Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
welcome to the program let's get right into talking about Syria yesterday we
had a long day
love appearing for the for a Senate Foreign Intelligence Committee
Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel was there Secretary of State
John Kerry was there as well as the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
martin General Martin Dempsey
I was doing coverage on Al Jazeera America and sat through the entire
hearings and watched and and
I couldn't help but feel the entire
hearings and morse most specifically Secretary of State John Kerry's
testimony and the case he was making for military action is limited
and a %uh the these airstrikes that would be limited in scope against Syria
it felt a lot like colin powell
what colin powell's case Bob when it came to Iraq and even though
this is a different situation is a different administration is it is a
different set of circumstances
we knew Lewis after the disaster of colin powell making that case with
faulty intelligence and then saying
he made a case he was not comfortable making and he felt pushed into
any future cases similar to that one in any way
we're going to be I don't know under the same type A
boger cloudiness and and same skepticism
that only make sense given what happened with colin powell and that's the way it
felt for me
I think perhaps that's the only good thing
it came out of the Iraq war is that now perhaps will scrutinize
he's a these decisions a bit more
and I think you're right it's good to be skeptical I think
and I mean I think as long as we can avoid a ground war
thats that's big right well that was the main point of contention because after
senator former senator now Secretary of State John Kerry said there is
absolutely no plan
or intention above-ground incursion he ended up getting a little bit mixed up
I'm gonna play a little bit of that and then we'll make somewhat will I'll give
you my comments on it take a look at this
tration a its would you tell us whether you believe that
a prohibition for having American boots on the ground is that something that the
administration would accept
as part have a resolution a
mister man it would be preferable not do not because the the
there's any intention or a plan already a desire whatsoever to have boots on the
ground
I think the president will give you every assurance in the world as Am I
as as the secretary vance & and the German but
in the event Syria imploded
presence or in the event there was a
the a a threat
I love a chemical weapons cache
falling into the hands love
the al no ser or someone else and it was clearly
in the interests of our allies and and all of us
there the British the French and others to prevent
those weapons of mass destruction falling into the hands of the worst
elements
I don't want to take off the table an option
that might or might not be available to press the United States to secure our
country
alright so the big things I take from this Luis R aground
in a ground incursion is not the plan
nor the intention and it is not the desire
have anyone but it is not off the table senator arafat I keep saying senator
Secretary of State John Kerry cannot take it off the table it wouldn't make
sense because what if the president
has to make that call at some point whatever as he says
Syria implode so we should all be aware
and every single member of that a Senate committee
has to realize that I'm sure that they do that if they vote YES to move
this discussion about Syria to the broader
Senate that they're voting yes not only for the military air strikes
but for the possibility Aven above needed as John Kerry is saying the
possibility would be needed
ground incursions and everybody needs to realize that the other takeaways from it
this this kind of ground troops thing was a big part for me Lewis
but the other part of it was um not calling it a war right this was a big
thing a number of individuals
up both on the the sides asking questions on the side testifying saying
we this is not a war write this air these air strikes are not a war
and this is interesting for two reasons number one is that legally
were it is required that does not be a war
give in order to be able to do it without a formal declaration of war now
the problem with that
is that increasingly Louis with the a increased ability
to wage wars at a distance in with drone warfare not that that specifically being
discussed here
the definition of war as previously established to warrant being at war
is increasingly irrelevant and additionally
this is also something that the global War on Terror the so-called global war
on terror has also
kind of confused in model because at this point we're kinda
being told we're always really a war with terror
but at the same time we're not really declaring war in the formal sense
against any particular countries
and to me it's becoming increasingly irrelevant whether this is a war or not
a war
right it's it's hard to pinpoint when you consider how many different ways you
can you can interact with the country
and in you know in the ways we're talking about here i mean
when you look at it abstractly when you start bombing a country
I is not going to war with that country another theme
above the hearings was this idea that was mentioned by a couple love
senators that silence shows weakness
and we would be consenting to the chemical attacks
chemical a a weapon attacks in Syria by not doing anything this is fascinating
because what was not mentioned
every time that came up and let's be honest there was no one in that hearing
room who had a microphone who was going to mention this
is how did the US and get into a position
where that's even a statement that's taken seriously if we do nothing if the
US does nothing in a sense
it is consent would would Sweden say that in other words Sweden
is not sitting around saying if we don't bomb Syria
it is a sign that Sweden consent so there is something unique to the United
States
and its perceived role by some internally
externally different groups as a sort of watchdog or World Police
which both libertarians and progressives often have a problem with
that makes that comment reasonable though is because that's not a
reasonable comment for any country to make
I'll of course not consent can be strictly verbal
I mean I don't consent to you to two murderers and rapists but does that mean
if I'm not out there killing them myself
that idea but I think it's okay ultimately this group is going to
to vote YES on this I'm sure that um they are
okay with being wrong in other words they would rather make the decision
incorrectly as a group Andy later criticized as a group for it
than to risk being one or two or three
lone dissenting voices and be wrong for that because the political implications
have being individually wrong
are far more severe than the implications if they all say yes
and then this goes some goes goes wrong somewhere down the line so I would
expect
a yes vote it will pass committee and then we will see what happens in the
broader
congress and I think it will pass their as well