A Case for US Intervention in Syria

Thursday, August 29, 2013

View of war damage from Serekaniye, Syria. March 22, 2013 (Fpolat69/Shutterstock)

Michael Weiss, columnist for NOW Lebanon and editor-in-chief of The Interpreter magazine, and Andrew Tabler, senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and author of the book In the Lion's Den: An Eyewitness Account of Washington's Battle with Syria, discuss why the US should make an effort to bring down the Assad regime in Syria.

Comments [14]

Mr. Bad from NYC

There are even questions as to whether any actual chemical weapons were used. Weapons experts have observed that the video depicting the alleged WMD attack shows no evidence of chemical weapons use. All nerve agents result in the victim vomiting profusely and there is no evidence of that anywhere in all the video and pictures. Every other chemical weapon other than nerve agents have some sort of blistering capacity and there is no evidence of that either on any victims (many of whom were stripped of their clothes). The whole thing could be a rebel hoax.

Aug. 29 2013 04:23 PM

We have been told by the Administration that the intelligence for this "intervention" has come from Israel. Many officials are privately saying it is questionable. In Britain Conservative politicians and Senior Military Officials are OPENLY questioning the intelligence in the press and on television, and the public are back on the streets protesting. Iran has made a pact with the Assad regime that if they are attacked by outside forces they will act. Who would want to provoke Iran into a Middle Eastern war? Ask those who would provide this "intelligence." The same Israeli administration that was actively pushing GW Bush to attack Iran. I suggest you reference the New Yorker articles by Seymour Hersh between 2006-8. Part of the legacy of the GW Bush is the ongoing Civil War in Iraq, which was undoubtedly the plan. The "divide and rule" tactic that ensured the success of the British Empire for so long. Israel is probably counting on the same anarchy replacing the current Iranian regime to keep them occupied so they will stop arming Hezbollah. Undoubtedly the naive Kerry has probably been sold a moldy carrot by Netanyahu that Kerry's delusional dream legacy of an Arab/Israeli peace deal is contingent on the troublesome Iranians being neutralized, just as Egypt has been. That's one hell of a prid pro quo, given that Russia and China are supporting Iran and we all know what's really at stake in the Middle East for them.

Those that have read Foreign Policy article about the CIA giving intelligence to Sadaam Hussein in their chemical attacks on Iranians in the 1980s really have to question carefully the "higher" motives for the current fiction we are being sold that will undoubtedly result in hundreds of thousands more dying, with decades more instability, this time so that a tiny Middle Eastern state can feel a little more "secure" - yet again at the expense of the American taxpayer, while hedge fund managers, lobbyists and arms manufacturers reap the profits. Business as usual. I think it is time for the Nobel Peace Prize Committee to reconvene and revoke Obama's peace prize. It made me sick to my stomach, seeing him yesterday stand where a great man stood who truly worked for peace, then cynically go on to court the Liberal Establishment on Public Television to support an illegal bombing campaign: Obama the Patron Saint of War Criminals.

Aug. 29 2013 02:17 PM
Edward from Washington Heights AKA pretentious Hudson Heights

Louie from the Jersey Shore,

Look out!

- a black helicopter watching you
- a drone is following you
- bi/tri/quad-lateral commission is listening in on you
- your TV is watching you
- fluoride in your water is sapping your precious bodily fluids

Here is a Youtube video of a seeckrit meeting that proves you right.

Aug. 29 2013 11:44 AM
Amy from Manhattan

I'm sorry the question of whether the rebels would carry out a chemical attack on "themselves" came so late in the segment. I'm asking this strictly on a devil's advocate basis: We know there are serious divisions among the rebels in Syria. Can we eliminate the possibility that 1 of these groups could have used chemical weapons against another? Do any of them have outside sources of support that could have supplied them w/the kind of weapons found at the site of the attack?

Maybe this could be asked of guests on a related segment.

Aug. 29 2013 10:52 AM
Robert from NYC

Ooops, Joe Corrao you have to turn off the show, that question you don't what to hear about is about to be asked.

Aug. 29 2013 10:45 AM
Louis from Jersey Shore

Israel is always at the bottom of these conflicts which forces us to get involve. And Israel reciprocates by building more settlements.

Aug. 29 2013 10:43 AM
Sim from NYC

Why is no one talking about al Nusra and the chemical agent found by Turkish forces and Assad's people in rebel territory?

Aug. 29 2013 10:43 AM
Robert from NYC

Why does Obama leave me numb when he speaks on these things. How unimpressive, insipid.

Aug. 29 2013 10:42 AM

the metaphor!!!!!! this guy wins the prize. Suit up (or your kids) and go over and fight on the ground

Aug. 29 2013 10:40 AM
Robert from NYC

Fantastic, it's great to hear an intelligent group of legislators work on and do their jobs. Intelligent, witty and wise. We have dumb, anti-intellectual, dimwit do-nothings who are there for the millions they reap in from special interests then go home and basically say "fk u America"!!! They smell bad. The Brits got it right on.

Aug. 29 2013 10:36 AM

"the President has no constitutional authority - to take this nation to war against a country... unless we're attacked or unless there is proof we are about to be attacked. And if he does, if he does, I would move to impeach him."
Joe Biden said this in 2007 against Bush.

Aug. 29 2013 10:35 AM

There is evidence the gas was launched by the rebels:

Aug. 29 2013 10:33 AM

The prez is disturbed that women and children are being killed by chemical weapons. Why don't we just give them some of our drones so that women and children can be killed more humanely?

Aug. 29 2013 10:30 AM

If anyone argues that the president can go to war without congressional approval and they aren't completed rebutted by BL I am turning the show off. BL don't be the devil's advocate.

Aug. 29 2013 10:28 AM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.

Get the WNYC Morning Brief in your inbox.
We'll send you our top 5 stories every day, plus breaking news and weather.