Kerry op-ed on Syria (what else?)

[Inuca]

http://blogs.state.gov/stories/2013/09/06/yes-vote-conscience-worlds-red-line

The link is to the state department blog, but they tweeted it as an op-ed so I assume it also appears somewhere else.

Here are the first two paragraphs:

I'm sometimes asked how, as someone who testified 42 years ago against the Vietnam War in which I had fought, I could testify in favor of action to hold the Assad regime accountable today. The answer is, I spoke my conscience in 1971 and I'm speaking my conscience now in 2013. Secretary Hagel and I support limited military action against Syrian regime targets not because we've forgotten the lessons and horrors of war -- but because we remember them. Make no mistake: If another Vietnam or another Iraq were on the table in the Situation Room, I wouldn't be sitting at the witness table before Congress advocating for action.

I spent two years of my life working to stop the war in Vietnam, and made enemies and lost friends because of my decision to speak my mind. So I don't come to my view on the use of military force anywhere without real reflection. I do so with an eye towards facts and reason. I am informed by Vietnam, not imprisoned by it. And I am informed by Iraq, not imprisoned by it, either. The faulty intelligence of the Iraq War was a legacy burned into all of us who present the case for action in Syria to the Congress: It has made us press with extra urgency to know that we are highly confident of what we speak now. For me and for Chuck Hagel, who voted once before on an intelligence case that turned out not to be true -- and regretted it deeply -- we would never put any Member of Congress in that same position today, period. I understand the temptation to remember Vietnam and Iraq and reflexively paint any subsequent possible military action with the same brush. But to do so ignores what Syria is, and what it isn't. There will be no boots on the ground in Syria. There will be no open-ended commitment. There will be no assuming responsibility for another country's civil war. These and other differences with Iraq are the exact reasons why many members of Congress who opposed that war and voted against it are supporting this action against Syria today.

- See more at: http://blogs.state.gov/stories/2013/09/06/yes-vote-conscience-worlds-red-line#sthash.2jPvNyb4.dpuf

I have not been around recently, did not read (yet) what others have said about all this. For myself, I am painfully confused... both mind & guts scream NO, and OTOH I do trust all three principals, Obama, Kerry and Hagel. I know they are not infallible, but I also know that they have way more information, not to mention experience, intelligence, etc., etc., than I do.

[pangaia]

1. Oooppssie...

John says... " The answer is, I spoke my conscience in 1971 and I'm speaking my conscience now in 2013."
No, that is not the answer. The answer your boss told you what to say. That's your JOB.

[Inuca]

2. You do not KNOW that, you just ASSUME it

Have you heard/watched Kerry speak on this these last few days? He means it. He may be wrong, I don't know, but he IS passionate about it, he does not do it just because he has to (this may apply to Hagel, maybe...).

[YvonneCa]

3. John Kerry tells the ...

...truth. Period.

[karynnj]

8. It can and is both

You may have noted that many noted how passionate Kerry was in his two speeches - far more so than Obama. While it was his job to advocate for Obama's position, he could have done it rotely -- not to mention, note he said that if it were an Iraq or Vietnam type engagement, he would NOT have been there.

[wisteria]

11. Kerry speaks for himself on this.

He is SOS, but on this he speaks from experience and knowledge. One thing I have learned about SOS Kerry through the years-he is a visionary. I don't doubt for a minute that he does not believe this is the best action to pursue.

[beachmom]

4. If one opposes this war with every fiber of their being (like me) and still is a JK supporter ...

my recommendation is to tune it all out. That's what I'm doing. I think I have been pretty consistent here in my instinct that we stop meddling in the Middle East because even with the best of intentions it always goes badly wrong. There simply is no strategy here, like what do we want to accomplish? There are strange bedfellows in Syria, like Assad is protecting the Christians there, who may be slaughtered if Assad goes down (and no, I am not getting that from Rand Paul, but my study of the matter over the last year). The rebels don't strike me as an amiable bunch who will turn Syria into a stable state. So, again, it seems the only point of this is to "send a message" that it's not right to use chemical weapons. Sorry, that is not good enough.

I think it's important never to fully "trust" politicians. Sometimes they make the wrong call, as Obama and Kerry have done. I actually am happy that Obama is asking for Congressional approval, because I hope he gets turned down like Cameron did in the UK. I don't think this will hurt Obama long term. It will be a temporary setback from what is otherwise a great presidency. Kerry also has other things in the fire, like the Mideast peace talks, for which this Syria mess really doesn't have to impact (I suspect it is the main reason Kerry is so intent about getting involved -- he thinks it will help on the Mideast Peace front. I disagree, but frankly, it's the only way I can reconcile why he would recommend such a foolish move like getting involved in another war, when we just got out of Iraq and are trying to get out of Afghanistan.).

But as to the Republicans ... good Lord, what a bunch of hypocrites!! I don't care what they say, they are never friends of ours. In fact, this NYT article shows that Republicans are opposed to this war simply because a black guy is proposing it. I mean, geez, what a barrel of laughs these people are.

