Didn't stop us from bombing Libya or launching a global drone war.

Right on. When Parliament voted against the PM joining on Syria yesterday, the wonderful UK writer Graham Linehan wrote "Blair's chickens now roosting right up Cameron's arse."

It's only right if GWB's should happen to roost up Obama's.

Correction: Our intelligence community did not think that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (at least not in any significant quantity).

Bush & Cheney responded by selecting a team to scour the planet for anyone who would say that said Iraq had WMDs, ignored the fact these people were frauds, then presented these lies as solid intelligence.

Cmon Goldy like Obama said don't be anti-war be anti stupid war, sometimes military action is the right thing to do. Like with Libya and with the drones.

@1 technically, drones aren't boots on the ground.

Besides, somebody has to be the test subject for our secret drone carriers and drone frigates, even if you're not supposed to know about them yet.

Thing is, it wasn't the Intelligence Community that screwed up vis-a-vis Iraq & WMD's, in fact quite the opposite; while they acknowledged the possibility that Hussein probably still had the means to manufacture WMD's, they were quite insistent from the beginning that there was no evidence to support the Bush Administration's contention that he actually had WMD's at-the-ready, and further, that aggressive military posturing on the part of the U.S. would most likely be the "trigger" that would cause him to begin manufacturing them as a potential deterrent. Everybody in the IC KNEW this to be a fact, from Secretary of State Colin Powell, to CIA Director George Tenant, and everyone all the way down the line.

If anything, it was Bush, Cheney & their neocon flacks in the White House who pushed for "evidence" that fit their pre-determined intent to invade Iraq, which they had been proposing since 9/11. So, really President Obama's statement, rather than defending a discredited Intelligence Community, seems rather to be a statement of support for them - they weren't wrong about Iraq, and they're not wrong about Syria - he's simply reiterating the fact that they've been scrupulous in terms of their intelligence gathering, and that his decision to seek approval for military action against Assad is based squarely on that factual evidence, and that this is not a case of seeking evidence to fit an already-decided course of action on his part.

That's the difference - and it's a crucial difference to point out to the American people.

As COMET said, this isn't Iraq 2003.

Syrians (especially those affected by the war) think it is time for the world to do something.

competence of our intelligence community

Wait a minute. There is a big hole in your argument here. Once you fill it - then you are right.

First, and most importantly, it WASN'T an intelligence "failure" that got us into Iraq. There was no failure.

It was a bunch of macho war-mongering racist assholes and their eager racist media lackeys (including your bosses at The Stranger) that contorted and cherry picked the facts to fit the pre-drawn conclusion of conflating 9/11 with War with Iraq.

Saying it was "an intelligence failure" is complete buying to the excuses narrative of the war-mongering Bush administration, that in a brief moment of clarity, when it finally became clear what cluster fuck the Iraq war inevitably was/is they finally started to half admit the truth.

Every competent intelligence strategists advised to NOT go to war in Iraq and every analyst that wasn't a political Apparatchik stated this loud and clear

The Pentagon and the US War College all knew it was a cluster fuck. It's why we didn't invade Iraq in the first Gulf War and why the Bush administration went after the Plames to send a big shut-the-fuck-up to all those analysts.

The idea Americans are deeply suspicious of US interventions is only half right. It depends on the team in charge and this "suspicion" goes right down party lines with the only caveat that the left is always wetting it pants over bombing somebody but ultimately they are inert and don't do shit when push comes to shove.

You're right about the consequences of Bush keeping us out of Syria in that the rest of the world - all our sixty year long alliances - think we are full of shit and won't touch this with a ten foot pole.

Our "enemies" see that we are incompetent in our ability to actually prosecute a protracted war effectively. Because Bush broke us. The military is over extended. And our finances won't sustain another decade long asymmetrical war.

But I guarantee an all out PR effort to drum up the Xenophobia and racism like in 2002-2003 and we'd be in there bombing the fuck outta those people. Because all you need to get a "mandate" is about 35% of the people to buy in. Americans are no more enlightened now than they ever were.

First off, guys, Goldy is talking about perceptions. Sure, we're knowledgeable people here, we were paying attention during that period. But most of America wasn't paying attention, and a lot have forgotten. And what was the problem back then? Perception. It was manipulated by the media & the politicians to make Saddam look like Hitler, Stalin, & Mao all in one. He *had* to go, no matter the cost! Remember that time? When anyone who suggested that perhaps things weren't what they seemed, they were immediately whisked off camera, denounced publicly as a terrorist-commie-hippie who is "aiding our enemies." Even some notable left-leaning local publications got in on the act. *ahem.*

Well, the perception has changed, as Goldy points out. There is now a deep-seated mistrust of the media & politicians (who is working for whom in that dichotomy is a matter of speculation & debate as well.) It doesn't matter what is *really* going on "behind the scenes," because what's "really going on" is actually the perception of the masses. And that perception has shifted in a profound way.

