The live blogging is below in comments (scroll down!)
Below is my concluding response to the speech:
All right. Well, as I said, that was a naueseating and unbelievably disingenuous performance. I guess it’s foolish to think that a President planning the incredibly serious step of dropping bombs on a foreign nation would try to lay out all the facts rather than doing some television courtroom bullshit complete with pictures of dead children and lowered, whispery, “I am sincere” voice.
At a minimum, any serious speech should have acknowledged that we don’t know for sure that Assad used the chemical weapons, and pointed out specifically that there’s a ton of evidence that the rebels did in fact use such weapons a few months back. It would also acknowledge that the “moderate” resistance barely exists, and that al Qaeda and other radical groups have a really good chance of taking over if Assad falls. And it wouldn’t pretend that somehow Assad using chemical weapons means that Iran is going to make a nuclear bomb and kill us all.
Of course, without all of that, there’s basically nothing left. Which to me means we shouldn’t be dropping bombs on Syria. But obviously, the President thinks we should. Why? I still don’t know. He can’t possibly believe the nonsense he was peddling, can he? He can’t be that much of a fool. I know it’s supposed to be all about Israel, but I don’t see what Israel gains by dropping bombs on Assad for maybe using chemical weapons in the interest of maybe slightly helping al-Qaeda take over in Syria.
Maybe someone else can figure it out. I’m just baffled and depressed.
And here’s Richard Cook’s response:
In the spirit of a 15 minute speech, I’ll lay out my opposition to the war as briefly as possible.
Attacking Syria would not be legal, not even if Congress gave him authorization. As I mentioned above, international treaties regarding the use of chemical weapons do not empower any nation to unilaterally enforce them. The use of force – outside of defense – is ultimately governed by the Security Council. Of course, China and Russia would never allow the president to wage a war of choice on Syria, which is why he’s prepared to violate international law (again).
Attacking Syria would not be prudent. There is no guarantee that we would successfully destroy all of Assad’s chemical weapons. We would invite retaliation by Syria or Hezbollah. If the bombing topples the Syrian government, we have no guarantee that the so-called moderate rebels will be able to govern the country. We may very well be helping extremist groups allied with al-Qaeda.
It would not be moral to bomb Syria, especially for the reasons that the president gives. We are allegedly punishing Syria for using chemical weapons, but who are we punishing? Top regime leaders? Military leaders? Their wives and kids and anyone else who happens to be in the room when the bombs hit? What if Assad decides to continue using chemical weapons? Or, more likely what if he just goes back to killing kids with bullets and bombs? What have we accomplished, other than making ourselves feel righteous?
Thanks everyone for reading, and especially Richard for live-blogging with us here. Feel free to leave any thoughts in comments.
All right; we’ll be starting in just 5 minutes or so. Richard, you there?
I’m here.
Good thing this speech is only 15 minutes. They won’t have to preempt my favorite TV shows.
I’m sure that was the idea. Don’t want to talk about bombing people too long or people’ll get bored.
And really, it’s just another war in the Middle East. Why take up the full half hour?
Maybe they’d do a half hour if we were invading Norway.
If just for the novelty. Need fifteen minutes to explain to everyone where it is.
Part of me suspects the reason it’s only 15 minutes is that the argument for war is so threadbare that’s all the time they could fill.
Hadn’t heard that Syria was offering to sign chemical weapons convention. Is it possible that Obama’ll use this as an excuse to argue we shouldn’t bomb them?
It is a brutal civil war. Will we mention that the opposition has links to al qaeda? Or is the “moderate” opposition the only opposition we hear about?
Do we actually know that Assad did it? Is there more evidence than there was a few days ago, or is he just bullshitting?
Chemical weapons: unacceptable! Regular bombs: okay.
Was it worse to be killed by gas in the trenches than by shells?
Is he saying that drones distinguish between civilians and soldiers?
He invoked Hitler in the first 2 minutes. Take a drink!
How do we know that Assad regime was responsible?
Where do they get this information from?
International community = France.
“The facts cannot be denied.” What facts?
Slippery slope argument. If we don’t bomb someone for chemical weapons, Iran will build the nuclear weapon it’s trying to build anyway.
Oh, for Pete’s sake. The fear-mongering is absurd. The U.S. is not going to get nuked by terrorists just because we didn’t bomb Syria.
I wish we could get rid of the bullshit and he could tell us why he wants to do this. Is it Israel? Is there an actual reason?
Working to end wars? Even he’s forgotten about Libya.
Libya and Syria are the same thing aren’t they? You can’t expect people to know the difference. It’s all Norway….
If it’s supposed to be small, and we’re just supposed to be scaring them, why don’t we just kidnap a random Syrian and shoot them? Probably would be just as effective and less bloodshed.
