Syria and WMDs

It may just be by default since we're located here in the US, but I haven't heard much about any concerns from the countries that are over there. Why aren't Syria's neighbors weighing in? Jordan, Turkey, Israel, UAE, Saudi Arabia. They seem to be silent on this but I may just be missing the info due to America's incessant pounding of the war drums.

Here's an idea... Why don't we let that area police themselves for once? oh yeah... oil.

Robear wrote:

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.

Your original argument was that if the rebels set these munitions off, the government would be falling all over itself to allow inspections. My argument is that's not necessarily the case as the evidence does point to the government, as you say.

The Saudis and the Arab League were among the first brought into the discussions. I think part of the reason you're not hearing about it is that many of them have been funding various rebel factions for a while now. Most of the moderate states are either neutral or pushing the rebellion, while the Saudis seem to be funding the Wahabbists, and Iran is sending troops and materiel and has activated Hezbollah units for the fighting.

So they are not silent or inactive, but rather deeply involved.

Robear wrote:

The Saudis and the Arab League were among the first brought into the discussions. I think part of the reason you're not hearing about it is that many of them have been funding various rebel factions for a while now. Most of the moderate states are either neutral or pushing the rebellion, while the Saudis seem to be funding the Wahabbists, and Iran is sending troops and materiel and has activated Hezbollah units for the fighting.

So they are not silent or inactive, but rather deeply involved.

If I recall correctly, Turkey has been trying to deal with the refugee crisis since many of the displaced Syrians are going there. Also displaced Syrian missiles too

Robear wrote:

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...

There is a civil war going on, Robear, and Damascus has been at the center of a sustained rebel push for the past month.

Yes, it's possible that the Syrian government is purposefully obstructing UN inspectors, but it is also possible that it isn't confident that it can guarantee the safety of the inspectors in areas that are effectively free fire zones nor can it trust that the various rebel groups will uphold their end of the temporary cease-fire.

Sarin breaks down in a predictable manner and people exposed to it have a breakdown chemical in their blood that is detectible more than three weeks after exposure.

Let's give the UN inspectors the time to do their job before pronouncing the guilt of the Assad regime and let's not repeat the same mistake we did in Iraq.

Your original argument was that if the rebels set these munitions off, the government would be falling all over itself to allow inspections. My argument is that's not necessarily the case as the evidence does point to the government, as you say.

And my further point is that it's far less likely that the evidence just *happens* to point at the government, than that it's because the government *used* them. Skepticism is good, but in your scenarios, there are some gaping holes.

For example, as far as I know, Syria uses binary shells that combine precursors in flight, rather than offsite (Syria's got a reasonably modern military, and that tech has been around a long time). So unless the rebels actually stole the shells (and the government stayed silent against it's interests), moved them into a combat area unnecessarily (they could fire from up to 30 miles away with artillery) and then fired them deliberately at close range (somehow) to kill civilians and probably their own fighters as well (and the government *still* refused to use that to discredit them).... Unless that kind of thing happened, I think the simpler explanation is more likely.

OG_slinger wrote:

Let's give the UN inspectors the time to do their job before pronouncing the guilt of the Assad regime and let's not repeat the same mistake we did in Iraq.

The difference with Iraq is that at least this time we know someone has actually used a WMD. There likely won't be another yellow cake fiasco.

I just don't see what good is going to come from sustained shelling, unless they're confident they can bunker bust Assad or something.

Syria isn't a signatory to the Chemical Weapons Convention. What legality is there for other nations to attack Syria for violating an international law it's not part of?

Should China be able to attack us because we're not meeting the target goals of the Kyoto Protocol, a treaty we refused to sign?

shoptroll wrote:

The difference with Iraq is that at least this time we know someone has actually used a WMD. There likely won't be another yellow cake fiasco.

I more meant how we immediately assumed that Iraq's barring of UN inspectors meant they had active WMD programs going on versus the reality, which was Iraq barred UN inspectors because they didn't want anyone knowing they didn't have any WMDs and hadn't for years.

OG_slinger wrote:

Syria isn't a signatory to the Chemical Weapons Convention. What legality is there for other nations to attack Syria for violating an international law it's not part of?

