Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and several other lawmakers say the U.S. should consider arming the opposition forces in Syria as President Bashar al-Assad continues to kill civilians in a government crackdown.
Graham cautioned that before arming the opposition, he would want to know that they have a plan to govern “so that we don’t just have another civil war.”
“That is probably where we are headed, is giving the opposition forces capacity, humanitarian aid, medical aid and maybe even military assistance,” Graham said Tuesday. “Before arming them I would want to know what efforts have they made to put together a governing coalition.”
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), ranking member of the Armed Services Committee, also told reporters Tuesday that “we should start considering all options, including arming the opposition. The blood-letting has got to stop.”
Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Ct.) made similar comments on Sunday, suggesting at a conference in Munich that the U.S. should ultimately provide the opposition with weapons.
Lieberman, McCain, and Graham are a domestic axis of evil- there is literally no worldwide situation that, according to them, can’t be made better with American guns and bombs.
The Bearded Blogger
And, in the case of Lieberman, there is literally no issue of which he is a part in which he doesn’t play the role of asshole.
BGinCHI
Holy shit.
Is granpa walnuts actually quoting “Dr. Strangelove” now? We have to arm the opposition to stop the bloodletting?
Fuck sakes.
cathyx
Let me guess. The defense industry just happens to be their biggest campaign contributors.
John Casey
With respect to Joe Lieberman, November cannot come soon enough. I think Chris Murphy is the odds on favorite to become Connecticut’s next Senator, and he will represent an upgrade that is hard to quantify, the improvement is so large.
redshirt
Sure, lets send in the troops. And the first moment something goes wrong, these same Jack Clowns will be on all the Sunday shows condemning the very same thing their asking for here.
Assholes.
David Hunt
@BGinCHI:
Unfortunately no. He is simply demonstrating how cynically prophetic the movie was.
jibeaux
Ooh, ooh, I bet I can answer that one…
Benjamin Franklin
There is some scuttlebutt that the civilian casualities are being overblown, but can’t find the link.
What is certainly true is that Russia, China and Iran want Assad in power.
Since when did their interests trump our own?
Oh ! Lieberman. That’s different.
Anonymous At Work
Actually, I have no issue with Graham, McCain, Lieberman, et alia, bringing Syrian rebels weapons. I would have a problem with them ordering the President to order the military to order soldiers to bring the guns. What those 3 do with their spare time is up to them.
Rawk Chawk
Every time I see that closeted Miss Linds the Warmonger I want to vomit. Why hasn’t someone publicly outed the hateful little anti-gay, self hating individual yet?
Frankensteinbeck
As Obama reminded you so eloquently, Senator McCain, you are not president.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
God, the people at The Hill, and probably ninety per cent of their readership, are totally unaware how that article is an almost perfect parody, with the names of each of the Three Senate Stooges of the Iraq War left-flushed in almost perfect order.
OzoneR
Aren’t these the same people who criticized our involvement in Libya.
Caveat: I’m not against arming the Syrian opposition in light of what’s going on there, or at least doing for them what we did for the Libyans. I’m far less supportive of the idea than I was with Libya because of the Israel situation
Villago Delenda Est
Lindsay, if you really believe this, offer yourself as a common footsoldier in this fight.
If you’re not willing to insist on this, fuck off and die, warmongering shitstain.
Goes double for the sack of fetid pigshit that is Joe Looserman.
Violet
So true.
freelancer
This is completely OT, but Steve Benen at Maddow Blog just wrote about the 2012 campaign to re-elect coming around on the 10-word pitch that started out self-effacing and said with a bit of irony by the Administration, but now it’s becoming an easy button to push in the minds of independent voters and the base: “Osama bin Laden is Dead, and General Motors is alive”.
“Heh, yeah good point.”
“No, really. Think about that.”
And Benen links to a speech that Biden gave to the CWA union a few days ago and I just let it play.
