The New Justification For War: "Commonsense"

[Kathianne]

No, really:

http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/89ae8247abe8493fae24405546e9a1aa/Article_2013-09-08-United%20States-Syria/id-4b69473ef7ad4000bd4f14e6cd8bf2e8


Sep. 8, 2013 9:03 AM ET
US: 'Common-sense test' holds Assad responsible
AP (http://example.com/v1/Journalists.svc/AP) http://hosted2.ap.org/NewsArchive/images/icon/principles-book-blue.png (http://www.ap.org/newsvalues/index.html)

WASHINGTON (AP) — The White House asserted Sunday that a "common-sense test" rather than "irrefutable, beyond-a-reasonable-doubt evidence" makes the Syrian government responsible for a chemical weapons attack that President Barack Obama says demands a U.S. military response.


As part of a major push to win the backing of a divided Congress and skeptical American public, Obama's top aide made the rounds of the Sunday talk shows to press the case for "targeted, limited consequential action to deter and degrade" the capabilities of Syrian President Bashar Assad "to carry out these terrible attacks again."


At the same time, chief of staff Denis McDonough acknowledged the risks that military action could drag the U.S. into the middle of a brutal civil war and endanger allies such as Israel with a retaliatory attack.


The U.S. is "planning for every contingency in that regard and we'll be ready for that," he told CNN's "State of the Union."

...

[Arbo]

The track record of this administration is so bad, that it is clear most anything they do has nothing to do with 'common sense.'

It is of course just another diversion to try and find a reason to attack a country that is no threat to us and has nothing to do with our national security.

They should stick with something that makes more sense, like the Powell Doctrine, which asks these questions:



1. Is a vital national security interest threatened?

2. Do we have a clear attainable objective?

3. Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?

4. Have all other nonviolent policy means been fully exhausted?

5. Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?

6. Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?

7. Is the action supported by the American people?

8. Do we have genuine broad international support?


If they did, they would realize they are morons and would stop the push for this invasion.

[hjmick]

These are the same people who excoriated Bush when he went in to Iraq with what, at the time, could be argued was more and stronger evidence than they have in Syria! Jesus.

These people wouldn't know common sense if it was served up on a platter...

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

If they did, they would realize they are morons and would stop the push for this invasion.

I wasn't aware an invasion was on the menu but if you have proof then please cite it. Accuracy counts.. ;)--Tyr

[Kathianne]

The situation is a clear as mud:

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/09/your-labor-day-syria-reader-part-2-william-polk/279255/


Your Labor Day Syria Reader, Part 2: William Polk By James Fallows
<!-- /articleHead --> Many times I've mentioned (http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/02/will-we-learn-anything-from-afghanistan-william-r-polk-part-1/273448/) the foreign-policy assessments of William R. Polk (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_R._Polk), at right, who first wrote for the Atlantic (about Iraq) during Dwight Eisenhower's administration, back in 1958, and served on the State Department's Policy Planning staff during the Kennedy years. He now has sent in a detailed analysis about Syria.


Polk wrote this just before President Obama switched from his go-it-alone policy and decided to seek Congressional approval for a Syrian strike. It remains relevant for the choices Congress, the public, and the president have to make. It is very long, but it is systematically laid out as a series of 13 questions, with answers. If you're in a rush, you could skip ahead to question #7, on the history and use of chemical weapons.

Or #6, about the under-publicized role of drought, crop failure, and climate change in Syria's predicament. But please consider the whole thing when you have the time to sit down for a real immersion in Congress's upcoming decision. It wouldn't hurt if Senators and Representatives read it too.


By William Polk


Probably like you, I have spent many hours this last week trying to put together the scraps of information reported in the media on the horrible attack with chemical weapons on a suburb of Damascus on Wednesday, August 21. Despite the jump to conclusions by reporters, commentators and government officials, I find as of this writing that the events are still unclear. Worse, the bits and pieces we have been told are often out of context and usually have not been subjected either to verification or logical analysis. So I ask you to join me in thinking them through to try to get a complete picture on what has happened, is now happening and about to happen. I apologize for both the length of this analysis and its detail, but the issue is so important to all of us that it must be approached with care.


Because, as you will see, this is germane in examining the evidence, I should tell you that during my years as a member of the Policy Planning Council, I was "cleared" for all the information the US Government had on weapons of mass destruction, including poison gas, and for what was then called "Special Intelligence," that is, telecommunications interception and code breaking.


[JF note: This is the list of questions around which the rest of the essay is structured.] I will try to put in context 1) what actually happened; 2) what has been reported; 3) who has told us what we think we know; 4) who are the possible culprits and what would be their motivations; 5) who are the insurgents? 6) what is the context in which the attack took place; 7) what are chemical weapons and who has used them; 8) what the law on the use of chemical weapons holds; 9) pro and con on attack; 10) the role of the UN; 11) what is likely to happen now; 12) what would be the probable consequences of an attack and (13) what could we possibly gain from an attack.


1: What Actually Happened


...