Syria and WMDs

Funkenpants wrote:

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.

Aside from the strikes in Libya I thought he's been fairly low-key on the adventurmongering, at least compared the previous administration. I also wouldn't toss a few cruise missle strikes or limited scope bombing in the same category as Iraq/Afghanistan.

Also also, completely respect the way the UK has handled this. While I think the international community should do something (and I'd only be ok with surgical missle stirkes/bombing to take out military/manufacturing installations at the most) this really should come to a congressional vote, especially since it doesn't immediately concern us.

Robear wrote:

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

My understanding is that the UN inspectors can't/won't implicate anyone, so I don't think that's going to be a deciding factor. However, any information they can provide is likely to be helpful in building a better case against whoever did the attack.

Several sources, including a Congressman, are saying that a big part of the evidence is an intercepted call from a Syrian official to the commander of a chemical weapons unit, demanding to know why a thousand people died in an attack by his unit. The call is described as "panicked". (You can find this on many news sites; here's an example. Note that The Two-Way is used for breaking news and news that has not been independently verified, so take that as you will. I'm not saying that it being reported proves it's real.)

Kind of lends credence to the idea that it's a screwup.

A cynical part of me wonders if Congress is salivating at the prospect of a new engagement to get them out of their sequestration headaches.

shoptroll wrote:

Aside from the strikes in Libya I thought he's been fairly low-key on the adventurmongering, at least compared the previous administration.

Sure, but we're early in the second term. I don't think he's like John McCain and wanting to bomb everything in site. However, presidents tend to be criticized if they aren't doing something. The press wants its news, and if you're not doing something with the presidency they start reporting on all the stuff they think the president is supposed to be doing. From now on the news will be filled with suffering Syrians, and the pressure will mount for him to do something to save them.

Now if there's a another financial crisis or big stock market crash in September or October - the calculus changes. Then domestic politics hits the news in a big way and tosses the Syrian conflict off the front pages. No more pressure on Obama to act.

Funkenpants wrote:

Sure, but we're early in the second term. I don't think he's like John McCain and wanting to bomb everything in site. However, presidents tend to be criticized if they aren't doing something. The press wants its news, and if you're not doing something with the presidency they start reporting on all the stuff they think the president is supposed to be doing. From now on the news will be filled with suffering Syrians, and the pressure will mount for him to do something to save them.

I dunno. Domestically the DoJ seems to be taking steps in regards to reforming the "War on Drugs" which I think is a bit of a big deal given how long it's been since anyone at the federal level has really talked about reforming our handling of substance abuse as a country. Gun control also got back in the news cycle this week too. There's also the undercurrent of economic inequality which is starting to bubble up and we already know Obama has said he wants to see a minimum wage increase. There's plenty of stuff to be done domestically no doubt, but like you say the deadlock kinda curbs the ability to get anything done. Ironically, putting military action up to congressional vote is likely not going to work either. So he's kinda damned if he does, damned if he doesn't depending on his agenda.

Also, the media loves wars and crises as those equal eyeballs and ad revenue. Soo... yeah.

This is one of the hardest foreign policy decisions I've seen a President have to make. Ugly on every level, from every perspective. There's no way I'd want to be in his shoes.

Robear wrote:

This is one of the hardest foreign policy decisions I've seen a President have to make. Ugly on every level, from every perspective. There's no way I'd want to be in his shoes.

The smartest thing would probably to blame the attacks on Al Qaeda and their affiliated fighters in the theater who have acquired surplus American Russian/Chinese chem munitions. Neither the regime, nor the rebels are directly at fault, and may continue to carry on with their war as they were.

If the information presented by US intelligence sources today is true, I don't think it could be attributed to anyone other than the government. The geographical scale alone points to it IMO.

(Click image for actual documents)

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/IxArHPH.png)

There's still some uncertainty in the reports, but I think it's a stronger case than Iraq was although we're stretched a lot thinner militarily than in 2003. Still no concrete plan of action yet though. Since the attack was originally thought to start yesterday, I hope they're stretching this out to try and get some more diplomatic pressure on the Assad regime or seeking more allies in the region. The delay I think is good because it shows some restraint, but we don't have any guarantee there won't be another incident. And if there is another incident, what then?

Robear wrote:

There's no way I'd want to be in his shoes.

It's the worst job in America. Look how quickly he's gone gray since 2008...