Oh, 7, when you say "Syrians," you really mean "Israelis." They are the real dog wagging this tail. Just my perception, of course. :-)

I recommend this article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worl…

What it explained that I'd been unaware of is that a strike wouldn't be with the intention of ending the Syrian civil war, or toppling Assad, or initiating an occupation, or anything else I'd call "getting in to war" in Syria. It'd be for the purpose of enforcing the Geneva conventions on chemical weapons, and showing that you can't get away with using them if you don't want to get smacked with some missiles.

Am I in favor of bombing in general? No. But I also don't want the Geneva convention to go unenforced, and I don't want chemical weapons to be worth it.

Just FYI, the Geneva Convention only bans use of chemical weapons between states. It does not govern internal use of chemical weapons inside a country or during a civil war. Syria also never signed the Chemical Weapons Convention that did make use of chemical weapons at all a crime under international law. That doesn't make their use of them right, but it weakens the case for military force tremendously. There is no mandate to attack Syria under international law, even acknowledging their clear responsibility for this attack. In fact, it is illegal for any member state of the UN to attack another except in self-defense. An attack by the US without UN backing against Syria at this time is against international law, and if it happens without Congressional approval, it's against US law.

Syria is an abhorrent pariah state and we should do everything short of military force or arming the rebels (too late for the latter) to change the regime there. We should apply diplomatic pressure against Syria, but also promise economic assistance to any future Syrian government that gives up chemical weapons, stops funding terrorists, and allows for a constitutional proces including free elections. That's an appropriate carrot and stick that in the long run will work, even if in the short run it won't end the civil war or get rid of Assad.

Would al-Assad"s generals want to go to war with the U.S. and France if we were to blow up his palaces. I think not.

@11:

I don't deny those are all important steps, but the Syrians (regardless of @9's contention to the contrary) are literally pleading with the rest of the world to end their misery NOW, and none of the steps you suggest are things that can be immediately implemented.

Bottom Line: We (and by that I mean some united global coalition) have to do something right now to stop the killing, otherwise, any future actions on our part will be meaningless, for the simple reason that, if things continue the way they are, there's going to be very little left in the way of a democratically-inclined population left with which to work, and every second we delay, simply leaves open the increased likelihood of a radicalized Islamist faction filling in the vacuum once Assad and his cronies are eventually (hopefully) tossed out.

So, wait a second. 1. Syria can't bomb the USA, and has no interest in attacking us. 2. Syria is NOT a signatory to the Chemical Weapons Treaty. 3. There is a civil war going on in Syria (for various reasons), and a major component of the rebel forces are Islamists who would like an Islamic state, as opposed to the secular state of Assad.
(Oddly paralleling Hussein's secular Iraqi state, where women could get an education; as opposed to the pressure to make Iraq and Islamic state today, fueling the Shia/Sunni weekly bombings we have today...).

Oh, right, Cascadian said much of this @11.

Who the fuck's side are we on, anyway? And why?

Here's an interesting quote from a cynical observer:
"Responsibility to protect", invoked for the war on Libya, has transmogrified into "responsibility to attack" - just because the Obama administration says so. Forget (again) about getting the facts right about chemical or any other weaponry; the window of opportunity for war on Syria is now, before Bashar al-Assad's forces get too much into the habit of winning.

@10
"What it explained that I'd been unaware of is that a strike wouldn't be with the intention of ending the Syrian civil war, or toppling Assad, or initiating an occupation, or anything else I'd call 'getting in to war' in Syria."

So we'd just be destroying some buildings?
Maybe killing some people who are not Assad?
And that accomplishes what, exactly?

"But I also don't want the Geneva convention to go unenforced, and I don't want chemical weapons to be worth it."

Why is it up to us to enforce them?
And there is some question as to whether they are even applicable in this case.
Syrians killing Syrians is bad.
Americans killing Syrians is less bad because why?

If we really want to enforce punishing crimes against humanity, we could start by joining the International Crime Court to give it some badly needed teeth rather than holding out and pretending that bombing something/someone/somewhere is going to have any deterrent capacity.

A problem with the 'not an intelligence failure' arguement is they don't report to us, they report to their bosses...and those people chose what we hear as well as who signs off on the reports at high levels.

If a good report is produced but nobody in power believes it and nobody in the public gets to see it: does it matter it exists in a filing cabinet in some sub-basement?

I might be a little more trusting if leaks of info the public really should know were not stomped on quite so hard and reporters were left alone rather than spied upon (US) and threatened (UK).

@14
"the Syrians (regardless of @9's contention to the contrary) are literally pleading with the rest of the world to end their misery NOW"

So if we had to invade then they'd welcome us as liberators or something?

