Posted on 08/30/2013 11:24:52 AM PDT by nickcarraway
Im predisposed to favor a punitive air strike against Syria for its apparent use of chemical weapons against civilians. But there are some important questions being raised by skeptics of such a strike.
The primary question centers on the legality or moral legitimacy of attacking a country with whom we are not at war. The clearest justifications for military action dont apply. This is not a case of self-defense, or defense of an ally, or the prevention of genocide. There is an international treaty banning the use of chemical weapons against civilians, but Syria didnt sign it, perhaps correctly calculating that it would one day need to use such weapons. We would be enforcing an informal norm against the use of chemical weapons against civilians.
I think the enforcement of such a norm is legitimate and would make Bashar al-Assad and other dictators hesitate before using such weapons in the future. But if youre resting the morality of your attack on such a slender reed, you need very strong evidence that the regime youre targeting actually used chemical weapons. And the administrations case is starting to look shaky:
Multiple U.S. officials used the phrase "not a slam dunk" to describe the intelligence picture
A report by the Office of the Director for National Intelligence outlining that evidence against Syria is thick with caveats. It builds a case that Assad's forces are most likely responsible while outlining gaps in the U.S. intelligence picture.
British intelligence asserts that it has a limited but growing body of intelligence which supports the judgement that the regime was responsible for the attacks and that they were conducted to help clear the Opposition from strategic parts of Damascus. That "limited" bit does not provide the level of certainty I was hoping to hear.
The weaker legal basis for a military strike requires a higher factual basis of proof. The Obama administration needs to nail down its case (which it is reportedly due to present publicly today), and if it cant, it needs to back down.
Update: The UK Parliament has voted not to participate in any strike against Syria. Meanwhile, Obama is apparently ready to go it alone. This seems like a dangerous combination: If you're enforcing an international norm, you ought to have not only very solid evidence that it was broken but also at least some international support. Otherwise it is less an international norm than an American norm.
It's one thing if the case involves an imminent massacre, like in Libya. But the urgency of action, and potential benefits, are much lower in this case. I don't think we're in danger of being sucked into a war -- that's just people assuming the most recent historical experience will be repeated, the same mistake that always happens in foreign policy. But the case for action just keeps fraying around the edges at every point. At the very least, the burden of proof on Obama to produce unimpeachable evidence for Syrian guilt is extremely high.
Our new Syrian MISADVENTURE is a DIVERSION from all the domestic scandals besetting this gang of criminals.
Hey, all you stupid low and no information voters. Don’t look there. Look at this shiny thing over HERE!
I’m still waiting to find out why we ever went into Afghanistan. Re Syria, BO will tell us how we will benefit as soon as Valerie, the Muslim Brotherhood and the speech writers let him know.
0bama's quest to install terrorist groups to head Middle East governments is beyond worrisome. Thank God Egypt finally figured out what 0bama tried to do to them.
So, the prevailing attitude is tha killing 100,000+ civilians with bombs and bullets is acceptable but killing 1,000+ with gas is not? Right?
Isn't it true that dead is dead in either case?
That’s true, too.. IRS scandal, Benghazi, DOJ spying on media, NSA spying on everyone.. POOF!!! And meanwhile, Iran gets closer to nukes.
There is an international treaty banning the use of chemical weapons against civilians....
And Syria didn’t sign it.
“Meanwhile, Obama is apparently ready to go it alone.”
But not Valerie Jarrett and that’s who matters
Classic liberal tactic; State a half truth, omitting a very material fact, and then base the entire argument on it, ignoring that the inclusion of the missing fact would completely eviscerate their argument.
What it really amounts to is a very clever way of lying. And this regime, with it’s more than willing media accomplices, is very good at the serial telling of an infinite number of these lies. In fact, I don’t think they are remotely capable of being honest about one damn thing. And that includes the media. That’s why I like this forum; it is a great way to find the truth.
In our progressive media circus world does it even matter if he has the goods?
Hussein killed over a million, not just 1,400 and the vicious vermin still go after us for Iraq.
So, by their logic, lets wait until 2 million are killed by any means.
Actually, I would prefer if we just wait until they annihilate each other then problem solved. A Syria without any Muslims would be a much better Syria.
who says it was going to be a Massacre in Libya? Ghadafi was going to attack in Benghazi which was a Hot bed Of Alqueda which we found out,to clean out the Al queda Bunch and for that Obama killed him
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.