There is no place more relevant at the present moment to U.S. interests and the war on terror than Syria—especially given its use of chemical weapons of mass destruction.
It is safe to assume the U.S. (and inter alia its Israeli and British counterparts) is hoovering up all the electronic signals emanating in and from Syria.
----------
Premise 2—The Manning Axiom: All-powerful President Obama has authorized and is using drones and drone strikes as the primary means to execute his foreign policy objectives around the world.
He has the (near-tyrannical) ability to use them anywhere, any time, and against anybody he chooses—possibly even against U.S. citizens—and has used them in the past against innocent civilians for little or no apparent reason.
----------
It follows, then, from the Snowden Axiom that: President Obama knows who, up and down the Syrian chain of command, authorized, ordered, and executed the recent chemical weapons strike against Syrian citizens. (The U.N. "investigation" is a sham and merely for show.)
----------
Therefore: President Obama can (and probably should) use targeted, surgical drone strikes against each and every Syrian in the chain of command who authorized, ordered, and executed the chemical weapons strike instead, say, of initiating a boots-on-the-ground war or the sort of air and missile strikes that would draw us into a Middle East civil war.
----------
----------
Where's the fallacy in that argument? Is it in the axiomatic assumptions? You tell me.
----------
----------
Furthermore, if Obama doesn't do this, he's weak and ineffectual as a leader and a commander-in-chief.
Or, he's in the thrall of his military-industrial complex overlords who have too much of a surplus inventory of unused war machines that need to be expended (so they can update their stores and build some more on a cost-plus basis) and too few military personnel in actual combat to keep the top-heavy general staff officers from getting bored.
Or else, he's a cynical war-monger who wants to take this country even further rightward using a boots-on-the-ground war to cement his grasp on power as a Bushian 'war time President'.
Or, all of the above.
[Or, alternatively, the Snowden and Manning axioms are, well, shall we say, over-stated.]
----------
However, if Obama does authorize the use of targeted drone strikes against the perpetrators up and down the Syrian chain of command, it's a tacit confirmation that:
- he's a tyrant and an outlaw on the world stage;
- that he does use the NSA to hoover up all the sigint in the world;
- that he can and will authorize and order drone strikes anywhere, any time, and against anyone in the world; and last but not least
- all our worst, most paranoid fantasies are indeed true.
----------
Extra Credit: Agent Mike: Since, pursuant to the U.S. PATRIOT Act, each of the intelligence agencies is supposed to coordinate its efforts with all the others, and even though this is meant to be a piece of satire, you should actually use this as a suggestion to your friends at CIA—you know, run it up the flag pole and see who salutes (or has an itchy drone trigger finger)—instead of, I don't know, adding yet another ridiculous entry to some useless bureaucratic file somewhere on some idiot blogger who doesn't know what he's talking about.
Are you using 'argument via eyeroll', Jim H.?
ReplyDeleteSeems to me that this argument is easily countered by the facts.
1) The Espionage Act of 1917 is a shitty law passed by President Wilson during World War I.
2) It had been used a total of 3 times before Obama was sworn in.
3) It has now been (mis)used 11 times.
4) The case against the "Most Open President ever" gets even worse when you examine the details of those uses.
Aside 1: Speaking of chemical weapons, thanks to Snowden, we have details of CIA support for Saddam's use of them.
Aside 2: Speaking of war crimes, thanks to Manning, we know that the Administration pressured Spain into dropping its investigation of Bush-era torture. And while Obama and company were stamping their feet, demanding that Russia hand Snowden over, the U.S. spirited Robert Seldon Lady out of Panama where he'd picked up on an Interpol warrant. In the United States of Hypocrisy, war crimes are what we say they are (and when).
Aside 3: He has the (near-tyrannical) ability to use them anywhere, any time, and against anybody he chooses—possibly even against U.S. citizens
He's already claimed that right, and done that.
Aside 4: This comment has focused on Obama's "war on terror" abuses. But his betrayals on the economic front are even larger. Summary: Obama has done as much for Wall Street and as little for his voters as he could get away with. If McCain had tried to pull off what Obama did, he'd have lost reelection in 2012 by a landslide. Obama isn't the lesser evil, he's the more effective evil.
~
Thunder: Thanks for your considered response, but I'm not sure what your point is. Should Obama or should he not drone strike the Syrian chemical weapons chain-of-command culprits? And can he really do it? And if he can and does, is that an appropriate response to the Syrian regime's use of chemical WMD? Would such a measured response potentially keep us out of yet another Asian land war?
