The U.S. and Syria - by Dia
Dia on 12/9/2013 at 20:16
Okay, I've been waiting for someone to start a thread about what's going on with Syria, President Obama's intentions to force the U.S. to become involved in yet
another conflict in a Middle Eastern country, etc., and since I'm not the most knowledgeable person on any kind of politics I was loathe to open that can of worms myself. That is until I received a response (which I totally did NOT expect) from Congressman Paul Ryan; a response to my e-mail to him of about two weeks ago asking politely that he try to convince other congressmen that backing Obama on the whole 'let's bomb the hell outta Syria now' was a very bad idea (and underscoring the fact that over 90% of the U.S. citizens were totally against such involvement), asking him to use his influence to dissuade his fellow congressmen and the President from rushing us headlong into another Mid-East fiasco. After I sent my e-mail off I was immediately embarrassed because of the fact that I feel I am rather ignorant about politics and world events, for the most part, and in retrospect my e-mail seemed childish and naïve; but what's done is done, right? I felt strongly about the issue and wanted to feel that I was actually doing something, not just sitting on FB complaining about it. This is the response I received today:
Quote:
From Congressman Paul Ryan
CONSTITUENT HOTLINE: 1-888-909-RYAN (7926)
paulryan.house.gov | RSS | YouTube | Twitter | Facebook
Ms. Claudia Horn
Racine, WI
Dear Claudia:
Thank you for contacting me regarding your concerns about the situation in Syria. I appreciate you taking the time to let me know your views on this important issue. You raised some interesting and insightful points regarding the U.S. military's potential involvement in Syria.
On August 21, 2013, Syrian President Bashar Assad used chemical weapons that killed more than 1,400 of his country's people. This is a horrific act, and it demands a firm response. President Obama proposed a loosely defined strategy to deter President Assad. However, I believe his strategy will damage our credibility and make the situation in Syria worse. Accordingly, I cannot support his proposal.
Following this attack, the United States must carefully weigh all options when determining the best approach to respond. The Obama administration outlined three goals: to hold the Syrian regime accountable, to degrade its chemical-weapons capability, and to deter further aggression. To do so, the administration encouraged strikes that would be "limited in their nature, duration, and scope". Alternatively, the administration has conceded a limited strike will not change the situation on the ground. So, there is little reason to believe the proposed mission will achieve any of these goals.
First, a limited strike will not hold President Assad accountable. Since the war broke out in 2011, over 100,000 people have died—including 40,000 civilians. The Obama administration has ruled out a regime change; so, Assad knows he can ride things out. Rather than deter him, a limited strike will merely embolden Assad. As one leader of the Free Syrian Army stated, "A limited strike would be worse than nothing."
Second, a limited strike will not significantly degrade Assad's chemical-weapons capability. Last July, General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, warned in a letter to Congress that the Syrian regime "could withstand limited strikes by dispersing its assets". He added that to gain control over most of Assad's stockpiles would require a no-fly zone; "hundreds of aircraft s , ships [and] submarines"; and thousands of " ground forces". The proposal put forth by the President does not include any of the above.
Third, a limited strike will not deter our enemies. President Obama says we must punish Assad to discourage other regimes, like Iran and North Korea, from developing weapons of mass destructions. However, a feeble response as proposed by the administration will only affirm their resolve.
Overall, the President's proposal will fail on all counts, and the unintended consequences have the potential to be destructive. A military strike could kill innocent civilians and earn the ire of everyone involved. Additionally, his proposal could drop America's standing in the Middle East even further. After making the case for a firm, rapid response, President Obama called for an indefinite delay on September 10, 2013, demonstrating the administration lacks a clearly defined strategy. Instead, the administration is suggesting we follow Russia's lead.
I believe Syria's civil war isn't our fight; however, we do have a stake in the outcome. Assad's regime is a state sponsor of terror, and some parts of the opposition are affiliated with al Qaeda. Regardless of who wins, our national security may be threatened. Instead of the proposals put forth by the President, we should tighten sanctions on Assad's regime and give aid to the moderate elements of the opposition.
The best punishment for Assad's war crimes is for the moderates to prevail. Unfortunately, the President's ill-conceived, half-hearted proposal will do little to help the situation in Syria. Please rest assured that as I weigh the options before Congress, I will not lose sight of the effects that such action would have on the lives of our troops, their families, and the security of our nation.
In the meantime, if you wish to share additional information with me concerning this issue, please feel free to contact me by calling, emailing, writing, or faxing me. Please be advised that mail sent to my Washington office is subject to an additional two-week delay due to increased mail security.
Again, thank you for contacting me. If I can be of further assistance to you regarding this or any other matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. I am always happy to respond and be of service to you.
