Syria and WMDs

Tenebrous wrote:

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're assuming quite a bit.

The first is that we can attack the Assad regime without actually getting involved in the war. We're already involved. We shipped arms to the rebels last month and I guarantee we don't really know who got the weapons and whether or not they are the Good Guys(tm).

The second is that we actually know where Syria keeps all its chemical weapons.

The third is that, in the unlikely event that we know where Syria keeps its chemical weapons and only blow them up, that it will actually weaken Assad's regime. He's managed quite fine for well over a year to maintain some level of control over his country without using chemical weapons.

The last is that I want Assad in control. The only thing I've said is that it isn't any of our f*cking business what happens within the borders of another sovereign nation. Every time we've convinced ourselves that it is our business--from Vietnam to Iraq--it's cost us plenty in blood and treasure and the final outcome was sh*t.

Tenebrous wrote:

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.

How many assumptions did you make in the above comment?

Tenebrous wrote:

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

Which war have we actually won based solely on air power, let alone drone strikes?

Judging from the numerous news articles over the past decade of how we've repeatedly killed the number two or three guy from AQ it seems drone strikes aren't terribly effective.

That and we know that any humint we get is more than likely designed to kill a local rival of the intelligence source than it is to further our efforts.

Tenebrous wrote:

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.

Really? A survivor in Damascus is madder because their loved ones were killed by a chemical weapon then a Damascus survivor whose loved ones were killed by an IED, an artillery shell, a bullet, a death squad, or some other apparently mundane circumstance? Dead is dead. They just wish the assholes playing power games would give it a rest.

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?

Yes. Is that a reason we would not do it, given our past record? And don't we (and the Russians) have a history with satellite killers?

Robear wrote:
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?

Yes. Is that a reason we would not do it, given our past record? And don't we (and the Russians) have a history with satellite killers?

Please leave the name of the person you're responding to in the quotes. It happens automatically when you quote them. It's really hard to follow otherwise.

OG_Slinger wrote:

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.

Seriously? Moral arguments aren't real, geopolitical, cultural, those aren't real? Define real as something other than what you disagree with... What's a "real" reason to intervene in Syria, in your book? I mean, you put some time into refuting my "fantasy" arguments, below.

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.

Really? The Syrian conflict has involved Lebanon, Hezbollah and some Palestinian groups, attacks on Israel and probably Egypt as well, intervention from Iran and Al Quaeda as well, and attacks on Turkey and I believe Israel, which has responded back, and also refugee issues for surrounding countries. And no, Iraq didn't elevate the Shia-Sunni conflict, it continued it and offered a refereed battleground for outside intervention. But Syria is a problem that is growing, not staying local.

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).

We conduct airstrikes and continuous drone and SOF operations in Yemen, we have for years and we will continue to. And that's in the middle of nowhere. I'm just guessing that an active Jihadist state in the middle of the Middle East is something that is even less stabilizing and desirable for the region. But it seems like a reasonable guess.

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.

Who said that the other 80,000 were in any way acceptable? What I'd like to see is the conflict stop. If we whack Assad's dick, are we not getting closer to that goal? If not, then yeah, it's probably a bad thing. If we shorten the conflict, that's good. (How we would tell is still unclear, so as I noted above, this is a tough problem to sort out.) But do you really want to send a leader permission to kill his citizens en masse in an even faster, more efficient way? Is that necessary? Are there no lines of atrocity worth outlawing?

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.

I agree with you here, but with two provisos. One, the governments don't resort to desperate measures like deliberately killing civilians en masse in the process (ie, that the follow the Geneva Conventions to a reasonable degree.) The second is that the conflict stays contained. Both of these provisos have been violated, and things seem to be getting worse. Intervention is not good, but it seems like a reasonable first option when years of talk and semi-covert operations have failed.

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.

It does, doesn't it? The fact is that ComIntern was remarkably ineffective, but Al Quaeda has them beat for efficiency and results on the ground. They are good at establishing foreign groups, which take advantage of conflicts like this to try to take over states, or at least gain official shelter at the city or even province level. Somalia, Pakistan and Afghanistan, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, The Phillipines, Malaysia, all of these have at one time or another had extremist enclaves or more. It can't happen again, in the Middle East? If we do actually have an enemy in the conflict, it's the extremists.

In a sense, this is a proxy war, with us on one side, Iran on another, and the Saudis and Islamists on a third side. It's a mess.

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.

Well, the Arab League and most of the European countries are in favor of it. Should we listen to the neighbors, or not? Should we help them, or not? I'm guessing you'll say "Not".

OG_slinger wrote:
Tenebrous wrote:

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're assuming quite a bit.

