Bombing Syria Open Thread

by Ugh

Let's do this.  

Bombing Syria:  good? bad? unknown?  If the last, then good?  Bad?  

Who/what would we be acting on behalf of?  The United States/American people?  The United Nations?  Some subset of the latter?  The Assad opposition?  Noble ideals?  A "red line"?  Some of the above?  

Perhaps the question I'm most interested in at the moment:  what legal document will the President point to authorizing him to commit an act of war against Syria?  Or have we reached the point that no one cares anymore as long as the "right" people/nations/things are being targeted?

When do we stop?  Is this some sort of Goldilocks bombing campaign with just the right amount of explosive ordinance, neither to much nor too little?  How much of a deterrent is this to any future would-be users of chemical weapons if, after the proper amount of bombing is applied, Assad is still there and, indeed, if he's around three years from now?

How much is this going to cost?  Could the money be spent better elsewhere?

Comments

[Turbulence]

Are you seriously arguing that explicitly agreeing to something that was already implicit (or became implicit later) is nonsensical, or that redundancy anywhere indicates that something is wrong?

Let me be clear:

I don't think a "norm" is sufficient justification for killing someone or bombing a country or starting a war. I think that doing any of those things requires explicit legal authorization. That assessment is based on what I've read about how int'l law is constructed and understood by participants.

My neighbor is emotionally abusive to his wife. He's an asshole. But he hasn't committed any crimes and even though he's violated the "be decent to your family" norm, I'm not justified in beating him up or firebombing his house. I'm just not. You can't threaten people with lethal violence for violating unwritten rules...this is foundational. If you want to hold people accountable to rules, you write them down. If the int'l community doesn't have enough of consensus to write down "norms" as treaties, then...

Likewise, we cannot justify a war based on an unwritten norm. Wars, if they're going to be legal, require explicit legal authorization in the form of written treaties. Norms beyond what is written down can certainly exist, but cannot be used to legally justify killing people.

I think this is a fundamental disagreement between you and I. I don't think we're going to resolve it here, so I'm going to let the matter drop.

You originally claimed that Syria's actions constitute a war crime, even though they took place in a civil war. My claim is that if your analysis was correct, Protocol II doesn't make any sense: if killing civilians in a civil war has always been a war crime, why bother codify it in Protocol II? The reality is clear: before PII, the Geneva Conventions' definition of war crimes was understood to not apply in civil wars.

Finally, I don't understand how the US can start a war against Syria for killing civilians in a civil war when the US doesn't believe that such conduct is wrong. If the US did believe such conduct was wrong, it would have ratified Protocol II, just like almost every other country in the world. But the US government hasn't done that.

[Turbulence]

I'm trying to get a handle on this whole 'norms justify wars' thing. We have norms. OK. How much int'l consensus do we need on those norms before they're strong enough to justify a war?

I mean, we have a norm that dictatorships are unjust, right? Everyone here (I assume?) agrees with that norm. Does that provide every democracy in the world with legal justification for overthrowing any dictatorship they want? Like, Russia (a nominal democracy) could overthrow Saudi Arabia tomorrow, and it be totally legal?

I assume it doesn't...so why not? How many countries have to agree to a norm before it can be used to justify a war? Or is the threshold based on population size? Also, I'm unclear on how we know that countries actually believe in norms absent a formal commitment (like a treaty). Do we just assume that all countries approve of all norms?

[McKinneyTexas]

The President's words:

" What message will we send if a dictator can gas hundreds of children to death in plain sight and pay no price? What's the purpose of the international system that we've built if a prohibition on the use of chemical weapons that has been agreed to by the governments of 98 percent of the world's people and approved overwhelmingly by the Congress of the United States is not enforced?

Make no mistake--this has implications beyond chemical warfare. If we won't enforce accountability in the face of this heinous act, what does it say about our resolve to stand up to others who flout fundamental international rules? To governments who would choose to build nuclear arms? To terrorists who would spread biological weapons? To armies who carry out genocide?"

They resonate with me. All good, compelling points. However, taken to their logical conclusion, symbolic acts are just slightly less immoral than doing nothing. The only moral act is prevention, or something in that general class.

These are words whose first audience should be the UN, with a bold call for a true international force that will prevent/punish this a future uses of WMD against civilians.

If the UN won't listen, then his audience is the American people, seeking a mandate to build a permanent coalition to prevent/punish this kind of conduct.

If he opts for neither, then these are empty words, from an empty president hoist by his own rhetoric.

[Carleton Wu]

I don't think a "norm" is sufficient justification for killing someone or bombing a country or starting a war. I think that doing any of those things requires explicit legal authorization. That assessment is based on what I've read about how int'l law is constructed and understood by participants.

Countries obviously went to war long before there were treaties codifying international law. Perhaps all of those wars were 'illegal'. I believe that you're saying that if the US had attacked Germany to prevent/stop the Holocaust that we would've been in the wrong, since there was no treaty preventing the Germans from committing genocide. Correct?
The idea that treaties form some sort of international legal structure is relatively new- based on what Ive read etc countries use the legal/legitimacy structures available to them (eg the Balkans intervention under NATO auspices). This is what actually happens, partially because countries aren't restricted by academic interpretation of treaties and partially because international law is just not codified and interpreted in a consistent way that would allow for a universally recognized violation (let alone enforcement) regime.
You can grant some of these military actions/justifications your personal stamp of legitimacy and deny it to others. I don't even mean that facetiously, everyone makes judgments about what they think is a legitimate use of military force based on treaties, norms, precedents, threats, etc. For example, Bush II's invocation of the principle of use of force to forestall an 'imminent threat' from Iraq in 2003 was IMO very wrong. But that's just IMO, there's no court to sit in judgment over the case. I find myself arguing the specifics of the matter, and don't think there'd be much point in just saying "It's an illegal expansion of the definition of imminent threat and all the experts agree with me."

My claim is that if your analysis was correct, Protocol II doesn't make any sense: if killing civilians in a civil war has always been a war crime, why bother codify it in Protocol II? The reality is clear: before PII, the Geneva Conventions' definition of war crimes was understood to not apply in civil wars.

And my counter is that international norms existed before the Hague Conventions. Written rules and unwritten norms can coexist, and either can come before the other. They certainly do influence each other. Your argument appears to me to be that they cannot coexist, or specifically that a written agreement cannot become an unwritten norm over time.

I agree that, in the past when these rules were created, they didn't apply to civil wars. If there are any unwritten international norms, then surely there was a time when those norms didn't exist, and if that nonexistent period invalidates this norm then it invalidates all norms.
I dont know why you feel the need to put the silly statement "killing civilians in a civil war has always been a war crime" in my mouth, other than it is much easier to argue against than what I actually said. Norms evolve. They can even evolve from treaties. There is no logic to your assertion that Protocol II prevents there from being a current norm against attacks on civilians during a civil war.

Also, from the wikipedia article on Protocol II: According to an appeal by the International Committee of the Red Cross in 1997, a number of the articles contained in both protocols are recognized as rules of customary international law valid for all states, whether or not they have ratified them.
The International Committee of the Red Cross- yet another group of people who don't understand the basics of international law and advocate for an obviously nonsensical position about international norms. I mean, here they are saying that the some of the standards of a signed treaty have become norms, when that clearly is illogical to anyone who's taken a class on the subject. Maybe they're on drugs?

Finally, I don't understand how the US can start a war against Syria for killing civilians in a civil war when the US doesn't believe that such conduct is wrong. If the US did believe such conduct was wrong, it would have ratified Protocol II, just like almost every other country in the world. But the US government hasn't done that.

I don't know why the US hasn't ratified protocol II (all I can recall is some disputes over the definitions of internal conflicts, and I dont even remember where I read that). I don't know that "hasn't ratified protocol II" and "believes that gassing your own population in a civil war is grounds for intervention" are necessarily mutually exclusive. And Im certain that statements such as "the US believes X" are fundamentally flawed, there are a multitude of opinions in the US, and it's perfectly possible for eg the President to believe this while the Senate does not, or even for the President and a majority of the Senate to believe it, but not the supermajority required to ratify a treaty.

