How do you ask an innocent civilian to be the last to die for a (slightly more than) symbolic gesture?
by digby
So, it appears more and more that the US is planning to do a limited bombing of Syria without any expectatrion of stopping the violence there but rather simply in order to make the point that Syria crossed its red line and that simply will not stand:
The apparent poison gas attack that killed hundreds of Syrian civilians last week is testing President Obama's views on military intervention, international law and the United Nations as no previous crisis has done.
The former constitutional law professor, who came to office determined to end what critics called the cowboy foreign policy of George W. Bush, now is wrestling with some of the same moral and legal realities that led Bush to invade Iraq without clear U.N. consent in 2003.
[...]
White House officials cautioned that Obama was still considering the options, but the administration appeared positioned to act quickly once he chooses a course. Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said during a visit to Brunei that the Pentagon was prepared to strike targets in Syria and hinted that such a move could come within days.
[...]
One U.S. official who has been briefed on the options on Syria said he believed the White House would seek a level of intensity "just muscular enough not to get mocked" but not so devastating that it would prompt a response from Syrian allies Iran and Russia.
"They are looking at what is just enough to mean something, just enough to be more than symbolic," he said.
Hey, this sort of baby splitting has worked so well with the US congress, why not try it in the Middle East?
There are a lot of reasons floating around out there as to why this military intervention is inevitable, but the one that's floating to the surface as the main rationale is that we must "enforce" the taboo against chemical warfare. The problem with that, as everyone seems to acknowledge, even if they support it, is that the expected outcome of this action is expected to be nothing --- except perhaps a few unfortunate incidents of "collateral damage." (But then we don't concern ourselves with that sort of thing as a general rule these days, do we?) In fact, it could end up loosening the taboo even more. People aren't dumb and they'll see that a use of these weapons inspires a symbolic gesture of violence, some unnecessary death and then back to business.
So what's the real point? It appears to be so that the US doesn't get mocked. But I'm afraid that ship sailed the day we decided to invade countries that didn't attack us using the most transparent pack of lies imaginable. And as far as intervention being necessary to back up the Geneva Conventions, well that ship sank the minute the US decided to torture prisoners and punished no one for doing it.
Not long ago there used to be a lot of talk a lot about maintaining America's "moral authority." Well, after the last decade's military adventures (longer than that, actually) we're in very short supply. Initiating a bombing campaign, however limited, because we are worried about "losing credibility" or being "mocked" is hardly a good way to get it back.
Update: For a thorough and serious discussion of the pros and cons of this action, I think this piece from the European Council on Foreign Relations hits all the right points.
.