Why shouldn't the US intervene in Syria?

[Defiant47]

I thought you were pro-intervention?

I am pro-humanity. The unfortunate reality is that sometimes war is necessary. Whenever it is not, we should pursue realistic alternate options as much as feasible and reasonable.

 

[Lord Baal]

Then why the trust in the US intelligence system that you displayed previously? They have a track record of lying to get involved in wars dating back to at least the Gulf of Tonkin incident, whereas Assad doesn't have a track record of gassing his people.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

I have read that book. There are better sources out there, though I have none to hand right now. The US did a really piss-poor job of making Iraq friendly, since it is abut half-an-inch away from becoming a full-fledged Iranian puppet-state now. The parallels between Syria and Iraq are many, but the analogy is nowhere near perfect. There wasn't a full-scale civil war in Iraq in 2003, for one thing (the Kurdish imbroglio was nowhere near the level of the current Syrian disaster).

The best part about that book us its prescience, since it came out before the invasion.

I wasn't trying to make an analogy of the situations in Syria and Iraq, but mostly how the US is selling its involvement.

However, there were likely far more Iraqi opposition groups in 2003, with more legitimate axes to grind with Saddam, than there are Syrian opposition forces in Syria. I'd say Iraq was far better poised to fall than Syria is.

Sent via mobile.

 

[timtofly]

Not to mention that Saddam did actually use chemical weapons.

 

[Winston Hughes]

Almost all modern powers conceive of themselves as the defending party, so Glassfan's logic only functions if we assume to begin with the legitimacy of one case over the other. It's incapable of acting as an independent basis for judgement, only as the summary of one party's justifying narrative.

All sides may claim to be aggrieved, but it doesn't follow that their claims are equally valid.

 

[Traitorfish]

All sides may claim to be aggrieved, but it doesn't follow that their claims are equally valid.

No doubt. But, deciding by the time you delve deep enough to sketch out something approaching the truth of the matter, it's unlikely you'll be in any position to label one party "aggressor" and the other "defender". As Borrachio suggested, even as apparently straightforward an example as Hitler's invasion of Poland contains a depth of complexity which makes that sort of simplistic opposition impossible to maintain.

At most, you can say that a party is justified insofar as it is the defender, and unjustified insofar as it is the aggressor, and that might allow you to say that one party may be on balance more justified, but it also might not, which doesn't really allow us the logic of Just War which Glassfan seems to be advocating.

I am pro-humanity.

What does that even mean?

 

[ReindeerThistle]

I am pro-humanity.

What does that even mean?

Look out whales and pandas...

Sent via mobile.

 

[Winston Hughes]

As Borrachio suggested, even as apparently straightforward an example as Hitler's invasion of Poland contains a depth of complexity which makes that sort of simplistic opposition impossible to maintain.

We're supposed to accept that the charade put up by the Nazis actually muddied the water somehow? As always with matters of history, I'll await Dachs' take on it with interest, but I've seen nothing yet to paint Hitler & co. as anything but the villains of that particular piece.

Addressing your more general position, as Orwell said with regards to Gandhi: the world would be a better place if everyone shared an absolute rejection of violence and war - but only if everyone shared it. Applied to a world in which some people (including many who wish to see the US intervene in Syria) will stop at nothing to advance their own interests, it's just leaving an open door to the worst villains of all.

By refusing to even consider any evidence suggesting one party is really the aggressor (because you've decided in advance that no evidence could be sufficient), or any evidence that things could be worse if the aggressor goes unopposed (because you've decided in advance that it's wrong to oppose them), your position is barely distinguishable from that of an apologist for such aggressors.

You don't have to accept the justifications for any given war, and in practice can oppose every real-world example. But by denying that it ever could be justifiable to go to war, even if the consequences of abstaining were demonstrably and massively worse than those of intervening, it seems to me that you've thrown out the consequentialist baby with the utilitarian bathwater, and have adopted a moral position concerned only with maintaining a sense of personal righteousness, other people be damned.

 

[Traitorfish]

We're supposed to accept that the charade put up by the Nazis actually muddied the water somehow? As always with matters of history, I'll await Dachs' take on it with interest, but I've seen nothing yet to paint Hitler & co. as anything but the villains of that particular piece.

