let em work it out

Seems cynical and callous.

Israel Backs Limited Strike Against Syria

When the uprising began, many here saw Mr. Assad, who like his predecessor and father had maintained quiet on the border, as “the devil you know,” and therefore preferable to the rebels, some of whom were aligned with Al Qaeda or Sunni militants like the Palestinian Hamas faction.  

As the death toll has mounted, more Israelis joined a camp led by Amos Yadlin, a former head of Israeli military intelligence, who argues that the devil you know is, actually, a devil who should be ousted sooner rather than later.  

That split remains. But as hopes have dimmed for the emergence of a moderate, secular rebel force that might forge democratic change and even constructive dialogue with Israel, a third approach has gained traction: Let the bad guys burn themselves out.  

“The perpetuation of the conflict is absolutely serving Israel’s interest,” said Nathan Thrall, a Jerusalem-based analyst for the International Crisis Group.  

Tamara Cofman Wittes, director of the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution, was one of several experts who said this view differs from the callous “let them all kill each other” shrug popular here during the long-running Iran-Iraq war. Rather, Ms. Wittes said, the reasoning behind a strike that would not significantly change the Syrian landscape is that the West needs more time to prop up opposition forces it finds more palatable and prepare them for future governing. 

She cited dangers for Israel if the conflict continues to drag on, including more efforts to transfer advanced weapons to Hezbollah, instability in Lebanon and pressure on Jordan.

Iraqis, Looking Across Border, See Replays of Past and Fears for the Future

As Qaeda-allied rebels took on a growing role in Syria, that case became harder to make. And while the Iraqi government has maintained in public that it is neutral on Syria, and wishes only for a political solution, the reality is that the Shiite ruling class here is rooting for an Assad victory. 

Last week, as the debate over possible military strikes on Syria intensified in Washington, Mr. Maliki met here with the American ambassador, Robert S. Beecroft, to voice his opposition.  

Afterward, in an interview, Ali al-Mousawi, Mr. Maliki’s spokesman, summarized the exchange.  

“We told him that such action, as we see it, will not help the Syrian people, and that the regime in Syria will not be affected by such a strike,” said Mr. Mousawi. “But Assad may gain more benefits, support and legitimacy. Therefore, we think that the biggest losers are going to be the people of Syria and the neighboring countries.”

humanitarian internationalists urge caution

Obama’s National-Security Argument for Striking Syria Is Terrible by Jonathan Chait

An oft-repeated liberal critique of the Bush administration, formulated by Daniel Davies, was that “Good ideas do not need lots of lies told about them in order to gain public acceptance.” I don’t actually agree with that as a hard and fast rule. Sometimes Americans oppose good ideas. (That’s why, for instance, Democrats prefer to defend climate policy as a self-interested stimulus for “green jobs” rather than as a benevolent contribution to the future of humanity.) But the administration’s willingness to stoop to demagogic national-security rationales certainly makes me more suspicious, on the margins, of the merits of the policy itself. Syria may not be Iraq, but the spectacle of administration figures peddling dubious rationales for war is a discomfiting throwback to a decade ago.

Arm and Shame by Tom Friedman

That’s why I think the best response to the use of poison gas by President Bashar al-Assad is not a cruise missile attack on Assad’s forces, but an increase in the training and arming of the Free Syrian Army — including the antitank and antiaircraft weapons it’s long sought. This has three virtues: 1) Better arming responsible rebels units, and they do exist, can really hurt the Assad regime in a sustained way — that is the whole point of deterrence — without exposing America to global opprobrium for bombing Syria; 2) Better arming the rebels actually enables them to protect themselves more effectively from this regime; 3) Better arming the rebels might increase the influence on the ground of the more moderate opposition groups over the jihadist ones — and eventually may put more pressure on Assad, or his allies, to negotiate a political solution. 

By contrast, just limited bombing of Syria from the air makes us look weak at best, even if we hit targets. And if we kill lots of Syrians, it enables Assad to divert attention from the 1,400 he has gassed to death to those we harmed. Also, who knows what else our bombing of Syria could set in motion. (Would Iran decide it must now rush through a nuclear bomb?)

It's not as if Syria is defending their use of chemical weapons

‘They must be really bad if even Hitler wouldn’t use them’ by Ezra Klein

EK: So that makes it sound like there’s no reason to hit Syria. 

RP: I would word it this way: Bombing Syria would be the strongest possible upholding and reinforcement of the norm. Will the norm fall by the wayside if that doesn’t happen? No, I don’t think it will. But if there was a strike to enforce it, that would be a watershed moment in many respects. Norms regarding warfare have often been quite effective, like the treatment of prisoners of war. They’re sometimes violated, of course, but a lot of them are treated with a minimal level of decency. These norms trudge on, despite violations, because of beliefs about reciprocity and decency. One violation does not destroy a norm. What matters is how people respond to it. 

