Do We Have A 'Coalition Of The Willing' On Syria? Umm... No

Juan Cole explains the reaction Obama received from the rest of the G20 nations that met Thursday in St. Petersburg, Russia. Of the world's largest 20 nations ranked by economy, only the US and France favored military action against Syria. The big surprise, in Cole's opinion?

But the big surprise was that the European Union came out with position closer to Russian President Vladimir Putin than to Obama.

You think maybe the Europeans would like Obama to rethink the matter?

RAND Study: Destroying Syria's Chemical Weapons Would Require Ground Troops

TPM's Sahil Kapur:

The United States would be embarking on a dangerous fool’s errand if it attempts to wipe out Syria’s chemical weapon capability, according to a new peer-reviewed study by the RAND Corporation, a respected global policy think tank.

But the study, which provided an operational overview of the situation on the ground, also concluded that U.S. air strikes have the potential to reduce the regime’s ability and its incentive to deploy such weapons in the future.

“In spite of often casual rhetoric about ‘taking out’ Syria’s chemical weapon capability, the practical options for doing so have serious limitations, and attempting it could actually make things worse,” write authors Karl P. Mueller, Jeffrey Martini, and Thomas Hamilton.

...

The study warns of “substantial” collateral damage if the U.S. attempts to destroy Syria’s chemical weapons, arguing that locating and striking the relevant facilities would require “very precise and detailed intelligence.” It concludes that the prospects for scrapping Syria’s chemical weapons via air strikes alone “do not appear promising” and “would require ground forces” in order to have a realistic chance at success.

...

"When will they ever learn? When will they e...ver learn?" Learn what? That "limited interventions" almost never are? That US actions in one theater affect actions of other countries and organizations around the world?

The best course for President Obama is to ignore Sen. Get‑Off‑My‑Lawn and Sen. Graham‑Cracker and not enter another futile war. Maybe he thinks to distract people from their troubles at home, but with one in three working-age Americans out of work, doesn't he have better things to spend resources on than yet another Vietnam War? "How many times..." must we do this?

For the millions... yes, millions... of Americans who haven't a clue where Syria is, here's a clue:

Will that picture become as familiar as the map of Vietnam, or of Iraq? When the "accomplishments" of an assault on Syria are totaled up a year... five years... 20 years from now when we get our troops out of there, how many American troops will have died? how many Syrians, military and civilian? How many other international relations will the US have weakened or utterly wrecked?

This is a really, really bad idea. For Obama, it is a ploy to cover a domestic failure that is admittedly not primarily of his making, but it is still a truly terrible idea.

Rmoney Said To Favor Arming Syrian Rebels

... and he'll announce it in today's speech, according to the Guardian's Ewen MacAskill. Because America can never have too many wars and proxy wars underway at the same time. [/snark] I suppose this will bolster Rmoney's neocon credentials.

If you think there isn't enough war in American life, directly or indirectly, vote for Rmoney. He doesn't know shit, but he knows how to issue orders, and what more does he need to be a "war preznit"? Shades of GeeDubya...

...

The proposal would mark a significant shift from Barack Obama's administration's policy of trying to keep the conflict a low-intensity one amid fears it might turn into a regional war. Obama is putting pressure on Saudi Arabia and Qatar, the main backers of the rebels, to restrict the supply of weapons to small arms.

...

... unlike Rmoney, because Dog knows a big war is preferable to a small war. Just ask his corporate owners in the defense industry. [/snark]


NOTE: this is not about the validity of the rebels' position; there are always arguments for and against, and I would not want to live in Syria under either government. This is about endless war for America, and possibly for the entire region in the map above. How much war is too much war?

(H/T Enfant in comments.)