We're supposed to accept that the Nazis genuinely believed themselves to be engaged in a pre-emptive war in defensive of Germany (indeed, of European civilisation). This may not have been a rational or empirically valid conviction, but it was authentically held. I'm not trying to defend that belief (you remember who you're talking to, right?), only to point out that to understand what happened, to understand why these people acted as they did, it has to be taken into account, which makes the simplistic opposition of "aggressor" and "defender" difficult to apply.

Addressing your more general position, as Orwell said with regards to Gandhi: the world would be a better place if everyone shared an absolute rejection of violence and war - but only if everyone shared it. Applied to a world in which some people (including many who wish to see the US intervene in Syria) will stop at nothing to advance their own interests, it's just leaving an open door to the worst villains of all.

Again, I didn't say anything about violence. My comments were in regards to war, which is not merely violence on a large scale, but a qualitatively specific kind of violence. There's an essential difference, in my view, between, say, Symon Petliura's pogroms, and Sholom Schwartzbard putting a few holes in him by way of response.

By refusing to even consider any evidence suggesting one party is really the aggressor (because you've decided in advance that no evidence could be sufficient), or any evidence that things could be worse if the aggressor goes unopposed (because you've decided in advance that it's wrong to oppose them), your position is barely distinguishable from that of an apologist for such aggressors.

You don't have to accept the justifications for any given war, and in practice can oppose every real-world example. But by denying that it ever could be justifiable to go to war, even if the consequences of abstaining were demonstrably and massively worse than those of intervening, it seems to me that you've thrown out the consequentialist baby with the utilitarian bathwater, and have adopted a moral position concerned only with maintaining a sense of personal righteousness, other people be damned.

If you say so.

 

[Winston Hughes]

We're supposed to accept that the Nazis genuinely believed themselves to be engaged in a pre-emptive war in defensive of Germany (indeed, of European civilisation). This may not have been a rational or empirically valid conviction, but it was authentically held.

I think you're giving way too much credit to the Nazis. It was a war of aggression, as blatant as they come, carried out in the name of an ideology that demanded conquest, not so much for the benefit of the nation, as for the sheer glory of it.

 

[Lord Baal]

I think you're giving way too much credit to the Nazis. It was a war of aggression, as blatant as they come, carried out in the name of an ideology that demanded conquest, not so much for the benefit of the nation, as for the sheer glory of it.

This displays a fairly poor understanding of Nazi ideology. They were vicious and brutal, yes, but they did genuinely believe they were acting in the best interests of both Germany and Europe. An attack on the Slavs was an act of self-defence on the part of Aryans. Glory had little, if anything, to do with Nazi motives.

 

[timtofly]

Hitler had some religious undertones and threats of the rising force of communism. I am not sure how that applies to the ME. Unless you are talking about the different factions in Islam, and the threat from a growing Israeli nation.

President Assad is not looking to expand his borders. He may prefer one brand of Muslims over another, and I don't think that he feels Israel is a growing threat. If anything millions of peaceful citizens have fled and illegal aliens are moving in to support the one faction that wanted to oust Assad. Perhaps before things get out of hand the UN should send forces into every country with chemical weapons, including the US and get rid of them. Seeing as how civil wars are likely to break out any where. If we already knew that they existed even from the start of this civil war, why would any one wait until after some imaginary line is crossed?

 

[Mise]

We're supposed to accept that the Nazis genuinely believed themselves to be engaged in a pre-emptive war in defensive of Germany (indeed, of European civilisation). This may not have been a rational or empirically valid conviction, but it was authentically held. I'm not trying to defend that belief (you remember who you're talking to, right?), only to point out that to understand what happened, to understand why these people acted as they did, it has to be taken into account, which makes the simplistic opposition of "aggressor" and "defender" difficult to apply.

You agree that the Nazis were wrong to perceive themselves as defenders of Germany and European civilisation though, right? Their perception was actually just plain wrong, was it not?

