home

Precedent: Lieberman Would Favor Action Against Syria

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Foreign Affairs
Posted on Sun Mar 27, 2011 at 11:30:29 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Juan Cole take note, Lieberman would back US action in Syria:

Senate Homeland Security chairman Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) said the U.S. should intervene to help Syrian protestors if officials there turn weapons on the public as took place in Libya on Fox News Sunday.

[. . .]"There's a precedent now that the world community has set in Libya and it's the right one," Lieberman said. "We're not going to stand by and allow this Assad to slaughter his people like his father did years ago and in doing so we're being consistent with our American values and we're also on the side of the Arab people who want a better chance for a decent life."

< Libya And The Interests Of America | Sunday Night Open Thread >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Precedent: Lieberman Would Favor Action Against Syria | 42 comments (42 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Was he drooling when he made these (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Anne on Sun Mar 27, 2011 at 12:09:40 PM EST
    comments?

    Because I get the sense that the neocons are fairly drooling over all this Middle East unrest, and when I see "Homeland Security Committee chairman" attached - still - to Lieberman's name, and I consider some of those in the administration in decision-making and -strategizing capacities, I can admit to being worried.

    You can't give these people an inch.

    Really, we're not going to allow slaughter? (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Dadler on Sun Mar 27, 2011 at 12:17:21 PM EST
    Then it's right to Nigeria for our forces then, I suspect.

    Ahem.

    And after that, (none / 0) (#14)
    by Zorba on Sun Mar 27, 2011 at 01:58:52 PM EST
    the Ivory Coast.  Sure.

    Parent
    That's Holy Joe's... (5.00 / 0) (#12)
    by desertswine on Sun Mar 27, 2011 at 01:44:18 PM EST
    wet dream, but he would like to go beyond Syria.

    Senator Lieberman's (none / 0) (#3)
    by KeysDan on Sun Mar 27, 2011 at 12:23:12 PM EST
    notice of precedent in Libya is not so much the right one as the worrisome one.   Of course, the argument offered for, say, remaining on the sidelines in Bahrain or Yemen, has been--well, we can't do all of them so let's just do those we can.  Or what inconsistencies, every one is different.

    I assume Joe wants to provoke (none / 0) (#4)
    by andgarden on Sun Mar 27, 2011 at 12:31:49 PM EST
    a war with Iran. No, I will not go that far.

    There is only so much we can do.

    Why not Syria? (none / 0) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 27, 2011 at 12:44:07 PM EST
    Why not Iran?

    Are Syrians or Iranians any less worthy than Libyans?

    There must be more to the argument than what has been presented.

    Parent

    Read my comment in the thread below (none / 0) (#6)
    by andgarden on Sun Mar 27, 2011 at 12:45:35 PM EST
    International intervention does not lend itself to bright lines.

    Parent
    That's no answer (none / 0) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 27, 2011 at 01:34:33 PM EST
    I'm not asking for lines. I am asking for reasoning.


    Parent
    For example (none / 0) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 27, 2011 at 01:35:56 PM EST
    I could provide one for Desert Storm, a war I supported.

    I could provide one for the Iraq Debacle, a war I opposed.

    There was reasoning behind why I supported one and opposed the other.

    Explain the why Libya and not Syria?

    Parent

    Why not Syria (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Politalkix on Sun Mar 27, 2011 at 07:07:17 PM EST
    Because of the organized Baath party, the professional Syrian military, Hezbollah and Iranian support in Syria, which will make military operations a lot more complicated than in Libya. Because it will give credence in the Arab world as well as a lot of other countries that America is doing this for Israel. Once that happens, getting international support is going to be very difficult.
    I would support intervention in Syria and Iran on theoretical grounds and oppose it on practical considerations at this time!
    Intervention in Libya is supported by
    (1) a very sizeable Libyan populace
    (2) overwhelming international opinion
    (3) our sense of idealism
    (4) the decision of countries like France and the United Kingdom to do some heavy lifting.

    These things have to be decided on a case by case basis.