It is the best argument I’ve heard yet for Re-election and it really provides a stark contrast between what the public hears when the GOP candidates are trying to motivate the wingnuts, and what Obama and Biden sound like when they are making sense to you.
Watch the whole thing if you have a moment. It’s a barn-burner.
Amanda in the South Bay
@Benjamin Franklin:
Well, there is obviously precedent for the regime to act very nasty against its opponents.
Lets see, Russia likes Syria cause they sell them weapons and have a warm water naval base there, and Iran views the Alawites as orthodox Shia, so there’s those religious ties.
The Bearded Blogger
@John Casey: The prospect of getting rid of Lieberman is like finally letting go of a dump you’ve been carrying around for a couple of days. Murphy seems like a good laxative, although Ned Lamont would have been satisfying.
Satanicpanic
While I value the input of these three wise old statesmen, I will reserve judgement until William Kristol has weighed in.
Rawk Chawk
Would it be the worst thing if Assad remains in power? Do we really need another destabilized, Muslim Theocracy with all the attendant religious insanity and woman-hating in the ME, re Egypt and Iraq?
There is no such thing as a Muslim “Democracy” that doesn’t shit on women.
Amanda in the South Bay
Considering the shitstorm that happened here when Libya was going down, I assume we’re going to be treated by 500 comment posts by the FPers freaking out over…pretty much anything that happens.
comrade scott's agenda of rage
@cathyx:
Gotta keep feeding the beast that is the Military Industrial Complex.
“Why We Fight” should be required viewing for every kid in school.
Amanda in the South Bay
@Rawk Chawk: Assad represents a relatively secular, Baathist regime (see all the pro-government statements by Orthodox and Catholic clergy). I’d worry more about a theocracy the longer Assad stays in power, which means more repression, a greater chance of civil war, adn eventually, when the majority Sunni gain power, lots and lots of (Alawite, Christian, Shia) blood spilled in revenge.
Brachiator
@BGinCHI:
No, we should all be good Balloon Juicers, or Ron Paultards, and just say, it ain’t our business. Good luck, Syria.
I don’t have an answer here. But I have to note how repellent I find some recent passive agressive NPR and BBC news porn over Syria. Both outlets featured a Skype call with people who were in an area being racked by shelling and gunfire. Now and again, the reporter would ask, “Are you all right?” And at the end of the segment, each reporter thanked the person for being on the line with them while their neighborhood was being pounded. I have to wonder whether some editor was just a tad bit disappointed that he didn’t get to record some poor soul’s death rattle.
But I also recall how desperately each person asked for help, and condemned Russia’s veto of stronger UN condemnation.
So, yeah, arming the opposition won’t easily stop the bloodletting. But doing nothing insures that it will continue as well.
PTirebiter
Before arming them I’d like to know how the “opposition” plans to pay. Surely Gramps wouldn’t consider asking his grandchildren to pick-up the tab?
Violet
@Satanicpanic:
WWDBT*
(*)What would David Brooks Think?
The Bearded Blogger
@comrade scott’s agenda of rage: And Smedley Butler should be required reading.
Jim, Foolish Literalist
@cathyx: It would be almost comforting if that were the case. I think these three nitwits honestly believe that foreign policy is like an MGM movie starring Victor Mature and a video game
sadly, I think that anecdote explains the ‘thinking’ of one of the most influential voices on American foreign policy, at least in the media. Also, too, Muslims is scary.
PeakVT
What does Turkey have to say about this? The US should encourage the Turks to take the lead. Or not, if that’s the way they feel.
Satanicpanic
@Violet: Great point, I really want to hear all sides before I enthusiastically decide to support military action.
jibeaux
@freelancer: There was also a Borowitz joke that I thought worked well along the same lines — Obama is getting out of two wars, and adding jobs, so — the opposite of Bush.
The Moar You Know
Wait, didn’t we do this in Libya? And wasn’t Obama the next incarnation of Hitler for doing so?
Consistency, somebody…please!