It's much stronger than Iraq was, because with Iraq, we had many previous reports that contradicted the conclusions, both within the intel community, and externally from the UN and IAEA inspectors. With this, we don't have the long negative precedent and indicators; instead, we know that the government has used chemicals several times in the last six months or so, at a minimum. Transferring that to the rebels, to them killing their own sympathizers, to them having a large scale capability that previously only the government had... It's hard to credit. Possible, but hard to credit.

I had heard that the UN inspectors are there till tomorrow. If that is still true, that's what's holding off any action.

I still hope they wait and have vote... If congress had any ethics at all they would all come back from their completely undeserved 5 week vacation and vote on this.

We bomb stuff all the time without congressional approval or input. The CIA and special operations people are constantly killing people around the world via drones. I don't understand the focus on some kind of resolution here. It's like as long as the president bombs someone in secret, it's okay. But if he tells the world about it, then it's important congress gets involved.

Isn't our nation getting a bit absurd and comical?

JC wrote:

I had heard that the UN inspectors are there till tomorrow. If that is still true, that's what's holding off any action.

I still hope they wait and have vote... If congress had any ethics at all they would all come back from their completely undeserved 5 week vacation and vote on this.

Oh they deserve it. They've done..... Stuff. You know... Stuff.

Funkenpants wrote:

We bomb stuff all the time without congressional approval or input. The CIA and special operations people are constantly killing people around the world via drones. I don't understand the focus on some kind of resolution here. It's like as long as the president bombs someone in secret, it's okay. But if he tells the world about it, then it's important congress gets involved.

Isn't our nation getting a bit absurd and comical?

Funk: I'm suggesting that it all needs to change.

Oh, I didn't mean to criticize your idea of congress or the public being involved. I was thinking more of the absurd political/security culture we now live in. We've built a secret killing machine that's completely hidden from view, but which everyone knows exists, while maintaining this pantomime of legality and process under which we will only attack when we've made a public case for attacking.

I would think foreign leaders get quite confused sometimes.

Funkenpants wrote:

Oh, I didn't mean to criticize your idea of congress or the public being involved. I was thinking more of the absurd political/security culture we now live in. We've built a secret killing machine that's completely hidden from view, but which everyone knows exists, while maintaining this pantomime of legality and process under which we will only attack when we've made a public case for attacking.

I would think foreign leaders get quite confused sometimes.

I think Hardcore History recently hit the nail right on the head by saying the US was basically a schizophrenic in regards to foreign policy.

Robear wrote:

instead, we know that the government has used chemicals several times in the last six months or so, at a minimum. Transferring that to the rebels, to them killing their own sympathizers, to them having a large scale capability that previously only the government had... It's hard to credit. Possible, but hard to credit.

Far from being hard to credit, a false-flag operation is quite plausible - as are numerous other explanations in the chaos of a bloody civil war. All that would be required is a traitor in control of a government unit with chemical weapons and a willingness to cold-bloodedly sacrifice innocent people. Traitors and ruthlessness are not in short supply in Syria.

Cui Bono? Who benefits from a chemical attack on heavily populated areas where evidence of the attack is sure to reach the world in a matter of minutes? The implicit assumption in the sketchy assertions that the U.S. has presented is that the activity they saw was directed by the Assad regime. However, they provide only tenuous and contradicting links to the regime itself. For example:

the U.S. intelligence summary[/url]]We intercepted communications involving a senior official intimately familiar with the offensive who confirmed that chemical weapons were used by the regime on August 21 and was concerned with the U.N. inspectors obtaining evidence.

If the regime was so concerned about evidence, why not keep the U.N. inspectors out - or not perform the attacks at all? Why make chemical attacks in a heavily populated area where information is sure to get out to the world nearly instantly?

On the afternoon of August 21, we have intelligence that Syrian chemical weapons personnel were directed to cease operations. At the same time, the regime intensified the artillery barrage targeting many of the neighborhoods where chemical attacks occurred. In the 24 hour period after the attack, we detected indications of artillery and rocket fire at a rate approximately four times higher than the ten preceding days. We continued to see indications of sustained shelling in the neighborhoods up until the morning of August 26.

So ... the Syrian plan was to launch a supposedly devastating chemical attack, and then follow up with an extensive artillery bombardment? That directly contradicts an earlier statement that said the Syrian regime has been using chemical weapons to break stalemates. Why follow up with days of artillery attacks if you've already accomplished your objective? And if artillery was sufficient, why bother with the chemical weapons?

