Another story of Syria

[dexeron.livejournal.com]

Jon Stewart returned last night, and the talk of the day was, of course, Syria (and he, of course, tried to inject a little humor into the situation.) However, the interview segment with which he closed out the show was anything but humorous, bringing in Andrew Harper, the head of the United Nations Refugee Agency in Jordan. This is the important story, in my opinion: the story of millions of people displaced from their homes, many of them women and children. It's also the story of nations such as Jordan who are doing what they can to provide a safe haven for some of these people, and the incredible work being done by the UN, an organization that is so often derided by folks here in the U.S., but which does certain things very well; this is one of them.

Any discussion of our response to the situation in Syria should involve the discussion of how we can help these people. While we're talking about what message we should send to the Assad regime, or whether or not we should act militarily, and in which way, here is an obvious human crisis where we could all put our money where our mouths are. I'd prefer to see this story given the lion's share of airtime on our cable news stations, over constant redundant talking heads debating back and forth on questions of chemical weapons and factions and military responses and political calculus.

Here's the interview, in two parts:

If the embedding doesn't work for some reason, here are direct links:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-september-3-2013/exclusive---andrew-harper-extended-interview-pt--1

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-september-3-2013/exclusive---andrew-harper-extended-interview-pt--2

Comments

[dexeron.livejournal.com]

Is concern for the plight of refugees a specifically neo-conservative value?

---

With regards to the larger Syria question, I think the primary difference between the neo-conservative (under GWB) response and the "progressive" one is best expressed in the hesitation displayed by many progressives over the proper course to take. However, finally agreeing that miilitary action may need to be taken isn't the sole purview of "neo-conservatives." The main difference is that neocons don't bother to question the need before jumping into the fray.

Remember, when we went into Afghanistan, there was very little opposition, even among progressives, because the case was well laid out that those who had attacked us were in that country, and many agreed that something had to be done in response. Yes, some others simply wanted revenge. But overall, agreeing with entry into that nation had nothing to do with neo-conservative or progressive politics.

Likewise when we were led to believe that Iraq had an Al-Qaeda connection and/or WMD, many progressives were willing to go in. It was after the intelligence was proved to be (knowingly or unknowingly) false that the anti-war movement really kicked in among progressives. Many of us are not anti-war. We are anti-needless war.

Thusly, in the case of Syria, what you are seeing among progressives is a lot of questioning:

-Do we trust that, this time, the intelligence is correct?
-Will acting militarily actually help?
-Will failing to act be worse?
-Is there another option?

I'm not seeing any progressives chanting "BOMB BOMB BOMB, BOMB BOMB SYRIA!" I'm seeing a lot balking at the idea of any type of military intervention, and among those who do favor it, a lot of caveats and moral questions being floated. I've very rarely seen that kind of self-examination among neo-conservatives when it comes to questions of war. So I'm not sure what rhetorical point you think has been made by "progressives" happening to be in power when a potential overseas conflict occurs.

I sure as hell am not going to apologize to a President whose incompetence (or, perhaps, lies) led us into a war on false pretenses, and whose bungling administration then turned a "welcome with open arms" victory into a sectarian clusterfuck that took millions of Iraqi lives, and thousands of ours.

tl;dr version: false equivalency is false.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

And we're still not off to occupy anybody.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

We're not even trying to depose Assad or stop the slaughter.

[mikeyxw.livejournal.com]

Yeah, we're talking about dropping a few bombs, blowing some stuff up, and probably killing a few people in such a way as to have no lasting effect. Taking steps that would contribute to an end of the conflict would of course be risky and difficult, for some reason this is to be avoided at all costs. Dropping a few bombs might be good for US credibility, at least by the narrow definition of US credibility that is held by those in power, but I'm not seeing how it would benefit an average Syrian or American.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

In immediate terms, it doesn't. The whole idea though is to maintain the idea that there are real world consequences for breaking international law in such a heinous way. The worry is that if we do not act, the implications are far worse.

[mikeyxw.livejournal.com]

I'm not 100% sold on this. These days, most leaders are reluctant to use small arms against protesters, so I'm not seeing that there is a big potential for the use of chemical weapons against one's own civilians. Also, the number of leaders who would likely use chemical weapons has been shrinking and probably will continue to do so just because most people agree it is not a nice thing to do to one's own people.

