In case you thought you were cynical about the situation in Syria, here’s Gary Dolan (aka The War Nerd) at NSFWCorp:
Last week someone launched missiles with chemical warheads at El Ghouta, a Sunni suburb of Damascus. It’s still not clear how many people died, or what chemical agent killed them, but the obvious suspect is Assad’s Syrian Arab Army (SAA), because El Ghouta is a Sunni district, a frontline area in the fight between the Alawite SAA and “The Syrian Opposition.” Which means, basically, the Sunni.
And then something surprising happened. People objected…
What this burst of outrage really shows is a much older, sleazier scenario: A small power, out of favor with the big players, crossing a “red line” that’s drawn by the technology you use to massacre the other tribe, not the fact that you’re massacring civilians.
There are three factors that determine how much artificial world outrage a massacre sets off. First, the obvious one: Who committed it? Second: What technology did they use to commit it? Third: Who were the victims?…
That’s where the “chemical weapons” aspect of the El Ghouta attack comes in. The SAA has been killing Sunni civilians in huge numbers, to the absolute best of its ability, for more than two years. And that hasn’t really bothered anyone except other Sunni Muslims, other members of the same extended family.
The reason we were all fine with those deaths is that they were carried out with the kind of weapons we like and trust: Aircraft and missiles. One constant for war news across my whole life is that nobody minds what you do as long as you do it from a fighter jet. It’s amazing. This isn’t as random as it might seem. Those jets are very, very expensive—not just to buy but to maintain, because they’re as fragile as racehorses. So only the big boys, the powers we consider legit, can use them. That’s absolution in advance for anything they do, above all because “opinion leaders” who spin the news know those jets will never be used against them….
Chemical weapons scare us more than SCUDs or 1950s Soviet aircraft, because they’re illegitimate weapons favored by illegitimate powers. It was the Germans who introduced them in WW I, for which the Anglo-American cartel never forgave them. Since they were banned by the big powers according to the Geneva rules, they’re like an illustration of that NRA tautology that “when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns,” or in this case, “Now that us big legit people have outlawed chemical weapons, anybody who uses them must be a rotten outsider.”
The last factor in deciding whether we get outraged or not is: Who got massacred? This is an interesting case. Like I said, the world has watched with a cold, calm eye while Assad killed tens of thousands of Sunni Syrians. In some quarters, the view is that you just can’t kill too many militant Sunni…
… The point is so much simpler than anyone will face. It’s not about chemicals, or death tolls, or even Syria. It’s about reminding two factions in an enemy tribe that you’re still in charge, and you control their death rates even when they think it’s them killing each other.
Much more at the link (for the next 48 hours, unless you’re also a subscriber).
burnspbesq
Somebody remind me of what actual interest of the United States of America is advanced by killing people and breaking stuff in Syria. I’m having a hard time remembering.
Sad_Dem
As usual, Gary Dolan is right on the money.
Anoniminous
What about staying the hell out. That’s a good option.
lol
So Obama’s wrong for wanting to intervene and he’s wrong for not intervening earlier. Sound familiar?
beltane
@burnspbesq: I suppose there’s good money to be made in killing people and breaking stuff.
mikefromArlington
War Nerd no longer @ Exiled? I loved their Victorville series on the failed product of the housing bubble city in the desert.
Roger Moore
@burnspbesq:
The neocons can wargasm again. Also, too, the MIC gets paid.
Schlemizel
Up for some fun? Some clown claiming to be Newt Gingrich posted his opinion on reddit
http://www.reddit.com/r/AdviceAnimals/comments/1l859d/this_is_my_official_policy/
feel free to drop by and offer your thoughts on his post
The Other Bob
Its not just that using jets is OK, it’s that we still like to pretend that they can perform “surgical” bombings that only hit bad guys.
beltane
@The Other Bob: This is the type of “surgery” that decapitates a patient while attempting to remove an ingrown toenail. No thanks.
the Conster
What utility is there in all of this conjecture about what Obama hasn’t done yet? I’m going to withhold my opinion until there’s something to opine about.
Omnes Omnibus
For me, the big thing is that I cannot think of anything that we could do that would make the situation better.
Sad_Dem
@beltane: The patient no longer complains of an ingrown toenail, so there’s that.
BruceFromOhio
@lol: Its the familiar sound of shit rushing out of a gaping sphincter. All it lacks is the splash and the stench of Ted Cruz.