Well, chemical weapon usage against civilians appears to be a violation of Geneva Convention Protocol I (Articles 51/54 in particular) which was ratified by Syria in the 80's

EDIT: Just noticed that only applies to international war. Protocol II covers non-international conflict. My bad.

shoptroll wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:

Syria isn't a signatory to the Chemical Weapons Convention. What legality is there for other nations to attack Syria for violating an international law it's not part of?

Well, chemical weapon usage against civilians appears to be a violation of Geneva Convention Protocol I (Articles 51/54 in particular) which was ratified by Syria in the 80's

EDIT: Just noticed that only applies to international war. Protocol II covers non-international conflict. My bad.

Protocol II doesn't expressly forbid the use of chemical weapons. It forbids attacks on civilian populations, but the nature of an internal conflict is that it isn't exactly clear who is a civilian and who is a combatant. Not that that really matters because Article 3 basically says that no one can legally do a damn thing if a country violates any part of Protocol II.

Protocol II[/url]]Article 3 — Non-intervention
1. Nothing in this Protocol shall be invoked for the purpose of affecting the sovereignty of a State or the responsibility of the government, by all legitimate means, to maintain or re-establish law and order in the State or to defend the national unity and territorial integrity of the State.

2. Nothing in this Protocol shall be invoked as a justification for intervening, directly or indirectly, for any reason whatever, in the armed conflict or in the internal or external affairs of the High Contracting Party in the territory of which that conflict occurs.

And that's why they need as many Security Council members as possible to back up a decision, because the Russians will veto it even if Assad is filmed walking the streets strangling babies.

What are the odds the X-37 is carrying kinetic weapons in orbit right now?

Robear wrote:

And that's why they need as many Security Council members as possible to back up a decision, because the Russians will veto it even if Assad is filmed walking the streets strangling babies.

Oddly enough, that wouldn't have crossed Oama's red line.

Robear wrote:

And that's why they need as many Security Council members as possible to back up a decision, because the Russians will veto it even if Assad is filmed walking the streets strangling babies.

There's no outstanding UN resolution against Syria that the Security Council can claim is being violated to justify any strike.

So we're back to making up excuses to knowingly break international law and attack Syria. But even more pointlessly, no country wants to do enough damage to affect the outcome of the civil war so that means everyone's arguing about whether or not to launch a few cruise missiles just so they can be seen as doing something even if they know the strike will be ineffectual.

That's why you don't get involved in other people's fights, especially when it involves competing desires for self-governance.

Mostly, I agree with you, OG. I don't see a productive outcome to a strike. But I have trouble with the idea that we simply step back and let things progress. I think we should have gotten involved earlier, but then, we did... So maybe it would be best if we hadn't sent aid to the rebels, but then, that would have helped carry the conflict into Turkey and Lebanon... But it's already *in* Lebanon, so...

This is the definition of a mess. The operative factor is that Obama, stupidly or not, painted a line, and Assad seems to have crossed it. So he can't *not* do this. The question is, how to make it turn out well.

Shell them for a few days, declare victory, and perform a series of slam-dunks on the deck of an aircraft carrier.

NormanTheIntern wrote:

Shell them for a few days, declare victory, and perform a series of slam-dunks on the deck of an aircraft carrier.

Ronald Reagan, Lebanon, 1983... except without all the dead marines.

I like it.

Robear wrote:

Mostly, I agree with you, OG. I don't see a productive outcome to a strike. But I have trouble with the idea that we simply step back and let things progress. I think we should have gotten involved earlier, but then, we did... So maybe it would be best if we hadn't sent aid to the rebels, but then, that would have helped carry the conflict into Turkey and Lebanon... But it's already *in* Lebanon, so...

This is the definition of a mess. The operative factor is that Obama, stupidly or not, painted a line, and Assad seems to have crossed it. So he can't *not* do this. The question is, how to make it turn out well.

Why do you have trouble with simply stepping back and let things progress? We've done it for countless other internal conflicts without batting an eye (and are currently doing it for Egypt, DR Congo, South Yemen, North Caucasus, and others). What makes the life a Syrian more valuable than the life of those citizens from other countries with ongoing internal conflicts?

I honestly don't care if Obama said a year ago that the use of chemical weapons would cross a red line. It shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that political rhetoric is not an ironclad guarantee of action.