MPont
Yes, but given the way the current situation in Syria is developing, including just over Superbowl weekend – much as I hate to say it, these fuckers may be correct.
They never change their advice, but occasionally and completely independently, the world develops a situation that matches that advice.
Violet
@PTirebiter:
1. His grandkids will have enough money they won’t need to worry about it.
2. National debt doesn’t count when it’s because of war. See: Iraq.
The Bearded Blogger
@freelancer: I hadn’t heard that line before, it’s awesome. KISS principle and all that.
Ivan Ivanovich Renko
@PeakVT: They’re just darkies, they say a white man is bound to respect.
ETA: I agree, though, Turkey’s wishes should definitely be considered for any action in the region. They won’t be– see above.
dave l
Yup, a murky, five- or six-sided civil war. That’s where we need to be. Because we’re all about moral clarity.
r€nato
FFS you moron, the Syrian revolt is a popular uprising. It is not coordinated and controlled from above like the teabaggers. Like the Libyan and Egyptian uprisings, it sprang up organically and it has some leaders who likely have their own power bases and radically different interests and agenda once you get beyond their common desire to depose the Assad regime. It also likely has a fair number of rogue elements and freelancers.
However, if Graham et al. are shilling for American military weapons contractors, I’m sure they’ll be content to get some vague assurances that a post-Assad government will be oriented towards Western-style democracy in return for shipping US weapons to them… so long as the check clears.
AA+ Bonds
Wow, a mucho-whitespace advertisement between the “share” button and the “Comments” link, that’s a new one, gj WordPress, for a second I thought Cole disabled comments on this post
AA+ Bonds
@Amanda in the South Bay:
If you have a point, spit it out
r€nato
frankly, I’m in favor of arming the Syrian opposition just like we did in Libya, because fuck Assad and fuck Iran, Syria’s puppetmaster.
BUT… like in Libya, we really need to be careful about whom we are arming. And don’t do it at all if we’re arming the wrong people. I hope we learned a lesson in Afghanistan about helping religious extremists gain their own nation-state.
AA+ Bonds
I wish the Syrians all the best in whatever comes from this war
But I don’t intend to fund it
joeyess
Yes, by all means, let’s stop the flow of blood by increasing the flow of weapons that creates the flow of blood in the first place.
Fer christ sake, why is nonsense like this never called what it is?
Fucking Stoopid.
Rita R.
I wonder how long after he leaves office next January it will take before that odious slimeball Lieberman gets hired by Fox News, another of their bought-and-paid-for “Democrats” who’ll reliably bolster Republican talking points. Always “more in sadness than in anger,” of course.
Not pretending I have the answers on what to do about Syria, but anytime that troika gets together to declare the one true and right way they are here to enlighten us all about, it’s a good signal that the best course lies in a different direction.
Amanda in the South Bay
@joeyess:
Or maybe stopping more blood? The west delayed helping the Bosnian Muslims in the 90s, and all that resulted from that was more dead Bosniaks, and an increased influence of Arab radicals. Yay for Paultardist foreign policy!
AA+ Bonds
@r€nato:
We weren’t careful – it’s pretty much impossible once we start arming people in situations like these.
We did arm the wrong people – once again, pretty much impossible not to – so I agree, we shouldn’t have done it at all, because now they’re “disappearing” their own opposition.
Lessons learned!
joeyess
@dave l: well said.
OzoneR
@joeyess:
I’m not sure how you stop the blood-letting without getting rid of the people shedding the blood?
Should we ask nicely? Bake a pie?
KG
Correct me if I’m wrong, but… isn’t “popular uprising using foreign weapons to fight the entrenched political regime” pretty much the definition of civil war? Or is he saying one civil war is fine, but two would be too many?
trollhattan
I think Assad’s shakey enough we can let things run their own course, thanks. What I don’t want is a Syria-Iran twofer. (Also don’t think dumping Syria’s arms into the region in tandem with Libya’s would help things there one bit.)