ReplyDeleteI tend to think that if everything we read in the press and in the Snowden-Manning leaks is true, that may very well be the best of all possible responses. It certainly seems, given the information, possible in the real world.
I certainly feel that use of deadly nerve gas against a civilian population is, as Obama said, the sort of red line that calls for some response from the world community. (And not just the U.S.)
I'm not making any value statements one way or the other about Manning or Snowden—heroes? traitors? that argument doesn't concern me. Leak plugging and vilification? Likewise. That's the game they play in Beltway land.
Bottom Line: What's leaked is leaked. People are going to react how they're going to react. My opinion on those issues doesn't matter. (It does seem there is some outrage and exaggeration on both sides—from Greenwald, etc., about how bad the Administration is & from the insider Establishment mouthpiece press and gov't institutions, etc. about how bad the leaks and leakers are.)
I'm just assuming there's some core of truth in these revelations, the extent of which is beyond my ability to learn or accurately know. And if it's at least partially true, why not use these capabilities in what's probably a morally defensible and justifiable manner. That and no more. Nothing you've said addresses that point.
Should Obama or should he not drone strike the Syrian chemical weapons chain-of-command culprits?
ReplyDeleteFranklin C. Spinney considers this question, with historical context, in
http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/08/27/syria-in-the-crosshair/
To put it briefly, Spinney would answer your question in the negative - he regards the impending use of violence as
a clear psychopathic marriage of two fatally-flawed ideas.
1. Coercive diplomacy assumes that carefully calibrated doses of punishment will persuade any adversary, whether an individual terrorist or a national government, to act in a way that we would define as acceptable.
2. Limited precision bombardment assumes we can administer those doses precisely on selected “high-value” targets using guided weapons, fired from a safe distance, with no friendly casualties, and little unintended damage.
This marriage of pop psychology and bombing lionizes war on the cheap, and it increases our country’s addiction to strategically counterproductive drive-by shootings with cruise missiles and precision-guided bombs.
Thanks, dr. charley. That's an interesting analogy re treating sovereign states like bad kids. Spanking (use of violence) isn't really that persuasive nor is it particularly efficacious.
ReplyDeleteNot sure what Spinney is advocating though. Is he calling for all out war—yet another land war in Asia—or nothing at all? There's a big difference.
My own propensity is for peaceful solutions. Unfortunately, bombing Syria back to the stone age and then invasion and occupation by U.S. or NATO is a real possibility—just ask your local neo-con.
There has to be some measured response somewhere along that spectrum because, at least it seems to me, no reaction/response in a situation like the use of chemical nerve agents is tantamount to acceptance and even sanction—not just by the U.S. but by the world community.
I suggested drones (per the Manning Axiom) since I assume we know who authorized, ordered, and executed the chemical attacks (via Snowden Axiom)
It's a bad situation. Assad, by all accounts, seems to be a bad actor. (Though clearly there are plenty of bad actors to go around, abroad and here at home.) What do you think is the best way to reel him in? Or should we even try?
It's a tough call however you slice it, it seems to me. And I'm not sure there's a completely palatable answer.
it seems to me spinney's piece addresses your premise 2 - the manning axion
ReplyDeletewith regard to your premise 1 - the snowden axiom - i don't think electronic monitoring is as all-seeing as this supposes - to the extent the kgb (now fsb, right?) puts its most important analyses into typewritten documents, for example, there's a degree of opacity there
that no degree of hacking, cracking, phracking and another word that rhymes can overcome
there's a wikipedia article on spinney - i suppose that he thinks in this case, and in general, that not every "problem" has a "solution", and in particular that not every "solution" involves destroying things and killing people
re your statement no reaction/response in a situation like the use of chemical nerve agents is tantamount to acceptance and even sanction—not just by the U.S. but by the world community.
ReplyDeletethe follow text through [end quote] is from
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/08/26/cia-documents-show-u-s-helped-iraq-fight-iran-despite-chemical-weapons-use/
CIA documents show U.S. helped Iraq fight Iran despite chemical weapons use
By Agence France-Presse
Monday, August 26, 2013 15:10 EDT
The United States provided Iraq with intelligence on preparations for an Iranian offensive during the Iran-Iraq war even though it knew Baghdad would respond with chemical weapons, Foreign Policy magazine reported Monday.
