Why shouldn't the US intervene in Syria?

[Defiant47]

Preamble

There has been too much misunderstanding in debates regarding the Syrian crisis. We need to understand what we're actually discussing, not argue in circles. If you don't believe the US intel is true, then I'm wasting my time, and potentially even insulting you, if I try to explain the importance of saving lives because I believe the intel to be true. You already get that, we agree on saving lives, so we actually need to debate the veracity of the intel. Or perhaps we both agree on the intel, but you don't believe intervention will save lives, whereas I do.

This should help direct the discussion in a much better way.

Poll

The concept of the poll is to choose any and every option that on its own removes the justification or validity for intervention (i.e. a deal-breaker). That does mean you have to imagine a magical land where all the other issues are already resolved. Obviously that's a bit hard to imagine when put in perspective, but we can do our best regardless so that we can figure out what's important.

For our purposes, intervention is defined to be a no-fly zone against the Asaad regime specifically. It can include ground invasion as well, but I feel just no-fly zone would simplify things somewhat.

Example 1 - "The US has no intention to intervene for humanitarian reasons (i.e. strategic interests)"

We live in a magical land where we know for certainty that Asaad did order that chemical attack, intervention will actually save lives, and the UN is with us. However, we also know that the United States government is only interested in intervening in Syria because of some strategic interest. Is this a deal-breaker? Should we not invade then?

How it helps debates

If it's not a deal-breaker, then whenever you bring up the idea that "US only cares about its strategic interest", explain the implication that "therefore, it is unlikely that lives will be saved, and because lives will not be saved, I am opposed to the intervention". It's not the US intention that bothers you, it's the result of that lack of intention, it's the civilian lives. (Although the US intention is also worrisome)

Example 2 - "There exist uncertainties in the outcomes"

We know the Asaad regime used chemical weapons. We know intervention will save lives. So and so forth. But we can't know for sure. We have a high degree of confidence that the intervention will on an overall basis save lives. But we can't be certain of any of these. Sure, the intel is "high confidence", but that doesn't guarantee it to be true. Our military commanders might have done calculations that more lives will be saved, but those calculations may be incorrect, or it could just not turn out that way. Is this a deal-breaker?

How it helps debates

If it's not a deal-breaker, then you don't need to say "yeah, but we don't know for sure that more lives won't be lost" or anything of that sort. It's not the uncertainty that bothers you, that's fine. It's that you feel that the likelihood of actually saving lives is pretty low. That is, you only care about lives being saved, and based on your assessment, that won't happen. That's why you're opposed.

Example 3 - "Intervention will result in the loss of American lives"

Again we live in a magical land where we know Asaad used chemical weapons, we know intervention will save lives, and everyone's with us. But they expect us to do the heavy lifting. We have to send our own sons and daughters to fight a war that they have no business getting involved in. None of our assets have been threatened. Is this a deal-breaker?

How it helps debates

If it is a deal-breaker, then I'd be wasting my time explaining how many lives would be saved if we intervened, or how solid the intel is that Asaad used chemical weapons. I'm better off discussing what the risk is to our American soldiers, and whether the risk truly is worth it.

Example 4 - "Other areas would be better suited for our interventions."

Intervening in Syria will indeed save lives, yadda yadda yadda. But it wouldn't be the best use of our resources and political efforts - i.e. it would be easier to drum up support and perhaps even save more lives by intervening somewhere else. Should we not intervene in Syria then?

How it helps debates

The concept behind this is that I am making the assertion "based on the lives saved, the resources expended, and the political difficulties of enacting intervention, I think we should proceed with Syria". But you disagree. You're against intervention because there are other places that need our help, not because we shouldn't be helping in the first place.

So we can have a discussion of exactly how much of a political effort and resource expenditure is needed to proceed with an intervention in a few key areas, and how much good would be served for each one, and then debate which one is best. Maybe I think Syria is still best, or maybe you're persuaded me that with the exact efforts we'd put in Syria, we could achieve an even greater good in the Congo.

Discussion

So evidently, we can have a more to-the-point discussion that actually addresses each person's issues. What are your deal-breakers, and why? What things would need to be the exact opposite before you would support an intervention? I could go on forever with these examples and how they impact the debate, but I feel it's better to open it up to the floor at this point.

And yes, I know that it might be that one thing on its own might not be enough, but in conjunction with other issues might be a problem. That's just a limitation we'll have to accept, and hope that this type of poll will help better guide the discussion regardless.