Sincerely,
Paul Ryan
Serving Wisconsin's 1st District
Thoughts, anyone?
june gloom on 12/9/2013 at 20:57
I'm starting to wonder if Obama has the balls to follow through on this after all. There's a proposal getting passed around about the possibility of the strike being held off indefinitely if Syria agrees to give up its chemical weapons -- this after a week of saying "we're gonna do this guys, we're gonna lay a big curly one on 'em!" There's no wag-the-dog moment here -- the Syria strike is the only thing on Obama's plate right now. He's got no scandals or anything else to distract us from. So why would he even bother? He's facing opposition from his own party -- and what support he has from the Republicans is anemic and mostly "hawkish by default" -- McCain and Boehner for example.
So no, I don't think a strike is going to happen.
Vivian on 13/9/2013 at 00:36
Ultimately, do you want to fucking torpedo the pathetic flotsam of your economy by spending millions on making more foreigners explode. I think thats the only relevant viewpoint at the moment.
henke on 13/9/2013 at 07:34
As a foreigner I'm mostly just hoping America steps up and plays World Police again so the rest of us don't have to. Come on guys, just one more war? You can take a timeout after this one, promise. :erg:
Quote:
Instead of the proposals put forth by the President, we should tighten sanctions on Assad's regime and give aid to the moderate elements of the opposition.
Could someone please explain, to a layman, what Paul Ryan means by this? Is this something that could actually get the Syrian government to stop gassing people to death?
Fafhrd on 13/9/2013 at 08:21
Not really. Sanctions have never been terribly effective against dictatorships.
And we're already giving aid to the moderate elements of the opposition.
Ostriig on 13/9/2013 at 09:15
Quote Posted by Paul Ryan
On August 21, 2013, Syrian President Bashar Assad used chemical weapons that killed more than 1,400 of his country's people.
Am I the only one who's not yet fully on board with this? Who the authors of the attack are, I mean. I'm not saying it
wasn't Assad, but I've yet to see any proof that it was, and the context is a bit suspect. The US, UK, France claim they have definitive proof, and I do understand why they might not be able to release that to the public, but it doesn't change the fact that we haven't seen it. Or have I missed a news bulletin?
On the other hand, it is curious that the Syrian regime would be so, shall we say "bold" so as to use chemical weapons on the very first day of the UN inspection. I seem to recall that for a couple of months up to that point the media was reporting consistent progress for the Assad regime, anyway. To top it all off there've also been (
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22424188) allegations of the Rebels using sarin back in Spring, not that that had solid evidence behind it either.
That's an interesting angle, especially in light of the (
http://www.euractiv.com/energy/eu-favoured-nabucco-project-hist-news-528919) failure of the NABUCCO pipeline project this Summer. Gazprom's iron grip on the European gas supply is kind of a big deal and it gives Moscow ample opportunity to flex its muscles and this is particularly evident in Eastern Europe. It's a big enough deal inside the EU, I remember the Romanian presidency was
pissed when NABUCCO fell apart, but it's even worse next door - Russia's already been playing with trade with the Ukraine and Moldova, but in the latter's case there was an explicit warning from a visting official that with winter approaching he hoped they (
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/04/us-moldova-russia-idUSBRE98312F20130904) "won't freeze."
LoLion on 13/9/2013 at 09:56
Actually the first thing that should be noted is that there is very little clear evidence that the regime really was behind the large chemical attack that caused current controversy. At this point the main bits of evidence seem to be some satellite footage provided by the French that supposedly shows that the government forces launched missiles into the attacked area (which is indirect evidence at best) and a transcript of unclear origins (could be US, could be Israeli) that supposedly shows conversation between someone at the Syrian ministry of defence and a military officer where the use of chemical weapons is mentioned. However IIRC the transcript is rather dodgy and was never provided in full even to the foreign affairs committee of US congress. There is also talk of other intercepted communication between the regime officials in which they expressed outrage at the attack and claimed that they had nothing to do with it.
There is also the argument that the use of chemical weapons on such scale would not make sense for the regime, since it actually started to gain the upper hand over the rebels lately and anyone could predict that something like this will cause problems on the international scene. That being said there were reports of minor chemical weapons attacks launched by
both sides in the past, an Al-Qaeda chemical weapons lab was discovered in Iraq and Sarin was also found in possession of the rebels on Turkish territory some time ago, so its not like Assad is the only clear culprit here. On the other hand it would make a lot of sense for the non-Syrian fighters (who now come from all over the middle east and apparently even from Chechnya to join the latest jihad) to gas some local civilians in hope of making US provide them with an air force. Plus many of the foreign jihadists likely subscribe to so called Takfirism (an ideology that claims that whoever is not clearly fighting against the non-Islamic governments is a heretic), thus giving them all the reasons they need to use the local population in such manner.
