Syria and WMDs

Funkenpants wrote:

New allegations of chemical weapons use by the Syrian government has the media demanding US intervention of some kind. It seems odd to me that Assad & crew would use those weapons on a neighborhood when using chemical weapons is the only thing that would draw US intervention.

And on the same day Private Manning was sentenced, too. What are the odds?

Oh, I don't think the US government had anything to do with it. Obama doesn't want to deal with a Syrian civil war. And maybe Assad is stupid enough to do something with no military value that is almost certain to be a net loss for him. But it helps opponents ofthe regime, some of whom seem like pretty awful people theselves.

Rebels say the regime used chems, the regime says the rebels used chems, both have "proof".... Yeah, the US doesn't belong in another civil war.

As much as I don't want to see Assad use chemical weapons, finding out the rebels used it would be a far worse indicator for the near future. It would tell us these guys are far worse than we've been led to believe; either that, or Al Quaeda has a source of active chemical rockets and artillery shells.

You pick the worst option...

It all gets messier by the day. I know the Assad regime is the most logical choice for perpetrator, but there's something bizarre about the regime doing the only thing that was going to bring a response from Obama. He all but told them that there would be no airstrikes as long as they didn't use chemical weapons or set up rape rooms or do something that the media could portray as the worst thing anyone in power has ever done to their own people. A couple of months later what does Assad do? That exact thing.

On the other hand, I'm completely ignorant of Syrian political culture, Assad's personal history, the local politics, etc. I'm just frustrated that we can't seem to go six months without a new bombing campaign. But back on the original hand, what difference is it going to make if our national security state runs drone strikes and bombing missions on yet another country in the middle east? Everyone will clap as long as we get the bad guys from 15,000 feet and run exciting commando raids in enemy territory.

So far, it looks like we've moved ships in the Med closer to Syria (four cruise missile equipped destroyers, USS Barry, USS Ramage, USS Mahan, and USS Gravelly); Sec. of State Kerry spoke to the Syrian Foreign Minister to complain about their refusal of quick access to the site and signs that a cleanup is occuring; Obama and David Cameron are "consulting closely" on possible actions; and the State Department has conveyed messages to the Saudis and the Arab League. Sec. of Defense Hegel noted that there could be other attacks planned if the line has been crossed.

Looks serious to me.

Edit - The French and the Canadians have joined the "consultations". The French Foreign Minister said that "the only option that is off the table is doing nothing" and that this has gone beyond the point where talking is an appropriate response. He said that a response will be decided upon within the week.

Bashar Asad gives an excusive interview to Izvestia, the largest Russian newspaper. Text in English:

Izvestia

Is Izvestiya still an organ of the State? I know it was the Soviet government newspaper, while Pravda was the Party newspaper (famously, with numerous restricted editions that contained more actual news, not available to the regular rabotnik... er... sorry, tovarishch.)

Izvestia is independent and moderate by Russian standards, but leaning pro-government on most issues.

Interesting interview/article. I'd be curious to know the answer to Robear's question. The interview seemed to ask open ended questions and let Asad answer them as he wished but there wasn't much follow up against his answers... I'd love to see a fact check on some of his statements. Especially around the chemical weapons inspections that he says they were pushing for.

I like his view of what his army is doing...

We are fighting terrorists infiltrating particular regions, towns or peripheral city areas. They wreak havoc, vandalise, destroy infrastructure and kill innocent civilians simply because they denounce them. The army mobilises into these areas with the security forces and law enforcement agencies to eradicate the terrorists, those who survive relocate to other areas. Therefore, the essence of our action is striking terrorism.

Ummm... You're bringing in tanks and heavy weapons and destroying the infrastructure you're professing to try to save...

Seems like something is going to happen involving military force. I just hope it's the US taking a leadership role and NOT the one applying the force. Why does it always have to be the US that is firing things?

At this point though, the posturing that the US administration has done may not allow us to be "directors and leaders." *sigh*

MESSY

One of the diplomatic concerns has been that we are not seen to be "leading from the rear", that is, doing things but having others front for us in the process. So I suspect we'll be front and center.