    Parent

    Assad is a MINORITY (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by diogenes on Mon Mar 28, 2011 at 09:49:32 PM EST
    The large majority of Syrians are not Alawites and would love to throw Assad out.  Syria is a gigantic police state.  You can knowingly do nothing, but you can't rationalize it away.

    Parent
    The Syria protest I saw today (none / 0) (#43)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Mar 28, 2011 at 10:05:29 PM EST
    was starting to look like Egypt.

    Parent
    In Libya (none / 0) (#11)
    by andgarden on Sun Mar 27, 2011 at 01:41:13 PM EST
    the reasoning goes something like this:

    1. There is an opportunity to prevent greater bloodshed;

    2. The risk in lives of doing nothing appears to be greater than doing something;

    3. Broader American interests do not appear to be disserved by involvement;

    4. To the extent Gaddafi is contained, that is a good thing (think Desert Fox as a followup to Gulf War I);

    The differences with respect to Syria are, I think, obvious.

    Parent
    So if I disagree with the reasoning (none / 0) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 27, 2011 at 01:52:54 PM EST
    1. Is it an opportunity? What is the opportunity? Is the opportunity regime change? What will it take to do that? If it takes putting ground forces in Libya and "marching to Tripoli", are you still for it? for example, am I "de facto acquiescing to a massacre?" If more lives are lost through this action, was your support for this acquiescing in that?

    2. The risk in whose lives? Surely there is no risk to American lives.  If it is a numbers game, are more lives at risk in Libya than somewhere else? Nigeria? Zimbabwe? If more people lived in Bahrain, would intervention then be justified there? What is the number of lives at risk that justify military action?

    3. Are American interest served here? Which ones if any? Is American treasure not an American interest? Not just in cost, but in the effect of oil price spikes?

    4. How do you propose to "contain Gaddafi" without taking him out? This is not a "Saddam is a threat to his neighbors" situation. Gaddafi is a threat to his own people. But so to are the rulers of Burma, Iran, CUBA, the Ivory Coast, etc.

    This is not a convincing theory to me.

    Parent
    In order: (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by andgarden on Sun Mar 27, 2011 at 02:11:16 PM EST
    1. Complicated question. Ideally the Libyan people would exercise their own sovereignty. Until Gaddafi began his crackdown, that's what they appeared to be doing. Air support may have evened the odds. I would be wary of investing more than that, but if Gaddafi is toppled, I might support an international peacekeeping force (perhaps only a regional one, a la Kosovo).

    2. Well, Libyan lives. I wish we had the ability and opportunity to do something about those other situations. But for a host of reasons we do not.

    3. In a general sense, Gaddafi empowered is bad for America. After he puts down a revolution, he won't be the kinder, gentler dictator that we had gotten used to in the last five years. Yes, dictators routinely conduct purges (I think Fidel went through another one a few years ago). But this one wasn't just a matter of rounding up the eggheads.

    4. Another complicated question. Essentially, we should give the Libyan people a fair opportunity to contain (and perhaps remove) him.


    Parent
    Partial response (none / 0) (#18)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 27, 2011 at 02:19:01 PM EST
    "But for a host of reasons we do not."

    what are those host of reasons?

    As for Gaddafi being hostile, well certainly now he will be. I would have thought that would be an argument for NOT intervening.

    "Kill the King" and all that.

    Parent

    Each country is a different case (none / 0) (#20)
    by andgarden on Sun Mar 27, 2011 at 02:34:16 PM EST
    with different problems. I said I can't give you a bright line, and I meant it.

    Parent
    Precisely (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 27, 2011 at 02:48:27 PM EST
    No one has made the case for Libya in a persuasive way.

    The "acquiescing to a massacre"" line is not only offensive, it is nonsensical, as you demonstrate. You're willing to "acquiesce" in other countries and so is Cole obviously.