The first . . .

The second . . .

The third is that, in the unlikely event that we know where Syria keeps its chemical weapons and only blow them up, that it will actually weaken Assad's regime. He's managed quite fine for well over a year to maintain some level of control over his country without using chemical weapons.

Have you been watching the same news reports that I have. Nothing going on over there looks like he is in control.

The last is that I want Assad in control. . . Every time we've convinced ourselves that it is our business--from Vietnam to Iraq--it's cost us plenty in blood and treasure and the final outcome was sh*t.

Just overall, I was responding to your comment:

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.

I was not assuming what you said I was, namely that changing the balance of power was a good thing. Again I could make that clearer.

What I am saying has noting to do with who is in charge, but with the use of Chemical Weapons. I wish you would actually read what I wrote. If you did, you would see no call for regime change. I am rather ambivalent on that particular point.

Just as a historical point why does your memory stop at Vietnam? Korea and perhaps Spanish-American war would argue your point differently.

It does seem you are assuming that the use of chemical weapons there will not have negative negative considerations for the US. I personally think it will.

Or in other words, who leads Syra might not be our business but the use of Chemical Weapons moves into "Our Business" territory, because they are an entirely different class of weapons than conventional arms, one that has a history of being very tightly controlled.

Tenebrous wrote:

You basically asked in your previous posts . . . If they spread it will be easier for the Islamist Organizations you mention will have an easier time getting a hold on them.

How many assumptions did you make in the above comment?

It takes some degree of assumptions to make a case of things. Your arguments have assumptions too. So what? Try to argue the case. You try to predict the future from the past and so am I.

You seem more interested in swatting people down than having a discussion on this topic.

Tenebrous wrote:

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

Which war have we actually won based solely on air power, let alone drone strikes?

...

That and we know that any humint we get is more than likely designed to kill a local rival of the intelligence source than it is to further our efforts.

I was bringing up a counter example to what you said about Yemen which was just plain wrong. If you will look at what I wrote, you might notice I am not entirely convinced of the effectiveness of drones, though that is subtile.

Wow. I would really like to talk about that last "We know" sentance, but it is off topic.

Tenebrous wrote:

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.

Really? . . . Dead is dead. They just wish the assholes playing power games would give it a rest.

So you think things that have been traditionally treated as special categories of weapons, like biological and chemical weapons should be treated the same as conventional arms?

Skimming, sorry, but I just posted this to my friends on Facebook and thought you all may appreciate it:

I am an Army Chemical officer. My principle duty is to ensure that the soldiers assigned to my unit are capable not just of survival but of mission accomplishment while being subjected to weapons of mass destruction. If I am asked to do that job, it means we are engaged in horrors on a scale the world has not seen in almost a century. I am more than grateful that as an officer for more than ten years, I have never had to do that job.

If the persons in Syria responsible for the use of chemical weapons are not subjected to the most stringent retribution, we are only inviting other nations to research, weaponize, and employ their own chemical and biological monsters, against their own people and potentially others. The standard we walk past is the standard we accept. One day in that world, our military--or our citizenry--and those of other nations will be subjected to those horrors.

Syrian chemical weapons are not the fabrication that Iraqi weapons in 2003 were. Reduce to rubble now both Syrian WMD assets and the leaders responsible. Don't make me do my job.

I'm not sure why the US is getting involved now. You can kill scores of civilians with conventional weapons too and that's likely to happen when the US attacks. I read on the news they are not even attacking the WDM depots because they are worried about the civilian population.

As an Israeli I have no interest that the US would get involved in the syrian conflict because there is a high probability the Syrians will turn their WDM against us . We might be read for this kind of attack but none here wants to get sprayed with Sarin or VX gas. If the US isn't going to destroy the Syrian WDM stockpile it would be better that it wont' do a thing.

None in the region has interests that the conflict would get out of Syria. I heard that there is a mess in Lebanon because the Hizzbollah got involved in the Syrian conflict. As long as Assad is killing his own people on his own piece of land it's fine with us. We find the loss of life regrettable but there is nothing we can do to offset the situation. Israel have stated it will not get involved in Syria but it warned the Syrian government not to test our patience. There were a few localized provocations against Israel and the IDF didn't overreact . If the Syrian mess with Israel the IDF won't hesitate to even roll tanks in.

So far Israel helped the rebels and the population of south Syria only by taking care of people with serious wounds that were treated in hospitals in the north of the countries. The government won't reject people in need of medical care but we can't save the whole country. The Syrians should sort things out themselves now.