[Blaukraut]

5. Well put, beachmom! n/t

[Inuca]

7. I don't know what "full" trust is

I trust their good intentions and their intelligence. And that also to the extent that I can trust somebody I do not know personally. Anybody can make wrong calls. And as I said in the OP, half (probably more than half...) of me SCREAMS that this is all wrong. But when I listen to Kerry or when I read the article I posted above, I become almost convinced... at least for a while.

My feeling, for the extremely little that it's worth, is that Kerry really means most of what he says about this whole issue. I watched most of the Senate hearing, snippets of the House one, watched the interview with Chris hayes yesterday... I think that he really thinks, rightly or wrongly, I have no idea, that this has the potential to turn into a Munich moment.

As to the Rs - saw an tweet earlier (you turned me into Tweeter if you remember, several years ago ), I do not remember the exact wording, but something along the lines of one of Obama's major achievements will prove to be having turned Rs into peacenicks.

[beachmom]

12. I just mean that we pick certain politicians who seem to have a similar

viewpoint and even temperament as we do, but when it comes to tough decisions, I think we should trust ourselves as citizens participating in our democracy. So I can "trust" John Kerry to be an all and all good guy trying to do his best, but also not trust who he is listening to. The same with the President. I just feel like there is a pro-war mentality in Washington DC that is more powerful than one party or President. Bush has been out of town for over 5 years, yet the attitude that every problem can be solved with bombs remains firmly in place. I do not think Kerry is being exposed enough to people like me who are highly skeptical. I don't think you have to be a super expert in the M.E. to have pretty solid opinions about it. In fact, I have noticed that journalists who heavily embed in these countries tend to favor war more because they are exposed to so much anguish and desperation, they feel we must do something about it. Sometimes, having some distance from the conflict gives one better perspective. I think Obama, Kerry, Powers, and Rice are being advised by "experts" who are either of that pro-interventionist viewpoint or from forces inside Syria that are too close to the action.

I'll give an example. Read this article: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/08/29/youtube_syria

The images flooded in only hours after the Aug. 21 chemical attack in Damascus's eastern suburbs. And they soon reached the very highest rungs of the U.S. government: "As a father, I can't get the image out of my head of a man who held up his dead child, wailing while chaos swirled around him," said Secretary of State John Kerry in his impassioned Aug. 26 speech. "[T]he images of entire families dead in their beds without a drop of blood or even a visible wound; bodies contorting in spasms; human suffering that we can never ignore or forget."

...

The local activists who filmed these videos, then, have accomplished what years of hectoring from the official Syrian opposition have been unable to do -- bring the world to the brink of military intervention against Bashar al-Assad's regime. ...

The amateur Syrian videographers' accomplishment, however, came at a high cost. ...

"The chemical attacks, on the first day of the massacre, claimed the lives of many media activists in Zamalka coordination because they inhaled the chemical toxic gases," Murad Abu Bilal, the sole survivor, told Zaitouneh in an interview uploaded to -- what else -- YouTube. "[T]hey went out to shoot and collect information about the chemical attack, but none of them came back."

A really horrifying story about how the witnesses died documenting the chemical weapon attack. We can really identify with these people, rushing in so that they can upload videos to YouTube to show what happened, and then they became victims themselves! This makes you want to do something, doesn't it? But I feel like such a story, which is great journalism, should not be used to determine whether America goes to war, which a bombing attack is. So I'm saying I trust my own feelings before Kerry's, and my opinion is that we should not go in there alone bombing away without any strategy or plan of what is to happen in Syria, possibly making things worse and hurting the people we say we want to help. Sometimes we the people are wiser than our leaders. The Republicans may be hypocrites but I hope they come through and vote no, along with a decent caucus of anti-war Democrats.

[karynnj]

9. Thank you - I did think immediately of you and a few others

I remember all the discussions on Libya. I wish with all my heart that someone can step in - maybe by getting Syria to turn over their chemical weapons to the US for an agreement that the US not attack (and maybe not provide any military aid to the rebels). That would address the issue of chemical weapons and the issue of the US being involved.

Did you see this article? http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/25/opinion/sunday/in-syria-america-loses-if-either-side-wins.html The author has supposedly had the thesis that the US makes these civil and regional wars worse when they intervene.

[wisteria]

13. I don't think this is the wrong call. I also have no reason not to trust

Obama and Kerry. I don't put a disclaimer on trust. You and I may have read and studied this issue, but I don't think both of us combined have the experience and knowledge the SOS has on this issue. I hope it passes through Congress or Obama acts without their politicized help. I respect your point of view, but I do not agree with it.

[beachmom]

6. Arghhhh. Shame on me for looking:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/09/05/1236702/-John-Kerry-Has-No-Shame-Claims-He-Opposed-the-Iraq-War

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/1236702/51275585#c386

I notice the usual suspects who have hated JK for years weighing in. Yeah, I really don't like those type of lefties. Didn't we used to call them the Freeper Left or something?

[karynnj]

10. It seems a lost cause

They have never accepted JK and really didn't even when he tried so hard to reach out to them.