Someone correct me if I have this wrong.
We want "diplomacy" to solve the situation in Syria, but to do so we need to stand ready to lob some missiles at them. If we do lob missiles at them, it wouldn't be with the intent of altering the course of the conflict; we don't want to choose sides, after all. We just want to fire enough missiles at…something…to remind other countries that we are totally tough and capable of lobbing missiles at things from afar. I mean, we can't Show Weakness In Front Of the Russians.
Wow. Never thought we'd get to use that dusty Cold War gem again.
The technology available to modern presidents has reduced the costs of going to "war" (or "police action" or "intervention" or whatever euphemism is appropriate for not-really-wars like this) to the point that it appears to have permanently warped the judgment of our political leaders. Is there anything less costly to a president, to the Pentagon, to Congress, to the belligerent public, than parking naval assets in international waters and launching guided missiles at far-off targets?
It costs no American blood and little political capital – if anything, it succeeds in making presidents look "tough" or whatever. It costs nothing but money, and god knows that we are perpetually broke but somehow always able to dig deeper into the pocketbook to find more money when the Department of Defense deems it necessary.
Combined with the use of air strikes (high altitude bombing runs against countries relying on Vietnam-era Soviet anti-aircraft defenses) and the growing popularity of drones, video game warfare is upon us.
There really isn't much incentive for a president not to conduct that type of war continuously and against all perceived threats.
buy zydena online buy zydena no prescription
No one weeps when a drone crashes, nor do Americans particularly care if cruise missiles aren't as "pinpoint accurate" as defense contractors claim.
buy flagyl online buy flagyl no prescription
The only thing that rouses the public against war, in the rare instances in which that actually happens, is the cost in American lives. Remove that from the equation and the use of force can continue in the background almost indefinitely. Having declared war on a threat that can never be eliminated completely, we've found a way to remove morality from the use of force by isolating it from the only lives that matter in our political process.
middle seaman says:
Well, most of congress as well as the citizenry is against the war on Syria. Computer games or not, the question asked is: who exactly are we fighting? Since people didn't hear a response, they say no.
Even in computer games, you cannot shot at a screen. There must be a target. Obama didn't remember to provide one.
Timothra says:
We used to call it proportional response, and it was the default.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtrX9rZl-j4
Depressing how topical this show remains.
wetcasements says:
Given a choice between being gassed by a dictator or being crushed to death by rubble due to a freedom bomb/drone/Tomohawk, I'd vote for. . . um. . . fuck you both, Assad and Obama?
RosiesDad says:
@Timothra: No. Depressing that we can't get politicians as thoughtful as Jeb Bartlet.
Dick Nixon says:
Further, we take the sting out of military response by having a permanent professional military –largely staffed by socio-economic groups least likely to apply political pressure.
Our wars are not only remote, they are fought by a group that is somewhat isolated from elite discourse-i.e. , the lower classes.
c u n d gulag says:
Look, our Military Industrial Complex can't make any more profits if we don't lob military ordnance in some country from time to time – preferably, one not occupied by large groups of white Christians.
And how can they go to Congress and sell them on buying-up the newest toys they've develop, if the militaries toy-chests are still full from the last 2 or 3 times the MIC's came to Congress to sell them new toys?
Follow da money!
The shocker in this situation, is that the President didn't bomb in Syria using his existing AUMF, but instead (to buy time, imo), went back to Congress for a new one.
And when he did, the only reason Congress didn't immediately ok President Obama's request for a new AUMF, is that the Republicans, for the first time in recent history, didn't line-up to ok bombing a Muslim nation, and a lot of Democrats didn't see any positive results out of doing so.
For the Republicans who opposed involvement in Syria, the only reasons they did that, it that to them, the President doing the requesting is:
A. A Democrat. *
B. A black Democrat.
C. A 2nd term black Democrat.
If President McCain had made that request last year, or the year before, does anyone really believe the Republicans in Congress wouldn't have immediately gotten in goose-stepping formation, and marched, where pointed?
Or if this was President Romney?
PUUUUUUUUHLEEZ!!!
And if we still had a draft instead of a "voluntary" military, and that draft included young people of ALL classes, I think as a nation we'd be more circumspect when it comes to ANY military involvement. Even the lobbing of missiles and drones – lest it escalate, and some unfortunate Senator's son or daughter, or some Plutocrat's kin, come back in a body bag.