Robear wrote:

One of the diplomatic concerns has been that we are not seen to be "leading from the rear", that is, doing things but having others front for us in the process. So I suspect we'll be front and center.

We have nothing to gain and everything to lose by being front and center.

This isn't Libya where the regime was completely isolated. Both Russia and Iran support the Assad regime so any action we take against him is going to have repercussions far outside Syria and the region.

Because I'm forgetful and I don't think it was really covered in school curriculum (as it was a fairly recent event when I was in grade/high school), how does the situation compare with the Bosnian civil war? That feel like the closest analog, but I don't know enough about the background on that conflict.

There are parallels, but the plausibility for an intervention scenario is even slimmer here. In case of Balkan Independence wars, which I think you're referring to, Serbia tried to forcibly keep Yugoslavia from disintegrating back into once-existing nation-states. In Syria, it's an internal uprising.

We have nothing to gain and everything to lose by being front and center.

Yeah, but Obama took a beating from conservatives for not being front and center with American involvement last time, so there's a consciousness of that this time around. Hey, I don't make this stuff up, I just summarize what's in the press.

Robear wrote:

Yeah, but Obama took a beating from conservatives for not being front and center with American involvement last time, so there's a consciousness of that this time around. Hey, I don't make this stuff up, I just summarize what's in the press. :-)

The same press that cheer led us into Iraq?

Obama only took a beating on Libya from conservatives inside the conservative media bubble who lived and breathed the neocon fantasy of American exceptionalism. The rest of America didn't care much about Libya when it happened and have forgotten almost entirely about it since then. It's the same with Syria. We simply don't have a dog in that hunt.

OG_slinger wrote:

Obama only took a beating on Libya from conservatives inside the conservative media bubble who lived and breathed the neocon fantasy of American exceptionalism. The rest of America didn't care much about Libya when it happened and have forgotten almost entirely about it since then. It's the same with Syria. We simply don't have a dog in that hunt.

I am not arguing for intervention, but I would like to ask in which countries do we have a dog? Are their any countries that are waging war on their population that we should intervene in?

/EDIT: I read the interview with Assad - Baghdad Bob must have prepped him for it.

OG_Slinger wrote:

The same press that cheer led us into Iraq?

That's kind of a cheap shot here. I wasn't citing the press as absolutely correct, just noting that I was not the one making this stuff up. It's up to you to judge who you trust. I'm the one who gets accused of being a gullible authoritarian, so I'm gonna be cautious here.

Obama only took a beating on Libya from conservatives inside the conservative media bubble who lived and breathed the neocon fantasy of American exceptionalism. The rest of America didn't care much about Libya when it happened and have forgotten almost entirely about it since then. It's the same with Syria. We simply don't have a dog in that hunt.

And yet it's reported to be part of the consideration for the role we take. We'll see how and whether it's expressed. That's all I was saying.

Greg wrote:

I am not arguing for intervention, but I would like to ask in which countries do we have a dog? Are their any countries that are waging war on their population that we should intervene in?

There are very few countries that we either share a deep culture bond with or have an abundance of a resource we are dependent on. The UK based on our history. Saudi Arabia because we like gas guzzlers. And maybe Israel because a frighteningly large portion of our population has a hard on for the end times.

No, I don't think that we should intervene in any country that is fighting a civil war. Direct intervention is sort of the "you break it, you bought it" store policy of international relations.

If we intervene then we become responsible for the future of that country, which means we then have to spend loads of money trying to stabilize the new government post-civil war, ensure security, and make sure that people have jobs, enough to eat, and have heat, lights, and running water. And to accomplish that we have to snuggle up to some undesirable people and publicly back them, even if they do terrible things, lest their country slide back into chaos.

In short, unless we have a true, deep, and abiding interest in a country, we should never intervene at all. Helping the mujahadeen in Afghanistan fight the Soviets is a perfect example of how even just providing money, arms, and training can blow up in our faces years later.

Gorilla.800.lbs wrote:

There are parallels, but the plausibility for an intervention scenario is even slimmer here. In case of Balkan Independence wars, which I think you're referring to, Serbia tried to forcibly keep Yugoslavia from disintegrating back into once-existing nation-states. In Syria, it's an internal uprising.

