![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
the-rukh.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsThis is my point of view. I'm not a political analyst, nor an Arab historian.
Unless you have been living in blissful glorious ignorance you might have noticed there's a thing going on in Syria. Part of the thing is multiple uses of Sarin gas during the year to murder Syrian rebels.
The bigger thing is a really messy civil war. Encouraged by revolts in other parts of the Arab world, citizens of Syria have decided that while 33 years of despotic rule was tolerable, 34 years is right out.
As with any power struggle, vested interests have been doing what vested interests do and sticking their spoons in the pot. Russia has been blustering, China has been eyebrow furrowing, Iran has been frothing. Saudi Arabia is likely funding radical Sslamic groups. The usual. A lot of ink has been spilled about the motivations of the various actors in the game, both here and elsewhere. Safe to say, there's a lot of tension, and a lot of big players have a stake.
So, it's not surprising that when evidence of chemical weapons usage against citizens was found, there's been a lot of disagreement on what to do, and even on who is using chemical weapons against rebels. Some even claim the rebels are murdering hundreds of rebels with military grade chemical warfare.
To be fair to Syria, they are not signatory of the global chemical weapons ban, thought they are signatory to the Geneva protocol outlawing the use of chemical weapons in warfare, though with the reservation that Israel is not a country. Because that was important. While the treaty only banned chemical weapons to be used against other countries, it has become part of customary international law to consider it banned in internal conflicts also.
The ICRC concluded in 2005 that customary international humanitarian law includes a ban on the use of chemical weapons in internal as well as international conflicts, and an appellate chamber in the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) noted in 1995, in Prosecutor v. Tadic, that ‘there had undisputedly emerged a general consensus in the international community on the principle that the use of chemical weapons is also prohibited in internal armed conflicts’. (Link)
So this has become an international political football match. Especially after August last year Obama made a hard line speech that use of Syria's known chemical weapons stockpile in war would lead to retaliation. Russia and Iran have investments in maintaining their political status quo in Syria, and would love to make the US look impotent. Republicans have declined to acknowledge other countries exist and just want a chance to tear Obama down.
Things were looking pretty certain that the world was going to go through with bopping Syria on the nose, but its been a surprise that suddenly people are turning the other way. Some see letting Syria have a free pass to break international law as a victory for democracy.
If the world just shrugged and let the western countries go do their thing, it would be a news story for a couple days about missile strikes on key Syrian chemical sites, Russia raging impotently and more news on Brittney Spears or whomever the vampires are talking about these days. Lets face it. If it weren't for the politics involved, this wouldn't be a thing. Well, besides to the hundreds of dead Syrians. They might care a bit. But, to put it in perspective, that's 00.1% of the people who have died in the Syrian civil war so far, half of those have been civilians.
On the other hand, making it a controversy is causing a lot of parties to double down on their commitment. Including Republicans. I called it a week ago on another site that Obama's smart move was to not unilaterally attack but send this to congress. I'm kicking myself for not mentioning it on T_P so I could point and say I told you so! The consequence of sending it to congress is Republicans get the joy of choosing between throwing their legacy under the bus or agreeing with ... that guy. Democrats get to sit back and make speeches to score political points with whichever constituency they are courting.
Right now, there's a good portion of the US that is against any sort of punishment for Syria. But what if that changes? Obama wasn't hatched from an illuminati lizardman egg to become president and unite the world under a New World Order yesterday. After the Iraq debacle, its certain the evidence has been vetted five or six times over. What will likely happen is democrats will be marginally against, Republicans will be literally incapable of siding with ... that guy. Obama gets to score a moral victory of being against WMD usage but doesn't have to deal with the repercussions of carrying out a military assault on another country.
But I think that's just the tip of the iceberg. I think the president is still handing out the rope. The evidence has been slowly released, and I think it's for a reason. It's good for Democrats if Republicans are doubling down on the idea that Syria, the state in the region with chemical weapons, is not the one that used said chemical weapons they are known to have, against their enemies in a war. Then as information is released, the tides of opinion shift, Republicans look silly and lose support with war hawks, moral crusaders, all sorts. Even among the people who don't want any sort of punishment even if its certain that Syria used chemical weapons to murder civilians and children.
Even further, if Congress does end up siding with Obama, the smart thing to do is still not to blow his wad on bopping Syria on the nose and then dealing with the political fallout.
The smart thing to do is to bring it to the UN. On the international stage, Russia is going to find themselves in an interesting spot if international opinion ends up siding with the US. Even if Russia and China are successful in hobbling the security council. The US, France, the UK etc get to make valiant and very moral speeches about opposing using WMDs on your own civilians, but again don't have to deal with sticking their head in to the fire, and as opinions change, Russia, Iran, etc are left as the loser.
Ultimately, it doesn't matter what actually happened. It matters what the world ends up believing. Russia, and a few American Republicans have bet big on their hands. Its likely Obama has a pretty good hand himself though, and a lot of Western countries already think so. Ultimately what people will judge Obama's actions on is the political consequences, because that's what this about.