If the Assad can’t threaten us, then why do we need to bomb them? Either they’re a threat or they’re not.
Just shooting isn’t exciting enough. There has to be jets and robots in the sky!
So dropping bombs is going to create a less chaotic Syria?
I wonder what the status of the US chemical weapons research/capability is? Have we gotten rid of all our chemical weapons?
Translation: the Russians threw him a bone and now he can avoid being embarrassed in Congress.
We’re allowed Putin to be the one who’s working for peace. We suck.
For nearly 7 decades the United States has bombed whoever we felt like, and we’re not going to stop now. And to show you that, I am going to use my earnest voice at the end here.
If a child is dead, that means someone has to drop a bomb. It’s a universal truth.
Good thing the U.S. never helped any dictators commit genocide (Suharto! gesundheit.)
Assad violates international law, so we’ll sidestep the UN and violate international law to punish him?
The President IS international law.
Well, that was an almost unbelievable amount of bullshit for 15 minutes. Richard and I’ll write brief wrap ups, I guess. If anyone’s reading and wants to comment, feel free.
To get all legalistic for a second: the Geneva Protocol and the CWC do not create an automatic punishment, nor do they empower any country to enforce them sans approval by the Security Council.
You guys are good. I actually thought he made a pretty decent case, until I read what you wrote.
I almost took a drink for every time he mentioned suffering children. But I ended up drinking the whole time.
Truthfully I’m confused… if you’re going to wait for a diplomatic solution, why start the conversation with “We’re bombing them” ?
All right. Well, as I said, that was a naueseating and unbelievably disingenuous performance. I guess it’s foolish to think that a President planning the incredibly serious step of dropping bombs on a foreign nation would try to lay out all the facts rather than doing some television courtroom bullshit complete with pictures of dead children and lowered, whispery, “I am sincere” voice.
At a minimum, any serious speech should have acknowledged that we don’t know for sure that Assad used the chemical weapons, and pointed out specifically that there’s a ton of evidence that the rebels did in fact use such weapons a few months back. It would also acknowledge that the “moderate” resistance barely exists, and that al Qaeda and other radical groups have a really good chance of taking over if Assad falls. And it wouldn’t pretend that somehow Assad using chemical weapons means that Iran is going to make a nuclear bomb and kill us all.
Of course, without all of that, there’s basically nothing left. Which to me means we shouldn’t be dropping bombs on Syria. But obviously, the President thinks we should. Why? I still don’t know. He can’t possibly believe the nonsense he was peddling, can he? He can’t be that much of a fool. I know it’s supposed to be all about Israel, but I don’t see what Israel gains by dropping bombs on Assad for maybe using chemical weapons in the interest of maybe slightly helping al-Qaeda take over in Syria.
Maybe someone else can figure it out. I’m just baffled and depressed.
In the spirit of a 15 minute speech, I’ll lay out my opposition to the war as briefly as possible.
Attacking Syria would not be legal, not even if Congress gave him authorization. As I mentioned above, international treaties regarding the use of chemical weapons do not empower any nation to unilaterally enforce them. The use of force – outside of defense – is ultimately governed by the Security Council. Of course, China and Russia would never allow the president to wage a war of choice on Syria, which is why he’s prepared to violate international law (again).
Attacking Syria would not be prudent. There is no guarantee that we would successfully destroy all of Assad’s chemical weapons. We would invite retaliation by Syria or Hezbollah. If the bombing topples the Syrian government, we have no guarantee that the so-called moderate rebels will be able to govern the country. We may very well be helping extremist groups allied with al-Qaeda.
It would not be moral to bomb Syria, especially for the reasons that the president gives. We are allegedly punishing Syria for using chemical weapons, but who are we punishing? Top regime leaders? Military leaders? Their wives and kids and anyone else who happens to be in the room when the bombs hit? What if Assad decides to continue using chemical weapons? Or, more likely what if he just goes back to killing kids with bullets and bombs? What have we accomplished, other than making ourselves feel righteous?
Status of US chemical weapons: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction#Chemical_weapons_disposal
Thanks Caro! I guess I’m overly cynical, then, since it looks like we’re getting rid of chemical weapons.
Though…probably the reason is that we’re decided that nuclear, conventional, and biological weapons are more effective.
Noah – sadly, I think his reasons for going to war really are that absurd. The political class really does buy into the “benevolent hegemon” crap, and they’ve been completely shocked by how much opposition they’re facing.
I don’t know if that’s more depressing or less depressing. Is it better to be ruled by lying psychopaths or morons?
All I got out of Obama’s speech was an attempt to tiptoe around reasonable questions and concerns, which has been his M.O. since being elected. Especially noticeable when he appealed to his “friends” on “the Right” and “the Left.”
