I don't think we've reduced death and misery in Afghanistan or Iraq. My nephew is deploying as a combat medic in a little over a week to Afghanistan for a 7 month tour of duty. He joined the Navy and got loaned to the Marines. We thought he would be on a hospital ship, but that is not to be. Think good thoughts for him.
I answered "no," but I also don't think the question is remotely relevant.
That is, I'm having trouble coming up with any sort of upside for the US in this. Given how much we're already spending money we don't have, how poor we seem to be at managing other country's civil wars, how the Middle East seems to simply get increasingly unstable and hostile toward US interests the more we interact...
Yeah, I find "we're going to blow them up so things will be better for them" to be a specious argument, but far, far less important than the fact that no one seems to have at any point asked "What's in it for me?"
I'm worried that I'm in too big an echo chamber, but I don't see how that can be. One of the people on my flist is complaining that I'm too conservative, but the 400 people on my Facebook feed are shockingly progressive on the left.
And I don't hear ANYONE making the argument that, "aw, shucks, hate to do it, but we really must." I don't get it. I really really don't get it. It's okay for them to use incendiary bombs but not sarin? But it was okay for Saddam Hussein to use Sarin (until it wasn't 15 years later). And, uh, if it *isn't* okay, why doesn't the Arab League bring it up? Or the U.N.? Who are *we* to say what constitutes "okay" in a war?
If there is a case to be made for going to war in Syria, I haven't heard the faintest riplings of it. I wonder who is making it, and why, and what they're arguing?
Got me; I haven't either. (Not counting a macro posted by an opponent ascribing motives to proponents. Which was basically "the military industrial complex did it." Even if it's true, no one's using that argument to support action, so... yeah, I've got no clue.)
Honestly, got me. I can't see anything resembling a purpose in this. I don't get why the use of "chemical weapons" would be worse than the use of other classifications of weapons. I don't get why civilians killed 1 way count for more than civilians killed a different way.
But then, I also have that problem with the narrative of "drone strikes". As far as I am concerned, the question is "was the target legitimate". If yes, then what freakin' difference does it make whether they were taken out with a predator drone or a guy with a knife? If not, then... the same question applies.
I think Syria is likely to be a put of misery and death for some time to come, and I don't think that external military intervention is likely to make a massive difference either way.
Now, putting some money into refugee camps for the people fleeing, _that_ would make a positive difference.
Other: I think any action we take, including inaction, has negative consequences for us in the long term. The only reason I can see for getting involved at this point is to uphold the concept of "Rules of War," which is fragile enough as it is
( ... )
Like most Americans, I'm fundamentally lazy. If all options have negative consequences and there isn't even a clear Lesser Evil with better negative consequences than the others, my default is to pick the bad option that means less work and which costs less.
If the UN and Congress and most of the American people refuse to act, I'm not inclined to talk them out of it.
How long is your long term, in the poll? If the whole point is to uphold some kind of atrocity standard in the rules of warfare, on behalf of the world and the future at large, I think a case can be made for a useless/punitive strike. The long game is to enforce this particular line in the sand that we as humanity have drawn. I don't see anyone talking about that, outside of that excellent article up there. Most people seem to think the choices are FULL ON WAR or do nothing because obviously.
Long term is whatever you think it means. I'd go all the way out. If the net present value of the good created is greater than the net present value of the cost.
The choice IS full-on-war. Even if that's not what Congress votes for. Wars have a tendency to not stay limited. For example, Assad decides to expand the war a bit - attack Turkey. Turkey is NATO, so there's a mutual defence agreement.
Why does it matter if Assad kills 100 people with bombs or with gas? What's the real difference?
Comments 28
Reply
That is, I'm having trouble coming up with any sort of upside for the US in this. Given how much we're already spending money we don't have, how poor we seem to be at managing other country's civil wars, how the Middle East seems to simply get increasingly unstable and hostile toward US interests the more we interact...
Yeah, I find "we're going to blow them up so things will be better for them" to be a specious argument, but far, far less important than the fact that no one seems to have at any point asked "What's in it for me?"
Reply
And I don't hear ANYONE making the argument that, "aw, shucks, hate to do it, but we really must." I don't get it. I really really don't get it. It's okay for them to use incendiary bombs but not sarin? But it was okay for Saddam Hussein to use Sarin (until it wasn't 15 years later). And, uh, if it *isn't* okay, why doesn't the Arab League bring it up? Or the U.N.? Who are *we* to say what constitutes "okay" in a war?
If there is a case to be made for going to war in Syria, I haven't heard the faintest riplings of it. I wonder who is making it, and why, and what they're arguing?
Reply
Reply
But then, I also have that problem with the narrative of "drone strikes". As far as I am concerned, the question is "was the target legitimate". If yes, then what freakin' difference does it make whether they were taken out with a predator drone or a guy with a knife? If not, then... the same question applies.
Reply
Now, putting some money into refugee camps for the people fleeing, _that_ would make a positive difference.
Reply
Reply
Like most Americans, I'm fundamentally lazy. If all options have negative consequences and there isn't even a clear Lesser Evil with better negative consequences than the others, my default is to pick the bad option that means less work and which costs less.
If the UN and Congress and most of the American people refuse to act, I'm not inclined to talk them out of it.
Reply
Katie
Reply
Reply
Why does it matter if Assad kills 100 people with bombs or with gas? What's the real difference?
Reply
Leave a comment