 

[Traitorfish]

I agree. But, I think that all major European powers c.1939 were deeply mistaken in their self-conception. The Soviet Union was not the workers' fatherland, France was not the bastion of republican democracy, Britain was not a beacon of constitutional liberty. But, all possessed such self-conceptions, so all saw themselves as acting in an essentially defensive capacity even when their opponents saw them as acting aggressively.

In the end, while we can say that some parties acted more aggressively than others, I don't think we can say that any party were simply aggressors, or that any were simply defenders. The most we can say is that certain parties were on balance more aggressive than others.

 

[Alassius]

I agree. But, I think that all major European powers c.1939 were deeply mistaken in their self-conception. The Soviet Union was not the workers' fatherland, France was not the bastion of republican democracy, Britain was not a beacon of constitutional liberty. But, all possessed such self-conceptions, so all saw themselves as acting in an essentially defensive capacity even when their opponents saw them as acting aggressively.

In the end, while we can say that some parties acted more aggressively than others, I don't think we can say that any party were simply aggressors, or that any were simply defenders. The most we can say is that certain parties were on balance more aggressive than others.

This, even more so in that the defenders may end up not much less brutal than the aggressors. The Nazis were an outlier of nastiness. If there was no holocaust, they'd still be deemed aggressors, but their crimes would likely not have exceeded that of the allies. Justification for a war is much less important than making sure the conduct of a war is as civilised as possible. It is also much easier to manufacture and to abuse.

 

[Defiant47]

You agree that the Nazis were wrong to perceive themselves as defenders of Germany and European civilisation though, right? Their perception was actually just plain wrong, was it not?

I agree. But, I think that all major European powers c.1939 were deeply mistaken in their self-conception. The Soviet Union was not the workers' fatherland, France was not the bastion of republican democracy, Britain was not a beacon of constitutional liberty. But, all possessed such self-conceptions, so all saw themselves as acting in an essentially defensive capacity even when their opponents saw them as acting aggressively.

In the end, while we can say that some parties acted more aggressively than others, I don't think we can say that any party were simply aggressors, or that any were simply defenders. The most we can say is that certain parties were on balance more aggressive than others.

No, the most we can say is that Germany were the aggressors unambiguously, and they were simply wrong to think otherwise. The fact that human perceptions belie the ethical truths that allow us to obtain a moral judgement has little to do with the moral judgement itself.

 

[Mise]

No, the most we can say is that Germany were the aggressors unambiguously, and they were simply wrong to think otherwise. The fact that human perceptions belie the ethical truths that allow us to obtain a moral judgement has little to do with the moral judgement itself.

Yeah exactly.

Also, just because you're not the aggressor in a war doesn't mean you can't do bad things, or that you are morally absolved of all the bad things you do just because somebody else started it. This is all, like, really basic stuff and it's really weird that I'm having to say this out loud. The Nazis were quite clearly the aggressors in WWII, even if other nations were also somewhat belligerent in other situations (or in situations leading up to WWII) themselves. You people seem to be setting up this dichotomy where you're either the aggressor or you're perfectly morally right, which is plainly nonsense. You can quite happily say that the Nazis were the aggressors without also saying that Britain, France etc were bastions of freedom and liberty. This entire discussion is just such a load of .

 

[Traitorfish]

I feel that the two of you are rather missing the point. I'm not saying that the Nazis were in any way justified because they were not unambiguously aggressive, and the Allies not unambiguously defensive. (This, by the way, is plainly true even if we insist upon a narrowly "objective" analysis, because the Allies declared war on and subsequently invaded Germany, which cannot in even the most charitable narratives by construed as a purely defensive acts.) I'm saying that the logic of "aggressor vs. defender" is not a sound basis for claims to just war.

 

[Mise]

Well this isn't a very good way of demonstrating it because it's quite clear that the Nazis were both the aggressors in that war and were unjustified in going to war, and that Britain, France, USSR etc were not aggressors in that war and were justified in going to war in response to German aggression.

 

[Traitorfish]

I don't think it's as unambiguous as you assert. From the German perspective, they were merely re-acquiring rightful German territory, and who is to say that they were not? What's the difference, in strictly "objective" terms, between German troops rolling into Warsaw and Russian troops rolling into Berlin? In both cases, two states quarrel about the exercise of political power, and the one with more and better guns turns out to be correct.