We're not the world police. It's not our job (or duty) to inject ourselves in every domestic dispute on the planet. Not to mention that getting involved in someone else's civil war has never ended well for us. Ever.

OG_Slinger wrote:

Why do you have trouble with simply stepping back and let things progress? We've done it for countless other internal conflicts without batting an eye (and are currently doing it for Egypt, DR Congo, South Yemen, North Caucasus, and others). What makes the life a Syrian more valuable than the life of those citizens from other countries with ongoing internal conflicts?

Because it's already bleeding over into other states and a spate of civil conflicts in the region would suck. Because there's a good chance that an Islamist extremist group would be able to set up a government in at least part of the territory. Because gassing your own people is despicable and should be stopped. Because peace in the region depends on a balance of power that is being upset in unpredictable ways. Because Syria borders on a NATO state that's having trouble maintaining it's own secular identity. Because it could lead to extremist regimes in Lebanon, Iraq and potentially Jordan.

There's all kinds of reasons. They get into hold-your-nose territory, but they are worth considering.

I will note that in Yemen, DR Congo, the North Caucasus, Somalia and some other places we've deliberately ignored, things are pretty damn bad right now. Should we not care about Syria putting itself back into the 17th century, and taking other countries with it?

I completely agree we're not the world police and there's definite reason to be concerned about the effect of any intervention. I assume that even with the chemical weapon usage there has to be some sort of cost v. benefit analysis as to whether or not intervention will prevent or slow down an already bad situation from getting worse or engulfing more of the region if no action is taken.

It would be really helpful if there was more information about what sort of military action would be taken but I don't think there's been anything really concrete stated yet. Is that correct?

The assumption is that it will be cruise missiles and maybe bombers. I'm rooting for first use of orbital kinetic weapons, but that's, you know, a wild card.

Robear wrote:

The assumption is that it will be cruise missiles and maybe bombers. I'm rooting for first use of orbital kinetic weapons, but that's, you know, a wild card. :-)

Are you not of the opinion that that would break the space weapons treaty? Isn't that one the US actually signed?

OG_slinger wrote:

Why do you have trouble with simply stepping back and let things progress? We've done it for countless other internal conflicts without batting an eye (and are currently doing it for Egypt, DR Congo, South Yemen, North Caucasus, and others). What makes the life a Syrian more valuable than the life of those citizens from other countries with ongoing internal conflicts?

I honestly don't care if Obama said a year ago that the use of chemical weapons would cross a red line. It shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that political rhetoric is not an ironclad guarantee of action.

We're not the world police. It's not our job (or duty) to inject ourselves in every domestic dispute on the planet. Not to mention that getting involved in someone else's civil war has never ended well for us. Ever.

Should the use of chemical weapons become normalized? If they are used without consequence their use will spread. You can strike Assad without getting embroiled in the whole civil war. Any action or series of actions against Assad would change the balance of power, but we can do that without punching the Tar Baby.

Robear wrote:

Because it's already bleeding over into other states and a spate of civil conflicts in the region would suck. Because there's a good chance that an Islamist extremist group would be able to set up a government in at least part of the territory. Because gassing your own people is despicable and should be stopped. Because peace in the region depends on a balance of power that is being upset in unpredictable ways. Because Syria borders on a NATO state that's having trouble maintaining it's own secular identity. Because it could lead to extremist regimes in Lebanon, Iraq and potentially Jordan.

None of those are real justifications, Robear.

Our invasion of Iraq caused more regional disruption and bleed over than Syria. It also elevated Shia-Sunni differences from a grumbling match to near genocide and that's most definitely something that has shaped the Middle East since.

So what if an Islamist extremist group sets up a government in part of the country? That's already happened in Yemen and we're not calling for air strikes there. If we really want extremists to fail then we have to give them enough rope to hang themselves. They'll become vastly less popular when they're in power and can't deliver jobs (as witnessed in Egypt).

To the dead gassing is no different than getting shot or being blown up. It's ludicrous to say that the 80,000 Syrian killed with conventional munitions are AOK, but the hundreds that might have been killed with chemical weapons is just too damned much. And, if it were me, I'd prefer a relatively quick death to sarin then having a gang of people hack off my limbs with a machete and letting me bleed out.