AA+ Bonds
@Amanda in the South Bay:
Yes, let’s just do something, anything, let’s do something really fucking stupid, because otherwise ISOLATIONISM!
r€nato
@AA+ Bonds: we armed the wrong people in Afghanistan, though a case can be made that precipitating the downfall of the USSR was worth it and would have been worth it even if we could have had foreknowledge that al-Qaeda and 9/11 would have been the price paid. Another case can be made that al-Qaeda’s rise was not inevitable, if we had only chosen to remain involved in the aftermath of the USSR’s departure from Afghanistan rather than abandoning it.
if you are referring to Libya… the jury is still out on that one and will be for some time, isn’t it?
AA+ Bonds
@r€nato:
I don’t know, let’s ask General Yunis whenever you bring him back to life from his back-alley assassination
AA+ Bonds
@r€nato:
I don’t know, let’s ask General Yunis whenever you bring him back to life from his back-alley assassination
Brachiator
@Rawk Chawk:
Define “We….”
ornery_curmudgeon
Just think, Lieberman was set to be the Vice President in 2000.
I wonder how long Gore would have managed to remain of this world with ambitious blowin’ Joe as the wind beneath his wings. I blame Ralph Nader for ruining Lieberman’s one best chance to be our Commander in Chief.
Probably Joe Lieberman was nice back then though and was really cool and progressive. Perfect running mate for Gore. Excellent choice there, Al.
Egg Berry
Doesn’t Syria have some real WMD’s?
KG
@ornery_curmudgeon: I think 9/11 did to Lieberman what it did to Cheney and a lot of others… it freaked him the fuck out and “really did change everything”.
AA+ Bonds
@OzoneR:
Answer: you can’t, and you live in a fantasy world if you think we have the strategic and political technology to do so, amply demonstrated by Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya . . .
Next question? Anybody else?
AA+ Bonds
I suppose I am pretty unfashionable in that I think we need to worry about feeding, clothing, schooling, and vaccinating Americans before we pretend that we can convert societies without preexisting civic institutions into American-style democracies
IT’S JUST ME, I KNOW, TOTES CRAY
redshirt
@Egg Berry: That So Damn Insane buried all the nukes in Syria till we left like cowards in Iraq but now that we’re gone they’re movin’ em all back then selling them to Iran cuz everyone knows Iraq n’ Iran: BFF!
General Stuck
The ghost of Scoop Jackson lives on, the only change is most of the ploughshare into Hellfire missile crew is now in the GOP. There has always been a contingent of pols and citizens in this country that believe it is pointless to have a military just for defense, especially when you are the worlds only superpower, for now. They are the Al Capone’s of the American experience. Or, believing you can get further with a gun and a kind word, than with just a kind word. Frustrated imperialists are frustrated. Neocons are a weapon of mass destruction when they have power.
AA+ Bonds
Anyone who thinks Libya is better off simply hasn’t read any news about the country for a year at this point, and I don’t blame you, since the American press has willfully ignored it and American blogs are totally enslaved to the American press
I’m pretty glad Cole has his head on straight and can school the rest of you
dedc79
For these three at least, isn’t “arming the opposition” a step in the right direction from their normal tendency of wanting to send our troops everywhere?
OzoneR
@AA+ Bonds:
Anyone who doesn’t think Libya is better off is living in a bubble and that’s not surprising since they only hear what they want to hear
Sincerely,
I get my media from Europe and the Middle East
OzoneR
@AA+ Bonds:
So I guess you’re not one of those liberals whining about Darfur?
freelancer
@jibeaux:
@The Bearded Blogger:
Seriously guys, I just finished listening to the whole thing. Watch it. After being numbed by eleventy million GOP debates and being used to Obama speak and inspire, I’d forgotten what it was like to hear Biden give a stump speech in campaign mode. Now I remember why, of all the Dems in ’08, I liked Biden so much. I didn’t think Obama would be nominated at the time (this is 2007, up to the start of the Iowa Caucuses in January ’08) and I just had a lot of respect for Joe. Still do. This speech he gave is another example as to why.
