Skip to comments.Empty Moralism on Syria
Posted on 09/08/2013 8:01:41 AM PDT by Kaslin
The advocates of war against Syria have taken Theodore Roosevelt's advice and turned it upside down. They believe that in confronting Bashar al-Assad, the United States should speak loudly and carry a tiny stick.
Some liberals like nothing better than the chance to thunder righteously against evil incarnate, and Syria brings out the moralist in them. Sen. Robert Menendez, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, asked Tuesday, "Will we, in the name of all that is human and decent, authorize the use of American military power against the inexcusable, indiscriminate and immoral use of chemical weapons?"
John Kerry agreed. "This is not the time to be spectators to slaughter," he informed the committee. "We need to send to Syria and to the world, to dictators and to terrorists, to allies and to civilians alike, the unmistakable message that when the United States of America and the world say never again, we don't mean sometimes; we don't mean somewhere; never means never."
Faced with widespread slaughter and vicious atrocities, you may conclude we must be willing to do whatever it takes to stop the perpetrators. To allow them to continue would make us, in Kerry's word, Assad's "enablers."
But if you think any of these advocates genuinely intend to stop Assad from using chemical weapons again, you would be wrong. Kerry promised there would be no American "boots on the ground." Menendez emphasized that President Barack Obama wanted to use only "limited force." The strike would amount to a firm rap on the knuckles.
There is a vast gulf between the atrocities they cite and the steps they are willing to take in response. On one side of the scale is Assad's mass killing and his use of forbidden instruments of war. On the other is a brief flurry of cruise missiles, and possibly some aerial bombing, "to degrade and deter Bashar Assad's capacity to use chemical weapons," as Kerry put it.
When Franklin Roosevelt asked Congress to declare war on Japan after Pearl Harbor, he promised that "the American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory." When Winston Churchill rallied the British people to resist Hitler, he vowed "victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be. For without victory, there is no survival."
They didn't promise to degrade the enemy's military capacity. They didn't say we would drop a few bombs to dramatize our disapproval. They said they would do whatever it took to win.
The administration and its allies, by contrast, offer measures that are not likely -- and apparently not even meant -- to have much effect on Assad, his chemical weapons or the outcome of the war. Obama described the endeavor as "a shot across the bow." Kerry expressed hope that the strikes would "have downstream impact on his military capacity."
"The White House wants to strengthen the opposition but doesn't want it to prevail, according to people who attended closed-door briefings by top administration officials over the past week," The Wall Street Journal reported Monday. "Pentagon planners were instructed not to offer strike options that could help drive Mr. Assad from power." Obama thinks an attack will deter Assad from using chemical weapons -- even though Obama's threat to attack failed to deter him.
The administration is striving not to evict a tyrant it has likened to Saddam Hussein and Adolf Hitler. It wants to stop him from killing innocents with sarin gas, without diminishing his capacity to kill them in conventional ways.
The pertinent question is not whether we should let Assad get away with using these vicious weapons. We intend to let him get away with it -- in the sense of surviving and even prevailing. The question is whether what Obama has in mind will do any good beyond salving some American consciences.
If it has any effect, it will probably be negative. A 2012 study in the Journal of Peace Research found that when outside powers provide support to rebels in civil wars, the government typically responds by killing civilians at a more rapid pace.
It's clear the administration is not prepared to take any action that will make a significant difference. Supporters of intervention make it sound as though they will save the world from a brutal dictator and his gruesome arsenal. But they don't really mean it.
The same mentally ill, empty moralism on Syria, agendas of Obozo Liar, Queeg McAinal, Kerry the Faux Vietnam hero, and congressional rats wanting to bomb Syria could apply to 9/11!
Is it true that Menendez and the other yes votes on the Sen. Comm. go an average of $83K more donations from Contractors and Lobby Folks than the no votes?
Liberals have no moral authority to stand on. The desire to be Al Queda’s air force isn’t about Syria, it is about lingering guilt over inaction in Africa. From watching their favorite terrorists lose Egypt to watching death tolls in Sudan, they think they can make up for it in Syria. That chemical weapons are the line that Americans will support.
However, Americans aren’t falling into line on the issue. Neither is the rest of the world. And now the same liberals who have demanded that we follow world consensus are on the opposite side demanding that we act alone.
A bit ironic that the winner of the peace prize is ready to direct military operations in his 5th country.
The bottom, the bottom is most troubling because they are in huge numbers and CAN VOTE. People who either have mental capacity problems and can not think on their own, or people rotten to the core who use liberal babbling to misrepresent themselves as moral individuals.
LIEBERAL LIES - a tool to subvert democracy. They lies are incapacitating to people with moral integrity and invigorating to the scumbags and lamebrains.
Take for example indignation how America did nothing to stop genocide in Rwanda, so dear to liberals.
In reality, Clinton's administration planned it, kick started it by murdering presidents of Rwanda and Burundi and prevented others to stop it. Not exactly "we did nothing". Samantha Power, then little known individual with Soros past, wrote a book to hide the facts and got Pulitzer. No wonder she became Odumbo's adviser who advised attack on Libya and delivering Libya to AQ. She now sits in the UN representing Soros interests on U.S. taxpayers' dime.
“When Franklin Roosevelt asked Congress to declare war on Japan after Pearl Harbor, he promised that “the American people in their righteous might will win through to absolute victory.”
I know history begins and ends with Pearl Harbor, but reading this made me wonder what promises President Wilson or President McKinley made regarding their respective declarations.
1898 - From McKinley’s declaration. Different war, different time. Remember the Maine.
“The position of Spain being thus made known, and the demands of the United States being denied, with a complete rupture of intercourse, by the act of Spain, I have been constrained, in the exercise of the power conferred upon me by the joint resolution aforesaid, to proclaim, under date of April 22, 1898, a blockade of certain ports of the north coast of Cuba, between Cardenas and Bahia Honda, and the port of Cienfugos, on the south coast of Cuba, and to issue my proclamation dated April 23, 1898, calling forth volunteers.”
“I now recommend the adoption of a joint resolution declaring that a state of war exists between the United States of America and the Kingdom of Spain, that the definition of the international status of the United States as a belligerent power may be made known and the assertion of all its rights in the conduct of a public war may be assured.”
When Hearst Artist Frederic Remington, cabled from Cuba in 1897 that "there will be no war," William Randolph Hearst cabled back: "You furnish the pictures and I'll furnish the war."
USS Maine, RMS Lusitania, USS Arizona and 7 others, USS Maddox (aug 4)....
One is exception, two is coincidence, three is pattern.
I have that famous Kodak print of USS Maine hanging in my room. I often look and wonder what happened to the men manning her. Hearst was a son-of-a-bi**h of global proportions. His name should be reviled, with people lining up to spit on his grave.
“three is a pattern” indeed. The United States has a long history of being sneak attacked. With one possible exception, our soldiers or Marines have never received the same Geneva protections that we extend to our enemies, either.
I’m not saying WWII is not a model for how we should conduct wars (Didn’t General Sherman set this standard in the Civil War?). I tend to agree with those who say we should conduct wars all out or not at all. But we should recognize that WWII is an exception (the other being the Civil War). We didn’t invade and occupy France during the Quasi War, nor Britian in 1813, we did occupy Mexico City, we didn’t invade Spain, and the Kaiser didn’t face unconditional surrender before “Blackjack” Pershing.
Most American Wars as well as wars in general end in negotiations a-la Clausewitz.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.