Oh, wait ..
burnspbesq
@the Conster:
You’re no fun.
Liberty60
I posted this elsewhere, but feel its appropriate:
Jonathan Chait’s newest piece is another example of how casual and nonchalant the journalist class is, about events that they know will never touch them.
Here lobbing bombs into another nation is discussed as a minor, piffling matter, not like we were going to war or something.
Part of me- just a part, mind you- wishes that tomorrow China decided they needed to lob missiles into the Georgetown, Manhattan, the Hamptons, or wherever it is that people like Chait work and play.
I wonder if we would be treated to cool, scholarly essays discussing the surgical strike that took out half the people on Sally Quinn’s rolodex.
? Martin
I think there is a right choice in Syria, which would be to take a billion dollars or so and take the refugees on Syria’s borders, get them fed and treated. Even bring some to the US that desire to do so, invite other countries to do the same, and encourage anyone who wishes to flee to do so – and provide direct assistance for them to do that. And then provide long-term support for anyone who wishes to repatriate.
If you can remove the majority of the non-combatants, then this becomes a lot more tolerable. You reach a point where a large portion of the combatants are going to die, but that’s inevitable no matter whether they are WMDing each other, or we’re dropping tomahawks, so at that point, just step back and allow it to play out.
That’s the right choice. It’s not the choice anyone is going to take, though. There are no other good options. They all suck- including doing nothing. Best you can do is choose the manner of suck you are willing to live with.
Omnes Omnibus
@Liberty60:
Only half?
the Conster
@burnspbesq:
Obama took my T-Bird away.
raven
@? Martin: Nice sentiment but there are 22 million people there.
Anne Laurie
@mikefromArlington: All the Exiled regulars are now contributing to NSFWCorp.com — along with some other very cool writers! Well worth the $3 a month to subscribe ($7 if you want the monthly dead trees version).
the Conster
@efgoldman:
I was on my best behavior. You should see me getting down with my bad self!
Visceral
I love War Nerd since BJ introduced me to it. First internet content I’ve seen fit to pay for. I’ve learned more in a couple days of reading him than every other history book I’ve read or class I’ve taken.
raven
? Martin
@raven: I agree it’s unrealistic, but it’s still the right choice and lets at least let that hang out there in the air for a moment before we smother it entirely.
BruceFromOhio
@? Martin: Ummm, no. You got the guy in charge in steel cage death match mode, and a bunch of guys with guns who support him. Until he gets what he wants or is gone, its fucking Saddam Hussein all over again.
You want this over? Send Seal Team Six to take his ass out, and then spend your treasure cleaning up all the Gaia-damned blood and figuring out who’s gonna run the joint. Jesus H Christ in a motherfucking sidecar, cruise missiles?
This whole fucking thing is another Gaia-damned Iraq in fast-forward, charlie-foxtrot on meth. We got no reason for being there, no fucking reason.
Omnes Omnibus
@BruceFromOhio: FWIW I doubt we would do any more in Syria than we did in Libya. I don’t think we should do even that much. I really cannot conceive of any actions that are within our capabilities that would do more good than harm.
RobertDSC-Power Mac G5 Dual
Fixed.
Stay out. Fuck the Republicans and their whining.
catclub
I really wish that Obama would at least ask the Congress to authorize something in detail. And then hope they could not agree on the details.
War powers iz congress, after all.
burnspbesq
@the Conster:
T-Bird? Somehow I figured you for an Olde English 800 guy. Or maybe King Cobra.
drkrick
@Liberty60:
Before or after the celebration?
TG Chicago
@lol:
That’s Ted Cruz’s view of the situation.
Can anybody parse that? Obama failed to protect US national security because he “allowed” Assad to slaughter his own people?
He can’t even maintain logical consistency long enough to get through an entire sentence.
chopper
@BruceFromOhio:
a full-on political assassination? count me in!
chopper
@burnspbesq:
yeah, the eight hundo. it’s charcoal filtered.
the Conster
@burnspbesq:
Category error. I’m a Jaguar XKE gal.
BruceFromOhio
@Omnes Omnibus: The hideous cynical voice in me skull is chanting now, a destabilized ME is good for ExxonMobil and Royal Dutch Shell. Iraq, Libya, Egypt, now Syria? Oy, oy, oy.
CinC, keep those Gaia-damned weapons safed, por motherfucking favor. Congress is a fucking joke, go ahead, be the cooler head that prevails.
