 08/30/2013 - 5:02pm

    Oops, too late!

    Guess I should have proposed this yesterday -- that would have made all the difference. 


    by acanuck on Fri, 08/30/2013 - 5:07pm

    Damn, that is actually a great idea.

    I'd support you for Sec of State, if it weren't for the fact that that genius Kerry is on the verge of solving the Israel/Palestinian conflict. Truly impeccable timing for Kerry to get involved with that now, but bad timing for your chances at the Sec of state job. Sorry.


    by ocean-kat on Fri, 08/30/2013 - 5:50pm

    It would not be in Assad's interest to double down. Losing his air force and heavy artillery would be a very steep price in the midst of a war.

    There is of course a risk that he will behave irrationally, but there is a much higher risk that he will launch more chemical attacks if there no consequences than if there are consequences.

    I like your idea, but I don't see why Assad would go for it. What's in it for him (except the bombing ultimatum, which we already gave him)? And if he were to accept the deal and then violate it, we're back to square one, aren't we? How many civilians does he get to gas before we finally act?


    by Michael Wolraich on Fri, 08/30/2013 - 6:02pm

    As you point out, the cost of using chemical weapons threatens to become prohibitive. Why not ditch them, look like a statesman, and validate Russian support? Even the core of Assad backers -- Alawites, Christians, secularists -- should welcome seeing those weapons beyond the reach of the Al-Qa'ida types.

    Because even if Assad has gained the upper hand recently, everyone knows there is a chance he'll lose. The non-jihadi Syrian National Council would certainly welcome the move, which would lessen the lethality of the post-civil-war civil war they may end up having to fight.

    In passing, I was reacting upthread to a premature report cruise missiles had been launched. So there's still a tiny window. Talk it up.


    by acanuck on Fri, 08/30/2013 - 6:25pm

    You see my point, right? Obama already gave Assad an ultimatum, the infamous "red line." Assad ignored it.

    So now you're suggesting that Obama give him another ultimatum to do something that he is even less likely to do--give up the precious weapons that he and his father have spent years stockpiling for just such an occasion.

    If Assad ignored the first ultimatum--presumably because he thought that he could get away with it--why would he be more likely to abide by the second one after Obama failed to act on the first one?

    And if he were to violate the second ultimatum, would the opposition to enforcing it be any less than it is now? I doubt it. We would go through the whole rigmarole all over again.


    by Michael Wolraich on Fri, 08/30/2013 - 6:53pm

    I apologize for accusing you of worrying about credibility. I'm glad you don't.

    ............................................................................................

     

    The objective Obama has to be concerned with is not how to redeem his red line threat, or how to replace Assad. It's doing something that leads to a better Syria.It ain't going to become Luxemborg. Or Ireland . We should settle for better.Or maybe just not worse.

    Certanly not better than it used to be which is probably an unrealistic goal.Just better than right now.

    Nowhere is it  engraved in stone that Assad must be ousted. Obama has called for that but there's lots of things Obama has called for but he's a big boy..he knows that wanting doesn't = getting.

    Clearly I'm clueless about Syrian politics but looking at Assad's opposition something reminds me of Wellington's comment about his Army on the eve of Waterloo: "I don't know if they frighten Napolean but by God they terrify me."

    If we have a limited, clinical strike the only consequence of which we can be sure is that there will be X number of new Syrian widows (And Y fewer dollars to spend on Obamacare)

    How does that improve matters?

    There's a sizeable movement in Congress demanding a full debate before taking Warlike action. Time for Obama to say ' I thought you'd never ask'

    Ed Milliband provided Cameron with a handy exit from an unwise commitment and don't look now but Congress is showing some signs of acting like a legislative body and ,perhaps by accident, giving Obama a golden bridge.

    "Perhaps" because it's just possible that someone has whispered in Zoe Lofgren's(sorry about the probably incorrect spelling) ear that it's time for a little loyal opposition.    


    by Flavius on Fri, 08/30/2013 - 9:59pm

    I find chemical warfare truly horrifying. Somehow, in the wake of WWI, civilization mustered enough common sense to say whoa, we're not going there anymore. The world has witnessed all sorts of horrible shit since then, but somehow, with only a few exceptions (including Saddam and Assad Sr.), we've managed to keep our noses clean of this particular abomination.

