More on Syria

Listening to the radio makes me think we need to import Tywin Lannister to help us deal with the situation.  Seriously.  The foreign policy world is like Game of Thrones right now, except there is no throne.

Now, Obama is going to wait on Congress to vote to attack.  Some general thoughts:

1.  Are we democracy is best for Arab societies?  The Germany, Japan, and South Korean models have not, thus far, proven to work in Iraq.  And it is presently failing in Egypt.  The cases of Germany and Japan might be unique to the historical moment and countries who were utterly defeated in war.  No such situation exists in the Arab world.

2.  We've done limited missile strikes in the past and it isn't clear they work to our long term benefit.  They almost always provoke a reaction from the other side and do not deal with the underlying problem.

3.  Why is there a rush to punish Assad over his chemical weapons?  Punishment could apply in a year, just as easily as next week.

4.  Why are we not better off letting two enemies hostile to the United States fight - and presumably weaken - one another?

5.  We know the Syrian rebels have no preferable government to replace the Assad regime and over 50% of their fighters are Al Queda-like groups.  Why would we pursue any policy to assist them?

6.  Will "punishing" Assad with limited missile strikes really deter other countries from pursuing such weapons?

7.  Why are we reacting to the 1,400 dead from the chemical weapons and not the other 80-90,000 who have died from "legitimate" fighting?

8.  Aren't we glad Israel blew up the Syrian nuclear reactor right now?

9.  How do we know missile strikes will not prolong the conflict?  If we have a dog in the fight, why not support that dog and help them win decisively.  It seems like the missile strikes would serve the purpose of "evening" the playing field and thus prolonging the conflict.

10.  Why is the United States concerned with acting "consistently" in the lawless world of foreign policy?  Even if we didn't punish Assad for chemical weapon usage, we could still punish other countries for usage in the future.  Clearly, there are no international norms or governing body who has sway.  There are institutions which can occasionally assist in creating an international consensus, but such consensus is almost always rooted in aligned political interests of the moment.  Just look at the breakdown of international consensus in the following conflicts:

a.  Iran-Iraq War.  Chemical weapons used.  No international intervention.
b.  Gulf War 1.  International intervention because Kuwait was invaded (could be viewed as aftermath of Iran-Iraq war).  No intervention when Saddam used chemical weapons against Kurds.
c.  Gulf War 2.  No international consensus.  US-Brit coalition intervention.  Saddam overthrown.  No evidence of weapons, but could be considered later punishment from prior use.
d.  Libya intervention.  International consensus for invasion.  No illegal weapons involved.
e.  Egyptian coup.  No international intervention.  No illegal weapons used.
f.  Syria intervention.  No international intervention.  Chemical weapons used.  US may intervene on own.

There is no consistency whatsoever, from any of the parties involved.