[Carleton Wu]

I'm trying to get a handle on this whole 'norms justify wars' thing. We have norms. OK. How much int'l consensus do we need on those norms before they're strong enough to justify a war?
....
How many countries have to agree to a norm before it can be used to justify a war?

I think this is based on the idea that there is a coherent legal order to relations between nations. But there is no impartial court that can hear these cases, no body of law by which to judge, no codified punishments to apply. The international community is (as I said) like a small group of people on an island. They may have some agreements, and some customs, and some standards of behavior. They may agree collectively on some cases and disagree strongly about others. Force and faction play as much (or more) of a role in determining what's done and what's legitimate than custom or treaty.
Even you, in saying that X is an illegal action or Y is not, are acting as a judge over events. Which I would say is what we all do- countries and individuals. But there is no actual, legitimated court to issue an authoritative judgment that your view is correct or not.

Id be very happy with a coherent, respected legal structure to interational relations. One that had enough legitimacy to inspire cooperation even when individual nations disagreed with decisions. One that could count on its consituent countries to back it up with the force required to make its pronouncements stick.
But that is not the world we live in, and we're not even close. So yes, we're stuck in a world where countries take actions and articulate their grounds for doing so, and other countries (and populations) decide how valid those grounds are- and what the risks and implications of intervening are- and act accordingly.

So I think it's fine for you to say that you don't think we have grounds to intervene in Syria, either because we havent ratified P2 or because we should act through the UNSC or whatever else you might have for an opinion. I would disagree, but I disagree much more vehemently with the assertion that this is all agreed to by people who 'really understand' international law, or that there are robust international institutions which have the legitimacy to decide these matters.

I suppose Im impassioned about this point precisely because I do hope for stronger international standards and coordinated actions someday. The idea that Assad is fine to commit whatever barbarities in Syria that he'd like, immune from intervention by other countries because there isn't a specific treaty covering this situation does not work for me.

[Carleton Wu]

All of which does not speak well of them. But I don't understand how they can be considered to be bound by the conditions outlined in any of those treaties or conventions.
Maybe somebody else can explain it to me.

How about this: if Assad invented an entirely new class of weapons- not covered by any treaty- and deployed it against his own civilians, then I think we/NATO/the UN would have cause to intervene. Not because of a particular treaty, but because mass killing of civilians is an evil thing that should be prevented if possible and punished if possible.
It would be great if everyone signed a treaty that said this, even better if it had mandatory enforcement mechanisms. It would be much better if such things were enforced globally without regard to alliances and politics.
But I still regard this as a true thing. And contra Turb, I believe that this is a widely-held view of legitimate action (at least in the West). After WWII, we literally made up new categories of 'crimes' to deal with the way that our view of the world had changed. This is consistent with that new worldview- not a novel invention of yesterday to deal with the situation in Syria.

[Turbulence]

Countries obviously went to war long before there were treaties codifying international law. Perhaps all of those wars were 'illegal'.

I don't think those wars were illegal; if you do something that is not against the law, you're not breaking the law.

I believe that you're saying that if the US had attacked Germany to prevent/stop the Holocaust that we would've been in the wrong, since there was no treaty preventing the Germans from committing genocide. Correct?

Wrong.

I'm saying that if, in 1942, the US had ratified the UN Charter and committed itself to not starting wars unless they were in self-defense or with UNSC approval, then invading Germany (absent UNSC approval) would have been illegal. That's different than saying it would have been wrong. Legality is different than morality.

Of course, the US did not and would not invade Germany to stop the Holocaust. The US generally doesn't care about genocide. Note its behavior during Rwanda.

Written rules and unwritten norms can coexist, and either can come before the other. They certainly do influence each other.

Certainly norms and formal rules can coexist. I agree with you that they both feedback on each other: formal rules are unlikely to be written and widely adopted in the absence of norms with strong consensus. And getting everyone to sign on to a treaty cements those norms. The flip side though is that in the absence of formal written agreements, norms can easily be...ephemeral. Who is to say what is a norm and what the consequences for violation should be?

That's what I'm trying to get at with my Russia invading Saudi Arabia question: we have a widely shared norm. If widely shared norms are sufficient to justify wars, then why would that war be wrong? If your answer is 'powerful countries decide these things according to their own interests', then why bother with rulemaking and treaties at all? We can just let powerful countries decide everything on a case by case basis...

Your argument appears to me to be that they cannot coexist, or specifically that a written agreement cannot become an unwritten norm over time.

I don't follow you here...written agreements reflect norms. Norms can certainly evolve over time. But that doesn't change the treaty text. Norms don't bind anyone the way written treaties do. If you want to update a treaty as a norm changes over time, then you do what the PII folks did and get countries to ratify an extension. If you can't do that, then your claims about the norm evolving are wrong.

I agree that, in the past when these rules were created, they didn't apply to civil wars.

Thank you for that.

If there are any unwritten international norms, then surely there was a time when those norms didn't exist, and if that nonexistent period invalidates this norm then it invalidates all norms.

I don't think we disagree on whether norms exist. They certainly do. We disagree on whether norms, by themselves, can justify a war.

There is no logic to your assertion that Protocol II prevents there from being a current norm against attacks on civilians during a civil war.

I have never made this assertion. I have claimed that PII's existence means that the int'l community did not believe that the GC protections of civilians applied to civil wars before PII.

a number of the articles contained in both protocols are recognized as rules of customary international law valid for all states, whether or not they have ratified them.

Yes, I agree with that. I've written several times in this thread about customary int'l law. I thought I'd been clear, but I'll reiterate my position: what Syria did violates PII, and regardless of whether they've ratified it, I think that means they've committed a war crime.

My point here is that US government does not think that's true.

I mean, here they are saying that the some of the standards of a signed treaty have become norms, when that clearly is illogical to anyone who's taken a class on the subject.

No. They do not say those standards "have become norms". They say that those treaties are treated as customary int'l law. Which means that the treaty text is considered binding on all countries, regardless of whether they've ratified the treaty. The thing that is binding is the treaty, not the norm. Customary int'l law (really the subset that is jus cogens -- apologies for my sloppy mixing of the two terms earlier) refers to specific treaties.

[Turbulence]

I don't know why the US hasn't ratified protocol II (all I can recall is some disputes over the definitions of internal conflicts, and I dont even remember where I read that).

We're going to kill people based on this norm even though we don't agree what it is?

I don't know that "hasn't ratified protocol II" and "believes that gassing your own population in a civil war is grounds for intervention" are necessarily mutually exclusive.

PII is older than I am. It has been over three decades. In that time, the US has failed to ratify PII. It has failed to offer up an alternative version that it could support. It has failed to get PII amended. It has failed to even explain why it refuses to ratify PII. At some point, after three decades of failure, we have to be willing to look at the US government and say 'they don't care about this'.

And Im certain that statements such as "the US believes X" are fundamentally flawed, there are a multitude of opinions in the US, and it's perfectly possible for eg the President to believe this while the Senate does not, or even for the President and a majority of the Senate to believe it, but not the supermajority required to ratify a treaty.

I get that different presidents have different priorities. I get that the Senate is where common sense legislation goes to die. I get that treaty ratifications can be tough. But you know what? The US still ratifies lots of treaties. WIPO is a big deal. Bilateral trade treaties get signed regularly.

Consider the statement "the US government believes in free trade". Is that true? There are, after all, multiple opinions in the US. And yet the US has signed and ratified lots of free trade treaties, etc.

[Donald Johnson]

The lefty rag "Jacobin" casts some doubt on the humanitarian accomplishments of the Libyan intervention--

link

[cleek]

are you ready?

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee adopted by voice vote Wednesday two amendments by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) to the resolution authorizing military action in Syria that would make it the goal of the mission to "change the moment on the battlefield in Syria."

The two McCain amendments to that effect, co-sponsored by Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE), change the non-binding Statement of Policy in the resolution to say:

It is the policy of the United States to change the momentum on the battlefield in Syria so as to create favorable conditions for a negotiated settlement that ends the conflict and leads to a democratic government in Syria.

are you up for some regime change?

[hairshirthedonist]

So, assuming there were some solution to the problems in Syria the United States could implement, could it be morally justified in doing so, even if it weren't legal?