    So I hope for one and only result from an assault on Assad--to deter him from unleashing this horror again. I don't think we even have to inflict significant damage, just enough to send the message that if you try this shit again, we're going F you up, asshole.


    by Michael Wolraich on Fri, 08/30/2013 - 11:27pm

    Michael, I have to question your claim that Assad is responsible for this atrocity with absolutely no verifiable evidence. We do know that the US supplied the chemicals and helped Saddam gas the Iranians  during the Iran- Iraq War so should we support a  strike on the Pentagon ?  Syria developed chemical weapons for one reason, to counter  Israel's Nukes so I doubt they will give them up easily. Supporting a terror attack on Syria, Syrian civilians are already fleeing the coming attack by the thousands, seems to me to be a cold cruel attitude towards our fellow humans no matter what the lofty goals. There is a new report out that claims that Bandar Bush supplied these chemicals to the Syrian Rebels and that the release was accidental. This report is unverified just like all the reports we are getting from the USG/Israel but it is just as believable as any other report.Will you support an attack on the  KSA if this report is verified?


    by Peter (not verified) on Sat, 08/31/2013 - 12:44am

    It will be impossible to know for certain. At some point, you have to make a judgment call. That judgment must of course weigh all the evidence available, including the report you mention.


    by Michael Wolraich on Sat, 08/31/2013 - 9:22am

    I respect your objective, of course.

    And agree that if we undertake an  assault on Assad we should only do so to deter him from repeating his use of chemical warfare. 

    But even better let's not assault him at all.. The arguments for limiting our response are also arguments for that. 

    Until now we've refrained from aiding the rebels. Before starting our own war with Assad (let's call a spade a spade) wouldn't ending that ban be better?

    Or better yet, wouldn't doing  nothing be best of all?.

    Obama could announce that he agrees with Zoe Lofgren's and he's waiting for Boehner and Reed to fish or cut bait. .

     


    by Flavius on Sat, 08/31/2013 - 7:39am

    If we do nothing, I expect more chemical attacks from Assad.


    by Michael Wolraich on Sat, 08/31/2013 - 9:24am

    Our Presidents, in order to spread freedom and with our complacent cooperation, have been committing acts of war that are in violation of national and international law as well as our Constitution for some time and the results have been getting progressively worse. [and we all know the definition of "crazy"]

    Everything is ad hoc. The purpose is always an abstraction and supporting evidence is always sexed up. There is no over riding truth or value in any action guiding anything that is done. Christ amighty, we used deadly concentrations of gas at Waco and killed some of the children, some of our own people, that way even before the others died of incineration.


     Safely from a distance, and so I would say cowardly, making a demonstration of our ability to destroy buildings and equipment and command cohesiveness of a government which cannot directly respond, and in the process killing whoever happens to be close-by, and doing so just to show how important our delicate sensibilities are to one particular way that one side, or the other, does their killing, is wildly unlikely to make anything better anywhere. It will very likely make things worse.
     Whether Assad is directly responsible for the use of poison gas or not, we are responsible for helping to push him into a corner where he could be, or at some point in the future can be, expected to do so just like some powers within our leadership, or that of our great and lesser allies, would use WMD pretty quickly if faced with a real threat and just like virtually anyone would do if faced with an existential threat.
     Blindly follow the dogs of war and you are certain to step in shit.


    by A Guy Called LULU on Sat, 08/31/2013 - 12:16pm

    It's not about showing "our delicate sensibilities." Chemical weapons are not just "one particular way" to die. If Assad were to begin using them on a large scale, he would multiply the civilian death toll in a matter of days, not to mention the mass suffering of those who survive. Chemical weapons--meaning sarin and related nerve-agents--are among the most deadly and horrible weapons on earth.

    If you don't believe that Assad used chemicals weapons, that's one thing. If you don't believe that a U.S. strike will stop him from expanding his chemical weapon attacks, that's another.