There is no peace in the Middle East and there will never be until all the things we studiously ignore get addressed, like the Palestinians and the idiotic maps the British drew that ignored history and ethic groups. We've tried maintaining the "peace" for decades and it always boiled down to propping up a strongman. Let the region figure out what it wants.

Please don't mention Turkey unless you want to talk about how our invasion of Iraq gave (and continues to give) them a massive headache with the Kurds. Regardless, Turkey has been the crossroads between East and West for millennia so it's not like balancing Islam and secularism is something new for them.

And it's a mighty big "if" that other countries in the region might turn into Islamist extremists. In fact, that argument sounds remarkably similar to the Domino Theory for communism which turned out to be absolute bunk.

Robear wrote:

I will note that in Yemen, DR Congo, the North Caucasus, Somalia and some other places we've deliberately ignored, things are pretty damn bad right now. Should we not care about Syria putting itself back into the 17th century, and taking other countries with it?

No, we shouldn't. It is simply none of our damn business. That and we have proven time and time again that we are far too ignorant of the issues, history, and players on the ground and bumbling in our execution to be the ones picking the winner in any internal conflict.

Tenebrous wrote:

Should the use of chemical weapons become normalized? If they are used without consequence their use will spread. You can strike Assad without getting embroiled in the whole civil war. Any action or series of actions against Assad would change the balance of power, but we can do that without punching the Tar Baby.

You're ignoring the fact that chemical weapons are already prohibited when it comes to conflicts involving two countries. The instant Assad uses a WMD on another country is the instant it starts raining bunker busters in Syria.

We don't know enough about what's happening on the ground to assume that changing the balance of power against Assad would be a good thing. What do we do when we bomb the sh*t out of Assad, his regime falls, and the most extremist Islamic group is the one that claws its way into power? Congratulations, we just directly caused the thing we wanted to prevent.

OG_slinger wrote:
Tenebrous wrote:

Should the use of chemical weapons become normalized? If they are used without consequence their use will spread. You can strike Assad without getting embroiled in the whole civil war. Any action or series of actions against Assad would change the balance of power, but we can do that without punching the Tar Baby.

We don't know enough about what's happening on the ground to assume that changing the balance of power against Assad would be a good thing. What do we do when we bomb the sh*t out of Assad, his regime falls, and the most extremist Islamic group is the one that claws its way into power? Congratulations, we just directly caused the thing we wanted to prevent.

I am not assuming anything other than it could be done without getting ourselves embroiled in the war itself and hitting Chemical Weapon Depots will weaken Assad but still keep him there, which seems to be the thing you want.

You basically asked in your previous posts what this the difference between this and other conflicts. The difference is the use of Chemical Weapons. If chemical weapons become a viable means of controlling an unruly populace, the proliferation of said weapons will increase. If they spread it will be easier for the Islamist Organizations you mention will have an easier time getting a hold on them.

So what if an Islamist extremist group sets up a government in part of the country? That's already happened in Yemen and we're not calling for air strikes there. If we really want extremists to fail then we have to give them enough rope to hang themselves. They'll become vastly less popular when they're in power and can't deliver jobs (as witnessed in Egypt)

Drones, anyone? We are still doing strikes, good or bad, there with the cooperation of the government.

To the dead gassing is no different than getting shot or being blown up. It's ludicrous to say that the 80,000 Syrian killed with conventional munitions are AOK, but the hundreds that might have been killed with chemical weapons is just too damned much.

It matters to the living because it is a WMD, a different class of weapon whether you like it or not. Just because guns kill people and NBC weapons kill people does, it not mean we would think about them or react to them in the same way.

So the US is claiming that the "large-use" of the chemical weapons in Syria is a national security threat to the US and that's how they're going to justify military action.

Could they come up with any weaker, cheaper, and overused excuse?

So, I know I am a major proponent of ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and returning the troops to their horrid fate of trying to get their due from the VA. I firmly disagree with the decision process leading to Iraq. American behind the scenes meddling such as Colombia were unmitigated disasters.

I am a firm believer in limited action in cases such as Bosnia, Syria, Rwanda, Desert Storm, and the Falklands. I think more nations would do well to take seriously their roles on the UN security council, their obligations as NATO members. And in many circumstances, aggressive force, and boots on the ground are needed.

Such actions will not always have perfect results, will not always have intended consequences. But history has been replete with examples of the very dire consequences on non action, appeasement, and isolationism.