 

[DinoDoc]

What national security interest of the US is at stake in the conflict? What does the US gain from being the air force of Al Qaeda?

 

[ReindeerThistle]

Thanks for the poll Defiant.

No one can convince me the U S id doing this for humanitarian reasons, as I indicated in all of the other threads.

And thanks for putting this in The Chamber. I think a serious DISCUSSION is in order.

Though, it seems US military strike is imminent.

Sent via mobile.

 

[Defiant47]

Defiant's take

So what's important to me is the lives that would be saved in this conflict, and any other from deterrence from the use of chemical weapons. Other considerations are minor.

To change my mind for me to opposed to intervention instead, you'd need to do any of the below: (not meant to be narcissistic or self-serving, just a phrasing to more easily convey my meaning)

• Demonstrate that the intel is false by showing that the US lied or would very much be capable of lying and motivated to do so (you can note my analysis of this issue here)
• Show how intervention will not actually save lives, and may actually result in a greater number of deaths compared to non-intervention
• Outline how non-interventionist humanitarian aid actually helps more than military intervention
• Elaborate how based on our available resources and political "capital", we could achieve an even greater good at a lower "cost" elsewhere (or a smaller good for a substantially smaller "cost")

What will it take to convince you that we should or shouldn't intervene? (whichever is contrary to your position)

 

[Defiant47]

No one can convince me the U S id doing this for humanitarian reasons, as I indicated in all of the other threads.

I could definitely be convinced that the US is doing this to "save face" on international politics because of Obama's comment. Him going to congress is very much a play to gain legitimacy, or find an "out". But who knows, maybe that would have been his "red line" even if he didn't make the comment.

 

[DinoDoc]

What will it take to convince you that we should or shouldn't intervene? (whichever is contrary to your position)

You could show enough of a gain to the US national security interests to justify the costs of being dragged into a grinding civil war. As it stands now, I see no legitimate reason to expend American treasure in this conflict.

 

[Defiant47]

You could show enough of a gain to the US national security interests to justify the costs of being dragged into a grinding civil war. As it stands now, I see no legitimate reason to expend American treasure in this conflict.

By not following through on Obama's red line comment, the US loses legitimacy in the international theatre. As such, more countries, including those hostile to the US, will be more bold in asserting their demands.

As a result, the US may have to make greater concessions to nations around the world, thereby weakening its national security interests. Alternatively, to regain its previous level of legitimacy, the US would have to enact a variety of operations and denials of the aforementioned encroachments, all of which could be significant expenditures of its resources.

As such, it seems likely that, to preserve US's national security interests, it is the "cheapest/least expensive" to proceed with a symbolic intervention in Syria.

 

[DinoDoc]

If the intention here is to look tough before Iran, why not just bomb Iran rather than intervene in a conflict we haven't cared about in ~2 years?

 

[Defiant47]

If the intention here is to look tough before Iran, why not just bomb Iran rather than intervene in a conflict we haven't cared about in ~2 years?

To avoid the expenses of having to extensively bomb Iran in the first place, and any other nation that may defy us.

 

[DinoDoc]

To avoid the expenses of having to extensively bomb Iran in the first place, and any other nation that may defy us.

By creating yet another failed state as we did in Libya?

 

[dutchfire]

Preamble


The concept of the poll is to choose any and every option that on its own removes the justification or validity for intervention (i.e. a deal-breaker). That does mean you have to imagine a magical land where all the other issues are already resolved. Obviously that's a bit hard to imagine when put in perspective, but we can do our best regardless so that we can figure out what's important.

tldr

The decision should be based on a cost-benefit analysis (as usual). Deal breakers are typically not really a useful concept in such an analysis.

 

[Defiant47]

tldr

The decision should be based on a cost-benefit analysis (as usual). Deal breakers are typically not really a useful concept in such an analysis.

Cost-benefit analysis of what? Lives? At what taxpayer cost? American wealth?

So then, is the following true for you?

• The fact that Americans would be responsible for civilian deaths is not a deal-breaker, it's still based on a cost-benefit analysis
• The fact that the UN is opposed is only important insofar as it is a cost
• The length of the engagement is irrelevant so long as more lives are saved

You'll need to be a bit more specific, but if we boil it down to cost-benefit analysis, we can already assess items of irrelevance.

However, I'm quite convinced that for many people, there are various items here that are "deal-breakers" regardless of the cost-benefit analysis. For example, some find collateral damage so abhorrent, that they'd rather America stay out, resulting in even more lives being lost, than sanction such bombing or intervention.