    Parent

    Instead of picking on easy targets (none / 0) (#28)
    by andgarden on Sun Mar 27, 2011 at 03:38:55 PM EST
    like Joe Lieberman, I wish you would say why you think Obama, Clinton, and Rice decided in favor of intervention. And furthermore, why you think they were wrong to do so. I assume you don't believe that any of them are interested in "next stop Harare," right?

    Parent
    One of the distinctions (none / 0) (#35)
    by ruffian on Mon Mar 28, 2011 at 10:42:51 AM EST
    Clinton and Gates made yesterday was that in Syria, for example, it is the police that shot the protesters, while in Libya the whole force of the government controlled army was coming down on them.

    Seems to me that they are saying that the fact that it is essentially a civil war and not police activity makes it intervention worthy.

    It's the oil.

    Parent

    Ooops, meant to say IMO it's the oil (none / 0) (#36)
    by ruffian on Mon Mar 28, 2011 at 10:45:29 AM EST
    They also make the argument that when allies helped us in Afghanistan or Iraq it was to support us and our interests, and not for their own interests. Therefore it is our turn to help our allies France and England when they think it is in their interests and not necessarily our own.

    Parent
    Protecting the Arab Spring (none / 0) (#37)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 28, 2011 at 12:17:09 PM EST
    Libya can be seen as part of the process that engulfed its immediate neighbors Egypt and Tunisia and which grips other nations too.  If we let force eradicate the rebels in Libya--bad results could follow in Egypt and Tunisia.  A reverse roll up could ensue.  A domino theory if you will.

    According to Hillary on MTP: Our allies, primarily Britian and France, have demanded our participation.  We asked them for help in Afghanistan and they helped.....A problem in Africa is not good for France or Britian.

    Certain Arab countries asked us to intervene to prevent a massacre.

    Of course, our intervenetion is premised on little involvement from us and a quick ouster of Gadaffi....which is some gamble.  Libya could turn out to be a disaster.

    As to consistency....I like this quote from Emerson:

    A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines.

    Or two wrongs don't make a right.

    We help where and when we can....That does not mean everywhere everytime...

    To say we should not help somewhere because we cannot help everywhere is wrong.

    The issue is whether a case can be made for intervening in Libya--not whether we are being consistent....


    Parent

    Preventing a massacre is a good reason (none / 0) (#39)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 28, 2011 at 12:23:13 PM EST
    It is not offensive.

    The question is whether it is reason enough given the other circumstances and risks....

    Parent

    With so many other countries (none / 0) (#22)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Mar 27, 2011 at 02:41:12 PM EST
    willing to help in Libya it was obvious too that certain criteria had been met, a somewhat organized opposition that had taken and was holding different areas on a large scale and a vicious dictator coming for them who had to murder his own troops who refused to fight for him against the people and had to hire mercs.

    Parent
    What about the following criterion: (none / 0) (#34)
    by observed on Mon Mar 28, 2011 at 07:39:24 AM EST
    We should not intervene on behalf of civilians if the likelihood is that doing so would result in more deaths than if we abstained.
    One might argue (I am not taking that position) that Libya meets this criterion more than Syria.
    It certainly seems clear to me that military action in Syria could lead to huge casualties.

    Parent
    Sounds similar to the Catholic concept (none / 0) (#38)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 28, 2011 at 12:18:14 PM EST
    of a "just war"....

    Parent
    Really? I always thought a just war was (none / 0) (#40)
    by observed on Mon Mar 28, 2011 at 01:12:30 PM EST
    one which was morally justified, no matter what the cost---e.g. WWII was a just war, even though it's quite conceivable there would have been fewer deaths had the US stayed out and the Germans won quickly.

    Parent
    What makes a (none / 0) (#41)
    by MKS on Mon Mar 28, 2011 at 04:01:09 PM EST
    war just includes a cost/benefit analysis.

    Here is the wikipedia formulation:

     

    (1) the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

      (2) all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;

      (3) there must be serious prospects of success;

      (4)  the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power as well as the precision of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

     (Underlining and numbering added.)

    #3 and #4 require proportionality and due consideration of the death and damage that war inflicts.