That's what I was referring to. I thought there was also a bit of genocide going on too?

OG_slinger wrote:

There are very few countries that we either share a deep culture bond with or have an abundance of a resource we are dependent on. The UK based on our history. Saudi Arabia because we like gas guzzlers. And maybe Israel because a frighteningly large portion of our population has a hard on for the end times.

On the other hand, the US does have a selective history of fighting oppressive regimes when certain ethical barriers are crossed, such as Saddam's regime in the 90's with the Kurds although I wouldn't be terribly surprised if there were other factors in that decision.

Personally I think if we do get involved it should be through a UN or NATO resolution. I don't think it's in our best interest to go it alone like the wars from the previous decade, and honestly if the impetus for action is because NBC weapons are being deployed it should be a global humanitarian effort to at least remove those weapons from the situation. I don't think this administration is interested in "regime change", and with both Russia and Iran watching this closely I don't think we can really afford to degrade relations with either country by engaging in a proxy war via this crisis.

Greg wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:

Obama only took a beating on Libya from conservatives inside the conservative media bubble who lived and breathed the neocon fantasy of American exceptionalism. The rest of America didn't care much about Libya when it happened and have forgotten almost entirely about it since then. It's the same with Syria. We simply don't have a dog in that hunt.

I am not arguing for intervention, but I would like to ask in which countries do we have a dog?

Only the U.S. Everywhere else we're maybe just in it out of the love of hunting.

shoptroll wrote:

On the other hand, the US does have a selective history of fighting oppressive regimes when certain ethical barriers are crossed, such as Saddam's regime in the 90's with the Kurds although I wouldn't be terribly surprised if there were other factors in that decision.

Not so much, really. When the Kurds and the Swamp Arabs rose up against Saddam, he slaughtered them both, as well as draining the southern swamps. After that, we established a no-fly zone over northern Iraq, but otherwise didn't really lift a finger to help these guys. They believed we had encouraged them to rise up...

Robear wrote:

They believed we had encouraged them to rise up...

We did.

President Bush straight up told Iraqis to rise up against Saddam in February and March 1991 on the Voice of America. Additionally, the US military dropped millions of leaflets and the CIA run Voice of Free Iraq radio station continually broadcast messages that encouraged Iraqis turn on Saddam.

Funkenpants wrote:
Greg wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:

Obama only took a beating on Libya from conservatives inside the conservative media bubble who lived and breathed the neocon fantasy of American exceptionalism. The rest of America didn't care much about Libya when it happened and have forgotten almost entirely about it since then. It's the same with Syria. We simply don't have a dog in that hunt.

I am not arguing for intervention, but I would like to ask in which countries do we have a dog?

Only the U.S. Everywhere else we're maybe just in it out of the love of hunting.

We like catch and release wars. Blow up some brown people, and then let the country go. With any luck it'll grow even more extreme and we can catch it again next year!

OG_slinger wrote:
Robear wrote:

They believed we had encouraged them to rise up...

We did.

President Bush straight up told Iraqis to rise up against Saddam in February and March 1991 on the Voice of America. Additionally, the US military dropped millions of leaflets and the CIA run Voice of Free Iraq radio station continually broadcast messages that encouraged Iraqis turn on Saddam.

Yeah, that was an enormous asshole move on our part, just incredible.

Yonder wrote:
Funkenpants wrote:
Greg wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:

Obama only took a beating on Libya from conservatives inside the conservative media bubble who lived and breathed the neocon fantasy of American exceptionalism. The rest of America didn't care much about Libya when it happened and have forgotten almost entirely about it since then. It's the same with Syria. We simply don't have a dog in that hunt.

I am not arguing for intervention, but I would like to ask in which countries do we have a dog?

Only the U.S. Everywhere else we're maybe just in it out of the love of hunting.

We like catch and release wars. Blow up some brown people, and then let the country go. With any luck it'll grow even more extreme and we can catch it again next year!

Well, some of us. John McCain wants to spend another seven years out at sea looking for Moby Secular Arabic Ally That's Cool With Israel.

Seriously, does John believe the answer to EVERY foreign conflict is "boots on the ground"?