And you’ll notice something strange about this episode. It’s not as if Syria is defending their use of chemical weapons. They’re denying it. And that helps contribute to the notion this is an unacceptable process. In World War I, the Germans argued that gas might be more humane than bayonets or getting blown up. Some people think that the Bush administration’s view on enhanced interrogation techniques struck a real blow against norms against torture. No one is defending chemical warfare. All the dynamics here have served to highlight that this is a salient norm in global politics today.

Assad's not going to pull a Ben Ali and leave for Iran

When Chemical Weapons Are Smart Politics by Joshua Keating

He talks to the authors of the Dictator's Handbook who say:

First of all, using chemical weapons has absolutely cemented that for Assad there can be no soft landing. That has two effects: Domestically, it has signaled to his coalition that they should stick with him. He’s there for the long run and there’s no easy way out for him, so they know he won’t desert them. These crimes against humanity have also made it very clear that it’s going to be very bad for the Alawites if there’s any political transition, which makes them even more loyal to him. They have nowhere else to go. 

It’s also been a brilliant play internationally. The extent of the chemical weapons has not be so much that Obama’s willing to put ground forces in. The airstrikes they are discussing are unlikely to be a decisive military factor. And Russia and Iran would love to snub the nose of the U.S. and this is a perfect way to do it. The U.S. is going to have to go it alone if they do it, and this is a great way for Russia and Iran to make the U.S. look impotent and pathetic. Russia’s going to continue supplying [Assad] with weapons and Iran’s going to keep supplying him with money. So this was actually a brilliant play from him.

This makes Iran, Russia, and China look bad. The long term goal of the U.S. should be to change Russian and Iranian attitudes such that they don't love to snub the nose of the U.S.

How did the West convince Yeltsin to let go of Milosevic? It was after the Russian debt default and Putin took over shortly afterwards.

Crimes of Saddam and Assad

Bashar al-Assad

1) violently cracked down on peaceful protests which sparked a civil war.

2) allegedly used Sarin Gas to kill 1400 Syrians including 400 children. Sarin gas is a nerve agent. It was classified as a WMD in UNSC Resolution 687.

3) invaded nobody*

Saddam Hussein

1) invaded Iran and started Iran-Iraq war.

2) committed genocide against Iraqi Kurds, named the the al-Anfal campaign

3) On 16 March 1988, the Kurdish town of Halabja was attacked with a mix of mustard gas and nerve agents, killing 5,000 civilians, and maiming, disfiguring, or seriously debilitating 10,000 more.

4) invaded and annexed a Kuwait, a member of the United Nations

5) Persian Gulf War and the massacre of the Shia in southern Iraq

6) defied UN weapon inspectors

Obama explicitly said he doesn't want an invasion and occupation of Syria, but things could spiral out of control.

*Added: I forgot to add Syria's involvement in Lebanon where they assassinated Rafik Hariri in 2005.

slippery slope

TWO MINDS ON SYRIA by George Packer

It only escalates if we allow ourselves to get dragged in deeper. Kosovo didn’t escalate.

This isn’t Kosovo. The Syrian rebels aren’t the K.L.A. Assad isn’t Milosevic. Putin isn’t Yeltsin. This is far worse. Kosovo became a U.N. protectorate. That’s not going to happen in Syria.

You think Putin is going to risk a military confrontation with the U.S. and Europe?

I think Russia isn’t going to let Assad go down. Neither is Iran or Hezbollah. So they’ll escalate. This could be the thing that triggers an Israel-Iran war, and how do we stay out of that? My God, it feels like August, 1914.

I'm afraid it will escalate. It may trigger an Israel-Iran war. Once we launch missiles we're involved. (We may be involved by secretly helping the rebels.) There's also the possibility that Israel will feel more alone and may feel the need to go it alone.

Obama said explicitly that military might can't solve this conflict. He said America is war weary and will not send in troops or even take a side or even try to topple Assad.

However it may be just that they'll launch missiles because of the chemical attack and do nothing else. If there's another chemical attack, they'll launch missiles again and do nothing else. And so on. But there is a risk of escalation and retaliation.

Hopefully Obama is counting on the Republicans in the House to block this. My sense is that they'll go along with it. (How much pull do Boehner and AIPAC have?) Rep. King of New York believes the "isolationists" will block it.

If they do go along hopefully Obama doesn't escalate.

12 dimensional chess on Syria and the insane clown posse

Holbo comments

I’m still hoping this is some kind of rope-a-dope, in which Obama goads all the Republicans into coming out against intervention in Syria, because Obama is for it. So then he can fold and say: I’m glad we have bi-partisan consensus on the need to fold our cards this time.

Syria

Bombing Syria Seems Like A Bad Idea by John Holbo

I am afraid that Obama going to Congress means they are planning on the possibility of a drawn-out war.

Holbo links to Boing Boing:

Looks like we're going to war again
Looks like we're going to war
Looks like we're going to war again
Syria here come the bombs
You don't think that we do this just for fun, do you?
Something has to be done
Now look at Miley Cyrus' tongue