And what does legality mean, other than you can do whatever you can get away with, given the internationally perceived legality of what you do, or whether anyone cares enough either way to do something about it?

My thinking is that law is means by which morality can be enforced, even if not a perfect means. Depending on how imperfect, it may still be worthwhile, though no guarantee.

Yes, willful violation of the law, simply because of the lack of consequences, can weaken the law. But it's a matter of perception, which depends on how egregious others think the violation is.

It's more like a bungy cord than a chain. A chain either stops you short or you break it. A bungy cord can be stretched to a point, and the stronger you are, the further you can stretch it short of breaking it.

Codification makes the bungy cord stronger, by making perceptions less subjective, given the point of view of the observer or the passage of time. Continuing to stretch it repeatedly and/or closer to its breaking point weakens it.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that the United States should ignore completely codified international law simply because it just doesn't matter. I think people are simply saying that there are other considerations, based on morality and how much international support that morality buys.

It's also possible that doing something that is, strictly speaking, "illegal," according to international law, as written, could lead to the law itself being changed for the better.

With all that, I think our options for doing anything good in Syria are FUBAR.

[hairshirthedonist]

make that "bungee"

[lily]

Thanks, Cleek,

Yikes. This is shaping up to deja vu all over again. Some air strikes to say, "You bad!" are one thing. Language that opens the door to boots on the ground for regime change is something else altogether.

Once again, I just can't believe it. I just can't believe that the US would stupid enough to get involved in another regime change fiasco. But maybe I'm the stupid one for having unrealistic expectations. I am about to write to my Senators about this.

[Carleton Wu]

what Syria did violates PII, and regardless of whether they've ratified it, I think that means they've committed a war crime.

Ok, first, I have a hard time fitting that in with your earlier statement: Syria hasn't committed war crimes. Because it is not involved in a war with another state. Link so you won't have to wonder whether you actually wrote that. At the time, you made quite the fuss about how your Havard class on war crimes law made your determination quite definitive.

You have an admirable dedication to whatever point you happen to be making at a given point in time, I will grant you that.

[Carleton Wu]

Continuing on though- are you saying that if the US had ratified GC PII, that we'd be justified in using force? I don't see that that follows from your other statements, it seems like our membership in the UN would continue to preclude action.
I think that this would give the UNSC far too much power, and would exacerbate the current problem where only poor nations without strong patrons have international standards enforced upon them. Speaking practically.

[Carleton Wu]

No. They do not say those standards "have become norms". They say that those treaties are treated as customary int'l law. Which means that the treaty text is considered binding on all countries, regardless of whether they've ratified the treaty. The thing that is binding is the treaty, not the norm.

Im not sure there is a technical definition for "international norms" that excludes customs derived from existing treaties. Quoth the wikipedia:
Norms of international law have their source in either:
1)custom, or customary international law (consistent state practice accompanied by opinio juris),
2)globally accepted standards of behaviour (peremptory norms known as jus cogens or ius cogens), or
3)codifications contained in conventional agreements, generally termed treaties.

If this whole fuss has been about the use of the words "international norms" rather than "customary international law", well !!!!!

If you want to update a treaty as a norm changes over time, then you do what the PII folks did and get countries to ratify an extension. If you can't do that, then your claims about the norm evolving are wrong.

Written treaties and unwritten norms are two different things, and I think you're defining the one based on the other in a way that Im not. It's not unreasonable for changes in unwritten norms to be later reflected in changes to a treaty, but it is not necessary because they are not the same thing.
If you've accepted the existence of norms only insofar as they inform treaty conditions, then I think we still don't agree on their function in international relations. Which is fine, I suppose.

And getting everyone to sign on to a treaty cements those norms. The flip side though is that in the absence of formal written agreements, norms can easily be...ephemeral. Who is to say what is a norm and what the consequences for violation should be?

Yes, unwritten norms don't have written terms and conditions, they don't have codified punishments, and they are subject to interpretation (as, unfortuantely, are written treaties eg Bush II's invocation of preemptive self-defense in Iraq).
Being nebulous etc are problems with norms, but they either exist or they don't. Earlier you said they did, then you ignored that for a while and repeated asked for chapter and verse of the treaty Syria was violating, then you agreed that there are norms, but now you're saying they're so nebulous that they don't really mean anything?

There is no logic to your assertion that Protocol II prevents there from being a current norm against attacks on civilians during a civil war.

I have never made this assertion. I have claimed that PII's existence means that the int'l community did not believe that the GC protections of civilians applied to civil wars before PII.

Hang on, first you say that norms change and then we get updates to treaties, now I think you're saying that we only know that the norms have changed because the treaty changes. So it looks to me like you 'accept' norms, but only in a purely theoretical sense. Like a magnetic field, we know them by the influence they have on 'real' things (ie treaties), not because they can affect events (other than treaty terms) directly. The only non-treaty effect that I see you acknowledge is that treaties can become enforceable against countries even if they don't sign them, by the weight of the international community.
And I think that, if the weight of the international community can do that, it can also modify terms in other ways. I understand your concern about the nebulous nature of that process, but once we accept the principle of enforcing norms on non-consenting nations Im not sure what the objection on principle would be.
Again, that's fine, I think we can disagree on that point.

[Carleton Wu]

hth,
Yes, that sounds like exactly what I think.

[novakant]

Long story short:

The US is Tony Soprano - no really.

(Oh, and Iran is still a very rich country, despite its economic problems - Mali is a poor country. You don't have to peddle nonsense to be against US imperialism in the ME or elsewhere, Turb.

[Donald Johnson]

According to the CIA factbook, Iran is 100th (out of 229) in per capita income. (Kosovo is dead last. I don't understand that.) That seems neither rich nor poor.

link

The sanctions are causing a lot of harm, last I read, but I haven't looked for a link. Just more of the US enforcing its humanitarian will on the world.

[Donald Johnson]

The US breaks the law when it wants, so if we're going to go into Syria then I hope we can at least do it without all the garbage about how international law compels us or justifies it or how our higher morality gives us the right. Try justifying it on the grounds that the wonderful results that will no doubt follow once we start exporting explosives are justification enough--the US objected when Vietnam broke international law by invading and overthrowing the government of Cambodia in 1979, but others were glad the Khmer Rouge had been toppled. So maybe we're like communist Vietnam in our devotion to human rights. I could get behind that analogy, except I think the chances of Vietnam doing some good in 1979 are somewhat better than our chances now.

[liberal japonicus]

Donald, I'm not sure what you are getting at with the Vietnam/Khmer Rouge example. US bad, Vietnam bad, both bad?

[sapient]

Honestly, Donald, I don't get you. Do you think we (the US) have a duty to trade with Iran, even if we don't like their political policies? Hell, I don't trade with my local Chic Fil A if they're hating on gay people, etc.

You're a good person, and your instincts are good, but your grip on reality (how things work in real life) seems tenuous to me. I encourage you to live in a country that has no international influence or political power. It's easy to make all of the correct decisions if you don't have to make any.

[bobbyp]

Carleton Wu: "...it seems like our membership in the UN would continue to preclude action."

Then case closed, what? Or are you asserting that some 'norms' are more 'enormous' than others? Actually, I would agree with the above statement. The 'norm' of abiding by the norms of our membership in the UN are paramount if we are to retain any credibility beyond that of a self centered, my way or the highway, hegemon.

The "norm" in this instance is this: If we proceed unilaterally, we loose all credibility regarding the UN, it's mission, and it's mandate, because it is flatly illegal wrt the UN Charter (as amended).

The long run. It matters. Thanks.

[bobbyp]

I encourage you to live in a country that has no international influence or political power. It's easy to make all of the correct decisions if you don't have to make any.

Well, no. In fact nearly all of the countries on the face of the earth do not have the power to make some (very vital) decisions, correct or not, collectively or individually. It's not that they don't have to make them, it's that they cannot. This is a vital distinction.

The USofA, on the other hand, can invoke various distinctions pretty much at whim, and has the power to enforce them, and rather arbitrarily at that. That is the whole point.

This is not to say we are hypocrites. It is to say we are very powerful, and get our way most of the time, "norms", or treaties notwithstanding.

[Turbulence]

Ok, first, I have a hard time fitting that in with your earlier statement: Syria hasn't committed war crimes.

From the perspective of the US government, I don't think it makes sense to say that Syria has committed war crimes, because the USG doesn't accept Protocol II. Now, I personally do accept it, so I think they've committed war crimes. But we're not talking about my plans to bomb Syria or Belgium's plans to bomb Syria: we're talking about the USG, the people who don't believe that PII is valid.

are you saying that if the US had ratified GC PII, that we'd be justified in using force?

I think ratifying PII would be a necessary but not sufficient condition for using force. I mean, I don't think it makes any sense to bomb people for violating a treaty that we don't accept as valid: that implies we'd be bombing them for conduct which we believe we're entitled to commit.

it seems like our membership in the UN would continue to preclude action.

Yes, I think that's right.

I think that this would give the UNSC far too much power, and would exacerbate the current problem where only poor nations without strong patrons have international standards enforced upon them. Speaking practically.

Shrug. I agree.

The institutional structure is pretty clearly broken. But I'd say it is broken because it reflects the power imbalance of the world, not random idiotic mistakes at the founding of the UN. And I don't see a better alternative: letting the US do whatever it wants because it is powerful and can literally get away with murder doesn't help the problem.

Maybe we just disagree about the efficacy of bombing for addressing civilian killing campaigns.

If this whole fuss has been about the use of the words "international norms" rather than "customary international law", well !!!!!

I don't think that's the issue. Customary international law is based on a bunch of things, but the parts that are universally binding (jus cogens) are generally formally written down treaties. I'm not aware of any cases where norms, as distinct from formal treaties, where considered jus cogens in the last half century. Can you point to any such cases?

Written treaties and unwritten norms are two different things, and I think you're defining the one based on the other in a way that Im not.

Again, I personally am unwilling to sentence a man to death for violating unwritten laws. If you feel otherwise, that's fine, but I don't think we're going to agree on much if we can't get past that foundational issue. I think entities as large as nations can't reason effectively about their obligations unless those obligations are written down and formally committed to.

Earlier you said they did, then you ignored that for a while and repeated asked for chapter and verse of the treaty Syria was violating, then you agreed that there are norms, but now you're saying they're so nebulous that they don't really mean anything?

Let's take an example. There is a norm against using killing civilians in a conflict. Everyone agrees with that. So, did the US violate that norm in Iraq? There is much disagreement. What exactly do you mean by civilians? What is the standard used to gauge their treatment? Norms are sentences and treaties are much longer and for good reason. So sure, norms exist. But your understanding of a norm probably isn't the same as mine which probably isn't the same as Russia's. People from very different cultures who speak different languages are likely to interpret norms in different ways.

I mean, if I wanted to run an international business, buying and selling things in different countries where different languages are spoken and cultural assumptions vary widely, I'd be completely nuts to rely on norms rather than written contracts. I don't see why we should use a much lower standard when deciding when to start wars than we'd accept for when to buy coffee beans.

Plus norms don't have consequences attached. Is Syria's chemical weapons use worse than Italy's dumping of toxic waste off the coast of Somalia or Somalian piracy? How can you tell? Aside from the US, most countries in the world don't think we should do anything about Syrian chemical weapons: are they confused about the norm, or are we? If we all agreed on what the norm was, shouldn't we come to consensus on how to respond to norm violations?

The only non-treaty effect that I see you acknowledge is that treaties can become enforceable against countries even if they don't sign them, by the weight of the international community.

Let me be clear: this only applies to a tiny tiny fraction of treaties. It doesn't apply to all treaties. We're talking genocide, slavery, piracy, the laws of war and that's about it. The vast majority of int'l law is not jus cogens. In fact, I'm not even sure that the use of chemical weapons against military forces even qualifies.

[Turbulence]

Forgot to add, Carelton, you're right in that I don't think norms are externally observable except insofar as they affect treaties. I mean, a norm is something like "don't use chemical weapons" which leaves a lot unspecified. If I build a million pounds of chemical weapons and train my army to use them, am I violating the norm? Lots of people who say yes. Many would say no.

I've seen enough technical discussions where everyone agrees on the one sentence summary (the norm you might say) but when you try and hammer out the details, it turns out everyone had radically different interpretations in mind and the devil is in the details. I've seen business deals fall through for that reason. So this idea that we can literally start killing people just because their country violated an unwritten rule sounds completely crazy to me.

[bobbyp]

I'll be back in 10 days..

Easy for you to say. :) Give my regards to D. Cheney at this undisclosed location. Rest assured this issue will be settled by the time you return.

In the meantime, I shall return to my normsal life, comforted by the thought that my normal life is, well, pretty normal, and will....with a fairly significant degree of certainty, remain that way (the drink excepted). The norms shall not be exceeded, transgressed, abused, or ignored.

As an American, they will simply be taken for granted. That's the way we are entitled to roll.

[russell]

are you ready?

The Senate Resolution.

Looks like McCain's amendments are sections 5 and 6, beginning about page 8.

All of a sudden, we've picked a side in the civil war, and have moved from "responding to a chemical attack" to supporting the Free Syrian Army and seeking the removal of Assad.

Here we go again...

[Donald Johnson]

"o you think we (the US) have a duty to trade with Iran, even if we don't like their political policies? "

You might try reading how sanctions work in the real world. You could start with the article in the current issue of Harper's, which isn't online unfortunately. You could also go to Joy Gordon's website on how the sanctions on Iraq actually worked

invisible war

I'll quote from the Harper's piece--

" Cohen insisted that his organization would not ban such aid 'The reality is that our sanctions do no forbid the export to Iran of food, medicines or medical devices, whether it's some US company or some foreign company that wants to export those humanitarian goods. There's nothing that forbids that.'

Reality gives the lie to these assertions. Simply put, licenses and waivers are irrelevant, because the excision of Iranian banks from the global financial system makes it practically impossible for anyone exporting medical supplies to Iran to get paid."

[Donald Johnson]

"I encourage you to live in a country that has no international influence or political power. It's easy to make all of the correct decisions if you don't have to make any."

I agree with this, though not in the sense that you intended. If one is not part of the Washington elite and if one doesn't identify vicariously with one of the two political parties to such a strong extent it clouds one's judgment, then it's easy to step outside the usual narrow range of thinking and see that much of what the US does is morally and pragmatically crazy. Sometimes just morally crazy, as one of the benefits of being a superpower is that you can make decisions that inflict vast harm on people overseas and not necessarily pay any price for it.

[Slartibartfast]

Here we go again...

McCain is still fighting Vietnam. He thinks that there's a side in the Syrian Civil War worth allying ourselves to, and there's a cause there worth sending people to die for.

[Slartibartfast]

I think that all of Carleton's and Turbulence's disagreements have been sorted through and addressed, save the question of whether Carleton is/was on drugs at any time during this discussion.

It's an important question, evidently.

[russell]

I agree with this, though not in the sense that you intended.

We think our crap doesn't smell, and there's nobody else in the room big enough to tell us different.

McCain is still fighting Vietnam.

Yes, that or something like that is likely so. I'm also open to giving him the benefit of the doubt as to motive that you generously offer him.

The bad thing is that "still fighting Vietnam" is now sections 5 and 6 of the Senate resolution.

This has gone in fairly short order from limited air strikes to make a point about using chemical weapons, to engagement in a civil war about a third of the way around the world. And, a civil war with about 11 sides to it.

We're going to 'vet' the folks we supply with arms and other support, but I also notice that the Free Syrian Army has transformed themselves from 'evil cyber terrorists' to 'our best friends' in about 3 days. Quite a makeover.

If we're gonna actually do something, I hope we do it soon, before every other dude with an agenda has a chance to shoehorn their own wish list into it.

Next stop: Axis of Evil!! Who will be on the short list this time?

Sweep it all up, things related and not.

[dr ngo]

And if he was (1) what kind, and (2) where can I get some?

These things matter, folks.

[hairshirthedonist]

...the Free Syrian Army has transformed themselves from 'evil cyber terrorists' to 'our best friends' in about 3 days.

This may be the purest distillation of US foreign policy, by way of example, I've seen. I'm stealing it.

[sapient]

This has gone in fairly short order from limited air strikes to make a point about using chemical weapons, to engagement in a civil war about a third of the way around the world. And, a civil war with about 11 sides to it.