Iraq's use of chemical weapons against the Iranians, which was a clear violation of international law, and their use of them against the Kurds, which was a violation of "international norms" didn't trigger a renewal of the use of chemical weapons, why should we assume Assad's more limited use would? If there are a whole bunch of leaders who are looking at this as a green light, why would an incredibly amount of dithering followed by a bombing campaign that is designed to be limited change their minds? The signal already sent by the UK and Germany seems stronger than that sent by any limited bombing campaign would be.

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

You mean using chemical weapons like White Phosphorus, which is banned by every country except Israel and USA?

[cheezyfish.livejournal.com]

I don't think white phosphorus is banned by any country, and I'm fairly certain the Australian military uses white phosphorus also.

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

"There are multiple international laws that could be seen to regulate white phosphorus use.[92] Article 1 of Protocol III of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons defines an incendiary weapon as 'any weapon or munition which is primarily designed to set fire to objects or to cause burn injury to persons through the action of flame, heat, or combination thereof, produced by a chemical reaction of a substance delivered on the target'. The same protocol prohibits the use of said incendiary weapons against civilians (already forbidden by the Geneva Conventions) or in civilian areas. The convention also defines weapons which are not to be considered to be incendiary weapons. Examples are: (i) Munitions which may have incidental incendiary effects, such as illuminants, tracers, smoke or signalling systems; (ii) Munitions designed to combine penetration, blast or fragmentation effects with an additional incendiary effect."
Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus)

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

White Phosphorous isn't considered a banned weapon no, but perhaps it should be. Things get kind of arbitrary and fuzzy when we're talking about war.

[cheezyfish.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure why white phosphorous should be banned. Sure, a munition meant to make smoke can kill a person if a lot of the fuel gets on them, but those situations don't happen all that often, horrific and tragic when they do, but horrific and tragic is essentially what war is. I rather have a smoke bomb go off near me rather than, you know, an actual bomb.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

It wont. Which is kind of the point and why I view the whole debate as pathetic.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

Is concern for the plight of refugees a specifically neo-conservative value?

No but the Idea that it's US's duty to act as world superhero/policeman certainly is. If this were really about the plight of the refugees we wouldn't be talking about cruise missiles, we'd be talking about peace-keepers, and large-scale evacuations/amnesty.

As for the rest of your argument, Progressives may not be chanting "Bomb Syria" but they aint exactly protesting it either. The coffee shop's got NPR on right now and majority of their callers and talking heads are supportive. In short where are all the posters labeled Chimpy-McHitler with Obama's face on them? If they are out there I haven't seen one. The moral side of the argument might have held water if we were actually talking about deposing Assad but we're not. What the president has proposed is tossing a live grenade into a crowded room and then walking away, and I suspect that the only reason he want to do that is that he painted himself into a corner with talk of "red lines". That such a proposal is being seriously considered is in my opinion very telling.

Finally even if you disagree with the characterization and values I think that wanting to take a side in a supposed battle of good vs evil is an easier sell than killing to make a political point. I don't think you realize just how bad arguing for option B in that equation makes after spending so many years lecturing everyone about the need to claim the moral high ground looks.

[dexeron.livejournal.com]

Well, you have to remember that the left isn't a monolithic entity (and there are some that would say that the progressives aren't even really part of "the left".) Yes, there are some who were against the Iraq war for sake of being against war or being the world's policeman - and those same people are some of the ones you are seeing out there currently speaking out against this. The other "progressives" only really soured to the idea of involvement in Iraq after it was shown how shoddy the intelligence was. In this case, it's (hopefully) a more clear cut case that has been made, and in that light, it's not exactly hypocritical to have been against the Iraq war (after having been for it, briefly) and now being for this war.

A good question that supports your questioning is this: why are the supporters so trusting of THIS administration's evidence when the government has been shown to lie (or at least be wrong) about war before (Iraq, Tonkin, Iran-Iraq War?) Are they more trusting this time because it's their man in the big chair? Maybe there's a small amount of that partisan favoritism of which we're all guilty.

Overall, though, I think it's important to remember that many of those supporting Obama now DID support Bush back then at first, until it was shown that the information we were given was false.


If this were really about the plight of the refugees we wouldn't be talking about cruise missiles, we'd be talking about peace-keepers, and large-scale evacuations/amnesty.

