Tag: Syria

Roff Smith offers a history of the expression:

The phrase “red line” appears to be an adaptation of a much older metaphor – a “line drawn in the sand,” according to Ben Yagoda, a professor of English and journalism at the University of Delaware. One of the earliest recorded instances of anyone drawing a line in the sand took place in ancient Rome around 168 B.C., during a conflict that, curiously enough, involved Syria. A Roman envoy named Popillius was sent to tell King Antiochus IV to abort his attack on Alexandria. When Antiochus tried to play for time, Popillius drew a line in the sand around him and told him he had to decide what he was going to do before he crossed it. He acceded to the Roman demands.

But just how the venerable line in the sand came to be red is a little unclear.

One possibility is that a pundit borrowed the idea of the warning line on a gauge beyond which it is unsafe to rev up the machinery. Another explanation comes from the Battle of Balaclava on October 24, 1854, when the hopelessly outnumbered Sutherland Highlanders, the 93rd Highland Regiment, were told by their commander Sir Colin Campbell: “There is no retreat from here, men. You must die where you stand.” And so they stood firm, wearing their scarlet tunics and awaiting the charge. In his breathless account of the battle, London Times correspondent William Russell wrote that all that remained between the charging Russians and the British regiment’s base of operations was “a thin red streak tipped with steel.”

And now it’s a dick-measuring ribbon.

The pushback from readers continues:

Words are important, so you should use them carefully. You call the proposed action in Syria “war.” Okay, I understand the point that weeks of bombing could be considered a war even though it’s not a traditional ground invasion. No need to quibble there. But you then recklessly compare Syria to Iraq and Afghanistan as if they are close to the same thing (“Or, when push comes to shove, are you actually weaker than McCain and Clinton – and your legacy will be not doomed wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but doomed wars in Syria and Iran?”)

Let’s set aside that nothing has happened in Iran (or Syria) yet. Let’s assume the President gets what he’s asking for in Syria, which is 60 to 90 days of strikes with no troops on the ground. How is that anything – ANYTHING – like Iraq and Afghanistan? Both were full-scale ground invasions costing hundreds of billions of dollars (are we over a trillion?), thousands of American lives, and hundreds of thousands of lives in country. Make the argument you have – that there is no reason to think these limited strikes will accomplish anything – not these stupid rants.

I remember when our entry into Afghanistan would just be for a few months. Ditto Iraq. I can go back right now and read posts assuming just that. And we have boots on the ground in Syria already, as even the president has now conceded. Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan was a “traditional ground invasion” either. The first was conducted with minimal forces alongside the Northern Alliance; the second was accomplished with far fewer troops than required because, yes, we’d be home by Christmas. No one in power anticipated a ten-year occupation. So why do we assume that having entered this awful conflict, we can so easily walk out of it?

I’m sorry but if I’m asked to defend another “this-will-be-over-quickly-no-troops-on-the-ground-ever” war, I have every right to say no. Nothing in my reader’s emails suggest any possible reactions to this war, as if this is entirely a static intellectual exercize. It isn’t. Our opponents can act as well – with a round of possible terrorist attacks in the US, Assad’s forces becoming even more brutal, Iran being forced to support its client state, emboldening its most reactionary elements, attacks on American military targets in the region, and so on. Any single incident could trigger a wider conflict. A little perusal of how the Crimean war broke out would be a useful reminder that what politicians say will happen is usually not what happens, and what they intend can be the last thing they actually accomplish.

Now, of course, not acting could also trigger a conflict, since Israel may infer from the Congress’s refusal on Syria that there is no appetite for war with Iran either, and attack Iran alone. But I doubt Israel will launch a war unilaterally, because it would not do the job. And, besides, at some point, in a democracy, the people must support – preferably overwhelmingly – any war we decide to enter. They don’t in Britain or the US.

Another reader:

Your argument against a Syria strike seems to amount to the assumption that it is an “open-ended” war due to the inherent unpredictability of war and the fact that we can’t guarantee that future circumstances wouldn’t lead to escalation. But by that definition, all war is open-ended. Are you therefore saying that military force is never justified (short of, say, a direct attack on the United States)? If not, I’d like to hear you elaborate more as to when, if ever, a military intervention would be sufficiently close-ended to meet your standard.

Right now, with respect to America’s global interests, I see no war worth fighting. That includes preventing Iran from deterring Israel’s nukes. Another quotes me:

“My point is that foreign policy is not about going around the world preventing bad.” Wow. This is similar to the “America First” arguments used to stay out of WWII and the arguments used to ignore Cambodia and, of course, Rwanda. The US can not be the world’s cop, and I get that. But holy crap – get ready to handle more pictures of dead children and just keep saying “bummer, but we can’t concern ourselves with it.”

I will and have. I opposed intervention in Rwanda and Somalia. Somalia is very instructive. Just a humanitarian mission, which became a war, which became a nightmare. And if only we had only ignored Cambodia instead of waging Kissinger’s vast and vile war crimes against the people of that poor country. Another reader:

I am struck by the lack of discussion of the similarities between the international community’s failed response to the 1995 Srebrenica massacre and the current situation in Syria.

By using chemical weapons, the regime in Syria has indicated that it will use whatever depraved means at its disposal to carry out its policies.  There is no reason to believe that the 8/21 attack will not be repeated, perhaps on a larger scale.  The regime has a the capability to do so and appears likely to do so unless checked by outside forces.

This strikes me as similar to the lead up to the 1995 massacre.  The international community sat by and watched the events unfold in Srebrenica over a period of weeks, and did nothing to intervene, even though it had the capability to stop Serbian armor and artillery that was used to carry out the massacre (actually a series of smaller massacres).  The international community’s inaction in 1995 is rightfully remembered as a grave error – an error that should not be repeated in Syria.  The regime has “crossed a line” and it should be prevented from going further over the line so that the 1,400 dead do not become the 8,000 dead from 1995.  This seems like a blindingly obvious lesson from history to me.

If you genuinely believe that Syria is like Bosnia, fine. I don’t. Europe – even in the Balkans – is a repository of some basic humanitarian norms. The Middle East isn’t – and never has been. And how many people would the Syrian opposition murder if they won this war? They are talking openly about “liquidating” the Alawites. Here’s a little taste of who we’d be supporting:

The Syrian rebels posed casually, standing over their prisoners with firearms pointed down at the shirtless and terrified men. The prisoners, seven in all, were captured Syrian soldiers. Five were trussed, their backs marked with red welts. They kept their faces pressed to the dirt as the rebels’ commander recited a bitter revolutionary verse.

“For fifty years, they are companions to corruption,” he said. “We swear to the Lord of the Throne, that this is our oath: We will take revenge.” The moment the poem ended, the commander, known as “the Uncle,” fired a bullet into the back of the first prisoner’s head. His gunmen followed suit, promptly killing all the men at their feet.

Reader dissent continues into my most recent long post:

“Obama’s case for war is disintegrating fast. And his insistence on a new war – against much of the world and 60 percent of Americans – is easily his biggest misjudgment since taking office.” Really? His case for war? You should be ashamed for saying this repeatedly, like some back bench Republican thinking if only I say it enough, it just might become the truth. He is looking to go to war with Syria as much as he has already declared war on Pakistan by invading it and killing OBL. Has he declared war on Pakistan? Not that I know of. He had a specific intent, and he carried it out. I trust him with this. Yeah, much more than all of you naysayers combined.

It would be a lot better to let the tyrants of the world know that among the undecideds and the “tired of war” criers, there are some who truly will take you to the woodshed for doing something so extraordinarily dreadful to kill over 1400 including 430 children gasping and dying. Will you be saying the same platitudes if Assad dropped a mini nuke on these people – either on purpose or on accident?

Don’t let your enormous bad judgement on the Iraq war cloud your perspective.

If Obama were organizing a meticulously planned and sourced operation of a few men to capture and kill the mass murderer of Americans in Syria, I might agree. He is not. And the resolution Obama sent to the Senate would give him lee-way to do whatever he wanted with respect to chemical weapons. That proposed resolution – and Kerry’s gaffe in the Senate hearing – was clearly open to a broad conflict in the Middle East. As it would have to be. Once you set a train of events in motion, you have to be responsible for the outcome. And we will be.

A reader writes:

Like you, I’m against military action in Syria. I work in the human rights field, so the ongoing bloodshed in Syria tears me up on a daily basis (or it would, had I not become numb to it long ago). But what you wrote is disingenuous:

The only true disincentive for use of chemical weapons is for the UN to achieve a consensus on that fact and initiate collective action involving all members of the Security Council. And yet Obama has explicitly ruled that out.

We’ve been trying to get the Security Council to act for two years now. There have been several attempts to pass resolutions referring the situation to the ICC, and lately to authorize an intervention, but they’ve been stopped each time by Russia and China. Even the mildest statements of condemnation have been blocked or watered down. So it’s not as though Obama could have gone to the UN but refused it out of hand. He has simply accepted that the Security Council will not be able to reach a consensus on any action he might suggest.

He shouldn’t. He should keep trying. And he has the perfect UN ambassador for it. Another reader:

“The UN to achieve a consensus”? Do you mean to say that we should get all 15 members of the council to agree and contribute to military force in launching a low-risk punitive strike? Including Rwanda, Luxembourg, Togo, and Guatemala? Good luck with that shit.