Yes, and in similarly short order, I'm turning against it. This isn't the kind of action I would support.

Donald (quoting Harpers article): "Reality gives the lie to these assertions. Simply put, licenses and waivers are irrelevant, because the excision of Iranian banks from the global financial system makes it practically impossible for anyone exporting medical supplies to Iran to get paid." Just as you don't think there's any duty to do anything in Syria to stop the chemical weapons attacks, I don't think we have a responsibility to trade with Iran. Iran is a powerful country, at peace, and not terribly poor. They can figure it out themselves.

[Slartibartfast]

I'd like to see a debate between John Kerry and John Kerry of 1971-ish days on this matter.

I'll bring enough popcorn for everyone.

[Slartibartfast]

BTW I am seeing some of my right-wing friends & acquaintances post stuff to the effect that these were the WMD that we were looking for in Iraq.

It's one of those things that would be magically convenient if true. Therefore, as a matter of policy heavily influenced by a history of embarrassing mistakes on my part, I am assuming that it's dead wrong until proven otherwise.

And given that that's just the kind of thing that would be needed to gain widespread support from the Right to authorize any action in Syria, I'd want to see it independently verified by a couple of other sources.

Even then I'd look at it all askance-like.

[hairshirthedonist]

Aside from the US, most countries in the world don't think we should do anything about Syrian chemical weapons: are they confused about the norm, or are we?

While this may be intended to demonstrate the general matter of disagreement over loosely defined or undefined norms, if I take as it applies to the specific case of Syria, I'd say this weighs very heavily against the use of force by the United States. But, if nearly every other country in the world agreed that Syria violated some norm and that the United States, or any other country with the ability to do so, should use force, that would weigh in the opposite direction.

Disclaimer: The above is not intended to argue that the United States acts or can be expected to act in a morally coherent manner, be it acting based on norms, treaties or otherwise.

[CountMe-In]

McCain reportedly was playing online poker during the Senate hearings on the Syria resolution and then complained/boasted he lost big money.

These guys supply their own irony to go with the reality they foist on the rest of us.

I see the developing outlines of the upcoming budget negotiations: pay for the sudden spike in the Free Syrian Army's healthcare claims by decommissioning ObamaCare and the healthcare of tens of millions of Americans, or we take the government down.

Maybe McCain can run for President of Syria in the upcoming elections. He can balance their f&cking budget by jotting down another debit entry in the U. S. Treasury's balance sheet.

I now see how the North Vietnamese regretted shooting this bastard down as they endured his constant complaining about the concierge service at the Hanoi Hilton.

I hate, I hate.

[cleek]

why does the norm about not attacking countries which haven't attacked or threatened your own get such little attention? surely violating that one would cost some of our precious bodily fluids credibility ?

[Slartibartfast]

I can't wait to start code-enforcing more local norms. Like this norm that I and a lot of my friends have about not having to look at guys wearing their pants pulled halfway down to the knees.

It's a kneecapping offense, normally.

[russell]

And, to answer one of the other obvious questions about all of this:

However, another Hill staffer argued that without a greater understanding of the operation, it would be impossible to settle on an exact price tag or means of payment.

"Who the f--- knows what it will cost? It depends entirely on what happens," said the staffer.

h/t digby

It really is remarkable how quickly things turn to crap after they enter the good old sausage factory.

I do, however, admire and appreciate the staffer's candor.

[Donald Johnson]

"Just as you don't think there's any duty to do anything in Syria to stop the chemical weapons attacks, I don't think we have a responsibility to trade with Iran."

You're kinda missing the point there. We're doing more than just not trading with Iran. We're trying to prevent others from doing so and hurting ordinary Iranians. I guess I shouldn't have bothered--anyway, back to talking about our Moral Duty (which never seems to involve doing anything about our own crimes.)

On chemical weapons, I actually think it is a good idea to have a red line against their use, but it doesn't follow that US enforcement with cruise missiles is a good idea. See various comments in this thread. And there are all these other moral norms and red lines I also think should be honored and enforced, some against us. But that doesn't matter, I guess.

Kristof in the NYT today wrote a pro-bombing piece, not so much about the chemical weapons moral norm but more based on the idea that maybe we'd weaken Assad and lessen his ability to inflict atrocities in general. He didn't say what we'd do if the rebels gained the upper hand and then started committing atrocities on a larger scale than they do already. Presumably we'd bomb them to restore the balance.

[Donald Johnson]

Part of the problem here is this notion that "action" is synonymous with "bombing", which is the only way we can show that we care, apparently, and also demonstrate that if we had lived in the 1930's we'd have stopped Hitler before he got started. Or something like that. Anyway, James Fallows has been letting various people guest post and here's the latest, by Robert Pastor, outlining another option.

link

[sapient]

Anyway, James Fallows has been letting various people guest post and here's the latest, by Robert Pastor, outlining another option.

I read that article, and appreciate the link, but it seems to me that Assad's earlier response to diplomatic efforts have been fatally disappointing. It was after Assad began massacring the opposition that the "Assad must go" mantra began. As the article points out, the strongmen argument won out. I see no reason why Assad would think that he's less vulnerable now to eventual annihilation by the opposition.

I would be all for try, try again, although making concessions to Assad and his supporters in response to his chemical weapons attack seems a bit off.

My understanding of the original reasoning behind the strike was to "bring Assad to the table." If the military effort actually worked to bring that about, that would be a good thing.

Sometimes diplomacy has to work hand in hand with the threat of military action. When we were about to invade Iraq, and our military was waiting in the wings as the UN inspectors were looking for WMD, that was IMO the perfect situation for us to hold Saddam Hussein at check. There was no reason to go further, and even though there was a cost to having our military sitting their twiddling their thumbs, it was obviously much more costly in so many ways to invade.

What I hope happens with Syria is that we use diplomacy and military threat in tandem. I think that may be what's actually going on.

[Carleton Wu]

From the perspective of the US government, I don't think it makes sense to say that Syria has committed war crimes, because the USG doesn't accept Protocol II. Now, I personally do accept it, so I think they've committed war crimes.

First, I don't think that's what you were saying at the time. More context:Syria's actions aren't war crimes because the definition of war crimes requires that they occur in an international war, not an internal or civil war. This has nothing to do with customary int'l law or who signed what treaties: it has to do with what criterion the treaties actually define..
Second, I don't know of any legal principle where something is a crime, but this can't be enforced because other parties also break that law. Except maybe when differential enforcement is used as a pretext for eg racial bias (eg 'driving while black' bc not breaking nitpick driving laws is almost impossible). It's quite a convoluted position to say you think Syria has (objectively?) committed war crimes (but have you signed PII?) but the US can't agree with you on that point.
Third, if you think it's a war crime, then if (counter to what you think now) the US could intervene and it would be beneficial, would you still argue that we shouldnt or couldnt because of our bad past actions? Or because of the UN Charter? Im fine with leaving our disagreement over whether we should hold the Russian veto higher than a humanitarian cause- I don't mean that snarkily, I mean it makes sense to say that adding legitimacy to the UN is more important than this particular cause even if I might disagree.

that implies we'd be bombing them for conduct which we believe we're entitled to commit.

I still think that the specifics of the US ratification process (2/3rd of the Senate) means that 'the US' can think things which can't get acceptance from that 1/3rd. But it's true that the 1/3rd can't even manage to articulate a counterproposal; Im certainly not arguing that it's a good thing.
Also, just bc the US doesn't ratify the treaty doesn't mean we don't respect parts of it, and (if as we both believe those parts have universal applicability) attempt to enforce those parts.

The institutional structure is pretty clearly broken. But I'd say it is broken because it reflects the power imbalance of the world, not random idiotic mistakes at the founding of the UN. And I don't see a better alternative: letting the US do whatever it wants because it is powerful and can literally get away with murder doesn't help the problem.

