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

    All together now

    By Flavius on Tue, 09/03/2013 - 6:57am |

    killing people is wrong. Since I get lost trying to follow complicated debates I  need some “golden thread”to hang on to. That’s it.

    Sure there’s the usual suspects: Are we being lied to by the Administration? What does the Constitution permit?  Should we take sides with al-Qaeda? Does the “norm” with respect to chemical warfare trump all other considerations ?

    Tomorrow I’ll have eloquent comments on all the above. Unless I decide to go to the beach. Today I’m just trying to decide what’s right.

    Killing people isn’t.

    If Obama’s proposed limited response involves killing, I’m against it.

    I’m not a pacifist , I know there are Wars and people get killed in them. If Obama wants to kill Syrians, let him ask Congress to declare one. But as long as what he's proposing is neither war nor peace but some sort of in between: blowing up a dry dock or whatever, if it involves killing anybody, I’m against it.

    Comments

    Very concerned about the aiding al-Qaeda angle here, given that we have been down this road before.


    by Michael Maiello on Tue, 09/03/2013 - 1:00pm

    Me too. But France just got done fighting their affiliates and sympathizers on the ground in Mali, and they just said this: France will up aid to Syria rebels if U.S. rules out strike. So they must be more worried about the chem weapons innovations than they are about that? I can't think of a country that has more anti-Qaeda and anti-jihadi bonafides; they carry it too far sometimes, mho.


    by artappraiser on Tue, 09/03/2013 - 3:14pm

    I am very ignorant about what motivates French foreign policy. I gather it's not all tobacco and ennui.


    by Michael Maiello on Tue, 09/03/2013 - 3:26pm

    It just so happens that I have a French friend. Based on my observations of him, I suspect that wine and fine cheeses are also involved.


    by Verified Atheist on Tue, 09/03/2013 - 5:02pm

    I've been thinking about writing a post on this: now that the Geneva Conventions have been declared quaint and so forth, and now that we have these drone thingies, shouldn't we all consider a rules of engagement update declaring that any leader who uses chemical weapons on his own people loses membership in the club of "people we won't assassinate?" 

    It seems odd to be figuring out how to destroy a maximum of the Syrian leader's stuff while minimizing deaths, without considering that if there's to be a death involved, it really ought to be the murderer himself who dies.

    I know there has been a long-held taboo on assassinating leaders of countries, but maybe that taboo should be examined. I suspect that Al-Assad might find himself much more motiviated to put together a solution to his problems if he knew that HE, personally, along with whoever is close to him at the unfortunate moment, would be the target of the reprisal from the west.

    This capability exists. If we're going to kill, shouldn't we make sure to aim carefully?


    by erica20 on Tue, 09/03/2013 - 3:15pm

    What you said. Yes.


    by artappraiser on Tue, 09/03/2013 - 3:18pm

    "I suspect that Al-Assad might find himself much more motivated to put together a solution to his problems if he knew that HE, personally, along with whoever is close to him at the unfortunate moment, would be the target of the reprisal from the west."

    One thing that I think is going on here is that Assad is making a very personal calculation about what happens to his head not if he ticks us off but if the rebels win.  Hence the "anything goes" approach to his own war fighting.


    by Michael Maiello on Tue, 09/03/2013 - 3:23pm

    Right--he knows that for him personally, it will be much worse if the rebels win. It's a loophole of sorts, isn't it?


    by erica20 on Tue, 09/03/2013 - 3:54pm

     I agree with your opinion here. I think chemical weapons were probably developed and produced in great amounts by Syria as their version of a poor man’s defensive atomic bomb. That purpose has failed, they are not working as a deterrent to invasion. Now they become a real offensive threat for a rat with his back to the wall.
    Everyone who is rightfully disgusted by the use of poison gas may end up wishing that it was done only by the opposition rebels. That is because that scenario could possibly be controllable and ended after small scale uses if that was the international will. Assad showing a willingness to use poison gas is different. He has big supplies and way more sophisticated delivery systems and both he and many of his countrymen [and their wives and children] who will die with him if he is defeated can be expected to use everything at their disposal to prevent defeat and also to maybe/probably take some really nasty fuck-you shots and maybe in all directions if defeat is seen as inevitable. Then things are likely to get real exciting. That is one risk we are pushing when Obama goes along with McCain and Graham and chooses significant strikes intended to degrade Assad’s military while also giving more and better weapons to the rebels. Just might be that we aint seen nothin'  ugly yet like the ugly to come.


    by LULU (not verified) on Tue, 09/03/2013 - 4:44pm

    I suspect that the only peaceful answer is to buy them out.  A global war crimes pardon plus a few billion dollars and protection from reprisals.  Basically  guaranty of no comeuppance because the comeuppance that awaits him is so terrible that he really can't afford to pull punches trying to stop it.


    by Michael Maiello on Wed, 09/04/2013 - 11:35am

    I hope there's someone in the mix of Obama's advisors who is telling him that.Besides Michelle. Come back Bobby Kennedy!

