The Correct Way To Attack, I Mean Uphold International Law

Should the US go to war with, errr.. I mean, be authorized to use force, against, ummm... I mean 'display in a non-threatening way a show of influence that will have no effect on al-Assad's ability to wage war except for the specific instance and circumstance in which we choose cause we're awesome like that', in Syria?

I remember being quite convinced by the end of this presentation

The correct answer is yes, but only after a series of steps are followed that ironically enough, were laid out pretty clearly in the run up to the Iraq War. First, the presentation of evidence to both the international community as well as the world public of the evidence that we currently have. I would like to see something from the UN or an official charge presented to the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW). Much like Secretary Colin Powell's presentation in February of 2003 that left little doubt in the worlds minds at the time, though leaves some bad taste in our mouths years later, as most wars do after being left in the sun for more then 6 years.

We then need an international condemnation and steps for recompense for the act, such as with UN resolution 1441. Then the step that Obama seems giddy with, gathering authorization to use force from congress if Syria does not comply with the international demands. Because even though the traditional 'Act of War' concept appears to be as trendy as Bill Clinton's sense of shame, the idea that one man in this country can attack another country without any direct provocation is truly scary. I understand precedence for a quick reactionary strike in retaliation when a country and regime disregards our or the worlds will, but I think the window for something quick and decisive in this case has long since passed and was passed on when the President said that we would do due diligence in making sure this was a violation of chemical weapons use.

We then issue an ultimatum for al-Assad to step aside if he does not adhere to international will, similar to the Arab nation call in March of 2003, just prior to our invasion, by which of course I mean non-meaningful not war like-in-any-way tiny military action.

Even with all the build up and buy in, George W. Bush was still regarded by a large portion of the world, with about as much respect as a Rodney Dangerfield punchline, for going to war with a country that did not pose an imminent threat. Even though Iraq was the first to use chemical weapons against a neighboring country for the first time in decades, invaded another country, Kuwait, for which it failed to live up to it's terms of surrender once we liberated Kuwait by denying UN inspectors into the country for 5 years prior to the build up to war. And this was after we, the public, received the clear evidence presented to the public that still seems to not be in the plans for the current administration, for which we have little reason to trust and believe when it comes to matters of national security.

The World War II comparison with Syria is almost funnier, when a non-'boots on the ground' attack on the US (Pearl Harbor) justified going to war with a country that was gassing it's own people (Germany), now we are justifying a non-'boots on the ground' attack to deter people from gassing their own people. Simplistic sure, but a valuable lesson in the logic that flows through politicians minds.

At least he speaks good French.

I understand the reservations this nation has in attacking a country that could not have any realistic means of harming us, but we believe in a world that does not use chemical warfare and we have to support that idea, but there are two processes, quick decisive action with a clear message behind it, or the longer, more tedious route of building consensus, case then taking definitive action. The former would have made sense, but our President was too nervous about taking action, now we sit back and laugh as he and his crack team fumbles his way through the latter process. And, or course, I can't have a post about Syria without pointing and laughing at the ultimatum that Secretary Kerry put out there, immediately dismissed, then ran with when it actually turned out to be a good idea. Kind of like the husband that makes a joke about having a three way with the waitress over there, then starts laughing at himself while hoping his wife lifts an eyebrow and goes 'hmmm....'.

At some point it would be delightful to have the discussion of whether the US should continue to be the police force of the world, but to deny that we find ourselves currently in this role is naive. We sign on to these ideals that countries should not use chemical weapons, we pour our resources into a force capable of monitoring and striking anywhere in the world to enforce these terms, and until a day that we abdicate that role to an international force or another country, it is a burden that we must uphold.

I can't wait to hear what the President has to say about all this tonight. My respect for him would grow if he took a moment to laugh out loud at everything that has transpired in the last week.

Gas and Tinfoil

History doesn't repeat itself all the time, but sometimes it rhymes.

When Obama comes out and proclaims that we have incontrovertible evidence that Syria is using WMDs causes me to put on my tinfoil hat and will force America to question, among many things, where the Syrians obtained a stock pile of sarin gas. Though there is documented suspicion of Syria’s chemical weapon capabilities, the fact that these weapons are typically stockpiled as a deterrent and over the years no official proclamation was made that they existed.

We also must recall that intelligence prior to the invasion of Iraq indicated that Saddam’s Iraq had sarin gas and amidst large speculation that such weapons were moved to Syria, the use of sarin gas in Syria might prove to vindicate the Bush Administration’s assertions that WMDs were, in fact, in Iraq. Where, ironically enough, we also had proof that the deadly weapon had been used by the regime in power against its own people.

In January, 2006, former Iraqi General Georges Sada publicly declared that Saddam’s military transferred large stockpiles of chemical weapons to Syria using civilian aircraft with the passenger seats removed. “There are weapons of mass destruction gone out from Iraq to Syria, and they must be found and returned to safe hands,’ Mr. Sada said. ‘I am confident they were taken over.’”

Sada, a top officer in the Iraqi Air Force, claims that 56 trips by two Iraqi Airways Boeings were used to smuggle the weapons into Syria under the guise of civilian flights. “Saddam realized, this time, the Americans are coming,” Sada said. “They handed over the weapons of mass destruction to the Syrians.”

In March, retired Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney spoke publicly about the likelihood of WMDs in Syria and the high probability that the weapons were moved to Syria immediately prior to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq.

If the Obama administration authorizes military action without UN approval, we can expect that the White House will claim that this military action is, somehow, radically different from Bush’s military action. We will find ourselves debating even more the merits and fallacies of a robot led war both from the capacity for the President to wage such a war and it’s long term implications on our relations in the region that we seem to have a fetish with attacking with our flying death machines.

Further, Americans shouldn't expect to hear any apologies from those on the left to Bush or his supporters. Syria’s WMD usage might seem to vindicate both President Bush’s intelligence reports, and his reasoning that led him to take an action when no direct threat to the United States was apparent. In this scenario, we have a mountain of evidence as with Iraq, but it appears we have no intention on entering the country looking for proof in the aftermath. History will have nothing on which to vindicate or condemn these actions.

It would be nice if we could get some commandos inside to take a closer look at the ‘made in’ label that these weapons are cased in. The argument against that being the obvious risk, not necessarily to the commandos that would put themselves in incredible danger to find out the truth, but the danger of the truth itself and the portrayed legacy that President Bush was a liar and vigilantly.

Taking off my tinfoil hat now…

In the end we are left with a policy against other countries that appears to have drafted by the same batch of people that programmed Apples mapping app. It twists and turns in an incoherent way, be it the need to avenge an assassination attempt on daddy, or is needed to make someone’s words, as hastily as they were spoken, not be opened to mocking and ridicule. Trying to compose the criteria and a scale for intervention in another country is about as consistent as throwing darts at a dart board… blindfolded... from 50 feet away….drunk.

Questions that probably won’t be answered until after a strike (and even then…):

• What scale is appropriate?
• What targets are viable?
• What parties do we support in the conflict?
• What is the exit strategy?
• What parties do we require approval from?
• What is acceptable collateral damage?
• What legal authority are we citing?