Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

Nick Kristof for Syria strike

The Right Questions on Syria By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF Critics of American military action in Syria are right to point out all the risks and uncertainties of missile strikes, and they have American public opinion on their side.

But for those of you who oppose cruise missile strikes, what alternative do you favor?

It’s all very well to urge the United Nations and Arab League to do more, but that means that Syrians will continue to be killed at a rate of 5,000 every month. Involving the International Criminal Court sounds wonderful but would make it more difficult to hammer out a peace deal in which President Bashar al-Assad steps down. So what do you propose other than that we wag our fingers as a government uses chemical weapons on its own people?

So far, we’ve tried peaceful acquiescence, and it hasn’t worked very well. The longer the war drags on in Syria, the more Al Qaeda elements gain strength, the more Lebanon and Jordan are destabilized, and the more people die. It’s admirable to insist on purely peaceful interventions, but let’s acknowledge that the likely upshot is that we sit by as perhaps another 60,000 Syrians are killed over the next year.

A decade ago, I was aghast that so many liberals were backing the Iraq war. Today, I’m dismayed that so many liberals, disillusioned by Iraq, seem willing to let an average of 165 Syrians be killed daily rather than contemplate missile strikes that just might, at the margins, make a modest difference.

The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, which tracks the number of dead in the civil war, is exasperated at Western doves who think they are taking a moral stance.

“Where have these people been the past two years,” the organization asks on its Web site. “What is emerging in the United States and United Kingdom now is a movement that is anti-war in form but pro-war in essence.”

In other words, how is being “pro-peace” in this case much different in effect from being “pro-Assad” and resigning oneself to the continued slaughter of civilians?

To me, the central question isn’t, “What are the risks of cruise missile strikes on Syria?” I grant that those risks are considerable, from errant missiles to Hezbollah retaliation. It’s this: “Are the risks greater if we launch missiles, or if we continue to sit on our hands?”

Let’s be humble enough to acknowledge that we can’t be sure of the answer and that Syria will be bloody whatever we do. We Americans are often so self-absorbed as to think that what happens in Syria depends on us; in fact, it overwhelmingly depends on Syrians.

Yet on balance, while I applaud the general reluctance to reach for the military toolbox, it seems to me that, in this case, the humanitarian and strategic risks of inaction are greater. We’re on a trajectory that leads to accelerating casualties, increasing regional instability, growing strength of Al Qaeda forces, and more chemical weapons usage.

Will a few days of cruise missile strikes make a difference? I received a mass e-mail from a women’s group I admire, V-Day, calling on people to oppose military intervention because “such an action would simply bring about more violence and suffering. ... Experience shows us that military interventions harm innocent women, men and children.”

Really? Sure, sometimes they do, as in Iraq. But in both Bosnia and Kosovo, military intervention saved lives. The same was true in Mali and Sierra Leone. The truth is that there’s no glib or simple lesson from the past. We need to struggle, case by case, for an approach that fits each situation.

In Syria, it seems to me that cruise missile strikes might make a modest difference, by deterring further deployment of chemical weapons. Sarin nerve gas is of such limited usefulness to the Syrian army that it has taken two years to use it in a major way, and it’s plausible that we can deter Syria’s generals from employing it again if the price is high.

by Anonymousreply 609/05/2013

The Syrian government has also lately had the upper hand in fighting, and airstrikes might make it more willing to negotiate toward a peace deal to end the war. I wouldn’t bet on it, but, in Bosnia, airstrikes helped lead to the Dayton peace accord.

Missile strikes on Assad’s military airports might also degrade his ability to slaughter civilians. With fewer fighter aircraft, he may be less able to drop a napalm-like substance on a school, as his forces apparently did in Aleppo last month.

A brave BBC television crew filmed the burn victims, with clothes burned and skin peeling off their bodies, and interviewed an outraged witness who asked those opposed to military action: “You are calling for peace. What kind of peace are you calling for? Don’t you see this?”

by Anonymousreply 109/05/2013

I am wavering in my decision for air strikes, because I don't know if they would really hit military targets and not hurt more civilians. Also what's the chances that it's a one time deal?

by Anonymousreply 209/05/2013

Don't forget the *perception* r2. As soon as our first missile strikes, the entire Middle East (well beyond Syria) will cement in their minds the idea/fact of the US as uninvited aggressor. And they will be pissed.

Any strike on Syria will make the US less safe for a decade.

by Anonymousreply 309/05/2013

R3, Have you seen any reliable and honest articles quoting the other MidEast countries' positions on US involvement in Syria? After all, supposedly we have some sort of alliance, if only for oil acquisitions, and I would hate to see the repercussions if that were affected. How would US military action positively or negatively affect say, Saudi Arabia?

by Anonymousreply 409/05/2013

Like most Americans, I am opposed to any US military involvement in Syria.

Syrian President Assad is truly despicable, and his actions against his own people are evil and heartbreaking. But this is not our war. There is no direct threat against the US or its people - although there certainly will be if military action is taken.

Military action in Syria will make the United States less safe.

Furthermore, it is insane for us to think that we should be the arbiters of others' wars. There is always a war being fought somewhere. It is always brutal and horrible, and innocents always die. Still, as great a country as we are, we cannot fight ALL the wars.

This is not our war to fight.

If you wish to fight for the helpless, the displaced, the hungry, there are plenty of them here in the United States. As you well know. After the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, we don't have enough money for our own people. When we rebuild the infrastructure in Iraq and Afghanistan, every dollar spent is a dollar that doesn't go to the United States' crumbling infrastructure. Millions became homeless in the recent housing crisis, millions more go hungry every day, HERE. Yet so much money is tied up with war.

We need the money military action would cost us HERE, at home.

These are just three reasons I cannot support any military action in Syria.

by Anonymousreply 509/05/2013

He's my favorite writer for the Times and he's the VERY MOST travelled of all of them, he's on the ground around the world most of the year it seems, Sudan, Laos, Pakistan, North Korea, you name it, he's fearless in his pursuit of what's happening on the ground in the world.

that he writes this though makes me unhappy. One of the comments form this column asks if it would not be better if Obama call up tehran and have THEM start pulling some weight, and I'd love to see that, if they don't then fuck them, but at least the US could be seen for once working with others on their terms.

8Since it seems likely now that war will occur, at least we have a good writer (kristoff) on that side.

by Anonymousreply 609/05/2013
Need more help? Click Here.

Follow theDL catch up on what you missed

recent threads by topic delivered to your email

follow popular threads on twitter

follow us on facebook

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!