I suspect that people who have death rained down on them might not give up right away, but instead, wouldn't mind drawing the nation doing the bombing into even a small invasion, just to have some actual military members from that nation, in THEIR crosshairs.
But dat, reinstating the draft, AIN'T gonna happen!
*The reason this is first, is look at their opposition to Bill Clinton, and when he wanted to attack in Bosnia.
The Obama-being-black part, is secondary – kind of like the extra whipped-cream and cherries on their hate-sundae's.
GunstarGreen says:
America will continue to have very little problem getting into war until the children of the wealthiest of our families are pressed into combat service right along with everyone else's kids.
Institute a mandatory random draft for all military actions, and you will see a sudden, drastic decrease in our willingness to engage in combat.
"War was an abstract idea; nothing more than a show on TV. As a child, I only saw it as something the happened in some far-away land. Until that final day of summer…"
~ Unnamed Narrator, Ace Combat 04: Shattered Skies
Leo Artunian says:
Maybe I'm just a cock-eyed optimist (I know, not an appropriate attitude for this blog), but I perceive a real and widespread sense of exhaustion with "all-war-all-the-time" that has been the U.S.'s S.O.P. since the events of twelve years ago. It's pretty much yielded bupkis in terms of satisfactory results for the nation or the people, and exacted a very high cost. Another factor may be the lack of trust in governmental institutions, especially its decision-making apparatuses. But whatever it is that leads a large majority Americans to shy away from military action and to question its rationale is, in my opinion, a good thing.
lless says:
It must leave them apoplectic that this "bloodless" warfare is polling below fifty percent.
J. Dryden says:
To those who are praising Pres. Bartlett, it's worth remembering that at the end of that episode, he backed down and submitted to the proportional response originally proposed. I love that speech, too, but Sorkin undercuts it later by having the President go along with the guys whose job this is and will be long after he leaves office. I don't know if that's depressing or merely idealistic in a less-visceral way. Probably both.
I cannot fathom the evil necessary to express disappointment at the potential of a diplomatic solution. "The President made us look weak by not killing a lot of civilians." This is the gist of those decrying Obama now. I realize that the Far Right Noise Machine must, at all times, characterize anything Obama does as the work of the devil, but JESUS, people. This isn't "peace at any price." This is a foreign civil war–Syrians killing Syrians, and any ordnance we drop will be A. a Band-Aid on a bullet wound, and B. absolutely positively kill many many people whose only offense was to wake up that morning within the borders of their native country. FUCK you people for wishing otherwise.
And, by the way, Chamberlain was RIGHT to attempt to achieve a diplomatic solution. He was wrong in every other respect (particularly in his assessment of the character of his opponent)–but any leader who does not attempt to solve a problem without violence FIRST is a willing murderer. In retrospect, initial attempts at diplomacy–Munich is the most appalling–appear foolhardy at best, enabling at worst. This is true. But ONLY in retrospect. Those of us who live through time sequentially must always ATTEMPT a solution that doesn't involve more people dead BEFORE we resort to violence–even if that violence proves inevitable. Don't capitulate, don't roll over, don't accept anything less than what is rightful and necessary, but at least TRY. Because the attempt is what divides a just war from a campaign of mass murder.
And I, for one, am relieved that Kennedy wasn't afraid to look "weak in front of the Russians." Because, you see, it enabled me to be alive right now.
HoosierPoli says:
With due respect, it makes a difference where the missiles are aimed. "Bombing Syria" is too broad a phrase to have any meaning, much less an attendant list of pros and cons.
Tom Bloodgood says:
I'm with J. Dryden on this one. I do have to point out that use of force is one of the tools of politics. As Dryden pointed out, it is not supposed to be the first tool we pull from the bag, but when you have the political situation domestically and internationally that our President has, diplomacy by itself without backing it up by moving assets into position, would most likely not solve the problem. Note that we did appear ready to back up our words, but we didn't actually drop any bombs or fire any missiles yet. Our threat seems to be enough to get the Russians and Congress both on board. Either President Obama is a 5-dimensional political strategist like we have never seen or he is very, very lucky.
Graham says:
Follow da money – exactly C U N D Gulag.