Citing declassified CIA documents and interviews with former officials, the magazine reviewed the US record as Washington weighs military action against Syria for its alleged use of chemical weapons near Damascus last week.
The magazine said the US knew in 1983 that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein would not hesitate to resort to shelling Iranian forces with sarin or mustard gas.
“As Iraqi attacks continue and intensify the chances increase that Iranian forces will acquire a shell containing mustard agent with Iraqi markings,” a top secret CIA report said in November 1983.
[end quote, although the report continues]
you ask What do you think is the best way to reel [Assad] in? Or should we even try?
my own inclination is to refrain from mass murder unless necessary - the fact that others are committing mass murder suggests that it MIGHT be necessary to respond with mass murder - but then questions come up about what happens next - the results of the 21st-century american invasion and occupation of iraq and afghanistan suggest that those in charge of making predictions about those results aren't very good at it and it seems unlikely to me that an obective analysis of the situation of the people in those countries would conclude that they are better off as a result of the violence unleashed upon them
as bob dylan sang
democracy don't rule the world
best get that through your head
this world is ruled by violence
- guess that's better left unsaid
the problem of coordination of collective human action along the cooperation/coercion dimension is complex - and i don't think the united states military or their owners, the MICFiC, are the people who should be the boss of the world
Yeah, mr. c, Thunder mentioned the CIA's logistical support for Iraq in the Iraq-Iran war of the '80s. I rented a house in the '80s (Gipper time!) from a guy involved in intelligence cooperation with Iraq. It's use of chemical weapons was a crime. It was one of the crimes Cheney/Rumsfeld cited as a reason for invading—failing to clarify for the U.S. popular consumption that that particular war crime had happened some two decades prior and with our complicity (who was secdef then? oh yeah, Cheney).
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure, however, how that plays into the decision to act in the here & now to this act in Syria. Are you & Thunder arguing that the U.S. was somehow complicit in this action as well simply because of something done by the Reagan administration in the '80s.
Aside: you'll recall that that Iran-Iraq war was pretty much 'total war' at the time. My former landlord claimed it was as bad as WWI, just more limited in geographic scope. Many civilians were massacred by both sides. Millions died. And the U.S. sided with Saddam against the Islamicists in Iran who'd pretty much declared war on us. Bottom line: there wasn't an innocent side in that hellish conflict. We were indeed complicit on the Iraqi side. But I don't see its relevance here.
I don't think we need to engage in mass murder here. The use of drones against specific perpetrators of this crime, especially if it is based on real, hard evidence and international consensus, could send a major signal to Assad: this is an internal Syrian conflict, we're not going to intervene, but the world community will not stand for these sorts of infractions and will step in to referee when called for.
What we don't hear is how many innocent civilians are being killed by either Assad or the "rebels" (for lack of a better word) every day. There is clearly a lack of information about what's really going on over there.
Thanks again for your and Thunder's considered responses to my original post.
you write
ReplyDeleteThe use of drones against specific perpetrators of this crime, especially if it is based on real, hard evidence and international consensus, could send a major signal to Assad: this is an internal Syrian conflict, we're not going to intervene, but the world community will not stand for these sorts of infractions and will step in to referee when called for.
it sounds like you still believe a lot of what they print in the ny times and the washington post - in saying so i realize i am making myself obnoxious, but i'd rather say the truth as i see it than be agreeable -
my view, very frankly, is that when you start talking about "the use of drones" - blowing up people and buildings - you are ALREADY talking about mass murder, per se -
in behavioral terms - who is "the world community"
what physically happens when someone (who?) "steps in to referee"
i'm sure there's no accurate count of how many innocent civilians are being killed every day in syria - or anyplace - but applying more lethal force in any particular time and place may not be an improvement - as emperor hirohito told his people at the end of world war ii, "the situation has developed not necessarily to our advantage" - so while blowing things up and killing people CAN be useful, sometimes, somewhere, often it isn't
i've often watched james raymond 'jimmy' smith's cover of bob dylan's song 'union sundown' - which has the lyrics i quoted earlier in this thread
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRayUWkKX50
I just saw on the news that the Syrian General in charge of chemical weapons was killed. Coincidence? The report didn't say whether he was killed by rebels or drones or even his own men.