He’s too vested in halfheartedly trying to please everyone to bother with facts and legitimate reasons for bombing Syria (whether they exist or not).
One thing I forgot to comment on: the President made it clear that he has constitutional authority to start a war, and he only went to Congress as a sop to people who still care about quaint things like democracy.
That argument was terrible when he did it in Libya, and it was terrible back when Clinton did it in Kosovo. Last time I check, the constitution gives Congress the power to declare wars.
Noah: “Why? I still don’t know. He can’t possibly believe the nonsense he was peddling, can he? He can’t be that much of a fool. I know it’s supposed to be all about Israel, but I don’t see what Israel gains by dropping bombs on Assad…””
The Assad regime has been winning the war over the past year. This in contrast to a year or so back when the rebels were making gains and thus “peace” talks on the agenda (less so now; guess who’s stalling).
I don’t think this bombing is especially about Israel but it suits their needs. There have been murmurs that a prolonged war in Syria in which Arabs kill each other would be good for Israel. Quote:
A New York Times article this week says Israelis have increasingly argued that the best outcome for Syria’s two-and-a-half-year-old civil war, at least for the moment, is no outcome.
“For Jerusalem, the status quo, horrific as it may be from a humanitarian perspective, seems preferable to either a victory by Mr. Assad’s government and his Iranian backers or a strengthening of rebel groups, increasingly dominated by Sunni jihadis,” the Times article said.
“This is a playoff situation in which you need both teams to lose, but at least you don’t want one to win we’ll settle for a tie,” Alon Pinkas, a former Israeli consul general in New York (pictured), was quoted by The New York Times as saying. “Let them both bleed, hemorrhage to death: that’s the strategic thinking here. As long as this lingers, there’s no real threat from Syria.
Noah: “Thanks Caro! I guess I’m overly cynical, then, since it looks like we’re getting rid of chemical weapons.”
It seems like the US is a bit behind on getting rid of their mustard gas and Sarin. Also, it depends on whether you consider Napalm-like missiles, White Phosphorus and Depleted Uranium as chemical weapons. Not by convention of course but they work pretty well to create chemical toxicity, esp. the latter. These are obviously the good kind of chemical weapons.
Suat; so in that view our humanitarian intervention is in the interest of prolonging a hideous civil war, including a staggering refugee crisis, in order to help our ally.
That’s a lovely thought.
Richard, I was reading something recently which was arguing that basically it’s not so much the President’s fault as Congress’; they don’t want to have to deal with voting yea or nay on wars, so they’ve essentially abrogated their Constitutional duty to get in the executive’s face and force him to deal with them.
Yeah, I think Ross Douthat has argued along those lines, and he’s probably right. I was being very abstract and legalistic, which is a bad tendency on my part.
Andrew Bacevich on the “excellence” of the US Congress.
Of course, Obama has not ordered military action; he has only tried to make a case that it is warranted, and threatened that the US will take such actions to enforce and maintain the international norm against chemical weapons.
And doesn’t it seem, perhaps, that this threat is working? Russia has shifted. Perhaps even Syria has shifted. I’m not optimistic on either front, and not in favor of an attack (although I do see the moral virtue in supporting one of the few proscriptions on forms of warfare). But sometimes a threat of imminent violence can produce salutary results “nonviolently.”
And those threats, it seems, are much more likely to work — and those those results tend only to be forthcoming — if the threatened party thinks you’re actually willing to do it.
It’s not exactly clear what salutory results have been produced, I guess. We’ve made Assad move towards agreeing to kill people with bombs rather than gas? I just have trouble seeing why that matters. Proscriptions on war that are morally and practically meaningless; I don’t think that helps us control war. I think it does the reverse.
I also am skeptical of the 4 dimensional chess argument. I really don’t think Obama intended the British to vote down strikes, for example. Folks I tend to trust on international policy (like Greg Djerejian) don’t see him as masterfully putting pressure on Syria, that’s for sure. And, again, it’s not even entirely clear that Assad was the one who used the weapons.
Maybe it’ll all work out for the best. But I don’t really see how the U.S. asserting again that it’s willing to violate international law and its own constitution for nebulous moral goods on the basis of uncertain intelligence — I just don’t think an of that makes the world a safer or better place.
I haven’t been following this as closely as I should, but since Putin and Assad are so tight, I’m guessing that this is a move on Obama’s part to get something (but what?) out of Putin.
Hi Noah,
I sort of agree with all your points. Ant yet…
It doesn’t seem like 4-dimensional chess to use the threat of deadly action to try to get people to move. In fact, it seems like a pretty blunt move. Of course, one cannot predict or assure any specific outcomes on the “other side,” but it seems no more sly than imagining that Obama’s speech is really just a cover for a strategy that says, “we will do or threaten to do X (not too much, not too little) on behest of Israel because they really want a preservation of the status quo, so they can maintain their position, etc…..”