I agree, although Id lay it less at power imbalance (which I expect will always be the case) than at an unwillingness of the powerful to give any legitimacy to those internationali institutions. And yes, the US ignoring the UNSC's theoretically proper role in this is one more example of that.
Otoh, will the US refraining from any effort to stop Syrian war crimes moderate China's behavior in the South China Sea, or towards Tibet? etc. The UNSC doesn't have much legitimacy at this point, and Im not sure this particular intervention (to the extent that it's not self-serving, which is I think mostly) is the straw that breaks the camel's back. Id look to eg the US's blanket support for Israeli violations of UNSC directives as much more of a sticking point.
On the third hand, Ive been arguing that repairing the US's reputation has to begin somewhere, and exactly the same argument holds for building the credibility of the UN as an international institution.

Let's take an example. There is a norm against using killing civilians in a conflict. Everyone agrees with that. So, did the US violate that norm in Iraq? There is much disagreement.

There's a norm against unnecessarily (ie with reckless disregard) or intentional killing civilians in a conflict. Collateral deaths that occur during military operations working towards reasonable military objectives are still acceptable by law.
And that disagreement- well, that seems to me to parallel the problem that we must have a clearly-defined letter of the law- naturally there's going to be much dispute. And unfortunately, we still don't have a standard judicial interpretation of these agreements or a court that tries them. So we end up (as with nebulous norms) with all manner of self-serving definitions. Was Iraq an imminent threat to the US in 2003? Of course not, except we said so, and there was no place to dispute that claim (since the UN Charter gives all nations unilateral rights to self-defense, basically a 100% loophole if one is willing to lie barefaced).

I've seen enough technical discussions where everyone agrees on the one sentence summary (the norm you might say) but when you try and hammer out the details, it turns out everyone had radically different interpretations in mind and the devil is in the details.

Again, the same is true of written treaties; what contitutues a 'clear violation' is often in dispute, and afaict the ability of one party to force another to toe the line is more dependent on power relationships (or desired goodwill) than some inner drive to interpret the text in a unbiased manner.

Plus norms don't have consequences attached

afaict the treaties we're talking about don't either. There's no set punishment for using chemical weapons or attacks on civilians or mistreating POWs iirc.

[sapient]

Bosnia.

[Carleton Wu]

Carleton Wu: "...it seems like our membership in the UN would continue to preclude action."

Then case closed, what? Or are you asserting that some 'norms' are more 'enormous' than others?

I was making a tentative summary of Turb's position to make sure I understood it. So no, what.
What I personally think is that we're weighing two important obligations:
1)How our ignoring the UN impacts the legitimacy of the UN
2)How our ignoring Syrian war crimes impacts the ability of this and future bad actors to commit war crimes
f you want to consider both and, in the balance, think point #2 is less important, that's fine. Im sympathetic to that point of view, I feel strongly that international institutions are important and should be empowered when possible by choice in order to improve their position.

Im not so Ok with your position that point #2 doesn't exist at all; one of the good things that's come out of the 20th century's wars was the idea that nations ought not be idle bystanders to crimes against humanity. It is a norm that is enforced so patchily and with such attention to national self-interest that it's clearly weak. Weaker than it should be. And today, with many countries focused internally due to economic strains, with the US's leadership tarnished one again due to a poorly-chosen war, it'd be easy to ignore it completely.
But I think it is important. Important enough to at least be considered.

[Carleton Wu]

I think that all of Carleton's and Turbulence's disagreements have been sorted through and addressed, save the question of whether Carleton is/was on drugs at any time during this discussion.

It's an important question, evidently.

I am just trying to figure how he found out, apparently we've had a breakdown in operational security here.

[sapient]

Carleton: [O]ne of the good things that's come out of the 20th century's wars was the idea that nations ought not be idle bystanders to crimes against humanity. It is a norm that is enforced so patchily and with such attention to national self-interest that it's clearly weak. Weaker than it should be. And today, with many countries focused internally due to economic strains, with the US's leadership tarnished one again due to a poorly-chosen war, it'd be easy to ignore it completely.
But I think it is important. Important enough to at least be considered.

I agree with this. And because I agree with this, I think we should start with the premise that we shouldn't stand idly by. Then we should ask the question what must we do? "Bomb" isn't necessarily the answer, although it could be, if "bomb" means that we have then have leverage to force a diplomatic solution that will help to end the killing.

[Ugh]

I'll repeat cleek's question: isn't there a norm about not attacking countries which haven't attacked or threatened your own?

I would add, or at least without UN security council approval? How does that norm stack up against the norm of non-use of chemical weapons?

[sapient]

I'll repeat cleek's question: isn't there a norm about not attacking countries which haven't attacked or threatened your own [except when collective international action is authorized by the UNSC]?

There certainly is, and there's a great deal of tension between that norm and the norm that says that the world shouldn't turn a blind eye to a strongman who's gassing civilians. It's a quandary, and there are plenty of people chiming in supporting favoring one over the other.

I happen to be in the camp that says we shouldn't turn a blind eye, and I believe that NATO's action in Bosnia is the prototype that we should perhaps be following. But that's tempered by the fact that we don't have NATO, and the situation is full of scary possibilities.

I just think that rejecting the idea that we have a responsibility of some kind is the wrong approach. Diplomacy would obviously be the best approach, but it hasn't been working, and the situation is dire enough that a different approach should perhaps be considered.

[Carleton Wu]

Ugh,
I believe that's the core of the issue. I do think that, even in the absence of the UNSC, we'd be justified in intervening to prevent or address a crime against humanity.
There are things that could make this case stronger:
-If we could drum up more support among allies and make the hypothetical Russian veto clearly isolated self-interest.
-If we would actually present the case to the UNSC and demonstrate the broken process rather than assuming that it's broken. Esp if we can show a enough support to succeed in the UNSC if not for the veto.
-If we would have &$^%&#@ ratified the treaty justifying this intervention
-If we were even marginally consistent about enforcing these norms even when opposed to self-interest

We can't fix the last two right now, but we could certainly take this through the process with good faith and try to make it work.

otoh, if we go to the UNSC and Russia vetoes despite good evidence, and then we refuse to act, we've done bad things I think:
-just by allowing crimes to be committed and unaddressed; as Turb said not all wrongs can be righted but not trying makes it unclear if this is a case of no good answer or not enough interest
-it makes us look like we're washing our hands, using the UNSC as an excuse not to act. If selective enforcement is bad, and using the UN to justify selective enforcement is just as bad
-I dont want to set the precedent that war crimes etc are ok if you have a patron on the UNSC who can veto to protect you. US included.

[Ugh]

And if you had to choose which norm is more strongly, uh, normed, which would you choose?

[Carleton Wu]

That's a pretty tough one. If I can't make the US go the UNSC and make their case etc, and just have to choose between unilaterally using military force to discourage war crimes and doing nothing...
I think I take the former. The UNSC is too vulnerable to self-interested veto, and it's not like this particular 'illegal' war is precedent-setting in a way that Iraq II etc were not. I don't see this having a tremendous impact on the structure of international law, so I would pick the one where just maybe we deter attacks on civilians in the future.

But I am not at all sure, and Im definitely less sure then when I joined this conversation.

[Carleton Wu]

Although I have to admit, Id checked out the thread in the hopes that there would be a smart advocate of an actual bombing/etc campaign who would argue the merits. So far Ive either seen gung-ho-ness, or something like my or sapient's agreement-in-principle-but-lets-see-the-details.
Personally, I think this position is pretty vulnerable to accusations that Im wanting to have my cake etc, saying that some abstract campaign would be acceptable but leaving myself room to object on implementation *if* things dont go well. It's easy to object to details or mistakes, but no implementation will be free of mistakes or meet my personal design criteria perfectly- and Ill say, even with those concerns, Id still lean towards doing it. I would rather be wrong trying to stop an atrocity than wrong in letting it occur.
[Im sure that last bit is a huge consolation to those who would suffer from my choice.]
But I would *much* rather go the UN first and try. The "*much*" is mostly due to talking to people here.

At the risk of prolonging a pretty long thread, let's flip this around on its head: Russia stops being the biggest @sshole at the grownup table, and the UNSC actually passes a resolution condemning Assad and authorizing something (say, punitive strikes or a no-fly zone). If the diplomatic objections were cleared, would people here think it a good idea? (Assuming we get no actual help from anyone else, just moral support). Or do you think trying to punch this particular tarbaby ends badly however we go about it and with whatever blessings we can gather?