"otherwise, any future actions on our part will be meaningless,"

We cannot not kill someone now because then no one would respect us tomorrow.

"and every second we delay, simply leaves open the increased likelihood of a radicalized Islamist faction filling in the vacuum once Assad and his cronies are eventually (hopefully) tossed out."

So what is the "likelihood" today?
Because right now it looks like been 100% for over a decade.
For whatever definition of "radicalized" that you choose.
But I'm really interested in how Americans killing Syrians is going to help that when Syrians killing Syrians just makes it worse.

@ everyone, read this from Wapo. It explains the conundrum we're in better than anything else I've seen, and clears up some misconceptions some of you have.

http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldv…

So says John Kerry, who himself voted to give Bush/Cheney the authority to attack Iraq. Thanks for nothing, Senator.

Obama knows a dumb war, too bad he doesn't know a dumb threat. It's the "red line" that boxed him in. Those two regrettable words are going to be costly. Although, in reality, all he threatened to do was change his "calculus/equation" if Assad used CW. He never actually threatened military action.

> but the Syrians ... are literally pleading with the rest of the world to end their misery NOW,

No. It's a civil war, which means that *some* Syrians want one thing & *some* Syrians want another. Not the mention the other Syrians who want that over there. So there is no "one voice" doing the pleading.

And guess what? There's killing going on all over the planet. There are some really awful regimes. Why do you feel it's up to us to use our troops to re-arrange things? Because the reality is that the people w/ the guns aren't interested in actual "freedom" or "democracy." They're interested in profit. War is profit. War is very good for people who are already swimming in wealth. When they go in to "country build," the same people who want freedom in Syria will be marginalized. I'm getting pretty sick of romantic notions of international politics that are straight out of Hollywood, but in practical terms are just shills for the military-industrial complex.

@20, good read. Thanks.

@19/23:

These are essentially the same arguments made by the "America First" contingent during WW's I & II: "it's not our problem", "what if we back the wrong side?", "it'll only result in more killing", blah, blah, we all know how well that sort of head-in-the-sand isolationism worked out.

You'll note that the key phrase I've been using has been "stop the killing", that should be the sole objective here, whether it's achieved through diplomatic means (which has been tried - without success), by imposing severe economic sanctions on the Assad regime, or forced by military action, SOMETHING MUST BE DONE. If we do nothing and simply wait for things to run their course, then not only will tens of thousands more innocent lives be lost, but whichever side eventually claims victory is going to knuckle down with even an even more repressive system than exists currently, and any hope of edging the country toward a more democratic form of government will have been squandered - probably for decades.

Intervention NOW, in whatever manner that's comprised, while certainly not without considerable risk, at least leaves the door open for democratic nations to have some sort of positive influence going forward, once the dust settles and the funeral processions have ended; doing nothing guarantees an outcome that leaves the Syrian people, regardless of their individual political or religious affiliations, worse off than they are even today, and additionally harboring even greater resentment towards the West.

@ 25, do you believe we can really stop the killing? At best, we can stop the gas attacks, but beyond that?

Is every situation like this comparable to WW2?

Have you had a chance to read my link @20?

@25
"These are essentially the same arguments made by the 'America First' contingent during WW's I & II:"

You mean when Germany invaded France and attacked England?
Except that Syria is not invading/occupying another country.
It is a Syrian civil war. Syrians fighting Syrians.

"You'll note that the key phrase I've been using has been 'stop the killing', that should be the sole objective here,"

How will Americans killing Syrians accomplish that when Syrians killing Syrians will not?

Oh, so that's it! It's that SOMETHING MUST BE DONE. So is it a crime to wait a week or two to figure out WHAT must be done rather than run in and figure stuff out later? You know, things like an exit strategy, or any plan at all beyond "bomb the shit out of stuff"? I realize "bomb the shit out of stuff" is ALWAYS going to be the #1 option among a large chunk of Americans - most notably the media - but for Christ's sake, can we goddamn well take a minute or two to think this THROUGH first?!

Bullshit. It's not scepticism, it's paranoia, ignorance and stupidity. People are wary swallowing Republican and Russian propaganda for the same reason they swallowed Bush's propaganda.

And that is exactly how I feel. I voted for Obama, twice, and haven't regretted it for a split second, but I just don't trust the guy to always do "the right thing", and the NSA scandal is also a big part of it.

Right now, looking at the talking heads and reporters in the news, it feels a whole lot like the run up to the Iraq War, when the administration was selling it hard and we had this helpless feeling that we powerless to stop the momentum. It feels like that, and it sucks. And the Obama administration knows that, which is why they have to keep repeating every five minutes, "It's not Iraq! We swear it's not Iraq!"

Maybe I'm being too Buddhist here, but what does "more than mindful" mean? Especially from a guy who made a ton of money the old-fashioned way, by marrying it?