Heliopause
@burnspbesq:
As I tried to point out in another comment, this is at the behest of the Saudis and the other gulf dictators. They’ve been drooling for this opportunity for some time and will undoubtedly work hard to fill the power vacuum with their own brand of social democracy. The US has, if anything, been tightening its alliance with these freedom-lovers in recent years.
Suffern ACE
@TG Chicago: yes, but it will be edited depending on the outcome to make him appear prescient.
Baud
Maybe we can offer Assad a four-year scholarship to Trump University. Think he’ll bite?
Omnes Omnibus
@Baud: No, Assad is a lot of things, but dim-witted isn’t one of them
Suffern ACE
@Heliopause: yeah. But I don’t get what they get from having Assad gone. Is he trying to overthrow them? Have trouble staying in his borders?
Gex
I rather liked Russell Brand’s statements on the issue: Russell Brand on Syria on BBC One
I like how he points out that there are other ways we can help Syrian people and the region without, you know, dropping bombs on them. But that humanitarian work just isn’t as sexy as warmongering. And a helpful reminder that our governments will LIE to get the wars they want.
I have to admit, I haven’t followed this particular call for war that closely. Frankly, I’m exhausted from trying to do my due diligence as an informed citizen because we seem to do this an awful lot.
BruceFromOhio
@chopper: I know! It’s like a GI Joe cartoon on Saturday fucking morning. Yay, US.
Oh, wait, let’s use our shiny big drones that go BOOOOOM and kill lots of people instead of the little ones that just go POP and only kill a few people! Yeah, that’s the ticket!
Heliopause
@Suffern ACE:
The US supports the gulf dictators because the gulf dictators oppose Iran.
Gin & Tonic
@raven: This has actually been big news in the IT sec community all day.
Francis
Well, we could have long discussions about just war theory and treaties on permissible weapons. Or we could recognize that the First World powers have decided to clip anyone who uses a weapon that constitutes a serious threat to their own population. Civil wars with bullets are fine, but gas is a no-no.
Mandalay
@burnspbesq:
The cynical view is that the United States prefers to have Middle East countries run by iron fisted dictators, but collapsing into chaos is the next best option. Democracy is to be avoided at all costs.
Since Assad is never going to regain total control in Syria we are more than happy to slap him around a little and take him down a peg or two, and then let the fighting continue for another few years.
There is a precedent: the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s, where we watched as they pounded the shit out of each other for 8 years. We yawned when Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against Iran, and again when he used them against the Kurds.
As long as Israel is OK, and the oil keeps flowing, we really don’t give a flying fuck.
Baud
Really? We haven’t dropped a single bomb yet, and we’re at the chemicals-weapons-ban-is-a-tool-of-the-bourgeois stage of the debate.
Jesus H.
Gin & Tonic
@Francis: Why wasn’t gas a no-no in 1988 in Kurdistan?
Bob In Portland
@burnspbesq: Not the United States. Big Oil. Iran, Iraq and Syria have been planning a gas pipeline in competition with Qatar and the Saudis. And guess who is financing al-Nusri and al Qaeda in Syria?
Also, reports in the other-than-west media have been talking about al-Nusri in possession of sarin gas, most recently in Turkey in May.
BruceFromOhio
@Mandalay: As long as Israel is OK, and the oil keeps flowing, we really don’t give a flying fuck.
Yeah. Fuck. “We” being the sheeple guzzling it down like fucking junkies at the rave.
Gaia fucking weeps, her tears are a flood upon us all.
? Martin
@Mandalay: That perfectly explains our foreign policy toward both Libya and Egypt. And Iran.
Kropadope
@Liberty60: Umm, excuse me, my cousin lives in Georgetown.
@BruceFromOhio: How is this in any way like Iraq? Even the war hawks aren’t talking about an invasion. The Obama administration didn’t falsify a intelligence to convince people of imaginary WMDs that we need to destroy. Quite the contrary, we knew for a fact they had WMDs, they have, now, used them and it would still seem that Obama isn’t really pushing for a war.
I don’t want a war either, but crippling their chemical weapons isn’t an entirely bad thing.
Ruckus
@burnspbesq:
It shouldn’t be hard to remember the amount known as zero.
Actually that isn’t the correct amount. The correct amount is negative. As in minus shit point nothing. It won’t make us look better to anyone. It won’t save lives in the short term or the long run. It is the definition of lose-lose. Except that we lose more getting involved than not.
