Syria

The 'Experts' Who Want a War With Syria

Here we go again. Dammit.

|

On a purely voluntary basis, of course.
Warner Bros.

Matt Welch mentioned this earlier today, but it deserves extra attention and extra scorn: a "big group of foreign policy experts"—that's what The Weekly Standard calls them, "foreign policy experts"—urging "the United States and other willing nations" to "consider direct military strikes against the pillars of the Assad regime." The roster of "experts" is a sight to behold: Gary Bauer! Martin Peretz! Karl Rove! L. Paul Bremer!

I haven't written a lot about the possibly pending American intervention in Syria, because Jesus fucking Christ do people seriously want a war in Syria? To argue convincingly against an idea I need some capacity for understanding the other side of the argument, and at the moment my willingness to put myself in these jokers' shoes is pretty limited. Sorry. Dear experts: If you want to hear the most compelling case against your latest crusade, lock yourself in a room, strap yourself to a chair, and watch a rerun of the last 10 years. Maybe you'll learn something.

NEXT: Zimbabwe Proposes Building a Theme Park

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. You know Obama set himself up for this by making that “red line” statement about chemical weapons.

    Now he has to follow through or he looks like a weakling.

    1. Yep. It could have been a *mauve* line, but NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!

      1. Or Lavender Blue, Dilly Dilly…..

  2. The assertion that the president can initiate military action alone (deference to forming an international coalition being a matter of public relations rather than legal necessity), the media lockstep–these are disturbingly reminiscent of other recent military actions. On the other hand, at least there’s no oil involved so the action would actually be for humanitarian reasons, not that it’s clear that anything substantial can be accomplished. The response is supposedly being modeled on Kosovo, but I don’t think we’ll get the same outcome.

    1. On the other hand, at least there’s no oil involved so the action would actually be for humanitarian reasons

      In the case of Iraq, we could have gotten oil cheaper by not invading, lifting the sanctions, and cutting a deal. Saddam offered that deal.

      If we had not invaded, would that have been for oil? Would it have been fair to tar all people opposed to the invasion with doing it for oil? I don’t think so.

      1. There’s a long way between totally incomprehensibly stupid and “fair.”

        To your credit I still don’t actually know what the point of the Iraq war was.

    2. There are plenty of oil pipelines that run through Syria. Especially ones from Iraq through Turkey.

      1. Well shit why aren’t we on this yesterday?

        1. The Supremely Wise CIC is still pondering whether to firebomb civilian areas or just target military installations.

    3. There’s a coast (and ports) in play, so I wouldn’t rule economics out entirely.

    4. The assertion that the president can initiate military action alone (deference to forming an international coalition being a matter of public relations rather than legal necessity)

      Not to mention that apparently getting Congressional authorization for fighting a war is also apparently optional for the Constitutional Scholar In Chief.

      1. Republicans are generally not defying the President Can Bomb Whoever the Fuck He Wants Within 60 Days Act. That’s not a precedent they want to mess with.

    5. Tony better be careful or someone might think he’s questioning the actions and motives of his god-king.

  3. Russians charactarize Obama/West as a “monkey with a hand grenade.”
    http://en.ria.ru/russia/201308…..enade.html

    1. Racist!!!

      1. Probably so. Although they would have portrayed Bush the same way.

  4. Before committing to a course of action, I want to hear what journalist William Boot has to say about the goings-on in Syria.

  5. (COMPLETE THREADJACK)

    I’ve foolishly participated in the LVRJ forums for years and have found myself stunned by the logic deployed in a recent post by one of the regular forum liberals:
    http://www.reviewjournal.com/o…..1018926489

    I reject the simplistic notion of self ownership because serious questions have been raised because of research and evidence as to whether there is even an “I” that exists at all. That libertarians are delusionally selfish and unable to see their connections to the wider world and their dependence on that wider world is just something you unintentionally reinforce in many of your posts.

    1. If you don’t believe in self-ownership, I feel I have the right to make you my slave.

      1. It’s almost surreal:
        Since we are not a direct democracy your first bit of hyperbole and your later soylent green hyperbole is meaningless and just shows how ill informed and prone to hyperbole you are.
        The law is how civilized society works. It is not obscene but it isn’t surprising you lack the ability to discern nuance being that you are a simple minded person. The rest of your post is typically nonsensical and irrelevant. Go find your voluntary utopia and I hope it works out for you. Most people aren’t interested in the unwitting argument you make for anarchy.

        1. His comeback to your, “you shouldn’t talk about yourself that way,” comment was Brick Tamlinesque. “Where did you get those suits? At the … toilet store?”

        2. The law is how civilized society works.

          So, if you aren’t following orders, you aren’t civilized? Is that where he’s going?

          1. I guess as long as the right people have voted on it, it’s the way supposed to be.

            If society decides that being %ETHNICITY% and not a slave is illegal, all those %ETHNICICTY% people better head on in to the Department of Public Slavery for assignment. Civilization requires it.

            Besides, their DNA is made up of tons of other people’s DNA, so they don’t own their bodies, time, etc.

    2. ‘Because I might not exist’ might be the craziest argument I’ve ever heard from a seemingly non-schizo.

    3. A progressive who can’t distinguish between coercion and voluntary cooperation? Dog bites man.

    4. Oh, modern liberals/progressives have widely abandoned self ownership and free will.

      Makes them pretty frustrating to argue with, and it’s a bit scary to think through the implications.

    5. It’s hard to read the mind of an individual like that, but I’m guessing the point being missed is that self-ownership does not absolve one from having responsibility over their actions. My freedom to control my actions does not entitle me to a freedom to execute any action.

      Anyhow…

  6. I’ll wait until John Bolton weighs in before making up my mind…

    1. What about Charles Krauthammer? He’s usually good for a laugh.

      1. John and Charles are fully “behind” Obama’s wars.

  7. If you can think of a good reason to go to war, then don’t do it. Only stupid reasons, like trying to act m?s macho really count. Oil, a sissy’s reason. Fuck, let’s just bomb some little children for the fuck of it that’s the ticket. Hillary and McCain will cheer. Madelaine Albright will spew and Graham and Biden will say what the fuck! We’ll tell ’em it’s humanitarian to save the children while fire-bombing the shit out of the kiddies. The denials of child-murder will be hilarious. OHHHH fuckkkkkkkkkkkkkk.

    The Obama Cult Sock Puppets will chime in with blog-murmurs of post-orgasmic satisfaction…….

  8. lock yourself in a room, strap yourself to a chair, and watch a rerun of the last 10 years…

    See, that’s the thing, Jesse. These guys just aren’t into video, big screen or small screen. They prefer live theater and are damned well determined to get it.

  9. You’re all fucked up Eagle-Eyes. This is an intellectuals’ war. A “smart” war fought with “smart” bombs and “smart” troops and “really smart” generals and a “smarter-than-Jesus” CIC. All externalities have been “accounted for”. All political opposition will be “smartly” neutralized or suppressed.

    The only stupid ones are those that are on the wrong side.

    1. For “smart” reasons, you idiot? Oh yeah……

  10. Polish up another peace prize for the man!

  11. We do not want to do this. This is Armageddon on a stick and everyone on earth will get reamed. You won’t be watching this war on your big screen TV. You’ll be watching it from your own front yard.

    91% of Americans are opposed to doing this and our government is ignoring us.

    Our government (both parties) has gone rogue.

    Now, what do we do?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.