It blows me away... Russia the peacemaker??!! It couldn't have happened
without a stiff resolve from Obama, McCain, Boehner, Pelosi to use force,
but my head is spinning about this Russia/Syria deal.
The NY Times article did present the dilemma well. I think of America's
mood now as somewhat equivalent to the post-WW1/pre WWII isolationism. FDR
had to fight like crazy to prepare us for war. Pearl Harbor switched the
nation's mood like a light bulb. Likewise, 9/11 switched on an
interventionist phase what got us into Iraq and Afghanistan. Now we are
slipping back into an isolationist frame of mind. As the article mentions,
there is risk in not acting.
Chris
------------------------------------------
Christopher P. Hahn, Ph.D.
Constructive Agreement, LLC
<mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]
P.O. Box 39, Bozeman, MT 59771
(406) 522-4143 (406) 556-7116 fax
------------------------------------------
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of David Block
Sent: Monday, September 09, 2013 8:46 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [RC] The Right Questions on Syria - NYTimes.com
Yeah, if you want good choices on this one, then I have some bad news. THERE
ISN'T ONE.
Putin's idea on placing the Syrian stockpile under international control is
the best I've seen so far. Of course, more details need to be forthcoming.
After all of the friction between them, who would have thought that Vladimir
would save Barry's chestnuts???
David
On Sep 9, 2013, at 5:44 PM, "Dr. Ernest Prabhakar"
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote:
Sigh, what a mess. This is the most thoughtful piece I've seen so far,
though.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/05/opinion/kristof-the-right-questions-on-syr
ia.html?smid=tw-share
<http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/05/opinion/kristof-the-right-questions-on-sy
ria.html?smid=tw-share&_r=3&> &_r=3&
The Right Questions on Syria
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
<http://news.yahoo.com/un-5-000-syrians-being-killed-every-month-155218016.h
tml> 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.
<http://syriahr.com/en/index.php?option=com_articles&aid=23&Itemid=5&task=di
splayarticle#.UieUBT5a3jg> 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.
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,
<http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/military/etc/peace.html> 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.
<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10275520/Syria-f
ootage-of-napalm-incident-emerges.html> 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?"
--
--
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]> .
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
--
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to [email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]> .
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
--
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community
<[email protected]>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