And yeah, I see your point about chemical weapons. Your point really is, “Dead is dead, horror is horror, so why keep up the moral pretense by focusing this relatively small subset of weapons?” I wonder, though, if this leads to an attitude that ultimately stands in the way of ever making warfare “less horrible” — for combatants or non-combatants — than it currently is (or has been).
You make it sound like that passage in HUCK FINN where Huck decides that the only morally comfortable way to steal food is to identify a list of foods they will NOT steal — and then lists the bunch of things that they wouldn’t want anyway. I’m not sure I’m ready to see it that way yet.
Wow, the perils of early-morning commenting. Sheesh.
Oh, and I forgot to include a point of agreement about Noah’s chess skepticism. I, for instance, don’t think that Kerry’s gaffe about how Asaad could avoid the attack by giving up all his chemical weapons this week was actually just a “pretend gaffe,” scripted to trick Putin to come in and say XYZ, which might coax its ally, in turn, to allow ABC,etc., etc.
Setting aside my thoughts on why we shouldn’t be hitting Syria at this point, the rhetorical elephant in the room is that the preious two administrations would’ve just shot some missiles into Syria without asking, and this administration has been raining down death by drone for years without asking permission or doing much to justify the policy. What’s happening is that Obama went on record with an ultimatum (chemical weapons = line in the sand) and now he’s cornered by his own Cold War era narrative (see the comments about world police and swap Russia or China for Iran). Long story short, this al strikes me as a bunch of flailing around by the administration in the hopes that enogh people will say okay, enough already, just do what you gotta’ do.
Peter Sattler said:
‘And doesn’t it seem, perhaps, that this threat is working? Russia has shifted. Perhaps even Syria has shifted. I’m not optimistic on either front, and not in favor of an attack (although I do see the moral virtue in supporting one of the few proscriptions on forms of warfare). But sometimes a threat of imminent violence can produce salutary results “nonviolently.” ‘
I tend to agree. There is no way to know whether or not the purported strategy will not blow up in everyone’s faces in some way, but shit has a way of doing that no matter what action is taken. It seems entirely possible to me that Obama and Kerrey– neither of whom are truly hawks, though they’re capable of making military decisions for expedient reasons– may well have used what Nate calls the “Cold War era narrative” to run a bluff.
It’s too early to know whether or not it will work. But unless Obama decided to pull a Dubya, he has no chance of persuading Congress to intervene. Hence a bluff may work better than righteous indignation, “peaceful” punitive measures (the ones that worked so well in Iraq pre-invasion), or just doing nothing.
“Oh, and I forgot to include a point of agreement about Noah’s chess skepticism. I, for instance, don’t think that Kerry’s gaffe about how Asaad could avoid the attack by giving up all his chemical weapons this week was actually just a “pretend gaffe,” scripted to trick Putin to come in and say XYZ, which might coax its ally, in turn, to allow ABC,etc., etc.”
Why not?
Gene, I don’t believe it was intentional because it would be an incredibly stupid way to do it. If you’ve got a diplomatic proposal, you propose it. As it is, he just said something and Russia jumped on it. In the first place, it makes them look like they don’t know what they’re doing. In the second, if it is what they wanted to do, why be all clever and risky and hope that Russia picks up on the cue? They could have just asked Russia quietly and directly if they wanted to.
It wouldn’t be stupid if Obama and Kerrey correctly read the other side’s reaction. “Oh, don’t throw me in that briar patch, Br’er Putin!”
Now, you make the point that even if Syria surrenders one set of weapons– regardless of whether Asad himself oversaw their use, and whether the weapons-surrender is just a dumb-show to avert a conflict– the Syrians still have regular old guns with which to kill dissidents. But the optimal outcome of this hypothetical bluff would be to make Asad put the halt on all the slaughter. Again, it’s too early to know if this stopgap maneuver will have the optimal effect. But it doesn’t cost the U.S. anything to run a bluff, except that some people (like the Daily Show) will give Putin all the credit.
This might all go down in history as the good guys’ version of Reagan’s “October Surprise.”
Every time I think this administration’s foreign policy activities have hit rock bottom, they throw some more dynamite in the hole and make it deeper.
Regarding Syria, Obama and the State Department are being played harder than a new Call of Duty demo at E3.
If one cares even one iota about the stature of the United States, it is incredibly embarrassing and humiliating to watch.
I don’t much care about the stature of the US — but I’ll admit I hate to see us hand Putin a public relations coup.
That’s another reason that the Kerry/Obama as geniuses doesn’t really seem to work. They engineered a situation in which Putin — this is Putin, the homophobic, authoritarian thug — is handed all the credit for statesmanship and working towards peace. I really don’t see that as a master stroke.