    At the time of the Attica "rebellion ,jail take over "whatever. Nelson Rockefeller was in the decision loop and probably was the key decider.Unfortunately. And there were many avoidable deaths . Ted Kheel , who was a negotiator ,was quoted afterwards as saying executives think of themselves as negotiators but they're not. 

    I hope Obama has the self knowledge to keep himself a little distant from the decision making but I'm by no means confident of that.

    Clearly there'll be a tiger-team of whatever they call it as there was for the Osama Bin Laden assassination. I hope Obama is less prominent this time.

     

     


    by Flavius on Wed, 09/04/2013 - 4:45pm

    I don't see buying Assad out as even remotely likely to bring peace. That just removes one player. Who takes over the military? There's no one all factions would back so the war just continues with a different guy in charge. Put no one in charge and the military disintegrates or more likely fragments, the country falls into chaos, and the rebel factions battle it out among themselves. Most likely with each faction getting a share of the chemical weapons.


    by ocean-kat on Wed, 09/04/2013 - 5:34pm

    If there's to be a "buyout," which is a nice term also implying "sellout" :^) it will take awhile, and not happen until it's fairly clear that Assad will come out the loser here.

    Perhaps Putin can make up for his Snowden slight by offering asylum to Assad and his family, thus making him not America's problem anymore.


    by erica20 on Fri, 09/06/2013 - 11:22am

    Amid all the noise, Mother Jones offers Bombing Syria: A Running Guide to the Debate and Truthout has Chris Hedges on Obama’s Decision to Attack Syria and “Give Congress a Voice.”


    by Donal on Tue, 09/03/2013 - 7:51pm

    Wow,

    Bolton and Hedges on the same page.

    Hedges is quick to call out the Saudis as a culpable party. I understand the logic but he seems to want his cake and eat it too in regards to a strategy that is supposed to deal with their interests. He doesn't offer one. Such a strategy would be really helpful.

    The choice between just sitting back and taking action is striking if one considers the massacre at Hama where roughly 20,000 people died in the 80's in several weeks of wiping out a small group living amongst them. None of the presently appalled parties were appalled back then by the enormity of it.

    This war didn't start yesterday. If we are to intervene now on the basis of an international agreement, then we should damn well do everything we can to strengthen that device.

     


    by moat on Tue, 09/03/2013 - 10:04pm

    I don't think it falls on a vocal opponent of plutocracy and global hegemony to offer a short-term solution right now. His strategy would probably require a very differently-governed nation than what we have. I'd guess that Hedges would argue that in his sort of world, this decision would be a lot clearer because the US wouldn't have such dirty hands. Whether that sort of world actually works is of course an open question.


    by Donal on Wed, 09/04/2013 - 8:56am

    New Senate Syria plan limits President Obama
    By John Bresnahan, Politico.com, 9/2/13 5:29 PM EDT

    Senate leaders are working on a revised resolution authorizing U.S. strikes in Syria that puts President Barack Obama on a short leash in responding to the alleged use of chemical weapons by Bashar Assad’s forces, sources said Monday. [....]

    Aides to Reid and Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) have set aside a proposed Syria resolution submitted by the White House on Saturday night. That draft resolution — developed without congressional input — is seen as far too broad by lawmakers in both parties.

    Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), ranking member on the Foreign Relations Committee, is also involved in the discussions over the new resolution, Senate sources said.

    Some of the options being considered for the revised Authorization for the Use of Military Force include a 60-day period for Obama to launch “narrow, limited” strikes against Assad’s regime with the potential for a 30-day extension of that deadline.

    Language barring the insertion of U.S. ground troops — but crafted to allow special forces operations or the rescue of a downed American flier, for instance — is also being considered, the sources said.

    And Obama would be prohibited from making the toppling of Assad’s government the goal of any U.S. military effort in Syria, as some some hawkish lawmakers have supported.

    The revisions are designed to win broad bipartisan backing from senators who are on the fence [....]

    Puts the claimed White House to McCain to Gen. Keane leak show in quite a different light.


    by artappraiser on Wed, 09/04/2013 - 1:26am

    Here's The Hill with an update on what the Senate panel did Tuesday, and also some about the House:

    Senate panel strikes agreement on new Syria resolution
    By Jeremy Herb - 09/03/13 08:44 PM ET

    he Senate Foreign Relations Committee has reached an agreement on revised language to authorize military action in Syria, Committee Chairman Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) said Tuesday.

