How Soon They Choose To Forget

Nick Kristof exhorts his fellow libs to end their useless hand-wringing and deliver a useless shot over the bow of Assad:

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?

Kristof backs a limited strike of limited efficacy:

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.

Yeah, if we can bring that 165 daily figure down to 164, let's go for it!

As to his being aghast about the Iraq war, he seems to have forgotten the famous UNICEF finding that UN sanctions on Iraq were killing 5,000 babies per month. (and another 2,500 adults, by some estimates, but Kristof considered that to be peace.)

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.

FWIW, he is having a near-unanimous reader revolt in his comments section. if that is a straw in the wind for public support and pressure on Congress, Obama's credibility the world's, the Congress', and everyone but Obama's credibility is in trouble.

 

Comments

[Clarice]

Politico indicates that it doesn't think the Syria vote will pass. Maybe we aren't yet stupid enough for this crazy pants President.

[narciso]

It didn't make a whole lot of sense to me,

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2013/09/03/yossef-bodansky-did-the-white-house-help-plan-the-syrian-chemical-attack/

[Ignatz]

The fact is, precisely contrary to their claims, it is lefties who are always prepared for unilateral actions so long as a lefty is in the cockpit.

Just as it is lefties who, when they have the opportunity, prefer to stride about the world like a giant cop, an arrogant superpower able to push and bully other countries with little thought as to the consequences or the interests of other countries, enemy and ally alike.

And when you mix that with a "strategy" consisting of a reflexive desire to punish politically incorrect regimes and seek absolution for perceived American guilt you've got the perfect recipe for a diminished America and a very, very dangerous world.

[Account Deleted]

If we can let Planned Parenthood gosnels butcher 1,500 black babies every day, I don't see why we should interfere with Butchers and Cannibals resolving their differences using time honored Mahometan methods.

Progs might consider stopping paying bounties for black baby feet prior to attempting to tug heart strings over Butchers killing Cannibals (or vice versa).

[narciso]

That snippet of the Rand report, came from here;

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2013/08/syria_air_war_what_we_can_learn_from_kosovo_libya_and_the_persian_gulf_war.html

[Danube of Thought]

it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that the administration wants the civil war to continue indefinitely. To declare specifically that we do not want regime change, nor even to change the momentum, strikes me as insane. This is a purely symbolic gesture, but one with live ammo. Just crazy.

[NK(tryin')]

TomM-- in all serious, your Post lost me at "Nick Kristof". As to the 'substance' of Kristof's arguments, DoT@11:00 explains why those arguments are insane, at best, very dangerous to USA interests at worst.

[NK(tryin')]

serious = seriousness

[Sandy Daze]

If we can let Planned Parenthood gosnels butcher 1,500 black babies every day, I don't see why we should interfere with Butchers and Cannibals resolving their differences using time honored Mahometan methods.

Progs might consider stopping paying bounties for black baby feet prior to attempting to tug heart strings over Butchers killing Cannibals (or vice versa).

Posted by: Rick Ballard | September 05, 2013 at 10:55 AM

Indeed.

[Ranger]

I think we can now safely tag the Dems as the official party of "stupid wars".

[James D.]

Ranger, don't you mean "stupid kinetic humanitarian interventions"?

Get your terminology right!

[Gus.]

Religion of Peace!!!

Everything Obama touches turns to shit.

[James D.]

OT, but I have to brag a little (just a little, I promise!).

I had a "video book trailer" made for my first book, and it got a mention today on the USA Today website.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/happyeverafter/2013/09/05/book-trailers-jordan-castillo-price-julie-anne-lindsey/2769047/

Granted, it's only online, and it's in a small and probably very poorly read corner of their website, but still, it's my book, mentioned in USA Today.

[NK(tryin')]

Congrats James D

[Jane]

Britt Hume made the most persuasive argument for intervention I've heard, but not persuasive enough. Basically his argument is that we are the world's super power, it's our job to draw the line, not going would show weakness and Barry represents America. And if we don't go all future presidents will be weakened and we will lose our standing in the world.

I think those arguments, particularly the last ones are persuasive, however I cannot get past Obama's incompetence, his refusal to take advice and his unwillingness to adhere to the constitution. I also think his actions are as likely to start WW3 as they are to solve this problem.

[narciso]

Congrats James D,

[Comanche Voter]

5,000 dead a month? Some would say that that is a good start.

I don't see any particular reason to, in The Bamster's words, "get all wee wee'd up" about Baathists and rebels, or Sunni's and Shiites killing each other.

As long as they're not over here killing us, let Allah sort it out.

In the immortal words of Cassius Clay/Muhammad Ali, "I don't have nothing against them Congs"--so I don't want to get involved in the Syria fight.

