6 ms·

It is like the US only has one option - shooting. If we had a medical-industrial complex we could be air-dropping medical supplies and instead of the marines w

• anigbrowl 13y ago
  We are already giving humanitarian & medical aid and have been for some time. The use of chemical weapons has been considered a particularly heinous war crime since before WW2. Destroying chemical stockpiles is about as limited an engagement as possible. We're not sending any marines in, or supplying rebels with arms - at least not yet, and I hope not ever.
  • Amadou 13y ago
    I don't just mean humanitarian aid, which I think is dwarfed by the costs of whatever attacks are being considered. I'm talking about direct support to the revolutionaries - combat hospitals and the like. We could do more than just medical support too without risking blow-back, things like robust communications links and battlefield intelligence from drones, vehicles, spare parts, mechanics to work on the vehicles, food, and other supply-chain type stuff. Pretty much everything we do for american troops except providing weapons. We just have this mindset that the support we provide to the people doing the fighting must itself be directly offensive which is itself a risk to us because of terrorism. Those blinders have caused us to sit it out and let the conflict drag on. And then there is the question of what comes after. By providing direct support we would be building personal relationships with the revolutionaries so that when it came time to put together a new government, they would be much more receptive to our input on what it takes to make a stable and american-friendly government.
    • sillysaurus2 13y ago
      The goal of a war is to win, and to win the opposing army must die. Napoleon demonstrated that. Most warfare in the preceding centuries was focused on winning battles rather than killing armies. But then Napoleon demonstrated how frighteningly effective it was to win a battle and immediately chase down and kill the opposition. Along with the invention of the standing army, warfare changed forever. We've been mainly focused on killing people ever since, because the people who wouldn't focus on that were swiftly debased. If America chooses to support this conflict, I wish we would do it quickly and efficiently, and then immediately leave. Setting aside the question of morals, the primary reason Iraq and Afghanistan were such disasters is because we stayed. Actually, I wish we would bow out of the Middle East entirely and leave people alone, but that's unlikely to happen in the current political climate. It's important to always remember the goal of modern warfare. When you choose to support war, you are choosing to kill other people, even if you're not doing the killing directly. There are no half measures. Either your side wins, and therefore the other army is dead, or yours is. So if you're going to support the war and endanger your countrymen, you want to win. Otherwise what's the point?
      • lotharbot 13y ago
        To win, the opposing side must lose its capability to wage war. One way to accomplish that is to kill the opposing army, but that's not the only way. Other ways include destroying warfighting equipment (say, aircraft that are still on the ground), decimating the manufacturing base (thereby denying the opposing army the ability to rebuild lost capability), denying the opposing side critical resources such as fuel (why do you think the US has such a large "strategic oil reserve"?), or destroying the morale of opposing forces. Granted, all of those methods generally involve killing people on the other side... but the implications are different than your assertion, wherein winning wars requires the slaughter of opposing forces. A careful study of modern warfare would show that the majority of wars were not won because the opposing army was mostly dead, but because of equipment and materiel and logistics and morale.