A few more readers drill down on the issue:

Stop pretending the issue here is that Obama needs to rely more on the United Nations.

The UN does a bunch of great stuff, but at the end of the day, it’s made up of actors representing all the countries of the world, the vast majority of which are incredibly selfish and many of which are flat-out evil. The idea that the United States should not act unless Russia gives us the OK, or unless we cobble together forces from random African or Central American countries with no military power, is bullshit. And it’s a particularly ironic critique, given that Bush checked all these boxes, sought UN approval, assembled a coalition … and Iraq was still a disaster.

There are many reasons to avoid getting drawn into this, but needing the approval of  disjointed, morally empty body like the United Nations sure as hell is not one of them. I would hope Obama, Clinton, Bush – whoever – can and would act in the best interests of the country without having to seek Vladimir Putin’s disgusting approval.

Another:

I’m afraid I’m with your dissenters on this one. I just don’t see how the use of chemical weapons against civilians can simply be allowed to go unchallenged by the world community. I’d dearly love to see the UN take decisive action, but I don’t see the Security Council accomplishing anything. I don’t subscribe to the view that Obama simply decided to ignore the UN. He realizes the reality of Russian intransigence. Sadly, if Putin were a more reasonable man, I think it’s possible that the US and Russia might be able to work together and use the threat of US military action to drive Assad to a Russia-brokered negotiating table. Which seems like the only possible long-term solution.

Perhaps a bigger issue for me is yet one more example of UN paralysis. If the atrocity of chemical attacks on civilians cannot elicit a UN response, what’s the point?  The UN seems to be devolving into a charitable aid organization with no ability to hold accountable those who violate basic human rights (yes, I realize they also failed in this regard during the Bush-Cheney years).

You used the argument that if this was simply about the principle that the use of these weapons should never go unpunished, Obama should have acted months ago. But surely the president’s decision to hold off until now simply reflects his reluctance to resort to military action, which is why he was elected.

Let me turn this around and present you with the same dilemma. For Obama, the scale of the recent attack has clearly changed his calculus. You disagree with his math. Is there any point at which you believe that intervention would be warranted? What if Assad gassed an entire city? Part of Obama’s reasoning must be the real fear that a much larger chemical attack is possible if the Syrian rebels were to make further progress.

There is no point at which I think it would be wise to intervene unilaterally. If Assad were to up the ante even further, the pressure should not be on the US but on Russia and China. If a UN sanctioned intervention is to occur, it will need such an appalling event to galvanize it. But it is emphatically not the responsibility of the United States to be the United Nations for the UN. It’s a mug’s game. It’s bankrupting us, and only isolates us even further in the world. We have to cut this impulse to hold ourselves responsible for everything evil in the world. We are not. We need to hand this disaster to Putin – and let the Jihadists target him for their mass murder, not us.

(Photo: Russian President Vladimir Putin chairs a Security Council meeting at the Kremlin in Moscow, on November 21, 2012. By Mikhail Metzel/AFP/Getty Images)

Philip Jenkins fears that Assad’s downfall could doom Syria’s Christians:

To describe the Ba’athist state’s tolerance is not, of course, to justify its brutality, or its involvement in state-sanctioned crime and international terrorism. But for all that, it has sustained a genuine refuge for religious minorities, of a kind that has been snuffed out elsewhere in the region. Although many Syrian Christians favor democratic reforms, they know all too well that a successful revolution would almost certainly put in place a rigidly Islamist or Salafist regime that would abruptly end the era of tolerant diversity. Already, Christians have suffered terrible persecution in rebel-controlled areas, with countless reports of murder, rape, and extortion.

Under its new Sunni rulers, minorities would likely face a fate like that in neighboring Iraq, where the Christian share of population fell from 8 percent in the 1980s to perhaps 1 percent today. In Iraq, though, persecuted believers had a place to which they could escape, namely Syria. Where would Syrian refugees go?

Dreher applauds Rand Paul for consistantly speaking out about Syria’s Christian minority (an example from December of last year is seen above). Julia Ioffe, on the other hand, thinks Paul’s remarks reflect a view that “some lives, Christian lives, are simply more important than other, Muslim ones”:

Yes, this is a legitimate concern—Christians make up some 10 percent of the Syrian population, and have largely backed Assad—and the Egyptian example is a widely reported one; and, given the reports of jihadis brutally establishing Sharia law in the areas they’ve secured, Paul raises a fair question. The only problem is that it seems it’s all he’s talking about. Aside from his standard non-interventionist caution, and the how-do-we-really-know-anything-about-anything epistemological exercises of the kind we saw in his confrontation with Kerry, the paramount concern for Rand Paul, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, is not the question of chemical weapon use, or the 100,000 dead, but the Christians.