Syria and WMDs

Stengah, you're forgetting that what was authorized in UNSC Resolution 1973 was a no-fly zone, AND "all necessary measures to protect the Libyan people".

Protection of civilians

4. Authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, and acting in cooperation with the Secretary-General, to take all necessary measures, notwithstanding paragraph 9 of resolution 1970 (2011), to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory, and requests the Member States concerned to inform the Secretary-General immediately of the measures they take pursuant to the authorization conferred by this paragraph which shall be immediately reported to the Security Council;

By doing this, the UN did indeed "effectively side with the rebels", since the government was the side that was killing civilians in an attempt to punish towns and neighborhoods for sponsoring fighters in the revolution. But that's not just the US.

I would really like congress to be called back into session for a straight up/down vote on the use of force against Syria. The UK is calling an emergency session, why aren't we making the same efforts to open this up to a broader audience for input... you know... democracy....

Sounds crazy considering Congress blocks everything, but for something like this I would like all of them to be on record. Hell, regardless of the outcome, it's something they could point at and say, "look we did something!"

I know congress is supposed to vote on "going to war" but I think in this day and age we need to change that requirement to reflect any use of force against a sovereign nation.

Perhaps our aggression towards others would be slightly less if we needed more people to actually raise their hands and agree to death and destruction from actions.

I thought Congress had to authorize money for any action to be taken. I recall seeing that we basically couldn't do much until Congress was back in session.

Nevin73 wrote:

I thought Congress had to authorize money for any action to be taken. I recall seeing that we basically couldn't do much until Congress was back in session.

Not quite. The president can take limited unilateral action-60 days under the War Powers Act, after which point he must submit to congress for relevant appropriations to keep the action sustained. Essentially, he can send the troops out with the clothes on their back, and it is on congress to keep them fed. Under this scheme, congress effectuated the return of troops from Somalia.

When it comes to a joint UN or NATO effort, say like Bosnia or Desert Storm, there are some different aspects as there are treaties involved which gives the US as a nation certain obligations. That was the Obama administration position when the 60th day was reached in Libya a few years ago.

I have not gotten the latest intel on Syria, is this looking to be a unilateral move, or will it be either UN or NATO, if not both.

Right, but I'm suggesting that the war powers act be changed. In the past, 60 days would be needed to mobilize physical forces and start them towards their destination. In this day and age all anyone has to do is push a button to launch a missile. Considerable difference... I'm suggesting we need to revise the rules to more accurately reflect the current state of affairs.

Fat chance that would happen though, and I don't want to derail the thread so....

I'm wiling to bet we continue our aggressive approach and lob missiles at Syria for a day or two as a "warning" and we pay for those actions more than anyone ever imagined. That's how it seems to always work. We're also feeding the fire of other terrorist groups because now they get to say we are aggressive and trot out their usual propaganda against the western devils.

Well, the National War Powers Act has other restrictions, the main one being that their must be an imminent threat to the country or its citizens. That doesn't seem to be the case in Syria, but it didn't seem to be the case in Libya either, and that didn't stop us.

Well JC, the current iteration, was passed on a veto over-ride in 1973. The current incarnation is post Apollo moon landing, with an infant information age being nursed. So we had nuclear subs and nuclear ships that could carry these sorts of payloads, we had RADAR guided missiles, near orbital bombers. There was early talk of missile silo satellites. And other than nuclear ICBMs, a lot of the state is substantially similar. Certainly the jets are faster, the ships are faster, and satellite communication is faster and more reliable. But largely what we are talking about in Syria is still ship to ground missiles, bombers, and conventional means. In certain respects, we have gone back a bit, such as prop driven aircraft in the Drones in Yemen.

Our fleet and our capabilities under Obama are not starkly different to what Nixon had. Not when you look at the 1940's act, where we did not even have jets, or rocketry, and our ships ran on Diesel.

For extra delicious irony, Biden previously threatened to impeach Bush if he struck Iran without Congressional approval.

I wonder if Obama is saying action is in America's "self-interest" because there's concern of elements of the Assad regime arming Al-Queda or similar organizations with chemical weapons. By the sound of it there seems to be some uncertainty as to who in the Assad regime gave the order to deploy the weapons last week. Maybe a rogue member of the military?

JC wrote:

I would really like congress to be called back into session for a straight up/down vote on the use of force against Syria. The UK is calling an emergency session, why aren't we making the same efforts to open this up to a broader audience for input... you know... democracy....

Does the President have to convene congress or can Reid and/or Boehner do it? It's not like Congress hasn't been on vacation enough this year...

shoptroll wrote:

I wonder if Obama is saying action is in America's "self-interest" because there's concern of elements of the Assad regime arming Al-Queda or similar organizations with chemical weapons.

That's part of my gripe... Apparently the argument is that national security is threatened because of the CW use in Syria... It's a weak argument in my book.

shoptroll wrote:
JC wrote:

I would really like congress to be called back into session for a straight up/down vote on the use of force against Syria. The UK is calling an emergency session, why aren't we making the same efforts to open this up to a broader audience for input... you know... democracy....