    But if you believe that he did it and that a strike will deter him from doing it again, as I do, then it is unconscionable not to attack.


    by Michael Wolraich on Sat, 08/31/2013 - 5:32pm


    by tmccarthy0 on Sat, 08/31/2013 - 5:38pm

    But if you believe that he did it and that a strike will deter him from doing it again, as I do, then it is unconscionable not to attack.

     You define the situation under which you support an attack with such narrow and justifying parameters that there is no way any conscientious person would come to a different conclusion if those parameters were met. If in reality there was evidence to warrant the level of faith that you show in the details necessary to justify such a decision there would be no need or use in debating what to do and I would be right with you. 


    by A Guy Called LULU on Sat, 08/31/2013 - 10:38pm

    Yes.

    But if rather than doing nothing we have  Congressional and UN resolutions both authorizing a military response maybe that will prevent the need.for one.

     If not, bombs away!


    by Flavius on Sat, 08/31/2013 - 3:00pm

    Congress will probably authorize, and Obama should not act if it doesn't. UN will not authorize because of Putin. But the security council has become a joke.


    by Michael Wolraich on Sat, 08/31/2013 - 5:18pm

    Agree that if Congress doesn't authorize Obama shouldn't act.

    And that there would be no point going to the security council.

    I think it could go to the Assembly for it to consider some sort of resolution. But personally I don't think we should do that

    Lawyers always say "don't ask a question unless you're sure of the answer you're going to get ".I don't know the answer we'd get from the Assembly and I don't think Obama should invite a situation in which Congress says "A" and the Assembly might say :"B".  


    by Flavius on Sat, 08/31/2013 - 5:34pm

    The Assembly is a nightmare. We need a better Security Council with expanded membership and no single-state veto. I do believe that international consensus is important, I just think that the U.N. does not effectively provide it.


    by Michael Wolraich on Sat, 08/31/2013 - 5:39pm

    What you are really calling for here is a lap-dog UN that will bend to the authoritarian pressure of the US. I noticed that your answer to my questions above was a political  style evasion.  Then you returned to spouting more propaganda about who is responsible for the gas attacks to justify your lust for an orgy of blood and destruction in Syria. Since  Barry has decided to draw this crisis  out for at least a few weeks you will have to delay satisfying your appetite for humanitarian bloodletting.


    by Peter (not verified) on Sun, 09/01/2013 - 3:05am

    Such a luster after blood and destruction, that Wolraich. Oh, verily, I can see it so clearly now that you have pointed it out!

    I shouldn't joke, actually. I won't here: making a strawman doesn't come close to covering what you do; your accusatory & absurdly over-the-top rhetoric making him evil and you pure is distinctly dystopian. Scary and sickening. Hopefully you're not in charge of anything but shrieking on the internet.


    by artappraiser on Sun, 09/01/2013 - 9:17am

    Dream on.  It's a beautiful, just about perfectly symmetrical idea.  


    by anna am on Sat, 08/31/2013 - 1:09am

    Ed Miliband (leader of the Labour party) writes today:

    I believe Britain can still make a difference in Syria
    Our future global position lies neither in turning in on itself, nor rushing into conflict, but in a hard-headed multilateralism.....

    The Guardian also has a list of the 30 Tory "rebel" MPs and a related article: David Cameron must rebuild his broken party, say ministers; Commons defeat on Syria has led to fears that prime minister will emerge as weakened leader of diminished country.


    by artappraiser on Fri, 08/30/2013 - 4:39pm

    It's becoming clear the Labour Party has a plan for countering being labeled isolationist; here's Jack Straw now too:

    Britain did not turn away from Syria. The case for action was not made
    Paddy Ashdown implies that those who voted against military intervention in Syria do not care. What condescending nonsense    ....


    by artappraiser on Fri, 08/30/2013 - 4:47pm

    The story of the Parliament vote is not as simplistic as first presented in the news:

    How David Cameron got royally screwed by Ed Miliband over the Syrian intervention both men wanted.
    By Alex Massie, ForeignPolicy.com, August 30, 2013

    [....] Labour did not oppose the government or Syrian intervention on principle but, instead, chose to do so because it was politically convenient and opportunistic to do so. Thus Labour voted against a government motion that was substantively the same as the amendment it itself had offered. And because the motions advanced by the government and the opposition were each defeated, Britain is now left without a foreign policy at all. ""I'm not with those who rule out action," Miliband said Thursday. Yet his party has managed to rule out action anyway. [.....]