ReplyDeleteI don't believe a drone strike is necessarily a mass murder. It has a camera and a targeted missile of some sort. (Recall the Manning video—the one thing that has been obscured by the all the hype surrounding his trial. It's a surgical weapon.) It is way less a blunderbuss than a Cruise missile or an airstrike. We'll just have to disagree there.
In logical reasoning, sometimes you use a hypothetical, an 'if-then' type statement, as a way of evaluating a course of action. Consequentialism, if you will.
Here's my thought exercise:
• if it's inevitable that the U.S. is going to strike against Syria for its use of mass chemical attack against its citizens, what level of response could I possibly support?
Clearly not an invasion, or a mass air strike, or a hail of Cruise missiles. But is there any level of military action that would be justifiable? A targeted, surgical drone strike against known perpetrators seemed to be a good place to frame the argument.
Now, having looked at what might be an acceptable level of response, I turn back to the hypothesis—the 'if' part of the proposition. Why is a response inevitable? Is there some other choice?
If it is inevitable, there must be input from Congress. Constitutional 'process' is imperative. That was the great Bushian crime, arrogating the war powers to itself. Obama should not!
Bottom line: If it's inevitable, then keep it limited, surgical, targeted. If it's inevitable, get Congressional sanction (the Brits failed at that! or succeeded, if you will)—which might prove it not inevitable. That might be the only real world possibility of averting some sort of strike.
The inevitability premise is hard to overcome. I still don't understand why the U.S. has to be the referee. But it does feel like someone should be.
Are you & Thunder arguing that the U.S. was somehow complicit in this action as well simply because of something done by the Reagan administration in the '80s.
ReplyDeleteJim H., it goes back even further. For instance, see 1953, when we and the Brits overthrew Iran's democracy so that "our" multinational oil companies could make more money.
Our hands have been so dirty for so long, it's laughable when we insist that, once again, we have to blow up some nation's civilians in order to save them.
Atrios axes a question.
~
Thunder: For me, the question was whether to strike against purely military targets, specifically those who authorized, ordered, and executed this mass chemical weapons attack killing 1500 people, including 450 children.
ReplyDeleteClearly the overthrow of Mossadeq (sp) is a great cause of instability in the region. As is the founding of Israel and the exile and subjugation of the Palestinians. As is, for that matter, the Crusades—the invasion of the middle East by Western Christian kingdoms.
Be that as it may, the world is faced with a current crisis. Action is called for, and any inaction will also be Action in this situation. Sure we can ignore it and hope it goes away. That is an option. But it is a course of action that has to be deliberately taken aware of potential real-world consequences (of our inaction).
Are you arguing that we should do nothing? I can completely respect that position, but I strongly believe it requires a stronger argument than Mossadeq and Reagan. One that looks at what's happening now and that takes into consideration the consequences of both action (however massive) and inaction GOING FORWARD. That history you mention has to provide context. Absolutely. I agree 100%. And we should be cognizant of it in any discussion of the situation. But I don't think it is a controlling precedent (as we used to say in law school). It is influential, but not definitively.
I also believe this Administration's choices are somewhat hamstrung by the Iraq/Saddam/WMD/al Qaeda debacle, and particularly the concoction of lies that dragged us into it that misbegotten regime-change conflict. That too has to temper our response, but again I'm not sure it is 100% controlling. This is a different situation, and, at least as far as I can tell, the evidence seems genuine.
Are you arguing that we should do nothing?
ReplyDeleteYes. We should stop being the world's most corrupt corporate policeman.
This is a different situation, and, at least as far as I can tell, the evidence seems genuine.
How can we believe anything our government tells us?
They told us that overthrowing Gaddafi was for humanitarian concerns, and that the goal wasn't 'regime change'. The 2nd was obviously a lie, and as for the 1st, lobbing (how many? who can tell us honestly?) tons of munitions at Tripoli, Libya's most populous city, as our first act in "freeing Libya" is sadly typical.
We have over a hundred years of inventing humanitarian crises and associated demands for urgent action. The beneficiaries: Dole, United Fruit Company, Exxon, BP, G.E., Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and absolutely despotic regimes like Saudi Arabia (not to mention, Saddam's Iraq...when he was still on good terms with the said oil companies).l
We have no credibility and no moral high ground. How many did we slaughter in Iraq? How come that isn't a war crime? Right. Because we said so. (I'll link this again.)
Come on, Jim.
~