Aetius: I think the artillery bombardment was done in an effort to destroy the evidence of the chemical weapon use. At least that's the story I've heard a few times.

The President wants to hit Syria, and will seek authorization for military action from Congress.

Aetius, they *did* keep inspectors out for several days.

But when a conspiracy theory is counted more likely than error or desperation, perhaps that's not the simplest explanation.

I'm glad they're putting this to a vote in Congress. Perhaps this is a start of a good thing when it comes to foreign military action by the US, but I don't have my hopes up. I have to wonder how much of this is because of the UK saying no. If they had said yes I wonder if this would have moved ahead with no vote.

Apparently, Syria started shelling the rebels in the Damascus suburbs right after Obama's speech. Douches.

So now nothing will happen till 9/9 at the earliest since Congress isn't back in session till then. Another part of me thinks that this was an intentional delay due to how close it is to 9/11 and no one wanted to have any potential retaliation occurring on that date here in the states.

Here is just a small report of what I heard on the news on Galatz this morning . I heard that people are still trying to get gas masks. People said he got to the line at about 6am and it was still full because the first people came at 3am.

The government have instructed the ministers not to talk about the Syrian subject but Uri Ariel ,minister of housing , publicly adressed the subject and said that "in Teheran they are opening champagne bottles now" . He was interviewed on the news (the 9-11am radio program on Galatz get great interviews) and said that (this is from memory so it may not be exact) there is a difference between using conventional and chemical weapon because when you use chemical weapon you know you are going to mass murder people indiscriminately . He claim that the world and especially the Jewish people should do everything in their power to stop genocides from happening.

I also heard on the news that someone said that the hesitation of the US government and in the case of Syria may mean that they are not likely to attack Iran ever so Iran can accelerate this nuclear program with little to no concern about getting attacked.

As I said previously I think that the best course of action is to force both sides to a cease fire and some kind of agreement to end the hostilities. This would be something that China and Russia can live with. Assad might not be satisfied from this but this is the best course of action that the international community should take. Assad can just Scapegoat someone to take the blame to the chem attack. A real estate agent once told me that there is a good way to detect a fair deal - either both sides are satisfied or both sides are dissatisfied.

There is a common sentiment in Israel that Arab countries can't be trusted with treaties and such. I still think that both sides in Syria can get to an agreement. Both of the side hate us about the same so we don't care who "wins" as long as they don't turn their weapons at us. I heard Hezbollah and Iran are backing out of the conflict so it's a good time to end it. Assad has much less support from his Allies now so he can be pushed to reach some sort of compromise with the rebels

We live in a strange world at the moment where the French are the only ones firmly in the "we want to go to war camp" while the British are "hell no, we're not getting into another American lead mess in the Middle East".

onewild wrote:

We live in a strange world at the moment where the French are the only ones firmly in the "we want to go to war camp" while the British are "hell no, we're not getting into another American lead mess in the Middle East".

They'll probably have to stop calling their chips "Freedom Fries" now for a start

we're not getting into another American lead mess

That, sir, is a great typo.

Another report by an Izvestia news crew in Syria. Syrian government is providing the sympathetic newspaper with access to the battlefields. Please run it thru Google Translate -- it comes out fairly readable.

The Judgement Day will begin here.

onewild wrote:

We live in a strange world at the moment where the French are the only ones firmly in the "we want to go to war camp" while the British are "hell no, we're not getting into another American lead mess in the Middle East".

In what world are the French "firmly" in the "let's go to war now" camp?!?! That is most definitely not the case, as I've already mentioned earlier in this thread. Some of the politicians, namely the President and the Foreign Minister, may be in favor, but that's most definitely not the majority.
Most people think it's a journey's nest in which we should most definitely not be sticking our noses. Some even jokingly notice that the international community thinks it's okay for this civil war to go on, killing civilians, women and children, as long as chemical weapons aren't being used. A satirical news reel showed Syria before and after an American bombardment: the "after" was covered in McDonald's logos.
Do not presume an entire's country's position simply from a few of it's politicians. François Hollande is simply desperate for some major thing to be remembered by.

Going to congress for authorization is the right thing to do. So when Boehner and congressional republicans vote it down, they are on record for having been soft on the first widescale use of WMD since 9-11.

Google translate doesn't like the link, Gorilla, I'm not sure why.

Regardless of whether chemical weapons were used or not, it is not our fight. The USA isn't the moral police. What would they do if Russia or China started gassing their own people? Not a damn thing, I guarantee it.