I think that It's too late for the USA to get involved I hope they'll just stay on the side line with their guns ready and pressure the sides to get into some kind of agreement. Either a cease fire or some kind of agreement to split the country or change the system of government. It's true that killing 1300+ people with chemical weapons is a very serious act but the response should either neutralize that capability or to pressure the Syrians to stop the hostilities . Attacking Syria just to punish it will just make things worst.

A military action is a tool which has to be used with a very specific purpose or it can cause things to get worst. You can put out a fire with explosives but you run the chance of spreading it farther if you don't hit the right spot.

I can't speak to the specific Israeli perspective but Niseg pretty much nailed my feelings on this issue.

Keithustus wrote:

If the persons in Syria responsible for the use of chemical weapons are not subjected to the most stringent retribution, we are only inviting other nations to research, weaponize, and employ their own chemical and biological monsters, against their own people and potentially others. The standard we walk past is the standard we accept. One day in that world, our military--or our citizenry--and those of other nations will be subjected to those horrors.

Syrian chemical weapons are not the fabrication that Iraqi weapons in 2003 were. Reduce to rubble now both Syrian WMD assets and the leaders responsible. Don't make me do my job.

You mean like the Libyan use of mustard gas in 1987? Or the chemical weapons Iraq used against Iran and the Kurds in 1988, operations that the United States assisted with? Or the rumored Russian use of chemical weapons in Chechnya in 1999?

The United States routinely ignores or actively supports the use of chemical weapons, so we've already accepted that standard and then some.

So here's what we have: The reports coming out of Syria are unreliable at best, and even if true, do not constitute a threat to the United States in any way. They are not the first reports of chemical attacks to come out of Syria, nor has the United States produced any actual evidence that Assad's regime was responsible. There is no possible strategic or tactical goal that could be served by missile attacks or air strikes on Syrian government facilities.

Why the sudden about face? Why the three-day timeline? Let's be clear, as the President likes to say: this is about distracting the American public from the repeated and embarrassing revelations of government misdeeds. What's really amazing in this instance is that even after the repeated, government-wide lies we've heard over the last few months, somehow the Secretary of State has credibility when he simply asserts that the Syrian government is behind the attacks. Why should we believe him instead of the Syrian government's denials?

Aetius wrote:

What's really amazing in this instance is that even after the repeated, government-wide lies we've heard over the last few months, somehow the Secretary of State has credibility when he simply asserts that the Syrian government is behind the attacks. Why should we believe him instead of the Syrian government's denials?

Because, clearly, they would never fabricate lies about chemical weapons. Surely we wouldn't ever do that. Never. Not once in the past decade. Not uh. Never.

Robear wrote:
Yonder wrote:
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?

Yes. Is that a reason we would not do it, given our past record? And don't we (and the Russians) have a history with satellite killers?

Our past record says that we are more about not signing treaties that we are not interested in upholding. If we "break" a treaty we have signed there is usually legal justification for it, as weak or immoral as it may be. ("Waterboarding is fine because it's enhanced interrogation not torture", which is pretty weak, and "Non-uniformed terrorists aren't protected by the Geneva conventions" which is much stronger)

As far as "satellite killers" the US and China have both recently destroyed satellites with weapons, but that doesn't break the space weapons treaty. Attacking satellites with ground, sea, or air assets is fine. Attacking anything with space assets, or even having space assets which could attack things, is not.

There are rumors that the US and Russia have that capability, but nothing more than that. It's my personal and sorta professional (I work with space stuff, but not military hardware) opinion that neither country has such assets, purely because the effort and expense required to get a couple of shots of weaponry on to an satellite would not be worth it at all.

Regardless, if some country has successfully kept their space weaponry at "wild rumor" level they aren't going to reveal the capability to bomb Syria.

http://www.drivebyplanet.com/2013/06...

There has been very little coverage in western media of a current story in Turkish dailies that places chemical weapons in the hands of the opposition al-Qaeda-affiliated al-Nusra Front.

The Turkish paper Zaman reports that members of al-Nusra planned to bomb Adana, a Turkish city that has an Alevi community sympathetic to Bashar Assad. A raid by Turkish police resulted in arrests. The raid also turned up a stash of weapons and a quantity of chemicals referred to in some reports as sarin, a powerful and deadly neurotoxin that attacks the nervous system.

That would be bad, Jib, but not unexpected.

I honestly don't know if the upcoming strikes will do any good, but I think that in this case, punishment is useful. I think there's a decent chance that it will escalate the conflict, though, and that greatly worries me.

I'm not sure there is one right answer here.

Robear wrote:

I'm not sure there is one right answer here.