? Martin
@Gin & Tonic:
Reagan/Bush isn’t a good enough answer? How about ‘we were still more worried about escalating against the USSR’?
I’m not saying either is a particularly good excuse, but one of the benefits of being a sentient being is that we can improve over time as we have in countless ways. Even since just 1988.
Mandalay
@Heliopause:
Not really. The US supports the gulf dictators because all of the gulf dictators have oil.
For those countries in the region that have little or no oil (Mubarak and then (arguably) Morsi in Egypt, Assad in Syria, everyone in Lebanon) we really don’t care at all.
mdblanche
A short guide to the Middle East
@Omnes Omnibus: Does that include doing nothing?
magurakurin
@Omnes Omnibus:
While I agree with your conclusion, I suppose they are thinking that Assad’s support is shaky and the presence of French fighters will convince his supporters in the military to turn. I also agree with your assessment that US involvement will be similar to Libya. Tomahawks to take out as many Syrian MiG’s on the ground as they can and any SAM positions they know of. Then, let the French finish the rest of the MiG’s in the air with US fueling and intelligence support. Maybe, the US sends some fighters as well, since Syria has a much bigger airforce than Libya. But, I imagine they(the French and the Americans) are pretty confident that they can ground or destroy most of the Syrian air force in short order.
Not sure that something like that alone will take out Assad. The assessment that there are no good choices, is sadly very accurate, I would conclude. I really don’t think there would be many troops on the ground other than maybe some special forces doing intelligence work and we won’t hear about that until whatever happens is over.
I’m willing to wait and see what the response is, but in this case, any response is probably ill advised. Syria is not Libya. It’s not going to pretty no matter what, though. If there is no response, the Assad regime will most likely use chemical weapons again. Personally, though, I wonder if the rebels are behind it in a ruse to get outside support. Not decisions I wish to be making. A bad situation all around.
Mandalay
@Gin & Tonic:
As with many other questions about our wretched policy in the Middle East, the answer is O-I-L.
We cared more about Iraqi oil than dead Kurds. Sad but true.
BillinGlendaleCA
@? Martin: @Mandalay: No, the answer is Iran.
Roy G.
This whole thing stinks – it appears that the US govt. has sunk below the previous low bar of ‘mobile chemical weapons labs,’ anthrax crop dusters and aluminum tubes, and the fig leaf of Congressional rubber stamping. Also, too, it’s funny how the intelligence is a la carte from Israel, and nothing from out own trillion dollar agencies. Where are they at – too busy spying on Americans and running false flag attacks on the NY Times?
Morbo
@mdblanche: Indeed, alternatively in graphic form.
Gin & Tonic
@? Martin: we can improve over time as we have in countless ways
Like understanding that other people’s problems are not automatically our problems, and that sometimes *anything* we do will make a situation worse? That kind of improvement? Because refraining from using force when one dictator gasses part of his population and then “evolving” to not refrain 25 years later is not, to me, an “improvement.” Yes, Assad is a bad human being. Perhaps he is using poison gas against part of his own population. I fail to see where that automatically assigns the US a moral imperative to act.
magurakurin
@Roy G.:
I don’t agree. While intervention in Syria is distressing, there appears to be little doubt at this point that somebody used chemical weapons. Whatever this is, it isn’t like the runup to Iraq. It may be just as ill advised, it may end up just as bad, but Powell’s presentation to the UN still holds the record for out and out lying. The UN in this case is saying that, yes, somebody has used chemical weapons. Maybe they are lying about who, but if it wasn’t Assad, it is more likely they are mistaken than lying. Not that the innocent Syrians who are about to die in some fucked “Allied” response will be made more alive by that fact, but for the purpose of discussion, it is different.
chopper
@lol:
“this food is terrible! and such small portions!”
Gin & Tonic
@magurakurin: The UN in this case is saying that, yes, somebody has used chemical weapons
Are they? The inspectors left Damascus to begin field work *yesterday.* What does the US lose by waiting for their report? This is just like Iraq, when W said “fuck the inspectors, we know for sure.” The Obama admin is making the exact same noises: it’s pointless to wait for the inspectors, because we know best.
Fool me once….
chopper
@BruceFromOhio:
naw dude, i’m with you on ST6. it’s literally no problem for them to sneak into the middle of syria and totes take out their president.
oh wait, i’m thinking of the justice league.
the justice league.
tesslibrarian
Did anyone else read this story? (I’ve been busy in the last week, so maybe this was covered?)
