Trump World Grab-Bag--A Collection

Wednesday, August 28, 2013

I Don't Like The "Punishment" Angle in Syria

Although I'm open to the idea that it might not be Assad's regime that used chemical weapons, I'm increasingly finding it plausible that there might have been reasons that he would have. But what I remain fixated on is the idea that US or Western intervention isn't necessarily of any earthly utility. I've been looking at the arguments.  But I just don't think the West should study war, no more. And although the expression of why there should be an "intervention" in Syria's violence in the form of, well, more violence, is expressed as "punitive", I find this to be the actually least persuasive call to war imaginable. Actually, I find it pretty off-putting. 

The "punitive reprisal" meme rests on the idea that Western nations need to teach Syria, the nation, a lesson. But the thing is, Assad used, we presume, the chemical weapons against his own people, so, we're punishing his government by striking his country--where the atrocity was committed? And we're targeting infrastructure with sufficient warning so that the top guys are evacuated in the hopes that they what? Retire abroad like they won't now be picked up for war crimes? And even if this does make anyone in Assad's regime step down, who rises up? Because if we are sponsoring regime change, it seems like we get responsibility for who that change entails, a little. And not all of those folk involved are people we would even want to sponsor.

I know that sounds chickenshit, and it especially would sound chickenshit after Obama expressed that chemical weapon use would constitute a "red line". But I don't think we should own another Middle-Eastern war, and especially pretend it's because we "had to". I don't think we want to own the future of Syria, because that should be Syria's issue. If we could provide truly humanitarian support in the form of doctors or supplies that are not military, I think this is a good thing. But add more violence to show we disapprove of war crimes?

We cannot "punish" war crimes by starting a war. It makes no sense to me. It might make sense to the kind of "experts" of PNAC who also supported the Iraq War. But they are softheaded militaryindustrialcomplex contractstupids. And that, is pretty disqualifying, if you ask me.

1 comment:

ifthethunderdontgetya™³²®© said...

But the thing is, Assad used, we presume, the chemical weapons against his own people, so, we're punishing his government by striking his country--where the atrocity was committed?

Exactly. The same thing we did to Iraq.

I know that sounds chickenshit, and it especially would sound chickenshit after Obama expressed that chemical weapon use would constitute a "red line".

Disagree. Opposing our wars for corporate profits takes courage. The chickenshit thing to do is what our so-called liberal media does: Support every single one of them.
~