    With the government preparing to support an American-led intervention, Miliband sought a number of assurances from Cameron. First, the government should publish the legal advice justifying military action. Second, the government should reveal the intelligence assessments making it clear Assad's regime, and not the rebels, was responsible for the chemical attacks. Third, Cameron should make it clear that Britain would continue -- however hopelessly -- to try to secure United Nations authorization for a military strike. Fourth, Parliament would need to vote again, once these conditions had been met, before British troops could be part of any international response.

    Cameron, albeit with some reluctance, agreed to each of these conditions. The motion the government put down did not commit Britain to war. Indeed, it did not do very much more than advocate a wait-and-see-but-rule-nothing-out approach. Having been given the reassurances he sought, Miliband then voted against a motion containing all those reassurances [.....]

    Even if Massie is spinning Tory talking points, there was obviously a lot of crass- political-advantage-over-good-of-country involved. This is the reason the vote itself continues to be big news across the pond, as well as there being a lot of talk about personal animus.  For them, I get the impression that it's sorta like the ways of our current American Congress just invaded the halls of Parliament.


    by artappraiser on Sat, 08/31/2013 - 11:26pm

    Obama did use words covering his ass today, I just heard them in a clip on MSNBC, from when they let the press in to the meeting: ...now I have not made a final decision on the action to be taken...


    by artappraiser on Fri, 08/30/2013 - 5:11pm

    I have to say, the trial balloons approach just doesn't cut it when it comes to waging war.  Obama is coming off like an amateur here.  Of course I'd prefer that to shoot first and think later, but I wish he'd keep his mouth shut while he's thinking, and for god's sake keep Kerry's overblown rhetoric off national tv.  But I have a feeling it won't just be Cameron who takes a public opinion hit on this -- unless of course the mission blows out Assad's air-force and wreaks of America the magnificent, and we don't lose a a hair on anybody's head.  Then the polls will go up.  But they'll go down again when Assad keeps on keeping on and we're left with either escalation or backing down, which will bring Obama face to face again with the fact that the American public isn't really buying the he's a bad man and we have to punish him narrative, and escalation will be an even harder sell.  The fact that the administration wants Assad out (read:  regime change) will become even harder to conceal.  Not to mention it will be getting perilously close to the mid-terms right soon.  


    by anna am on Sat, 08/31/2013 - 12:11am

    NYT's Experts Fear U.S. Plan to Strike Syria Overlooks Risks makes the case for no US 'strikes'. We may have to accept a world where Muslim fanatics kill innocents and each other in Muslim nations with the world's worst weapons. At some point it will end without our direct involvement.

    One risk is the Syria/Iran/Hezbollah axis may up the ante by expanding the conflict after a US bombing, more gassing and killing, send rockets at Israel, transforming the Syrian civil war into an anti-US/Israel battle, uniting Muslims against the infidels.

    Instead of fighting them there so we don't fight them here, better to let them fight each other there see In Syria, America Loses if Either Side Wins.


    by NCD on Sat, 08/31/2013 - 12:03pm

    As uncomfortable as I am with involvement, I'm probably less comfortable with doing nothing.  I expect Obama's in the same position.  Putin has suggested discussion at the G 20 summit next week.  I think that's a somewhat positive trial balloon, but who knows what could or would come of that?  


    by anna am on Sat, 08/31/2013 - 12:48pm

    It looks like it's off now. Going to Congress. The civil war in Syria may end before Congress  makes any clear resolution on it.


    by NCD on Sat, 08/31/2013 - 2:51pm

    I hear that.


    by anna am on Sat, 08/31/2013 - 3:34pm