The Moar You Know
Anyone think Quaddafi enjoyed being sodomized by a knife?
Maybe we should mind our own fucking business for once.
OzoneR
@AA+ Bonds:
No one disagrees with you on this, but we have this behomoth military and we’re funding this military alliance called NATO, we might as well fucking use it.
If you want to dismantle all that, fine, but the money we spent in Libya and would in Syria is not going to feeding, clothing, schooling and vaccines and you know it.
joeyess
@Amanda in the South Bay: What dog do we have in this fight? When do we stop playing referee and armory to the world?
Let Turkey sort it out. If they need NATO’s help, let them go the UN and get it done.
Russia and China will veto it, yes, but again, why is this our battle? Why?
Who made us the hall monitor?
Commenting at Balloon Juice since 1937
Arming everyone is a sure fire method for stopping blood letting.
I think Lindsay and McCain should just go get a room. They seem tense. Surely, there is some way for them to unwind together.
OzoneR
@Rawk Chawk:
Assad is not remaining in power, the question is how many die on his way down and who do they blame and who follows him and whether or not the Syrian people take it out on us (i.e. They never helped us, they kept Assad in power!)
Egg Berry
@OzoneR:
I believe most of the GOP does disagree with him on this.
Commenting at Balloon Juice since 1937
What was hysterical, is Charlie Rose having Thomas Friedman on a panel last night to discuss Syria.Friedman didn’t know anything about Syria since he is currently in Moscow (or just returned from there). He basically said ‘I don’t know’ to almost every question. Why the fuck was he invited then? (I know the answer. It just amazes me when the media elites continue to be so tone deaf to the rest of the world).
OzoneR
@joeyess:
Because we chose to have a permanent seat on the Security Council, lead a multi-national military alliance and fund countries like Israel, India and Turkey.
We don’t have to do it, but we chose to do it, and the lesson of Rwanda and Darfur is people in turmoil look to us to do something to protect them, because we can. Both militarily and economically.
If we don’t want to, then we need to make it clear that we want to remove ourselves as leaders of the world; politically, militarily and economically. We must pull out of the UN- at least as a permanent member of the Security Council, and dismantle NATO, NAFTA and other organizations.
BGinCHI
@Brachiator: What I’m opposed to is the slide, fully greased and free of argument or detail, between “arm the opposition” and “stop the bloodletting.”
I take your points that there are good reasons to do this. But there are also reasons to think that unintended consequences, and roads paved to hell with good intentions also follow from strategies that meet violence with violence. So I’m not exactly what the answer is.
But I’m damn sure that if these fuckheads can articulate it in a sentence or two, I’m not for it.
OzoneR
@Egg Berry: None of us, I mean
4tehlulz
I’m sure Barbara Walters will tell us why we should leave that nice man Assad alone anytime now.
daveNYC
Assad gone would be nice, but is there even a semi-united opposition that would know what to do if we gave them a pile of guns?
1) Give everyone in Syria weapons
2) ?????
3) Freedom!
DanielX
@cathyx:
Well, that and the fact that the ‘defense’ industry is about the only domestic manufacturing left that pays decent wages and isn’t going to be outsourced. It’s not coincidence that components for the F-22, to name one egregious example, were spread over 46 states. High paying jobs plus export possibilities – it’s not like we export a lot of manufactured goods either. So more wars = more revenue + free advertising. What’s not to like, from the standpoint of Messrs McCain the Merciless, Graham the Incoherent, and Lieberman the Insufferable?
JPL
@Commenting at Balloon Juice since 1937: Why not a threesome. Lieberman would be glad to join in on the fun and games.