        • sillysaurus2 13y ago
          Midway is probably the best example in support of your claim. Its outcome is generally accepted as the reason Japan lost. And yet it's interesting to note that the war was not won until their army was effectively dead: they believed so fiercely in the war that they would not yield until they believed imminent death was unavoidable. I'd like to paste an interesting excerpt from 100 Decisive Battles: "When Okinawa was finally declared secure, the cost had been horrific. Some 150,000 Okinawans died, approximately one-third the island’s population. An additional 10,000 Koreans, used by the Japanese military as slave labor, died as well. Of the 119,000 or so Japanese soldiers, as many as 112,000 were killed in the battle or forever sealed inside a collapsed cave or bunker. Aside from the human cost, most of the physical aspects of Okinawan culture were razed. Few buildings survived the 3 months’ fighting. Collectively, the defenders lost more dead than the Japanese suffered in the two atomic bombings combined. The United States lost 13,000 dead: almost 8,000 on the island and the remainder at sea; another 32,000 were wounded. The loss of life on both sides, particularly among the Japanese civilians, caused immense worry in Washington. New President Harry Truman was looking at the plans for a proposed assault on the Japanese main islands, and the casualty projections were unacceptable. Projections numbered the potential casualties from 100,000 in the first 30 days to as many as 1 million attackers, and the death count for the Japanese civilians would be impossible to calculate. If they resisted as strongly as did the citizens of Okinawa—and the inhabitants of the home islands would be even more dedicated to defending their homeland—Japan would become a wasteland. It was already looking like one in many areas. The U.S. bombing campaign, in place since the previous September, was burning out huge areas of Japanese cities. How much longer the Japanese could have held out in the face of the fire bombing is a matter of much dispute; some project that, had the incendiary raids continued until November, the Japanese would have been thrown back to an almost Stone Age existence. The problem was this: no one in the west knew exactly what was happening in Japan. The devastation could be estimated, but the resistance could not. Thus, with the casualties of the Okinawa battle fresh in his mind, when Truman learned of the successful testing of an atomic bomb, he ordered its use. This is a decision debated since 6 August 1945, the date of the bombing of Hiroshima, and even before. Just what was known of Japanese decision-making processes before that date is also argued to this day. Was the Japanese government in the process of formulating a peace offer, in spite of the demand for unconditional surrender the Allies had decided upon in February 1943? If they were doing so, did anyone in the west know about it? Who knew what, when they knew it, and what effect that knowledge had or may have had on Truman’s decision making is a matter of much dispute. Whatever the political ramifications of the atomic bomb on the immediate and postwar world, Truman’s decision was certainly based in no small part on the nature of the fighting on Okinawa. Truman wrote just after his decision, “We’ll end the war sooner now. And think of the kids who won’t be killed.” Horrible as the effects of the two atomic bombs were, the number of casualties in Hiroshima and Nagasaki as compared with the potential number an invasion could have caused is small indeed." It's noteworthy that in order to win vs Germany we had to kill the vast majority of their army. Right up until Hitler shot himself, their morale remained high. A post on AskHistorians recently delved into that topic. Vietnam would be a good example of losing without an army being mostly destroyed. The war was effectively over right when mainland America lost the will to keep fighting, even though we had just scored major military victories. But most Americans weren't tied to the negative consequences of losing, so their morale was perhaps a special case. I can't think of any modern decisive conflicts that resulted in political change that didn't also require destroying the majority of the opposing army except Vietnam. And since Syrians will be quite invested in the negative consequences of losing, their morale will probably remain high until one side is mostly dead, if history is to be our guide.
    • ctdonath 13y ago
      I'm talking about direct support to the revolutionaries The problem is that the revolutionaries are worse than the Assad regime, which is bad. If the Obama is serious about getting involved, regime change and nation building is the only viable option - and that's a pretty ugly option.
  • fixxer 13y ago
    I hope not ever. I second that. I'm also not a supporter of air strikes. This is sectarian violence. If the Saudi's want to support the rebels, let them. I, however, refuse to support us getting involved in yet another Sunni vs Shiite fiasco. "Never pet a burning dog" applies here.
  • hyperbovine 13y ago
    The figure I heard in the press was that the Assad regime has thousands of chemical weapons stockpiles scattered about the country. Thousands. Not even the most optimistic of hawks believes that the coming bombing campaign will make a dent in the regime's ability to wage chemical war where and when it pleases. The rationale for this campaign is that it is necessary to take a symbolic stand against what we all agree is a heinous act. Yet if symbolism matters, why are we responding with a meaningless gesture which will ultimately weaken our standing in the eyes of the world and the enemy?
    • fixxer 13y ago
      You're right. This is all optics. Tin foil time: Obama: "How do we get attention away from Snowden?!?!" Minions: "Bomb somebody!" EDIT: I prefaced the above with "tin foil time". In reality, this is all just about bleeding heart, spend-my-tax-dollars-to-make-the-situation-go-sideways nonsense. Is it horrible what is going on? Absolutely. Are we going to make it better? No. Do we ever?
      • Steko 13y ago
        "Do we ever make it better?" Yes actually.
        • obstacle1 13y ago
          Example of bombing making it better?
          • pyre 13y ago
            Didn't terrorism go away after Clinton sent cruise missiles into terrorist camps?