 

[Borachio]

There exist uncertainties in the outcomes.

On the one hand, this is true for any undertaking you can name, but in the case of Syria the uncertainties are tremendous.

1) It's not certain that missile strikes (or any other military action) will have the effects you (or anyone interested in the well-being of their fellow man) desire.

2) It's not certain that missile strikes will be any deterrent to the future use of chemical weapons.

3) It's not certain that intervention wouldn't/won't have a harmful effect.

4) It's not certain (to me) that the Assad regime is directly responsible for the chemical attacks.

5) It's not certain that handicapping the Assad regime (if that's the aim of intervention) will do anything but prolong the civil war in Syria.

6) It's not certain that the Syrian opposition, even if it succeeded in deposing Assad, would be better at governing Syria than Assad (bad though he is, others can always be even worse).

 

[dutchfire]

Cost-benefit analysis of what? Lives? At what taxpayer cost? American wealth?

Yes

So then, is the following true for you?

• The fact that Americans would be responsible for civilian deaths is not a deal-breaker, it's still based on a cost-benefit analysis
• The fact that the UN is opposed is only important insofar as it is a cost
• The length of the engagement is irrelevant so long as more lives are saved

1) Obviously, yes. There'll be civilian deaths either way.
2) Yes. And insofar as it influence the effects on the goodwill/reputation of the US, which some might consider valuable.
3) No, the length of the engagement obviously impacts the financial and humanitarian impact of the thing.

 

[Defiant47]

Yes

I was actually asking which is the determinant - lives or wealth? I'll assume you meant lives (with reasonable balance).

Then we are in complete agreement. Our "calculations" may differ, but the goal and principle is the same.

The heavy external political cost of defying the UN and Russia may alone be grounds for finding a way out of intervening - such as bringing it to congress where it might get shut down due to the American people's opposition. The same applies for internal political costs, by defying the will of the people. This may ruin a future opportunity to do an even greater good (similar to the way Iraq ruined this opportunity) in the future.

 

[dutchfire]

I was actually asking which is the determinant - lives or wealth? I'll assume you meant lives (with reasonable balance).

Probably something like Quality-adjusted life years.* If an intervention would save a small amount of lives compared to the cost, it would be better to spend the money on mosquito nets or the American health care system.

*You can't save lives, you can only prolong them.

 

[Winston Hughes]

Because the American public aren't hypocritical enough to act as if they really care what happens in Syria, or to support a president who is.

I'd ask you to forgive my cynicism, but I'm not sure you should.

 

[timtofly]

By not following through on Obama's red line comment, the US loses legitimacy in the international theatre. As such, more countries, including those hostile to the US, will be more bold in asserting their demands.

As a result, the US may have to make greater concessions to nations around the world, thereby weakening its national security interests. Alternatively, to regain its previous level of legitimacy, the US would have to enact a variety of operations and denials of the aforementioned encroachments, all of which could be significant expenditures of its resources.

As such, it seems likely that, to preserve US's national security interests, it is the "cheapest/least expensive" to proceed with a symbolic intervention in Syria.

Is Obama's red line comment the will of the people? It may just hurt Obama.

I do not think that US involvement or lack thereof is going to change the way other nations view the US any more that any other involvement or lack thereof in the past. The only way US influence will change is to dismantle all of it's forces and back out of any foreign involvement. And I doubt that will happen for years to come, outside of divine intervention.

Think of this as Iraq all over again, where we are going after WMD's and them not being there. Except this time the insurgents are already on the ground fighting.

@ Winston Hughes

I don't think that it has anything to do with American's caring or not caring. When it comes to taking out dictators, we were told over and over again by the same group of people who are for it now, how evil it was the last time we went to war over WMD's.

It is not like the old wars where there is a line of victory. At least that is what we are being told. Even Egypt can not get it right after internally flopping back and forth between governments. I cannot see any one in the ME settling down and keeping the peace. That does not seem to be in any one's nature even though it would be in every one's best interest.

 

[REDY]

Well, for me its quite turning point. I now doubt American foreign politics. I of course do not represent may country, but from polls and president/ministers opinions its also clear, there is no support, unlike in Afghanistan and Iraq cases. Obama hasnt shown logics for attack, unlike Bush.

There is much more conventional way to send message, for example DHL.

 

[Domen]

There is no option "but they should!" - why?