General Stuck
Uh, Oil. Unfortunately. Not so much with Syria but with other players in the ME, like Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia. The deepest tensions in that part of the world have nothing to do with us, but are ancient and largely sectarian. I’m not saying we should get involved militarily, as I think we shouldn’t, just that letting that region go up in flames is not without global economic catastrophic effect, due to dependence on their oil. A regional conflagration involving Iran intervening as Syria’s main ally, to aid the Baashad regime, has the potential of turning everything into a mega regional war in the ME. But it is wrong to suggest the ME is not in our vital national interest. Because it is. Libya was a humanitarian mission, mostly, and in Europe’s interest for oil. The ME is our Texas T sugartit.
It may be it’s all going to shit no matter what we do, or don’t do, but not making an effort to hold it all together while the Arab Spring plays itself out, would not be a question of letting local politics go where they may, and us escaping unscathed, not to mention the world economy.
They teach us that at The Institute For A Better Apocalypse.
DanielX
@Commenting at Balloon Juice since 1937:
Well, shit, what are you complaining about? Having the Moustache of Understanding saying “I don’t know” is a lot better than his usual technique, which is acting like an authority on topics about which he knows nothing.
slightly-peeved
Lots of people seem to forget what actually happened in Libya. The US supported an international effort; it didn’t try and be the world’s referee as @70 put it.
Martin
Why is anyone giving those three any credibility at all. During Libya they finally had to start answering the question of “Do you support the Presidents position on Libya” with “Uh, I forget where we he is on that – but my answer is a resounding, unequivocal ‘NO.’ If he’s for intervention, I’m against. If he’s against, I’m for. I have always advocated for a steady hand for America in international affairs and I will not go against my convictions now!”
Fuck them and their bumper-sticker foreign policy.
dmbeaster
What is the status in Libya? I cannot find any recent articles regarding progress or lack thereof in Libya.
Martin
@slightly-peeved: Not to mention, the US had something constructive to offer in Libya where there was massive open space between cities that front lines could be reasonably clearly drawn. The US could, effectively, clear a path using air power for an organized opposition, which happened to exist.
Syria has been going on long enough that we were drawing contrast between Syrian and Libya when Libya was just ramping up. Syria is urban warfare. It’s building to building. There is no clear front. We know shit is going down in Homs, but we don’t know what building to hit, and we don’t have the kind of clear view that we did in Libya. Libya is a big fucking place with not many people. Syria is a relatively small place with a LOT more people, and no organized opposition. Who do you arm? How do you target the Syrian loyalists?
And the whole thing is massively, MASSIVELY complicated by having Israel right there, whereas Libya was actually made easier by having Egypt and Tunisia as neighbors, who both had already gone through this process and where there was no real loyalty to Gaddafi. If the US goes in, Assad will get support form other nations simply due to the appearance that the US is only getting involved to support Israel.
It’s a completely different dynamic to Libya and even if there was the same Arab League and UN/NATO backing, it’d be incredibly hard for the US to repeat what happened there. I don’t understand why people seem to think that this is just a big game of Risk where whoever has the most plastic soldiers in their territory is the inevitable winner.
Martin
@dmbeaster: It’s going. They’ve presented a process for electing a constitutional assembly – that was last month. So, the transitional government continues to exist and function. There have been some setbacks. They wanted the militias to disarm, which they refused to do, and there have been some tribal attacks, some revenge killings, some attacks on ethnic minorities. Nothing that seems to be spiraling out of control, but a little troubling all the same.
All in all, things are probably about what is to be expected – both good and bad. There’s nothing about revolution that is easy. Wasn’t easy for the US either.
The Moar You Know
@OzoneR: Stop using it and eventually it will stop being funded. Probably would take a while due to inertia and stupidity but eventually people will stop throwing money at something we don’t use.
OzoneR
@The Moar You Know:
Most of it we aren’t using and its still being funded, which you admitted in your next sentence.
Amanda in the South Bay
@Martin: Who will support Assad? Outside of Iran, Russia and China?