And as for preserving The Bamster's credibility? Down in the Texas Panhandle, they'd say that Obama's credibility, to the extent that it ever existed, is now worth just about two popcorn poots in a wind storm.

[James D.]

Jane, I agree with the first three statements:

We're the superpower

It's our job to draw the lines

Not going would show weakness.

I disagree 10,000% with:

Barry represents America

If we don't go, future presidents will be weakened.

My opinion hasn't changed from the beginning. I oppose strikes because the plan that the President and his minions have laid out will, in their own words, do nothing to actually solve the program.

Hitting low-value targets with a day or two worth of cruise missiles to show our displeasure, as though Assad were a disobedient housepet and a cruise missile strike were a rolled-up newspaper, will accomplish nothing good, AT BEST, and may cause untold harm.

If the actual plan is other than that, then we've got the President, and everyone under him, lying through their teeth to Congress, to the American people, and to the military who will be asked to carry out whatever the real plan actually is. That is - or should be, at least - unacceptable.

[Steve]

People are dying in Syria in large measure because of previous American intervention in that country of the side of the "rebels". So the argument boils down to "We need more US intervention to counteract the bad results of prior US intervention".

[Jane]

How cool James!

I cringe with the "Barry represents America statement" too.

[sbwaters]

Barry represents the muddle he misleads.

[average josephine]

"rolled up newspaper"

Love it. Operation Rolled Up Newspaper.

[Bruce]

whose Sarin now, whose Sarin now
Whose soldiers are achin' for breakin' each law
whose blistered and blue, who's dyin' too
Just like they died for you

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/09/05/russia-releases-100-page-report-blaming-syrian-rebels-for-march-chemical-attack/

[Cecil Turner]

Saddam was worse by any rational measure. There's simply no logical framework for supporting military action in Syria, but not supporting it in Iraq.

Those that are floating such are hypocrites and political ideologues (i.e., "it's okay when my guy does it"). Of course, Kristof was already a known quantity, so that's not news.

[MikeP]

Steve: "People are dying in Syria in large measure because of previous American intervention in that country of the side of the "rebels". So the argument boils down to "We need more US intervention to counteract the bad results of prior US intervention"."
Really Steve? If by previous administration, do you O's first term in 08-12? Because prior to 08, Assad was largely staying within international norms and there was not active work against him. Heck, he was a fair weather supporter of the Irag invasion. It wasn't until after the uprisings in Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya that there was a signficant rebel uprising in Syria that was noticed outside its borders. Get over your BDS already. We're going on 6 years.

[Robert F]

I don't see the agreement with Hume at all. Yeah, we're the superpower - broke, unemployed and fractured by manufactured racial animus, but still the superpower. So why does that imply we're the guy who draws the lines? That worked out so great in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Egypt. You find that line-drawing app in the Constitution, please show me. And as for the argument that not acting weakens America... hey, Carter was a gutless laughingstock and somehow, the election of Reagan got the Iran hostages released rather quickly. The stink of Obama will not linger after 2016. The stink of the majority that elected him twice will not so easily be dissapated.

[Ignatz]

--we will lose our standing in the world--

We lose our standing in the world when we intervene and lose or have no intention of winning.
The argument that this is a bad idea because of Barry's incompetence is specious.
This is a terrible idea no matter who is in the WH.

[Jane~~~]

Robert,

I think Hume was referencing the cold war.

I just can't get past the incompetence issue. It's like saying "I must go to the hospital so I'll let a 3 year old drive me there."

[Abadman]

A leader(President) can delegate authority but not responsibility.

This is the reason for our loss of standing in the world.

[sherlock]

I'd like to paint the ceiling of the Oval Office brown, and then point up to it and tell Obama "That's whale shit."

[Publius of Idaho]

To Brit Hume I would ask; do you really want to give this juvenile in the WH the keys to the armory if it can at all be avoided?

[jimmyk]

This is a terrible idea no matter who is in the WH.

I don't see how you separate the idea from the occupant of the WH. Only the current occupant has proposed an intervention with the express intent of not accomplishing anything. Would GWB have ever proposed something as preposterous as that?

[Ignatz]

I mean intervening in a civil war in which we have no vital interests at stake, especially without congressional authorization, if it comes to that.

A military intervention where we don't belong that accomplishes something is at best marginally better and may very well be worse than one which accomplishes nothing, depending on what the accomplishment is.

For instance actually deposing the Baathists and ending up with an AQ dominated state would not seem much of an accomplishment at all.

[pagar-----]

"Jean Fraud Kerry: Leading the Charge of the Lie Brigade"

http://thisainthell.us/blog/?p=37437

"But many millions of us are convinced Kerry’s carefully crafted career is based entirely on lies pertaining to military operations, both his and others."

[Sort-Of-Mad Max]

No Al Qaeda ever called me 'cracker'! (speaking of Muhammad Ali)