    The new use-of-force resolution, which Menendez and the panel’s ranking member, Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), agreed to, states that U.S. forces “will not be deployed for combat operations in Syria.”

    The resolution authorizes the use of force for 60 days, and allows the president to extend for another 30 days.

    Menendez late Tuesday announced the agreement, which could receive a vote in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee as early as Wednesday.

    The chairman said in a statement that the updated Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) in Syria was “narrow and focused” and “limited in time.” [....]

    The agreement will replace language that had been drafted by the Obama administration over the weekend after President Obama said that he would seek congressional approval for limited military strikes in Syria.

    Lawmakers complained that the administration’s language was overly broad and left open the possibility of an open-ended in conflict. [....]

    Kerry quickly backtracked and said he wanted to be “crystal clear” the administration would agree to editing the Syria resolution so that U.S. troops have “no capacity” in Syria’s civil war.

    It’s unclear whether the Foreign Relations Committee resolution includes an exception for U.S. Special Operations missions in Syria.

    In the House, Reps. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) and Gerry Connelly (D-Va.) were circulating a draft resolution that would prohibit U.S. forces on the ground, limit the operation to 60 days, and limit the military action beyond the initial punitive strikes unless the president certifies that Syrian President Bashar Assad’s regime once again used chemical weapons.

     


    by artappraiser on Wed, 09/04/2013 - 1:43am

    It passed 10-7, and voting was NOT along party lines (link has the votes); now headed to the full Senate. I have no idea when text becomes available where to the public.


    by artappraiser on Wed, 09/04/2013 - 4:39pm

    Thanks for the links.


    by Flavius on Wed, 09/04/2013 - 8:40am

    I don't understand what Assad had to gain by using chemical weapons.  A significant number (more than half) of Syrians prefer him to the alternative (which includes carpetbaggers from all over the Middle East -- AlQaida? -- pretty definitely).  

    Those same carpetbaggers had EVERYTHING to gain by gassing remote villages and letting a) Assad take the heat, and b) the US once again take the role of Mid-East aggressor while pretending to be heroic.  It is also a curious coincidence that this gassing was done almost immediately after Obama talked about chemical weapons being a "red line," even if he doesn't now acknowledge it.

    As I understand it there is no chain of evidence leading to Assad.

    This whole thing reminds me of Colin Powell's disingenuous UN speech, and I don't think we know enough to take this to the next level, and I feel suspicious when pols orate like they are doing.  

    What do WE have to gain by intervening here, when we ignore cruelty and other shit all over the world?  Are we saying that we just can't stand by and ignore innocent killings?  We might be a little hypocritical on that front. Will this help restore our sullied reputation in the Arab world?  No, I don't think so.  Will it make arms dealers richer?  Who else might get rich over this?  Follow The Money ... It worked with Watergate.

    The ridiculous notion that if we let this go Iran will get nuclear weapons makes me hold my nose. 

    Can anyone explain why we would do this when the UN says no?  OK, Russia will veto intervention. We put up with crap like that from the baggers who abuse the filibuster in our own Congress, so why not in the UN?  Veto power is the way it is set up and we have used our veto power unilaterally as well.  If we act against the UN's mandate when we disagree why have a membership in that organization in the first place?  

    I just don't trust any of these actors, and I hate the very idea that more resources are going into weaponry and war as our infrastructure crumbles, our schools get defunded, and weekly meetings of the GOP are dedicated to undermining the first opportunity for all to have health care options; using the excuse that "We just can't afford ObamaCare."

    Short summary: Our priorities suck.


    by CVille Dem on Wed, 09/04/2013 - 11:26am

    This was posted on AlterNet:
    The Syria Intervention Plan Is Being Pushed by Oil Interests, Not Concern About Chemical Weapons

    According to  retired NATO Secretary General Wesley Clark, a memo from the Office of the US Secretary of Defense just a few weeks after 9/11 revealed plans to "attack and destroy the governments in 7 countries in five years", starting with Iraq and moving on to "Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran." In a subsequent interview, Clark argues that this strategy is fundamentally about control of the region's vast oil and gas resources.

     


    by Donal on Wed, 09/04/2013 - 12:50pm

       Although the inexorable march to war is depressing, it is heartening that there is so much opposition from the public, and from a substantial minority in Congress.

      A curse upon John Kerry.


    by Aaron Carine on Wed, 09/04/2013 - 7:56pm