Military action in Syria?

Well, I think the motivations are as complicated as all they players involved. If he has gotten republican support, I'm not sure what that means, because they can't vote until 9/9, but if so that means it will likely happen. I hope it all works to the benefit of all Syrians which ultimately is in every one's true best interest. You recently discribed my philosophy discribing your own city, Gary, which I call the better the better, which means basically to me to: believe in common interest, stay detached but engaged and work for the happiness of others. That way a person is likely to respond to situations in a way that promotes and takes advantage of progressive momentums. The standard for me is, is this something I want for selfish reasons or something I feel can help everyone? Knowing that is my true best interest is the key.

Like any ideal it gets better with practice. Obviously I'm just learning how to do that, but as a philosophy it has helped me a lot at times.

Thanks, Gary.

From NYTimes Op Ed by Nicholas Kristoff


But for those of you who oppose cruise missile strikes, what alternative do you favor?

It’s all very well to urge the United Nations and Arab League to do more, but that means that Syrians will continue to be killed at a rate of 5,000 every month. Involving the International Criminal Court sounds wonderful but would make it more difficult to hammer out a peace deal in which President Bashar al-Assad steps down. So what do you propose other than that we wag our fingers as a government uses chemical weapons on its own people?

So far, we’ve tried peaceful acquiescence, and it hasn’t worked very well. The longer the war drags on in Syria, the more Al Qaeda elements gain strength, the more Lebanon and Jordan are destabilized, and the more people die. It’s admirable to insist on purely peaceful interventions, but let’s acknowledge that the likely upshot is that we sit by as perhaps another 60,000 Syrians are killed over the next year.

A decade ago, I was aghast that so many liberals were backing the Iraq war. Today, I’m dismayed that so many liberals, disillusioned by Iraq, seem willing to let an average of 165 Syrians be killed daily rather than contemplate missile strikes that just might, at the margins, make a modest difference.

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, which tracks the number of dead in the civil war, is exasperated at Western doves who think they are taking a moral stance.

“Where have these people been the past two years,” the organization asks on its Web site. “What is emerging in the United States and United Kingdom now is a movement that is anti-war in form but pro-war in essence.”

In other words, how is being “pro-peace” in this case much different in effect from being “pro-Assad” and resigning oneself to the continued slaughter of civilians?

To me, the central question isn’t, “What are the risks of cruise missile strikes on Syria?” I grant that those risks are considerable, from errant missiles to Hezbollah retaliation. It’s this: “Are the risks greater if we launch missiles, or if we continue to sit on our hands?”

Let’s be humble enough to acknowledge that we can’t be sure of the answer and that Syria will be bloody whatever we do. We Americans are often so self-absorbed as to think that what happens in Syria depends on us; in fact, it overwhelmingly depends on Syrians.

Yet on balance, while I applaud the general reluctance to reach for the military toolbox, it seems to me that, in this case, the humanitarian and strategic risks of inaction are greater. We’re on a trajectory that leads to accelerating casualties, increasing regional instability, growing strength of Al Qaeda forces, and more chemical weapons usage.

Will a few days of cruise missile strikes make a difference? I received a mass e-mail from a women’s group I admire, V-Day, calling on people to oppose military intervention because “such an action would simply bring about more violence and suffering. ... Experience shows us that military interventions harm innocent women, men and children.”

Really? Sure, sometimes they do, as in Iraq. But in both Bosnia and Kosovo, military intervention saved lives. The same was true in Mali and Sierra Leone. The truth is that there’s no glib or simple lesson from the past. We need to struggle, case by case, for an approach that fits each situation.

In Syria, it seems to me that cruise missile strikes might make a modest difference, by deterring further deployment of chemical weapons. Sarin nerve gas is of such limited usefulness to the Syrian army that it has taken two years to use it in a major way, and it’s plausible that we can deter Syria’s generals from employing it again if the price is high.

The Syrian government has also lately had the upper hand in fighting, and airstrikes might make it more willing to negotiate toward a peace deal to end the war. I wouldn’t bet on it, but, in Bosnia, airstrikes helped lead to the Dayton peace accord.