So basically - the whole “ZOMG lets bomb Syria coz US intel community says Assad did it!!1!” thing doesn't really have that much credibility, since the US intel community is little less than credible these days (what with the “mobile WMD labs” that Saddam allegedly had etc). Also while I am no expert on international law (not that international law has any relevance to US foreign policy mind you) I wonder if it would even be legal to take action against Assad in case the rebels were the first to use chemical weapons in the war (impossible to prove who started it at this point) and (if we, for the sake of argument entertain the possibility that the regime was behind the large sarin attack) Assad simply responded in kind (albeit in disproportionate manner). As far as I know the right to retaliate is not really controversial as far as both conventional and WMD attacks are concerned.
Another matter is that the credibility of the western world itself will suffer even more if the intervention takes place. Lets see:
Tuareg nationalists + Islamic rebels vs inept military regime in Mali that overthrew a democratically elected president? Lets support the regime (France helped the regime defeat the Tuaregs/Islamists among other things on the grounds of Islamists=Terrorists)!
Egyptian army overthrowing a democratically elected Islamist president, while gunning down dozens of unarmed demonstrators in the streets? Sure OK (US supplies of weapons for the army will go on, no discernible opposition outside of the general diplomatic mutterings)!
Highly westernised secular dictator allied to Iran and housing the only remaining Russian military base in the Mid East vs weak “moderate” (Free Syrian Army) and strong Islamist rebels (Al-Nusra Front and others)? Oh shit, down with the dictatorship!!!!!!!
Unsurprisingly its France and USA who push the current intervention - surprisingly it would be largely on behalf of the demonised Islamic terrorists who otherwise get pursued by the drones or even fought by ground forces if they show up outside of Syria.
At this point I think that after the UK backed out of the intervention thanks to the vote in parliament, Obama might have hoped for the same outcome in the congress, which would allow him to back down without losing face too much (“our greatest strength is democracy” etc). After all he manoeuvred himself into corner with his previous comments about the “red line,” which is something a statesman should never do. The Russians did pretty awesome thing with the current proposal on getting the regime chemical weapons under UN control and in theory this could allow Obama to back out of this too. In reality the rebels will still have their own chemical weapons, so the attacks will likely continue anyway - and it will be easy to blame the regime for them. Which is not to say that Assad is not a huge asshole, however he is just one of many that are involved in the war.
And by the way if there is an intervention and the Assad regime eventually falls... guess who is going to grab all the chemical weapons that might be left behind by the army?
Of course the if the war continues it will create many problems of its own in the region, for example regarding the refugees that are already flooding the neighbouring countries and might not be able to go back anytime soon (perhaps the Syrians could be new Palestinians... who knows?). The civilians are suffering immensely in general, but the bottom line is that with the ongoing financial crisis, horrible Mid Eastern record and very little chance that the limited airstrikes proposed by Obama will actually do anything positive the west should probably come to terms with the fact that the last two decades that were filled with “humanitarian interventions” of all kinds are gone and we should now focus on getting our own collapsing civilisation in order before we again get back to trying to make a better world by randomly dropping bombs on foreigners.
TLDR: Bombing Syria would be bad idea on sooo many levels so don't do it plx, mkay?
Quote:
That's an interesting angle, especially in light of the failure of the NABUCCO pipeline project this Summer. Gazprom's iron grip on the European gas supply is kind of a big deal and it gives Moscow ample opportunity to flex its muscles and this is particularly evident in Eastern Europe. It's a big enough deal inside the EU, I remember the Romanian presidency was pissed when NABUCCO fell apart, but it's even worse next door - Russia's already been playing with trade with the Ukraine and Moldova, but in the latter's case there was an explicit warning from a visting official that with winter approaching he hoped they "won't freeze." .
Definitely! Energy security is a huge topic especially in the new eastern members states of the EU who are almost totally dependent on Russian supplies of gas. The almost annual problems between Russia and Ukraine about whether or not should Ukraine pay normal market prices for the gas and the gas outages that follow them have pretty terrible impact in the central and eastern Europe. Which doesn't prevent the western part of EU from making smug remarks about how the easterners still did not get over their cold war resentments against Russia of course...
SubJeff on 13/9/2013 at 10:18
I suppose the thing for me isn't the evidence for use of chemical weapons, which is some "red line" or whatever, but more just the fact that 100,000 people have been killed and really no one gives a crap.
The worst thing is this weird hypocrisy that's going on. It's twofold:
a. I thought we'd decided that mass killings were a Bad Thing. Without wanting to Godwin the thread, what happened to "Never Again"? Because there is a sectarian element to this and even if there wasn't fuck man 1000s of people are dying and we know that Assad's regime is some total bs (just by looking at the election results alone!) so wtf is going on with the morality here?
b. The blatant hypocrisy of the rest of the Muslim world. It's not just other Arab nations, it's everyone. Israel kills 100 people as response to terrorist attack and they go BALLISTIC, protests in places like Indonesia, Muslims in the West up in arms over it etc. (And just for clarity; I don't support what Israel does or how they do it.) But some Muslims kill 1000s of other Muslims? Not a peep.