I was surprised that Bin Laden was killed because, when alive, he was fulling the role of Emmanuel Goldstein remarkably well.
Evan says:
When I read the title, I thought you'd be talking about cyber warfare. We have the ability to cause massive, even "kinetic" damage to Syria without ever lobbing any missiles. In my opinion, that makes it all the more obvious that Obama's recent actions are more of a political ploy than anything. He gets to quash the conservatives who have been saying he has been too soft on the Middle Eastern Troublemakers, gets (limited) kudos from peacemongers by seeking permission from congress, and Shows Strength in Front of the Russians, all the while knowing that it is incredibly unlikely that congress will ever approve his proposed action. Granted, a large scale cyber attack against Syria might still be more expensive to execute than a bombing campaign, but it would certainly cause less collateral damage and likely be more palatable to the public.
Dave Dell says:
An equitable draft and higher taxes. George Bush could have proposed it 12 years ago tomorrow and it would have been done.
I want my granddaughter and President Obama's daughters to have an equal chance to be put in harms way.
If the children of the rich were at risk and if it was going to take money from them we'd see military action limited to situations of overwhelming consensus. I'd like to think so, anyhow.
Davis X. Machina says:
…we've found a way to remove morality from the use of force by isolating it from the only lives that matter in our political process.
The 'cabinet wars' of the 18th c. are liable to the precisely the same critique.
According to this rationale, WWI marks a tremendous step forward for humanity, because of the hecatombs of English and French and German aristocrats who died in the trenches…right along with the proles they commanded.
Jestbill says:
"Equitable draft??!"
Rich people and their kids will FOREVER be exempt and everyone (sober) over 30 knows it.
Pie in the sky.
What Obama has managed to accomplish is to give some Republicans a little anti-war/common sense street cred to sell to the rubes next election.
Just keep playing that "Farting Sounds" CD until this goes away.
jazzbumpa says:
cund is spot on, of course.
But what all of this overlooks is that the only thing changed over many decades is the nature of the assets at the President's disposal, and thus the sterility of the enterprise.
Remember what happened on 9/11?
I'll bet you don't
Down in Chile, we overthrew democratically elected Allende and installed Pinochet. That was in 1973.
Twenty years earlier, we overthrew the democratically elected president of Iran and installed the Shah.
Of course, the Afghan Mujahideen that we supported in our proxy war with Russia went on to become Al Qaeda.
Then the OTHER 9/11 happened.
We keep fucking with other people's countries, and it keeps biting us in the ass. Phillipines, Nicuragua, Panama, Viet Nam, Iraq, Afghanistan (again) . . .
But we never learn.
WASF!
JzB
Big Sister says:
What happened to the RED LINE Syria crossed? Those people are still dead , no?
I am absolutely gobsmacked that Obama can say "well , Assad promised not to gas any MORE people" and get away with it. If Assad crossed some hypothetical red line that last week brought us to the brink of war, what the fuck is Obama doing saying its okay now?
Not that I ever wanted to mess him about with Syria, but I think Obama just shot himself in the kneecap. He's acting like a total greenhorn. Six dimensional chess? You have GOT to be kidding!
cromartie says:
The only thing that rouses the public against war, in the rare instances in which that actually happens, is the cost in American lives.
Did you sleep through the 2000s?
Stefan says:
Isnt that how the war in 1984 is described? Frequent rocket attacks and otherwise the war is far off in Africa.
Elle says:
I find Obama's use of 'red line' quite confusing. In international contexts the term 'red line' is used to mean a non-negotiable position with regard to a treaty or set of regulations or some other written document. (I have been told that literal red lines used to signify which portion of a text was definitely to be excluded or included, but I think that might be apocryphal.)
Syria is not currently a signatory to the Chemical Weapons Convention, and does not (to my knowledge) have a bilateral agreement with Syria that Syria won't use chemical weapons.
International law is messy and complicated, and it is very likely that the doctrine of 'Right to Protect' (R2P) might be engaged by the use of chemical weapons, but it's contingent on the outcome of the weapons inspection currently underway.
I had a wry smile to myself at the kitchen table the other morning, as I listened to Senator Bob Menendez being interviewed on the radio. He was recommending that Syria hastes to the UN to sign and ratify the Chemical Weapons Convention. Always a treat to hear the US enthusiastically recommending international human rights mechanisms to other people while robustly disregarding the plank in its own eye.