Missile strikes on Assad’s military airports might also degrade his ability to slaughter civilians. With fewer fighter aircraft, he may be less able to drop a napalm-like substance on a school, as his forces apparently did in Aleppo last month.

A brave BBC television crew filmed the burn victims, with clothes burned and skin peeling off their bodies, and interviewed an outraged witness who asked those opposed to military action: “You are calling for peace. What kind of peace are you calling for? Don’t you see this?”

A version of this op-ed appears in print on September 5, 2013, on page A25 of the New York edition with the headline: The Right Questions

I prefer stuff like this campaign, which strikes me as more potentially more beneficial all around in the long haul. Please share:

That post from Dan is what I was alluding to in an earlier post of mine - it's not just as simple as "Assad is a bad guy, lets go get him." It's so much more complex than that, I don't pretend for one second to understand the situation nor to have any answers. I'm not against military intervention, I'm not for military intervention. I just think it's imperative that, before a single missile is launched, concrete evidence is shown to the entire world that Assad used chemical weapons on his own people. Otherwise its just world leaders (who have proved themselves to be liars acting solely in their own interests over the course of history) asking us to take them at their word.

We all know about the Al Qaeda/Islamist elements within the opposition ranks and how ruthless they have shown themselves to be in the Middle East and indeed right across the globe. How can we be sure they didn't use them chemical weapons, either deliberately or as a cruel ploy? n

I think we have to know the facts (as much as possible) before we can jump to conclusions or make rash decisions. Anyway I think that's enough from me on this matter.

Dan, the truth is those hopeful signs of diplomacy from Iran are coming very slow and very late after years of arming the Assad regime which they still are. That kind of diplomacy will work well with the proposed military action. If you want to rely on it alone, then please reconsider this form Kristoff's OpED:

So far, we’ve tried peaceful acquiescence, and it hasn’t worked very well. The longer the war drags on in Syria, the more Al Qaeda elements gain strength, the more Lebanon and Jordan are destabilized, and the more people die. It’s admirable to insist on purely peaceful interventions, but let’s acknowledge that the likely upshot is that we sit by as perhaps another 60,000 Syrians are killed over the next year.

A decade ago, I was aghast that so many liberals were backing the Iraq war. Today, I’m dismayed that so many liberals, disillusioned by Iraq, seem willing to let an average of 165 Syrians be killed daily rather than contemplate missile strikes that just might, at the margins, make a modest difference.

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, which tracks the number of dead in the civil war, is exasperated at Western doves who think they are taking a moral stance.

“Where have these people been the past two years,” the organization asks on its Web site. “What is emerging in the United States and United Kingdom now is a movement that is anti-war in form but pro-war in essence.”

In other words, how is being “pro-peace” in this case much different in effect from being “pro-Assad” and resigning oneself to the continued slaughter of civilians?

To me, the central question isn’t, “What are the risks of cruise missile strikes on Syria?” I grant that those risks are considerable, from errant missiles to Hezbollah retaliation. It’s this: “Are the risks greater if we launch missiles, or if we continue to sit on our hands?”

Let’s be humble enough to acknowledge that we can’t be sure of the answer and that Syria will be bloody whatever we do. We Americans are often so self-absorbed as to think that what happens in Syria depends on us; in fact, it overwhelmingly depends on Syrians.

Yet on balance, while I applaud the general reluctance to reach for the military toolbox, it seems to me that, in this case, the humanitarian and strategic risks of inaction are greater. We’re on a trajectory that leads to accelerating casualties, increasing regional instability, growing strength of Al Qaeda forces, and more chemical weapons usage.


Read more: viewonbuddhism.freeforums.net/thread/53/military-action-syria?page=3#ixzz2e7tU1vJf

My gut reaction is to act, to do something, anything to stop the suffering...but that gut reaction is made up of compassion for the victims, anger for the perpetrators and aversion to seeing others in distress. So my gut reaction is unwise. I'm pretty sure that we are not fully informed of all the ins, outs, deals and double-deals that are occurring and have occurred in that region. I do not know what the wise decision is. However, I do know that acting or calling for action based even partially on anger and aversion is wrong.