[bobbyp]

Carleton: Im not so Ok with your position that point #2 doesn't exist at all

I do not believe I have ever expressed that position here, and I am not Turbulence. Please put down that pipe and back away...slowly, very slowly, and keep your hands visible.

I have also never denied this was a tough policy choice. Please allow me choose my own words to put in my mouth or stumble over.

My position is pretty straightforward: Unilateral military action, absent UN approval, is/would be unwise, ineffective, raise significantly the probability of negative blowback due to our taking sides, and illegal to boot. Even with UN approval, success would be dicey.

What's not to like?

Our current policy of selective intervention, based upon our haphazard and quite self serving analysis of the level of humanitarian outrage smacks of the worst of Wilsonian diplomacy, critiques of which there are legion. And what really chaps my hide is the oft repeated assertion that for some select humanitarian disasters (cf civil war in Congo) we are just "helpless" reinforcing the belief (true of not) that politics drives these military urges...nothing more.

Other than that, your comment at 3:51 above is greatly appreciated. Thanks.

Oh, and my policy?

(Inhales deeply): Continue to investigate. Support for (some) elements of the opposition. Take the case to the U.N.---repeatedly. Spend a couple of billion (chicken feed to us) to alleviate the suffering of the refugees and help those who are housing them in their country. Continue to work to isolate the Assad regime diplomatically. Continue to work to eliminate these weapons from world arsenals (which actually has been a very great international success). I'm sure there are other non-violent means we could adopt.

If it came down to a couple of illegal cruise missiles, my choice would be the Saudi palace in Riyadh, but that's just me.

[Ugh]

It would be a slightly less bad idea if it had UN blessing. The people in Syria we end up bombing aren't going to care one way or the other. It's not going to sway the balance (or "momentum" - what is this an NBA game?) toward Assad's opposition and, even if it did, are we sure that's better than the current situation?

Where are all those chemical weapons going to end up in the inevitable chaos that will follow Assad losing power?

[cleek]

If the diplomatic objections were cleared, would people here think it a good idea?

i'd be much less opposed if it was a truly international effort.

a big part of my resistance to the US going at it alone is because i don't like the idea of thumbing our nose at treaties and agreements which outline procedures we should follow in cases like this. i also want the US to stop playing the role of self-appointed policeman. and i especially want the US to stop stomping around the ME.

i also think getting the rest of the world to help with this might lead to a better eventual outcome because Assad won't be able to credibly turn it into a Syria vs the US issue - especially if Arab countries get involved. it would seriously isolate him - maybe even enough to get him to start negotiating.

it would also add far more oomph to the idea that CW use will not be tolerated. pissing off the US is one thing, pissing off the entire world is another.

i still don't like the idea of military action, but if it's a UN (or Arab League!) force instead of a US force, the politics might get Assad to wind-down faster.

IMO. $.02. ymmv. etc.

[cleek]

Where are all those chemical weapons going to end up in the inevitable chaos that will follow Assad losing power?

yeah. that's the $64B question.

that's why i think just driving Assad out would be a huge mistake. it seems like the Syrian military has to remain intact, just to keep their hardware under control.

[Ugh]

Here's another question: would you rather have Assad's chemical weapons stockpile in his hands, or spread among the opposition currently fighting him?

[Carleton Wu]

i also think getting the rest of the world to help with this might lead to a better eventual outcome because Assad won't be able to credibly turn it into a Syria vs the US issue - especially if Arab countries get involved.

Strong point, esp with the example of Gulf War I. Sounds like we are getting verbal support from some ME countries already, but I imagine it's a loooong way from them actually participating. Although even nominal participation would be a huge factor.

CW use will not be tolerated

What'd I do this time?

[Carleton Wu]

Carleton: Im not so Ok with your position that point #2 doesn't exist at all

I do not believe I have ever expressed that position here, and I am not Turbulence.

Sorry- I inferred it from your quote of my statement ("it seems like our membership in the UN would continue to preclude action") and you're "then case closed", not from confusing you with Turb. When you say one thing, then reach a conclusion with 'case closed', that sounded to me like other factors aren't part of the decision. Maybe reading too much into a cute turn of phrase.

[hairshirthedonist]

On the self-serving side, I don't see how bombing Syria is self-serving. By that, I don't mean that there isn't some attempt to be self-serving among those who are pushing for it. I just don't see that it would get us a damned thing, other than a bunch of trouble. I mean, we can't even pull off being selfish... unless I'm missing something.

Anyone?

[Carleton Wu]

Where are all those chemical weapons going to end up in the inevitable chaos that will follow Assad losing power?

Yeah, I was just reading a thing this morning that suggested actually getting or disposing of the chemical agents would mean boots on the ground for sure. As opposed to smashing the stockpiles open from the air or just knocking Assad's forces down and letting the AQ-afilliated resistance groups go get them for free.
otoh, Im not sure that 'intervention' without dealing with the chemical agents makes sense. Do we impose a no-fly zone & knock down his SAMs and airfields as a punishment and warn that further attacks on civilians will lead to worse outcomes, or is that kinda silly?

Of course, even if we don't intervene AQ groups may get their hands on chemical agents or they could be used again, so we shouldn't necessarily view the risk of us hitting Assad without securing the weapons in isolation. But once we get boots on the ground it'll inevitably mean some coordination with the rebels, some ongoing exchanges with Assad, and some territory under our direct control (with all of the associated complications). Tarbaby time.

And officially for the One-Millionth time I wish we had kept our powder dry in 2003, I cant help wondering if we'd have a better reputation, more chance of attracting allies, and more stomach for a fairly serious undertaking when we actually might have wanted to do it.

[Carleton Wu]

On the self-serving side, I don't see how bombing Syria is self-serving.

Well, insofar as they're a Russian client and friendly with Iran, I can. We don't win if an AQ-friendly regime takes control, but we might be happier with something more moderate yet still free from Iranian or Russian influence- or just a big crunchy bowl of chaos where Syria used to be.
[nb I dont think we actually would benefit from Syria being chaotic, but some people might argue for it; certainly Ive seen people suggest that prolonging the war is in our interests].
Plus, big message to Iran- we can do this, and we will do this if we have to.

[russell]

some abstract campaign would be acceptable but leaving myself room to object on implementation *if* things dont go well.

I think in any military situation you have to assume that a non-trivial number of things will not go well.

Non-military situations, too, but there is something about blowing stuff up that makes Murphy's law kick in in especially spectacular ways.

From the small amount of involvement I've ever had with military folks, they never ever assume perfect execution, much less perfect results even if execution is perfect.

Sh*t, as the bumper stickers say, happens.

That's as true for doing nothing as it is for the opposite, BTW, so it's not necessarily an argument for or against.

It's just the reality. You can't decide about stuff like this based on assumptions about how well it will go.

In for a penny (on whichever side of the fence), in for a pound.

[novakant]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/history-lesson-when-the-united-states-looked-the-other-way-on-chemical-weapons/2013/09/04/0ec828d6-1549-11e3-961c-f22d3aaf19ab_blog.html

http://www.theguardian.com/world/iran-blog/2013/sep/02/iran-chemical-weapons-wmd-sanctions

[Donald Johnson]

"Continue to investigate. Support for (some) elements of the opposition. Take the case to the U.N.---repeatedly. Spend a couple of billion (chicken feed to us) to alleviate the suffering of the refugees and help those who are housing them in their country. Continue to work to isolate the Assad regime diplomatically. Continue to work to eliminate these weapons from world arsenals (which actually has been a very great international success). I'm sure there are other non-violent means we could adopt."

I'd go along with this, except maybe that support for (some) elements of the opposition, if that means weapons. I'm just a little tired of us supporting "freedom fighters", even if the cause is good. I doubt we're really all that competent at picking out the groups who will fight a guerilla war cleanly, if indeed such a thing has ever been done.

And a quote from novakant's second link, about the plight of Iranian victims of Iraqi poison gas attacks that we supported due to the sanctions--

"In theory, medicine is exempt from western sanctions against Iran; in practice, however, with blanket international sanctions on Iranian banking and shipping, it is extremely difficult for any pharmaceutical company to arrange for payment and shipment. Iranian government mismanagement and corruption have only exacerbated the problem."

Of course our moral duty to help doesn't extend to helping people we've hurt.