Does the President have to convene congress or can Reid and/or Boehner do it? It's not like Congress hasn't been on vacation enough this year...

Apparently keeping leadership "advised of the situation" is considered sufficient at this point. God forbid these lily-white ass people in congress be forced to come back early from their 5 week vacation.... My point is that I would like to SEE action on the part of our leadership. I'm sure they're talking about things but this has the potential to be a bad decision on numerous levels. I'd like the decision to be more than simply phoned in...

Good Lord is The Onion on it this week.

Bashar Al-Assad wrote:

So, What’s It Going To Be?

Well, here we are. It’s been two years of fighting, over 100,000 people are dead, there are no signs of this war ending, and a week ago I used chemical weapons on my own people. If you don’t do anything about it, thousands of Syrians are going to die. If you do something about it, thousands of Syrians are going to die. Morally speaking, you’re on the hook for those deaths no matter how you look at it.

So, it’s your move, America. What’s it going to be?

I’ve looked at your options, and I’m going to be honest here, I feel for you. Not exactly an embarrassment of riches you’ve got to choose from, strategy-wise. I mean, my God, there are just so many variables to consider, so many possible paths to choose, each fraught with incredible peril, and each leading back to the very real, very likely possibility that no matter what you do it’s going to backfire in a big, big way. It’s a good old-fashioned mess, is what this is! And now, you have to make some sort of decision that you can live with.

Because of the Syrian threat , There is currently a rush on gas mask distribution centers in Israel here is an article from ynetnews.com(English)

and some pictures from the Hebrew article which has pictures of this morning's line (the article is time stamped 8:08am ):

IMAGE(http://images1.ynet.co.il/PicServer3/2013/08/29/4830897/48308960991094640360no.jpg)

I actually need to get the kit for the baby. I have the masks for me,my wife and my daughter. I heard on the radio (Reshet Bet) this morning a report of someone who actually stood in line yesterday. He said he came there at noon and the number that was called was 20 and he got a number of about 920~ . He said he was lucky because one of his friends gave up and gave him his 250~ number and he got in to get his masks at 5pm (5 hours later) .

The problem with the kits they hand out now is that they only have enough for 60% of the population and they are not giving out Atropine injectors which are critical to save lives in the case of an exposure to nerve gas. I guess they are afraid people will use those injectors unnecessarily like a few cases in early 90s during desert storm. Atropine is usually not that deadly if you get to a hospital I remember there was a case where someone suffocated on the gas mask because they didn't remove the plug.

I highly recommend you don't read what Sarin gas does to the victim it's pretty nasty. I'd rather get nuked.

Yeah, if America could stop acting like it needs to stick its dick in every global conflict, that'd be great.

Looks like Labour are digging their heels in to prevent any action without hard evidence and the legal support of the UN, so any attempt to rush the UK into yet another messy conflict is at least delayed until that happens...and even then they might still vote against it.

Labours full amendment:

This House expresses its revulsion at the killing of hundreds of civilians in Ghutah, Syria on 21 August 2013; believes that this was a moral outrage; recalls the importance of upholding the worldwide prohibition on the use of chemical weapons; makes clear that the use of chemical weapons is a grave breach of international law; agrees with the UN Secretary General that the UN weapons inspectors must be able to report to the UN Security Council and that the Security Council must live up to its responsibilities to protect civilians; supports steps to provide humanitarian protection to the people of Syria but will only support military action involving UK forces if and when the following conditions have been met:

- The UN weapons inspectors, upon the conclusion of their mission in the Eastern Ghutah, being given the necessary opportunity to make a report to the Security Council on the evidence and their findings, and confirmation by them that chemical weapons have been used in Syria;

- The production of compelling evidence that the Syrian regime was responsible for the use of these weapons;

- The UN Security Council having considered and voted on this matter in the light of the reports of the weapons inspectors and the evidence submitted;

- There being a clear legal basis in international law for taking collective military action to protect the Syrian people on humanitarian grounds;

- That such action must have regard to the potential consequences in the region, and must therefore be legal, proportionate, time-limited and have precise and achievable objectives designed to deter the future use of prohibited chemical weapons in Syria; aan

- That the Prime Minister reports further to the House on the achievement of these conditions so that the House can vote on UK participation in such action.

This House further notes that such action relates solely to efforts to deter the use of chemical weapons and does not sanction any wider action in Syria.

stevenmack wrote:

Looks like Labour are digging their heels in to prevent any action without hard evidence and the legal support of the UN, so any attempt to rush the UK into yet another messy conflict is at least delayed until that happens...and even then they might still vote against it.

To the point that Miliband was referred to by a "Government source" as a "f***ing c*** and a copper-bottomed little s***"

Nice bit of politics tbh, quite apart from the whole "supporting international law" thing.

I'm glad to see the people in the UK yell enough to put the brakes on. That's good.

Not to sound callous about the situation in Syria, but what do we and the larger global community lose by waiting before we take aggressive steps? It's not like Syria hasn't been a mess for years now....