American Tells of Odyssey as Prisoner of Syrian Rebels
So, can anyone explain, given this, what even “limited” bombing, as if that were possible, is supposed to achieve? Who, exactly, are we supporting here?
catclub
@Morbo: So Israel and Saudi are effectively allies. Interesting.
Kropadope
@tesslibrarian: I think that limited bombing is meant to achieve a reduction in indiscriminate murder. Destroy known stockpiles of chemical weapons and the missiles used to launch them.
Now, I don’t support a bombing campaign, but getting involved for the sake of preventing mass murder that is already underway is not the worst reason for bombing a country’s military installations. Also, just because we are getting involved and destroying WMDs, that doesn’t mean we need to support a either side, rebel or government. Just side with life, man.
Faisal
John Dolan, aka Gary Brecher, aka The War Nerd
Heliopause
@Mandalay:
Oil is necessary but not sufficient to understand ME policy. Otherwise the US would blindly support Iran, would never have turned on Saddam, and so on.
Iran’s refusal to follow the west’s orders is a more proximate cause for the present unpleasantness.
Roy G.
@magurakurin: Sources please. And why are you so sanguine in taking this at face value? As many experts have noted about the picture of the victims, none of the people surrounding them were wearing any type of hazmat protection that would absolutely be necessary in order to avoid being contaminated by the poison themselves. I don’t think anybody has any reliable intelligence on this yet of the type that hasn’t been provided by some shady Chalabi-type characters with an agenda to push.
Yes chemical weapons are bad, however, this sudden fit of moral indignation doesn’t pass the smell test. And if you want to get all moral about weapons, by all means, let’s start talking about the propriety of using Depleted Uranium shells, and the rash of birth defects that happened in Iraq after the oh-so-moral warriors of the US rained dirty bombs across Iraq after they took down their previous bogeyman Saddam. How did that work out again, and why is it different this time?
Francis
@Gin & Tonic: for better or worse (actually, just worse), he was on our side at the time as a counterweight to Iran.
I suppose I should amend my prior remarks to clarify that the only people at risk of getting clipped for use of “illegal” weapons are the leaders of countries who are no longer useful to the US and its allies.
E
Thought experiment: imagine we wake up tomorrow and it turns out Thailand, using an antiquated bomber purchased from us in 1977, has flown over Damascus and dropped many tons of bombs on what they suspect are Assad strongholds. They miss once or twice and kill some civilians. Asked why they did it, they say, well, fuck, you know, we just couldn’t tolerate that shit anymore so we bombed them.
Wouldn’t that be weird?
Jon H
@Gin & Tonic: “Are they? The inspectors left Damascus to begin field work *yesterday.* What does the US lose by waiting for their report?”
MSF doctors – unlikely to be war mongers, since they tend to get caught in the middle and have much to lose if seen as US tools – said they had treated a bunch of people for chemical weapon exposure.
The question of who did it remains, but I’m willing to trust the MSF people on this.
Omnes Omnibus
@mdblanche: Yes, doing nothing is also a bad option. It might well be the least bad.
@magurakurin:
Yeah, that’s one of the problems, isn’t it? Chem weapons were used. But by whom and for what purpose?
Kropadope
Let me tell you how fun its been debating my glibertarian friend on this. To hear him tell it, we’ve been bombing Syria for years and the Obama administration provided the chemical weapons to the rebels.
Reminds me of our conversation last week where the Obama administration was supporting the Muslim Brotherhood, who are not being slaughtered mercilessly by the military that just overthrew their president, but instead are still in charge and are the ones murdering innocents. He just couldn’t grasp the fact that people might actually protest in favor of their elected government.
heckblazer
@Roy G.: A lack of hazmat gear leading to contamination of medical and first aid workers would explain why Doctors Without Borders reports “contamination of medical and first aid workers”. Civilians in a warzone don’t have easy access to hazmat suits, and it appears the sort of doctor who works in a warzone doesn’t let that stop him from trying to help people.
BruceFromOhio
@Kropadope: Cole pretty much sums up how I would answer your question. Its all about how you hold it up to the light.
BruceFromOhio
@chopper: I was being facetious, and it wasn’t working. Martin’s suggestion was a humanitarian solution, so I was suggesting otherwise.
The whole fucking thing stinks to high heaven, see above.
cleek
just note that chemical weapons have been used since at least the beginning of recorded history.
Barry
@cleek:
Not only that, but it was actually the French who were first to use gas in WWI.