[Donald Johnson]

"about the plight of Iranian victims of Iraqi poison gas attacks that we supported due to the sanctions"

Poorly phrasing. I meant Iranian victims of the Iraqi poison gas attacks that we tacitly supported--they now have difficulty obtaining medicine. In a saner world, there would be discussion of this sort of thing amongst our noble political class, so eager they are to help innocent people overseas. But it might involve uncomfortable discussions of things we've done, so nevermind.

[Donald Johnson]

"Poorly phrasing".

Good lord.

[sapient]

Just want to say to the folks here that I so much appreciate the thoughtfulness with which so many people are thinking about this. Thanks for providing me a place to read and to comment.

A lot of people (me included) seem to be somewhat conflicted, trying to sort out the responsibility of the US versus the obvious potential for disaster. I deeply think we should do something, and not to turn a blind eye. I hope that what we do looks like Bosnia (because I'm proud of what we did there, on behalf of friends I know who survived). I don't want what we do to look like Iraq.

I do believe that the competence and priorities of the President makes a difference (although luck and circumstances play a bit part as well). Hoping for the best ...

[sapient]

And this.

[bobbyp]

Plus, big message to Iran- we can do this, and we will do this if we have to.

Disagree. It only sends a message to them to hunker down and find ways to thwart our efforts as they see them opposing heir perceived national interests. It may (I stress may) make them more cautious, but it will most likely harden their resolve.

You want to blunt the mullahs? Embrace them. Print up tons of money and give it to them (hey, it's just paper). BUY THEM OFF. This is a tried and true technique used by countries, political machines, and well organized criminal gangs for, like forever. Sometimes it even works! Immerse them in a such an overpowering and strangling web of profitable commercial and social interactions that they will do anything we tell them to. In other words, work to modify their national interests.

Instead we have plowed our substantial economic surplus into a military establishment that sucks up vast resources, blunts democracy, and lulls us into a false sense of security. When confronted with a problem, we reach for threats and guns first, and think only when forced to.

It is manifestly stupid, but alas, all too predictable. We are not the first to travel down this road.

[bobbyp]

Where are all those chemical weapons going to end up in the inevitable chaos that will follow Assad losing power?

If I had to bet, I'd say Israel.

[bobbyp]

or this.

[Carleton Wu]

Plus, big message to Iran- we can do this, and we will do this if we have to.

Disagree. It only sends a message to them to hunker down and find ways to thwart our efforts as they see them opposing heir perceived national interests.

Im not saying I agree with that, just that if someone suspects the US to have an ulterior motive it's a candidate motive.

Where are all those chemical weapons going to end up in the inevitable chaos that will follow Assad losing power?

If I had to bet, I'd say Israel.

You mean, the Israelis will go get them, or they'll be used against Israel? Or, I guess, both could happen.

[Donald Johnson]

"Plus, big message to Iran- we can do this, and we will do this if we have to."
"Disagree. It only sends a message to them to hunker down and find ways to thwart our efforts as they see them opposing heir perceived national interests."

Sending a message to Iran is clearly AIPAC's motive. I suspect it would be one of the US government's motives, probably pretty high on the list.

link to politico story

[Ugh]

From DJ's politico link:

Officials say that some 250 Jewish leaders and AIPAC activists will storm the halls on Capitol Hill beginning next week to persuade lawmakers that Congress must adopt the resolution or risk emboldening Iran’s efforts to build a nuclear weapon.

Oh good lord. If anything, I would think bombing Syria would accelerate Iran's efforts to build a nuclear weapon.

[hairshirthedonist]

Im not saying I agree with that, just that if someone suspects the US to have an ulterior motive it's a candidate motive.

I guess my question was aimed at motives people here thought were justified and could support. Also, that one could say made the effort a net good thing, not whether the were any good outcomes at all, while ignoring all the costs/bad stuff.

I mean, we'd probably destroy something or kill someone that, from a purely self-interest-based perspective, we'd like to see destroyed or killed, even if the effort were patently wrong-headed (which it probably will be).

[hairshirthedonist]

I should add that I'm not looking to be convinced, just for something that's at least plausible, rather than ridiculous.

[chinshihtang]

My reading is that Putin is starting to feel boxed in by the overwhelming evidence of guilt of the Syrian military and wants to make a deal. He is also moving ships into the region to reinforce his point of view--make a deal, don't open hostilities!
Under the circumstances, it certainly makes sense for Obama to test him and see whom he is willing to throw over for war crimes prosecution (not Assad, I presume, but someone).

[bobbyp]

You mean, the Israelis will go get them, or they'll be used against Israel?

Yes,the first. I would assume if even extremist rebels won the civil war that they would not use them...their first effort would be to consolidate power. But you know the Prime Directive: Don't assume.

[novakant]

Plus, big message to Iran- we can do this, and we will do this if we have to.

Glad we have our own Tom Friedman on board now.

[Duff Clarity]

Under the circumstances, it certainly makes sense for Obama to test him

That's called "poking a bear with a stick". And the bear has nukes.

[Donald Johnson]

Alan Grayson complaining in the NYT today about how little information the Administration is giving to Congress, even in classified form--

link

[cleek]

shorter AIPAC: let's you and him fight!

[Carleton Wu]

Plus, big message to Iran- we can do this, and we will do this if we have to.

Glad we have our own Tom Friedman on board now.

I will save time quoting my response to that general sentiment from the day before your comment:
Im not saying I agree with that, just that if someone suspects the US to have an ulterior motive it's a candidate motive.

[cleek]

well, that's unexpected.

Russia asks Syria to hand over its chemical weapons.

[Slartibartfast]

That's got to be a real Joel-get-off-the-babysitter moment for the administration, if true.

[McKinneyTexas]

if true

Indeed. Interesting turn of events--almost *unimaginable*: that SecState would run a hypo up the flagpole, that Putin would immediately salute and that Assad would then fall into line within moments. Problem solved, nothing to see here folks, let's move along. Let's go find LJ!

[cleek]

that SecState would run a hypo up the flagpole

and he did it sarcastically!

so strange.

[Ugh]

Is Obama going to have to re-tape his media blitz interviews now?

[sapient]

12 dimensional chess.

[bobbyp]

From what I've read, Assad could publicly dispose of half of his gas arsenal and still have plenty. If the attack was an error, I'm sure there is some internal punishment going on and all incentives are to stick it out. If it was a "one off" then deterrence worked! No more attacks! Otherwise, I'd wager his Russian allies leaned on him hard to knock it off.

The Russian initiative couldn't have been timed better. It really set the admin and Congress on its heels, and has effectively delayed any vote. Support for armed intervention can only disperse, like poison gas in the wind.

Despite what most Americans believe, our foreign adversaries weren't born yesterday. They, too, know how to play The Great Game and nth dimensional chess.

The Russian initiative is a master stroke.

[sapient]

The Russian initiative is a master stroke.

Not sure why we have to see this as combat. If it makes people stop using chemical weapons, good! The US is still a credible proponent of an effort to keep behind the "red line", good! International cooperation, good! US the world's advocate, but not policeman, good!

Nothing bad about any of this if it 1) makes Syria make some concessions (without the worry of US bombing), and 2) exemplifies cooperation between adversaries.

I don't really see a downside.

[sapient]

Also, the fact that Obama was making a strong case for military action is what brought this about.

I hope it works.

[Donald Johnson]

"Nothing bad about any of this if it 1) makes Syria make some concessions (without the worry of US bombing), and 2) exemplifies cooperation between adversaries.

I don't really see a downside."

It's probably the best that could be expected--now the killing can go on with conventional weapons, but yea, it'd be nice to keep a red line in place here or there, at least for countries that aren't our allies.

I give Obama this much credit--I think he badly wants this to work, because I don't think he wanted to go into Syria and felt trapped by his own rhetoric, not expecting when he drew his red line that someone would actually then use poison gas and kill a large number of people. As digby (I think) pointed out the other day, Obama seems to like the covert style of violence--drones and so forth and whatever one thinks of that, he hasn't shown the Bush-like neocon propensity to jump headlong into full scale wars. Not yet anyway.

[cleek]

I don't really see a downside.

implementation will be pretty difficult.