Omnes Omnibus
Has any international organization of which the US is a member been asked to intervene by anyone? Does the US have a direct interest in intervening? Is there a clearly identifiable set of goals and set of steps to be taken toward achieving those goals? Is there a downside to doing this? What is it? How bad is it?
Did the triumvirate of assholes think about any of those questions?
WaterGirl
@Omnes Omnibus: Um, nope, I’m pretty sure they did not. Omnes for senate… clearly more qualified than these 3 jokers.
OzoneR
@Omnes Omnibus:
No, not yet, which is probably why we haven’t
Yes, the good will of the Syrian people, some influence in who follows Assad, then there’s oil and stability in Golan Heights, Lebanon and Iraqi border. Also the Kurds in NE Syria
We’re never going to know, but I’d imagine there are plans A-Z being put in place
Sure; Syrians elect an Islamic government, perhaps Iran supported, that declares war on Israel and Lebanon, Kurds in NE Syria deciding they want to break away and fuck things up in Northern Iraq and in Turkey. The Syrian opposition gets crushed and Assad decides to come after us (via Israel).
Could range from minor to very bad.
dave
Clearly John is a little jealous he didn’t get a Moore Award nomination today.
General Stuck
@Omnes Omnibus:
Imperialistic fervor dances to its own heavy metal band
Omnes Omnibus
@OzoneR: I don’t know if you are right about any of what you said, but you put more thought into it than those three senators did.
@WaterGirl: Low bar. Also too, I will not accept if nominated and will not serve if elected.
Amir Khalid
You’d think the lesson was obvious, since the US has been schooled in it so much: stay the hell out of other people’s civil wars. There is no Cold War anymore, no Soviet Union to be outmaneuvered in proxy fights over “client states”.
Let those other people resolve their internal conflicts by themselves, and for their own sakes. Whoever wins out in Syria, he would only be less legitimate if his people reckoned he owed big favors to the US.
This is one way the US would benefit from having a much smaller military-industrial complex: politicians like Lieberman, McCain and Graham wouldn’t be as beholden to it, nor as tempted to promote giving out arms to the enemies of America’s enemies. Alliances last only as long as they are useful to both sides; remember that the Taliban came to power in Afghanistan with toys from Uncle Sam.
OzoneR
@Omnes Omnibus:
Sure, these guys aren’t thinking of any of this, they’re posturing politically, trying to find the place to be when the shit hits the fan so they can come down on Obama.
This is the default position. If Obama gets involved, they take credit. If it doesn’t, they attack and say he’s weak and left the Syrian people to die. it’s a win/win
dave l
Syria is one big Lebanon: lots of ethnic and religious factions, no real unifying force except fear and loathing of the Asad regime. That regime has held on to power for 40+ years, advancing the interests of one religious minority (Alawites) and kinda/sorta throwing a protective arm over a couple of others.That regime is probably not going to be able to survive, and when it goes there will be a two-day celebration followed by slaughter and ethnic cleansing.
No one in his right mind wants to plunge into the middle of that, and no one has any bright ideas for improving the outlook. Sometimes life is just like that.
Omnes Omnibus
@dave l: Yeah, one of the questions I should have put in my list above was: Can we actually do anything that will make a difference?
Martin
@Amanda in the South Bay:
Isn’t that enough? But Hezbollah, Hamas. Iran has threatened to cut Hamas support for backing away from Assad, so they’re being kicked back into the game.
Gaddafi had nobody. He was buying mercenaries from his south, and that was it. It doesn’t take a lot of support to keep something like this going for a long damn time, particularly if you don’t have forces on the ground to cut off those lines of support – and that’s not going to happen in Syria unless we get permission to send troops back into Iraq and put forward some very direct cooperation with Jordan. And we’re talking about front lines that are right next to Lebanon and Israel. What kind of cooperation are we going to get out of Lebanon? And even with troops on the ground, it’s damn hard as we know all too well from Iraq and Afghanistan.
