The guns will blaze, answers to follow

NBC News:

Missile strikes against Syria could be launched "as early as Thursday," senior U.S. officials said Tuesday as the White House intensified its push toward an international response to the suspected use of chemical weapons....

A U.N. team of inspectors, which is in Syria seeking evidence of Assad's use of chemical weapons, isn't scheduled to leave the country until Sunday.

Right. It's not as though we've ever preempted a U.N. inspection team in a Middle East nation over an issue "suspected" but unverified, for which we then had to pay, oops, a rather steep price. Marx had it backward: First comes the farce, then the tragedy.

The paradox here is that should U.S. missile strikes go swimmingly--which is scarcely expected by most students of armed intervention--then its success will serve as positive reinforcement of hard-power thinking. Of course it's not as though we ever actually learn the inherent limits, once demonstrated, of such power--indeed, Iraq and Afghanistan were meant as refutations of Vietnam's tragic lesson--but episodic successes only encourage more risks, at least one of which is bound to suck you in.

We are embarking on a very dark, very blind journey. Not only are Assad, the Russians, Iran and Hezbollah unlikely to make nice in the face of American admonishment, we are militarily interposing ourselves into what, at its primordial roots, is a vicious religious war of 1,400-years duration. 

God help us--and let's hope he's not Shia. 

Comments

[Robert Lipscomb]

What PM fails to acknowledge is the widely reported story that our intelligence has already verified the culpability of high Syrian military officials in ordering and executing the attacks in the form of documented communications. The documentation has already been shared with officials in Europe and the Middle East.

[Peter G]

Robert this report may well be true and it may well be complete nonsense. I am not accusing the current administration of pulling a Cheney, by which I mean, planting a story in the morning which they cite as supporting evidence in the afternoon. Nevertheless, the term "widely reported" often translates as completely wrong. I am not against the use of force, let that be understood, in the defense of otherwise defenseless civilians. But, if used it must be exquisitely balanced so as to eliminate the use of gas while not inflicting so much damage it opens up the gates of hell and leaves about ten centuries of grievances to be settled. And nothing to stop it.

[Charlieford]

Lobbing cruise missiles at targets from ships in the Mediterranean. I recall we did that back in the early 1980s, just south of Syria. I can't recall how it worked out, however.

[shsavage]

Agreed, PM. Getting into this is foolhardy. Take a look at Kevin Drum's assessment of an article in the LA Times today, in which Ken Dilanian writes that plenty of foreign policy experts are skeptical about the effectiveness of lobbing a few cruise missiles against Syria. And listen to Fareed Zakaria, who has some important words of caution for the U.S.

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/08/syria-middle-course-our-worst-possible-option

[suesometimes]

This intervention is complete madness....we are going to lob some missiles into Syria and not kill any innocents? The only plus I can see is if we strap John McCain to the first one!