Robear wrote:

Edit - The French and the Canadians have joined the "consultations". The French Foreign Minister said that "the only option that is off the table is doing nothing" and that this has gone beyond the point where talking is an appropriate response. He said that a response will be decided upon within the week.

Been lurking, time to come out of the woodwork. This has been going on for a while now. Even back in March, the foreign minister, Laurent Fabius, had proposed arming the rebels. Most of the politicians, left and right are speaking up in favor of a military intervention. Alain Juppé, former first minister, also voiced support this week.

The major issue is that everyone thinks we should act under the banner of the UN, but everyone believes a vote would be vetoed anyhow. Fabius stated this week that France wishes "the international community to react", but "sending military troops is out of the question."
So in other words, we're going in, but not going in solo.

My own opinion? Tread carefully. We know there are chemical weapons being used, but not by whom (Bashar? Rebels? Both??). Intervening could very well get us enmeshed in a tricky civil war.

(Sorry, linked mostly French articles, because, well, those are the most complete on French news)

My own opinion? Tread carefully. We know there are chemical weapons being used, but not by whom (Bashar? Rebels? Both??). Intervening could very well get us enmeshed in a tricky civil war.

Yeah, we know that because the Syrian government would obstruct inspectors for days, clean up the sites, and allow rebel snipers into government-controlled areas to shoot at the inspectors, to keep us from seeing clear evidence that the rebels were behind it all...

Seriously, if the rebels were behind this, we'd have Russian and US and UN and British and French and, I dunno, Ugandan inspectors given the red carpet invitation to come see it, with the government falling all over itself to get them there as quickly as possible. That would be the propaganda coup that could change the war in their favor for good; we'd have to defund the rebels, for one thing.

Robear wrote:
My own opinion? Tread carefully. We know there are chemical weapons being used, but not by whom (Bashar? Rebels? Both??). Intervening could very well get us enmeshed in a tricky civil war.

Yeah, we know that because the Syrian government would obstruct inspectors for days, clean up the sites, and allow rebel snipers into government-controlled areas to shoot at the inspectors, to keep us from seeing clear evidence that the rebels were behind it all...

Seriously, if the rebels were behind this, we'd have Russian and US and UN and British and French and, I dunno, Ugandan inspectors given the red carpet invitation to come see it, with the government falling all over itself to get them there as quickly as possible. That would be the propaganda coup that could change the war in their favor for good; we'd have to defund the rebels, for one thing.

How do we know who set them off and for what purpose? If the rebels were to set off chemical munitions they'd likely be from government stockpiles, and they went off during a government attack. The government has nothing to gain from allowing immediate inspections either way IMO.

Funkenpants wrote:

It all gets messier by the day. I know the Assad regime is the most logical choice for perpetrator, but there's something bizarre about the regime doing the only thing that was going to bring a response from Obama.

I'm not sure that's purely irrational - this isn't the first time Assad's been accused of chemical attacks (just the best documented one) and Obama has sort of been dragging the red line back a few feet at a time. It could easily be a calculated bet that would almost guarantee him long-term Russian (and perhaps Chinese) support, even if he does get bombed for a few days. It's not like he's risking US boots intervention, Obama's already ruled that off the table.

If the rebels stole them from government stocks, the government would fall all over itself to make that known. Instead, the government has been shifting them around to keep them safem and as far as we know, that's worked. So it's very unlikely (but not impossible) that the rebels got some, and then attacked civilians with them, and then the government tried to cover it up, while the rebels agreed to a ceasefire to allow the inspectors in... I mean, guys, that's a *really* improbable story that has *both* sides committed actions that benefited their enemies.

Besides, exactly why would the rebels move chemical munitions captured at a military site into a residential neighborhood that's currently disputed? That's the riskiest, craziest thing ever. And how do you accidentally set off binary munitions? If you did, you'd get an inert mess at the launch site. And why were the rebels planning to kill civilians, when they desperately need the support of the population?

Compare that to the incentives for the government to protect it's capital; it's up until now iron control over it's chemical stocks; it's attempts to obfuscate the evidence; it's disregard for civilian deaths; and it's interest in doing anything to discredit the rebellion, which it does not even admit exists? The evidence points to the government here, outside of weird edge cases.