          • Steko 13y ago
            Examples, which have been widely discussed in Syria decision talk, include Libya (2011) and Kosovo (1999). Bosnia (1995) would seem to qualify. 90's Gulf war and subsequent events have some relevance. I'm not saying I'm unquestionably in favor of bombing Syria. But I am in favor of intellectual honesty and to claim that Syria (2013) would be Iraq/Afghanistan seems outrageous. Jonathan Chait put it best: Syria Isn’t Iraq. Everything Isn’t Iraq. http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/08/syria-isnt-iraq-everything-isnt-iraq.html http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/08/syria-isnt-iraq... 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 http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2...
  • foobarbazqux 13y ago
    We aren't destroying chemical stockpiles, because it might release toxins and also it might make them available to looters. We're launching missiles at some military targets as a punitive measure for using chemical weapons.
  • mpyne 13y ago
    A more practical measure I've heard discussed is destroying or majorly disrupting Syrian air forces, which are concentrated within 6 or so major fixed installations, all of which can be targeted from standoff distance by U.S. ships and aircraft. In theory it would manage to deliver a firm "ouch" to incentivize more acceptable behavior without risking much in the way of escalation (as Syria has nothing they could strike the U.S. back with), and without meddling too much with the civil war proper (which is increasingly turning sectarian in nature). Of course there's still the large concern for Israel, but I don't see how pissing off the IDF helps Assad's chances either, and I think he recognizes that as well. But I don't think they are seriously considering targeting chemical stockpiles, as to do that properly would requires at least some ground-based forces.
  • copx 13y ago
    >The use of chemical weapons has been considered a particularly heinous war crime since before WW2. By whom? Certainly not by the US. America bombarded Vietnam with millions of gallons of Agent Orange. Vietnam estimates 400,000 people were killed or maimed, and 500,000 children born with birth defects as a result of its use. It was the most massive use of chemical weapons in human history. Here is the US stance on chemical weapons in pictures: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Agent-Orange-dioxin-skin-damage-Vietnam.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Agent-Orange-dioxin-skin-d... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Agent-orange-dead-deformed-babies.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Agent-orange-dead-deformed... (Warning NSFL) Next large scale use of chemical weapons? Iran-Iraq war, with America again being responsible, only in a support role this time though: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War#Use_of_chemical_weapons_by_Iraq http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War#Use_of_ch... So, when did the US suddenly decide that the use of chemical weapons is intolerable? The hypocrisy is so thick you can cut it with a knife!
    • mpyne 13y ago
      Agent Orange was intended and used as a defoliant, not an anti-personnel weapon. The U.S. was at least reasonably consistent there; many Vietnam veterans came back from the war also maimed by Agent Orange. As far as Iran-Iraq, many countries aided Saddam in his use of chemical weapons (on the battlefield and otherwise). If you were looking for something to damn the U.S. in particular, this would seem to apply: "On 21 March 1986, the United Nations Security Council made a declaration stating that 'members are profoundly concerned by the unanimous conclusion of the specialists that chemical weapons on many occasions have been used by Iraqi forces against Iranian troops, and the members of the Council strongly condemn this continued use of chemical weapons in clear violation of the Geneva Protocol of 1925, which prohibits the use in war of chemical weapons.' The United States was the only member who voted against the issuance of this statement." Wikipedia discusses why President Reagan didn't seem to give a shit, but his opinion was hardly shared by the nation as a whole (who are, after all, still signed onto the 1925 Geneva Convention).
      • johnchristopher 13y ago
        Agent Orange was intended and used as a defoliant, not an anti-personnel weapon. The U.S. was at least reasonably consistent there; many Vietnam veterans came back from the war also maimed by Agent Orange. You are twisting words around (a tendency that has been growing on HN for some time). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_Orange#Use_in_the_Vietnam_War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_Orange#Use_in_the_Vietnam... Agent Orange was definitely used to gain the upper hand in the war. As early as 1966, resolutions were introduced to the United Nations charging that the U.S. was violating the 1925 Geneva Protocol, which regulated the use of chemical and biological weapons.[46][55]
• jonnybgood 13y ago
  Except the US is not supporting the revolution or to bring peace and democracy. There are no indications to support that. You have to look at US interests here. Those interests are in the chemical weapons that Syria possesses. Those CWs are more devastating than any conventional weapon by an order of magnitude. If they were used as reported, then something must be done to hinder the usage.
• rickjames28 13y ago
  "Supporting the revolution" means supporting who exactly?