Elle says:
*bilateral agreement with the US.
It's been a long day.
doug says:
my reinstatement of the draft would be universal, no exemptions and start with 40 year old male and female, NOT 18, and work down as needed….
That would cause some real change….
bb in GA says:
@cund
Pres Clinton (via NATO) bombed White, Christian Serbia for the benefit of ??
@doug
This is a repost by me…
As of May 2009 here is our breakdown:
Army 548K
Marines 203K
Navy 332K
USAF 323K
USCG 41K
Active 1.4 million
Army NG 403K
Army Res 205K
Marine Res 40K
Navy Res 67K
Air Guard 107K
Air F Res 67K
CG Res 11K
Reserves 900K
The Army’s active enlisted ranks are 456K.
Very few draftees in the modern era have gone into any branch except the Army and with the exception of Medical Docs (Alan Alda’s resisting Capt. Pierce) only enlisted men have been the subject of the Draft. Marine draftees existed in WW2, Korea, and VN, but the Marines Brass hated it.
If that tradition is followed then we have a need for just over 1 million men/women (Army enlisted, NG, and Reserve) who could be draftees. Again traditionally in the modern era the Draftee/Total ratio has been under 50% (25 – 40% range, Vietnam was 24%)
Right now, I have seen no big blow on the Services missing their enlistment quotas.
Since we don’t “need” the draftees right now, what would you propose? Can you, in good conscience, draft someone who bumps a volunteer? I don’t think you want to expand the army (in all in its phases) by 400K essentially doubling the enlisted ranks do you?
So, in a country 300+ million people do you believe that a two year draft of a high-side estimate of 400,000 men per year (after the first two year round) will have a significant effect on the “conversation.”??
How we get there is another issue. If you start replacing existing personnel by attrition, how long will it take for the draftee contingent to fully populate (40%) the ranks?
//bb
E.A. Blair says:
Anyone remember that old Star Trek episode, "A Taste of Armageddon"?
Big dog says:
I think middle seaman has it succinctly right. The claim is we want to limit Assad's capacity to deliver poison gas, but we can't bomb the gas storage sites. What would be the next target, artillery pieces, rocket launchers? How many thousands of those targets are there?
The blatant illegality of all of this bluster makes Putin's arguments about American exceptionality or lack of same seem quite poignant. If we are so concerned about the putative 1400 deaths in Syria, why aren't we even more exercised about the hundreds of thousands who are being slaughtered in the Congo? I guess like the Ruanda slaughter, it's just a problem for those black people to resolve themselves.
Dave Dell says:
You can pretend it's a video game when it's done from a computer console. Here's something from a good friend of Mark Twain.
Major General William T. Sherman, commander, Military Division Of The Mississippi.
I confess, without shame, that I am sick and tired of fighting – its glory is all moonshine; even success the most brilliant is over dead and mangled bodies, with the anguish and lamentations of distant families, appealing to me for sons, husbands, and fathers … it is only those who have never heard a shot, never heard the shriek and groans of the wounded and lacerated … that cry aloud for more blood, more vengeance, more desolation.
Dave Dell says:
Wish I could edit these posts here. Forgot to thank the source for the above which is my second favorite commentary blog, Charles Pierce's blog at Esquire. Somehow I feel most "common taters" are among his faithful readers.
Tom says:
Stretching this homily to be DoD applicable kinda hurts my a-hole but I always assumed this is what induces (physically) violent government interference: Suppose you possessed essentially unlimited resources and you did not want to die (i.e. some degree of rational mindedness) and something (e.g. cancer) was plotting the possibility of your death. You would spend your essentially unlimited resources to prevent that something from killing you.
When you are constantly mindful that a great deal of these motherfuckers lived through actual wars (an actual war is a war that isn't risibly one sided), it is easier to see their PoV:
— General, we see something that will possibly negatively affect America.
— We can't have that. Does it want to change it's opinion on [list of issues]
— Nah, they say that a magical being is responsible for everything
— Oh, ok, well, blow them up then; soz, dead guys.
Darwin explains this phenomenon quite well (look up "theory of evolution").
Big dog says:
Tom, maybe cockroaches can survive with strategies one move deep, but our generals and attendant neo-cons who think that way do not strike me as having Darwinian survival skills.