At least in Libya we could monitor traffic across the border – because there was nothing there to hide traffic. Syria isn’t like that. There’s a ton of traffic between Syria and Lebanon, between Syria and Iraq, between Syria and Jordan, and between Syria and Turkey (who are struggling with their own sectarian problems along that border). It’s just a mess, again, with no organized opposition.
Danny
This is the most fucking stupid idea anyone’s come up with in a long time. A few RPG’s will accomplish nothing but escalating Assad’s crackdown. And how would we even get the weapons inside Syria after publicly declaring that we’re sending them there? This aint exactly Libya where the opposition controls half the country. I knew McCain was senile, and apparently it’s contagious.
Amir Khalid
@dave l:
All the more reason for the US to stay out of that mess. Picking a winner is impossible in a mess like Syria, and guessing wrong will make things worse for the Syrians. Let the politics sort itself out first, no outside interference beyond humanitarian aid, and then work on your relationship with the new government.
I’m pretty sure the three stooges are thinking of whoever wins in Syria as a potential client to be cultivated, like in the Cold War. But that’s been over for 20 years, and smaller countries don’t play that client-state game anymore.
JC
Graham is an idiot, of course – but the nugget here, that most likely our State department is already working, is that it is NOT OKAY for us to do business with people – be it in Israel, China, Syria, Iran – without some attention to whether the human rights situation is improving.
Because at some point, there will be blowback. And we also show the values that we hold up as a nation, to be false.
We did this in Libya – obviously, we can’t do much in North Korea. We can’t do much in Iran. It’s debatable what we can do in Syria.
At some point though, the United States should be seen as on the right side of history – greater modernization, greater democratic participation, on the side of human rights – across the world. (Not to mention in our own backyard…)
The HOW of that, is different for every country, depending on what can be done, and the situation involved. sometimes only ‘realpolitik’ can be done. Every country has it’s own internal politics, and it’s own internal logic, and the U.S. has as much right to intervene – our COUNTER-INTERVENE – as say China and Russia.
But let’s not fool ourselves that this is an acceptable situation. It’s just we must be aware of what can be done.
Mike in NC
@Danny:
Load these three neo-con bastards into a C-130 for a low-level release above Damascus. Let them fight to see who gets the single parachute.
Danny
@Mike in NC:
Good idea, even better if the parachute is filled with old PNAC reports.
Omnes Omnibus
@Mike in NC:
And by parachute you mean rucksack full of dirty underwear, right?
Jay in Oregon
@redshirt:
Fixed (and meta-fixed).
Patricia Kayden
“Lieberman, McCain, and Graham are a domestic axis of evil- there is literally no worldwide situation that, according to them, can’t be made better with American guns and bombs.”
Do they have children serving in the military who can engage in their endless wars?
Mnemosyne
@slightly-peeved:
Yep. If, as happened in Libya, the Arab League requested NATO assistance and the UN approved that assistance, I wouldn’t have a huge problem if the US participated.
That’s a whole honking deal different than calling for the US to cowboy in on their own, which is what Lieberman, Graham and McCain seem to be calling for.
Mnemosyne
@AA+ Bonds:
How long do you think he would have survived if Gaddafi had won? You think Gaddafi would have just slapped Yunis on the back and said, “Eh, no hard feelings about that whole rebellion thing — have some coffee!”
Gust Avrakotos
These neocons clearly are one trick ponys. All war all the time. That’s all they know.
keestadoll
God they suck. LOOK OUT! It’s the Three-headed Warmongering Codgermonster!!!!!!!! [insert fleeing Japanese, bad dubbing]
Pococurante
The UK Telegraph is calling it genocide. Not exactly a hot bed of neocons.
http://www.juancole.com/2012/02/syria-crimes-against-humanity-in-homs.html#comment-91301
@Mnemosyne:
That may be the next step, now that China and Russia blocked UN action.
ottercliff
We could just have our bombers detour over Syria on their coming Iran bombing runs.