I think a valid point can be made that this should be our only business over there right now. I'm not saying I agree with that point (because I am still so torn between the various arguments of what is best, and how best to - and whether we must - respond to the use of chemical weapons) but at the very least, this should be a HUGE part of our focus.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

Helping refugees is the most effective way to help the most people. Bombing is a selfish moved designed to advance "American interests" (for some Americans more than most).

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

Progressives may not be chanting "Bomb Syria" but they aint exactly protesting it either.



Let's face it, it's a hard sell. That fucker did use gas and it IS a humanitarian crisis. It was hard to protest against an asshole like Saddam, and its hard to protest when it can be effectively be pro-Assad. I hate Assad, wouldn't like his authoritarian crap even without the bloodshed. I hate the right wing rebels too. I just don't think bombing stuff fixes much, quite the opposite.

There are some who are now pro US-Israeli-Saudi. They basically prefer American imperialism over Iranian imperialism. There are some who who support the Syrian regimes more progressive Baathists, the ones Assad marginalized, and they love capitalism and hate the rebels. Then there are those (like me) who dislike both the Syrian regime and the reactionary rebels.

All three groups have to be isolationist to oppose intervention at this point.

[rimpala.livejournal.com]

All it really boils down to is, what make my political party look good?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

It was hard to protest against an asshole like Saddam, and its hard to protest when it can be effectively be pro-Assad.

Yet they had no problem with protesting the former, but seem to be suddenly concerned about protesting the latter.

I can understand moving from pro-Iraq to anti-Syria. I don't agree with the logic, but if you think war is expensive and costly and the lesson you pulled from Iraq is that we made a mistake, okay. But there's no logical consistency from being anti-Iraq to pro-Syria. Iraq was worse off, in worse shape, needing more help.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

Iraq was in rough shape. Years of war and sanction had taken their tool and Saddam was brutal as were his rivals. Still there was some stability and there wasn't a hot sunni/shia civil war active.

Syria shape isn't so good.

" With an estimated 5,000 desperate Syrians fleeing their homes every day, the spiralling violence in the country has now created more than 2 million refugees, the United Nations refugee agency announced today, adding that there is no sign the “humanitarian calamity” will end anytime soon."
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=45757

And:

"[..] at least 96,431 people have lost their lives in the more than two years of violence that’s wracked Syria. Of those, Syrian soldiers and members of the government’s security forces account for 24,617, while members of pro-government militias make up 17,031. Taken together, those deaths account for 43.2 percent of the total recorded. Civilian noncombatants are the next largest group of the dead – 35,479, or 36.8 percent of the total, according to the human rights group. Deaths among anti-Assad fighters total 16,699, or 17.3 percent, according to the new numbers. Of those, 12,615 were Syrian civilians who’d picked up arms against the regime, 1,965 were rebel fighters who’d defected from the Syrian military and 2,119 were foreigners who were killed fighting on the Syrian rebels’ behalf.""
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/06/03/192881/assad-backers-reportedly-make.html

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Good thing I'm in favor of intervention, then!

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

There is also a distinction between advocating for missile strikes in the wake of chemical weapons attacks on civilians and advocating for full scale invasions and occupations on dubious evidence of aluminum tubes and false accusations of connections to 9/11/01.

We'll have a hard time finding the right side, one that doesn't want us and our children dead:

[mikeyxw.livejournal.com]

Well, if you look at Iraq before the invasion, it was a bit past rough shape and more like a humanitarian crisis. One thing is consistent across both examples, dropping a few cruise missiles will not not improve things for either the Iraqis or Syrians. This is where the humanitarian case for a limited attack falls flat.

[mikeyxw.livejournal.com]

* Dropping a few cruise missiles would not have improved things for Iraqis and will not improve them for Syrians.

[sandwichwarrior.livejournal.com]

I can understand moving from pro-Iraq to anti-Syria. I don't agree with the logic, but if you think war is expensive and costly and the lesson you pulled from Iraq is that we made a mistake, okay. But there's no logical consistency from being anti-Iraq to pro-Syria. Iraq was worse off, in worse shape, needing more help.

This times a thousand.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

You too? You cannot see how someone could change their opinions about the middle east after 10 years? I'm not for military intervention, but I can see how the argument is at least as solid as Iraq ever was, and more.