Unless you have been living in blissful glorious ignorance you might have noticed there's a thing going on in Syria. Part of the thing is multiple uses of Sarin gas during the year to murder Syrian rebels.
The bigger thing is a really messy civil war. Encouraged by revolts in other parts of the Arab world, citizens of Syria have decided that while 33 years of despotic rule was tolerable, 34 years is right out.
As with any power struggle, vested interests have been doing what vested interests do and sticking their spoons in the pot. Russia has been blustering, China has been eyebrow furrowing, Iran has been frothing. Saudi Arabia is likely funding radical Sslamic groups. The usual. A lot of ink has been spilled about the motivations of the various actors in the game, both here and elsewhere. Safe to say, there's a lot of tension, and a lot of big players have a stake.
So, it's not surprising that when evidence of chemical weapons usage against citizens was found, there's been a lot of disagreement on what to do, and even on who is using chemical weapons against rebels. Some even claim the rebels are murdering hundreds of rebels with military grade chemical warfare.
To be fair to Syria, they are not signatory of the global chemical weapons ban, thought they are signatory to the Geneva protocol outlawing the use of chemical weapons in warfare, though with the reservation that Israel is not a country. Because that was important. While the treaty only banned chemical weapons to be used against other countries, it has become part of customary international law to consider it banned in internal conflicts also.
The ICRC concluded in 2005 that customary international humanitarian law includes a ban on the use of chemical weapons in internal as well as international conflicts, and an appellate chamber in the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) noted in 1995, in Prosecutor v. Tadic, that ‘there had undisputedly emerged a general consensus in the international community on the principle that the use of chemical weapons is also prohibited in internal armed conflicts’. (Link)
So this has become an international political football match. Especially after August last year Obama made a hard line speech that use of Syria's known chemical weapons stockpile in war would lead to retaliation. Russia and Iran have investments in maintaining their political status quo in Syria, and would love to make the US look impotent. Republicans have declined to acknowledge other countries exist and just want a chance to tear Obama down.
Things were looking pretty certain that the world was going to go through with bopping Syria on the nose, but its been a surprise that suddenly people are turning the other way. Some see letting Syria have a free pass to break international law as a victory for democracy.
If the world just shrugged and let the western countries go do their thing, it would be a news story for a couple days about missile strikes on key Syrian chemical sites, Russia raging impotently and more news on Brittney Spears or whomever the vampires are talking about these days. Lets face it. If it weren't for the politics involved, this wouldn't be a thing. Well, besides to the hundreds of dead Syrians. They might care a bit. But, to put it in perspective, that's 00.1% of the people who have died in the Syrian civil war so far, half of those have been civilians.
On the other hand, making it a controversy is causing a lot of parties to double down on their commitment. Including Republicans. I called it a week ago on another site that Obama's smart move was to not unilaterally attack but send this to congress. I'm kicking myself for not mentioning it on T_P so I could point and say I told you so! The consequence of sending it to congress is Republicans get the joy of choosing between throwing their legacy under the bus or agreeing with ... that guy. Democrats get to sit back and make speeches to score political points with whichever constituency they are courting.
Right now, there's a good portion of the US that is against any sort of punishment for Syria. But what if that changes? Obama wasn't hatched from an illuminati lizardman egg to become president and unite the world under a New World Order yesterday. After the Iraq debacle, its certain the evidence has been vetted five or six times over. What will likely happen is democrats will be marginally against, Republicans will be literally incapable of siding with ... that guy. Obama gets to score a moral victory of being against WMD usage but doesn't have to deal with the repercussions of carrying out a military assault on another country.
But I think that's just the tip of the iceberg. I think the president is still handing out the rope. The evidence has been slowly released, and I think it's for a reason. It's good for Democrats if Republicans are doubling down on the idea that Syria, the state in the region with chemical weapons, is not the one that used said chemical weapons they are known to have, against their enemies in a war. Then as information is released, the tides of opinion shift, Republicans look silly and lose support with war hawks, moral crusaders, all sorts. Even among the people who don't want any sort of punishment even if its certain that Syria used chemical weapons to murder civilians and children.
Even further, if Congress does end up siding with Obama, the smart thing to do is still not to blow his wad on bopping Syria on the nose and then dealing with the political fallout.
The smart thing to do is to bring it to the UN. On the international stage, Russia is going to find themselves in an interesting spot if international opinion ends up siding with the US. Even if Russia and China are successful in hobbling the security council. The US, France, the UK etc get to make valiant and very moral speeches about opposing using WMDs on your own civilians, but again don't have to deal with sticking their head in to the fire, and as opinions change, Russia, Iran, etc are left as the loser.
Ultimately, it doesn't matter what actually happened. It matters what the world ends up believing. Russia, and a few American Republicans have bet big on their hands. Its likely Obama has a pretty good hand himself though, and a lot of Western countries already think so. Ultimately what people will judge Obama's actions on is the political consequences, because that's what this about.
(no subject)
Date: 2/9/13 21:32 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 3/9/13 17:20 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 3/9/13 17:48 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 3/9/13 17:54 (UTC)You better stop trying.
(no subject)
Date: 3/9/13 18:38 (UTC)