Now there's something I can 100% agree with. The issue is murky at best, and I thnk it's a "damned if we do, damned if we don't" thing. We don't even have all the pieces of the puzzle in hand, so it's a really, really thorny situation.

And it seems like inaction could be just as harmful as action.

And here in lies a great part of the Iraq tragedy. If a nuclear program, or a chemical program were found in Iraq, are we having this same conversation? Is Obama this hesitant with Egypt and Syria?

I feel like the most likely course of action is to bomb all known Syrian stockpiles, and do nothing else. That limits the ability of the government to threaten its people with them, limits the amount we have to worry about falling into extremists hands, and similar to Libya lets us part ourselves on the back for fulfilling our moral obligations without putting white people in harm's way, or attempting to take responsibility for the situation.

There are some downsides, one being that it lets the government use any remaining weapons with impunity: "Obama destroyed all the weapons we had, those must have been chemical weapons the rebels stole from us!"

KingGorilla wrote:

And here in lies a great part of the Iraq tragedy. If a nuclear program, or a chemical program were found in Iraq, are we having this same conversation? Is Obama this hesitant with Egypt and Syria?

There are Libya repercussions too, where we slapped China and Russia in the face for agreeing to UN involvement.

Assuming we actually know where the chemical weapons are, I agree. Given our intelligence faux pas's in the past, chances are that the tomahawks will target an orphanage for disabled children.

Which would be fine, because the most powerful weapon of them all is love.

Yonder wrote:

Which would be fine, because the most powerful weapon of them all is love.

Reign it in Captain Planet.

Robear wrote:

That would be bad, Jib, but not unexpected.

I honestly don't know if the upcoming strikes will do any good, but I think that in this case, punishment is useful. I think there's a decent chance that it will escalate the conflict, though, and that greatly worries me.

I'm not sure there is one right answer here.

We know what typically happens. As soon as the first bomb is dropped, the US gets involved in a cycle of escalation. We won't be able to stop bombing over worries we'll 'look weak' and 'lose credibility' the longer Assad stays in power. So we'll have to keep bombing Assad until the rebels take over.

Funkenpants wrote:
Robear wrote:

That would be bad, Jib, but not unexpected.

I honestly don't know if the upcoming strikes will do any good, but I think that in this case, punishment is useful. I think there's a decent chance that it will escalate the conflict, though, and that greatly worries me.

I'm not sure there is one right answer here.

We know what typically happens. As soon as the first bomb is dropped, the US gets involved in a cycle of escalation. We won't be able to stop bombing over worries we'll 'look weak' and 'lose credibility' the longer Assad stays in power. So we'll have to keep bombing Assad until the rebels take over.

While it was about 30 years, that isn't what happened with Libya.

The Reagan attack didn't involve taking sides in an ongoing civil war. The latest libyan air campaign did, and look what happened. You can say it was the Europeans who did the bombing in Libya, but it's pretty much the same group of actors pushing for these actions.

Yonder wrote:

I feel like the most likely course of action is to bomb all known Syrian stockpiles, and do nothing else.

From what I read, there are a *lot* of storage sites, some used at times, others at other times, so it's hard to say which is occupied at any given time. It's also alleged that many of these sites are in civilian neighborhoods for the simple reason that that deters strikes.

I'm thinking we'll hit security service sites, AA sites, some command and control sites, probably some airfields. But I don't think we'll hit anything that could cause a release of mustard or chlorine or the like. (I don't think those are as easy to store safely as Sarin and other nerve gasses in binary form.)

I did read one speculation that the government forces were prepping the weapons and got the proportions wrong, making them much stronger than intended. They know we won't respond to small scale uses, they've done that three times already. Or, perhaps they hit the civilian area by accident. So there are some scenarios that don't involve government intending what happened, for those looking for that doubt.

Funkenpants wrote:

The Reagan attack didn't involve taking sides in an ongoing civil war. The latest libyan air campaign did, and look what happened. You can say it was the Europeans who did the bombing in Libya, but it's pretty much the same group of actors pushing for these actions.

Wait, I feel like the latest Libya attack was one which didn't escalate much past the original bombing?

That was the problem, we were only supposed to be enforcing a no-fly zone, but our forces started bombing government targets, effectively siding with the rebels.

Ah ok, right, but once we took that step we did not find ourselves in a position where we felt we were obligated to continuing escalating.

There are reports that the US, Canada, and the UK had some operatives in the area (primarily to coordinate airstrikes and gather intel). The biggest issue was that the only reason Russia and China didn't veto NATO involvement was that it was supposed to only be enforcing a no-fly zone. The step of bombing government assets and structures ensured that both of them are going to be much more likely to veto NATO involvement in future situations when it's actually needed.