Obtain concrete proof, obtain buy in from the leaders and government, push the UN (even though it's a no due to China and Russia) While all that is going down put diplomatic pressure on Syria in whatever way still possible. Turn the screws that don't involve direct blood letting and leave violence as the last option.

It would be interesting to understand what Asma al-Asad (Asad's wife) thinks about all this but that would involve the ability to read minds because you know she's going to tow the line in interviews.

According to this NYT article, the Administration is to present its evidence to Congressional leadership (maybe the media too?) today. No word on any actual strike, although if we're going with short-term cruise missile strikes/bombings that's pretty much a repeat of the actions of the Clinton administration against Iraq in '96 and '98.

Also, the article mentions that while Obama authorized supplying the rebels with weapons in June those weapons haven't arrived yet.

I have only been partially following this, but I am not sure I see the harm in waiting for the UN weapons inspectors to present their findings.

At this point, I am inclined to believe that a chem strike was committed and that the Syrian government is behind it, but I also think it is important to avoid the appearance of unilaterality.

I kinda wonder why we have this level of outrage over Syria using chemical weapons to the point of threatening military action, but when Israel used white phosphorous on the Gaza strip, we just clucked our tongues and clutched our pearls.

Farscry wrote:

I kinda wonder why we have this level of outrage over Syria using chemical weapons to the point of threatening military action, but when Israel used white phosphorous on the Gaza strip, we just clucked our tongues and clutched our pearls.

I suspect it is because WP may be on the hairy line but does not fall explicitly in the "zmg, it's chembio!" side. Sort of like that nifty pseudo-napalm that we kinda sorta used in the Gulf War.

JC wrote:

Not to sound callous about the situation in Syria, but what do we and the larger global community lose by waiting before we take aggressive steps? It's not like Syria hasn't been a mess for years now....

Right. We're not talking about saving any lives here. Just making sure a certain number of Syrians die by bombs and bullets rather than sarin gas.

Funkenpants wrote:
JC wrote:

Not to sound callous about the situation in Syria, but what do we and the larger global community lose by waiting before we take aggressive steps? It's not like Syria hasn't been a mess for years now....

Right. We're not talking about saving any lives here. Just making sure a certain number of Syrians die by bombs and bullets rather than sarin gas.

That is certainly the cynical way of putting it, but the diplomatic way would be that the US and the world community has a vested interest in maintaining the position that the use of chembionuke weapons constitutes a red line of external intervention such that they don't become acceptable for wider use.

Paleocon wrote:

That is certainly the cynical way of putting it, but the diplomatic way would be that the US and the world community has a vested interest in maintaining the position that the use of chembionuke weapons constitutes a red line of external intervention such that they don't become acceptable for wider use.

As Og Slinger pointed out earlier, we know they've been used elsewhere and haven't invoked that as a justification for action. We drew an explicit line in the sand here, and the regime crossed it anyway. Deterrence is of questionable value to a government under threat of destruction.

Also, aren't we the people who maintain a huge nuclear arsenal to use whenever we decide it's necessary to use, without regard of its impact those weapons would have on the future of the entire planet? Should the rest of the world have a say in that decision?

Russia sending warships to the Mediterranean

Russia will "over the next few days" be sending an anti-submarine ship and a missile cruiser to the Mediterranean as the West prepares for possible strikes against Syria, the Interfax news agency said on Thursday.

The Russians are claiming it is part of a "planned rotation".

Frankly I'm shocked that the Russians still have ships that are seaworthy enough to make the trip.

Actually Russians have been quietly overhauling their fleet lately. Just this year, I believe, 6 new destroyers and 1 new nuclear sub entered service, and 3 subs were overhauled. I'll try finding links.

But their logistics and support capabilities to project that force to Mediterranean over the long time are very limited, of course.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politic...

British MPs have voted against possible military action against Syria to deter the use of chemical weapons.

David Cameron said it was clear the British Parliament does not want action and "I will act accordingly".

The government motion was defeated 285 to 272, a majority of 13 votes.

Phew!

wow... I'm actually impressed that this didn't pass. Hopefully the US follows suit, but I'm not keeping my hopes up.

I'm comfortable with the UK stance. I don't think there's a difference between this week and next, so the UN guys can tell us what they found.

Looks like polling here in the US is indicating that we want a vote on this. I hope the administration listens.

Oh and evidence that is concrete and shared would be nice too.

Did anyone else see the article yesterday or maybe it was Wednesday where Rumsfeld has the gall to say on the record that the current administration doesn't have enough information to justify a Syria strike? That man has no shame.

Rumsfeld's line was classic. I wonder how much of this is Obama's reaction to second term gridlock. He's got nothing to do domestically for the next three years because of Congressional republicans, so he starts looking abroad where his freedom of action as president is almost unlimited. What else is he going to do? If he's not adventuring abroad, he might as well hole up in the Oval office with an x-box and work through the pile of games he's been stacking up for the past six years.