    Parent

    Thanks. Thats' interesting to know. (none / 0) (#44)
    by observed on Tue Mar 29, 2011 at 10:02:23 AM EST


    Parent
    Yep (none / 0) (#7)
    by lentinel on Sun Mar 27, 2011 at 12:57:56 PM EST
    Why not Iran?

    I'm ready.
    Ready to watch.

    Why not war with everybody?

    Parent

    A distinct possibility apparently. (none / 0) (#8)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 27, 2011 at 01:11:12 PM EST


    Parent
    I'd (none / 0) (#31)
    by lentinel on Sun Mar 27, 2011 at 04:57:21 PM EST
    like to fight the

    North Koreans - and what the hell, the South Koreans.

    China - The commie one and the regular one.

    Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, and every other goddam -stan there is.

    Then there's that snotty Canada with it's commie healthcare.
    To hell with them.

    Mexico - need I say more? Nuke 'em.

    Brazil, Venezuela, Cuba, and anyone else who speaks Spanish.
    And that goes for Spain.

    And how about that commie Iceland?
    And Greenland and Finland and all the rest of those -lands.

    Let's get 'em before they get us. I know they're after us.

    Parent

    Hey, it makes for great TV coverage! (none / 0) (#21)
    by EL seattle on Sun Mar 27, 2011 at 02:38:59 PM EST
    Unless it's pre-empted by tsunami disasters or volcanos.

    Parent
    Who can put a greater struggle (none / 0) (#15)
    by Saul on Sun Mar 27, 2011 at 01:59:39 PM EST
    against a coalition.   The U.S and Isarel would love to see Iran go.  But deep down inside they are afraid of their power.   Chances Syria is more powerful than Lybia and it could bring in Iran to help Syria.

    Why not N. Korea.  Because they have a nuclear weapon and they know they can't win but they can easily explode one to S. Korea before they go into oblivion.

    I believe Iran wants a nuclear weapon not so much to use it but as a ace in the hole.  Enemies of our that have nuclear weapons know that the changes of being attacked diminish greatly just by having them.  Does not mean they would win a war if they started a nuclear war but it give the U.S pause to think before they act.

    Parent

    Not Syria--yet--per SOS Clinton (none / 0) (#23)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 27, 2011 at 02:41:20 PM EST
    yesterday.  (The Guardian.)

    Parent
    Link to Guardian: (none / 0) (#26)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 27, 2011 at 03:02:22 PM EST
    Hillary Clinton

    Parent
    Armed gangs aren't tanks (none / 0) (#27)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Mar 27, 2011 at 03:10:23 PM EST
    or EU supplied munitions either.

    Parent
    Absolutely (none / 0) (#30)
    by star on Sun Mar 27, 2011 at 04:28:18 PM EST
    Exactly my thoughts. And this is what the rest of the world will ask if and when things starts going up in flames in other parts of mid east..

    Parent
    OT (none / 0) (#17)
    by Saul on Sun Mar 27, 2011 at 02:17:54 PM EST
    Wow VCU 41  Kansas 27 at half time

    Could be an upset

    It might be the first (none / 0) (#19)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Mar 27, 2011 at 02:34:04 PM EST
    time this happens but I agree with Lieberman in spirit. That being said, the logisitics of doing it are another story.

    Seems like the government (none / 0) (#32)
    by Madeline on Sun Mar 27, 2011 at 06:03:49 PM EST
    of this country has taken some kind of psychotropic drug that is only used for self destruction.  It is difficult to read the words describing their thinking and the way they make decisions.  Could they be aliens?  What rational person would think this way?

    War in supposedly good when there is a depression as it pulls the factions together and of course we have to make arms and that means jobs. Is there a chance they are thinking this is the only way to save this country.

    I think I am being pushed to the edge in my thinking.  I am in conspiracy mode here.

    Oh.....Go Butler!  I love the unexpected...when it's good.

    Precedent: Lieberman Would Favor Action Against Syria | 42 comments (42 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment