Syria - civil war incoming?

[El Guapo]

Obama Administration Announces It’s Still Anguished Over Syria

[Anonymous Bosch]

Bill Clinton to Obama: "I'm not saying you're a total wuss, I'm just saying that presidents that govern by opinion poll are total wusses."

Bill Clinton told Sen. John McCain he agrees that President Barack Obama should act more forcefully to support anti-Assad rebels in Syria, saying the American public elects presidents and members of Congress “to see down the road” and “to win.”

At another point during a closed-press event Tuesday, Clinton implied that Obama or any president risks looking like “a total fool” if they listen too closely to opinion polls and act too cautiously. He used his own decisions on Kosovo and Bosnia as a point of reference.

The former president also said commanders-in-chief should avoid over-interpreting public opinion polls about whether the United States should get involved in crises overseas.

…

Clinton repeatedly said it would be “lame” to blame a lack of intervention on opposition in polls or among members of Congress.

If Clinton had ever blamed a lack of action because “there was a poll in the morning paper that said 80 percent of you were against it … you’d look like a total wuss,” he said. “And you would be. I don’t mean that a leader should go out of his way or her way to do the unpopular thing, I simply mean when people are telling you ‘no’ in these situations, very often what they’re doing is flashing a giant yellow light and saying, ‘For God’s sakes, be careful, tell us what you’re doing, think this through, be careful.”

Clinton continued, “But still they hire their president to look around the corner and down the street, and you just think - if you refuse to act and you cause a calamity, the one thing you cannot say when all the eggs have been broken, is that, ‘Oh my God, two years ago there was a poll that said 80 percent of you were against it.’ Right? You’d look like a total fool. So you really have to in the end trust the American people, tell them what you’re doing, and hope to God you can sell it” and that it turns out okay in the end.

[El Guapo]

That's kind of amusing given that that's exactly how Clinton governed in his second term (from my recollection). Though I do agree with him that we ought to be doing much more in Syria.

[Exodor]

Finally we have bipartisanship in Washington!

Too bad it's just Boehner and Obama pushing for a war nobody wants.

[LawBeefaroni]

Finally we have bipartisanship in Washington!

Too bad it's just Boehner and Obama pushing for a war nobody wants.

It's not a war. It's a spanking.

I'm still not certain that the evidence is good but if it is, launching a few cruise missiles with the blessing of most of the rest of the world is kind of a no-brainer.

[Exodor]

I'm still not certain that the evidence is good but if it is, launching a few cruise missiles with the blessing of most of the rest of the world is kind of a no-brainer.

I suppose - but why bother?

We're obviously not going to respond forcefully enough to make the use of chemical weapons unpossible in the future. And I'm not sure we'd be better off with the rebels in charge of Syria.

It seems like we're doing something just to say that we did something - and because Obama backed himself into a corner with his "red line" nonsense.

[Rip]

The thing I find really hilarious is that we are being sold that we know exactly what happened and knew so within hours of it happening while being asked to believe we still don't know much of anything concerning the embassy attack in Libya.

U.S. Intel giving you what you want to know and only what you want to know exactly when you want to know it.

[YellowKing]

I suppose - but why bother?

Yeah, it's not OUR kids lying in the dirt gasping for breath because they've been gassed!

[Exodor]

Yeah, it's not OUR kids lying in the dirt gasping for breath because they've been gassed!

Lobbing a few cruise missiles isn't going to bring those kids back. And any leader crazy enough to gas their own citizens isn't going to be deterred by whatever meaningless reprisal we launch.

[Rip]

I could care less about missle strikes but anyone who thinks that will be the end of it is in for a surprise. Putin is salivating at the thought of this escalating and seeing us trapped in a series of responses he knows we will have no choice but to make.

This will be Chapter One of the story of how the U.S. blundered its way through yet another foriegn relations disaster. I would say hopefully it implodes before the next elections but they are all eager to hitch up to this suicide bandwagon.

[Carpet_pissr]

Lobbing a few cruise missiles isn't going to bring those kids back.

And might very well kill more.

[Daehawk]

I say leave Syria alone. It's not our fight. Of course if we do nothing then they will bitch at the US. If we do something they will bitch at the US. they'll drag a dead kid out of a nearby building and say we killed it. It's a lose lose. Stay out and let them fight their own civil war.

[El Guapo]

Yeah, it's not OUR kids lying in the dirt gasping for breath because they've been gassed!

Lobbing a few cruise missiles isn't going to bring those kids back. And any leader crazy enough to gas their own citizens isn't going to be deterred by whatever meaningless reprisal we launch.

No, it's not. I wish we were doing what McCain has been advocating - bomb Syrian government airfields, establish a no fly zone (preventing Assad from using his air force against the rebels), maybe create a safe zone for the rebels to organize in, and basically do what we can (short of boots on the ground) to make sure that Assad loses the civil war. That won't bring any dead Syrian kids back, but by shortening the war it will help save others, and give them at least a chance of creating a freer society.

In terms of just lobbing a few cruises missiles or what have you, yeah I'm inclined to be opposed to that as a futile yet deadly gesture. If I were convinced that it would deter leaders elsewhere from using chemical weapons then I might support it (that would also save kids), but I am skeptical that it would.

[El Guapo]

I could care less about missle strikes but anyone who thinks that will be the end of it is in for a surprise. Putin is salivating at the thought of this escalating and seeing us trapped in a series of responses he knows we will have no choice but to make.

This will be Chapter One of the story of how the U.S. blundered its way through yet another foriegn relations disaster. I would say hopefully it implodes before the next elections but they are all eager to hitch up to this suicide bandwagon.

Honestly I hope that this is not the end of it, as I want Assad to go. For the same reason Russia decidedly does not want this to escalate. If the U.S. ultimately goes in hard then Assad is doomed, and Russia very much wants him to stick around as a regional ally / client state.

[LawBeefaroni]

I'm still not certain that the evidence is good but if it is, launching a few cruise missiles with the blessing of most of the rest of the world is kind of a no-brainer.

I suppose - but why bother?

We're obviously not going to respond forcefully enough to make the use of chemical weapons unpossible in the future. And I'm not sure we'd be better off with the rebels in charge of Syria.

It seems like we're doing something just to say that we did something - and because Obama backed himself into a corner with his "red line" nonsense.

If you hit Assad's residences and personal property, some key military targets, and some key industrial targets, it will serve as a deterrance. For all the bluster about ideology and politics and religion, if you threaten to hit these world leaders' families and [oft ill-gotten] wealth, they get scared. Precision guided supersonic cruise missiles are horrifying to them. If the use of chemical weapons gives us carte blanche to do so, others will think twice, thrice, and four times before deploying them.

Any knock-on benefit in the civil war is probably what's being debated right now. Do we level airfields and fuel depots? Or just keep it to a personal statement?






I do agree that the "red line" business was unecessarily setting us up for this but we have to follow through now or risk proliferation of such weapons.

[Carpet_pissr]

I do agree that the "red line" business was unecessarily setting us up for this but we have to follow through now or risk proliferation of such weapons.

+1

I think it's been a foregone conclusion that we will use cruise missles for a while now, just a matter of getting all the political ducks in a row.

[El Guapo]

I'm still not certain that the evidence is good but if it is, launching a few cruise missiles with the blessing of most of the rest of the world is kind of a no-brainer.

I suppose - but why bother?

We're obviously not going to respond forcefully enough to make the use of chemical weapons unpossible in the future. And I'm not sure we'd be better off with the rebels in charge of Syria.

It seems like we're doing something just to say that we did something - and because Obama backed himself into a corner with his "red line" nonsense.

If you hit Assad's residences and personal property, some key military targets, and some key industrial targets, it will serve as a deterrance. For all the bluster about ideology and politics and religion, if you threaten to hit these world leaders' families and [oft ill-gotten] wealth, they get scared. Precision guided supersonic cruise missiles are horrifying to them. If the use of chemical weapons gives us carte blanche to do so, others will think twice, thrice, and four times before deploying them.

Any knock-on benefit in the civil war is probably what's being debated right now. Do we level airfields and fuel depots? Or just keep it to a personal statement?






I do agree that the "red line" business was unecessarily setting us up for this but we have to follow through now or risk proliferation of such weapons.

Also the targets would include chemical weapons related facilities as best we can determine - targets that manufacture, distribute, and deliver the weapons. Part of the goal would be to impede Assad's short-term ability to use the weapons, in addition to his (and others') willingness to do so.

[Smoove_B]

Also the targets would include chemical weapons related facilities as best we can determine - targets that manufacture, distribute, and deliver the weapons. Part of the goal would be to impede Assad's short-term ability to use the weapons, in addition to his (and others') willingness to do so.

Except he's most likely hiding said weapons (and soldiers) with civilians. So once again, we start lobbing bombs or smart missiles or whatever and invariably innocents are going to die. No one will care that sarin gas was destroyed when you have photos of women and children lying dead near a bombed out building.

[Carpet_pissr]

Yeah, not so sure hitting a chemical weapons depot with a cruise missile is a great idea.

[El Guapo]

Gonna be honest with you - designing a military strike to curtail chemical weapons capacity and usage is not really my area of expertise. I would *assume* that the military professionals know how to take a lot of these concerns into account.

[Blackhawk]

I know that a lot of the time the targets are the components of the weapons rather than the competed weapons themselves, and that (in some cases at least) hitting completed chemical weapons with fast, incendiary attacks can destroy them with minimal dispersal.

[YellowKing]

Yeah I think the "real" goal is to show the world chemical strikes will be met with retaliation, regardless if it actually prevents Assad from using them again. We've got to at least keep up a token appearance that the rules of war we agreed to are being enforced.

[Kraken]

Yeah I think the "real" goal is to show the world chemical strikes will be met with retaliation, regardless if it actually prevents Assad from using them again. We've got to at least keep up a token appearance that the rules of war we agreed to are being enforced.

Yep, the trick is to give him a bloody nose and a black eye without knocking him out -- which nobody except El Guapo wants.

[Rip]

Yeah I think the "real" goal is to show the world chemical strikes will be met with retaliation, regardless if it actually prevents Assad from using them again. We've got to at least keep up a token appearance that the rules of war we agreed to are being enforced.

So does that mean when Russia, China, or someone else not quite so puny starts using CW against rebels we will be launching missles against them?

If it is such an unacceptable thing to do we should be willing to serve the same justice on anyone doing it no matter who they are and we all know that isn't the case.

[Carpet_pissr]

If it is such an unacceptable thing to do we should be willing to serve the same justice on anyone doing it no matter who they are and we all know that isn't the case.

Yes, we SHOULD, but of course we would not. Cruise missile strike for Syria would probably equate to sanctions for a bigger or more powerful country that used chemical weapons.

[LawBeefaroni]

So does that mean when Russia, China, or someone else not quite so puny starts using CW against rebels we will be launching missles against them?

If it is such an unacceptable thing to do we should be willing to serve the same justice on anyone doing it no matter who they are and we all know that isn't the case.

China and Russia are both ratified signatories to the Chemical Weapons Convention and sit on the Executive Council. Why do you think they will suddenly start using chemical weapons?

Syria is not a signatory.



But to answer your highly hypothetical question, if China or Russia used chemical weapons against their own people we would have vitural unanimous support against them and the unassailable high ground. Obviously we wouldn't go straight to bombing them, it would be far more difficult and potentially dangerous due to their own military capabilities. But it wouldn't go unpunished.

Not that China or Russia would ever need to resort to the use chemical weapons to fight rebel groups.

[Rip]

If it is such an unacceptable thing to do we should be willing to serve the same justice on anyone doing it no matter who they are and we all know that isn't the case.

Yes, we SHOULD, but of course we would not. Cruise missile strike for Syria would probably equate to sanctions for a bigger or more powerful country that used chemical weapons.

Yea, like we would impose trade sanctions on China for killing some dissidents.

Tiananmen Square?

[Rip]

So does that mean when Russia, China, or someone else not quite so puny starts using CW against rebels we will be launching missles against them?

If it is such an unacceptable thing to do we should be willing to serve the same justice on anyone doing it no matter who they are and we all know that isn't the case.

China and Russia are both ratified signatories to the Chemical Weapons Convention and sit on the Executive Council. Why do you think they will suddenly start using chemical weapons?

Syria is not a signatory.



But to answer your highly hypothetical question, if China or Russia used chemical weapons against their own people we would have vitural unanimous support against them and the unassailable high ground. Obviously we wouldn't go straight to bombing them, it would be far more difficult and potentially dangerous due to their own military capabilities. But it wouldn't go unpunished.

Not that China or Russia would ever need to resort to the use chemical weapons to fight rebel groups.

You mean like when Russia gassed the Chechen rebels and their hostages?

http://cns.miis.edu/stories/02110b.htm

[LawBeefaroni]

If it is such an unacceptable thing to do we should be willing to serve the same justice on anyone doing it no matter who they are and we all know that isn't the case.

Yes, we SHOULD, but of course we would not. Cruise missile strike for Syria would probably equate to sanctions for a bigger or more powerful country that used chemical weapons.

Yea, like we would impose trade sanctions on China for killing some dissidents.

Tiananmen Square?

Communist jokes aside, that's not the "red line."

Syria was killing plenty of rebels just fine without US intervention. It's only the use of chemical weapons that has us where we are today.

[Rip]

If it is such an unacceptable thing to do we should be willing to serve the same justice on anyone doing it no matter who they are and we all know that isn't the case.

Yes, we SHOULD, but of course we would not. Cruise missile strike for Syria would probably equate to sanctions for a bigger or more powerful country that used chemical weapons.

Yea, like we would impose trade sanctions on China for killing some dissidents.

Tiananmen Square?

Communist jokes aside, that's not the "red line."

Syria was killing plenty of rebels just fine without US intervention. It's only the use of chemical weapons that has us where we are today.

I would say it is the use of CW by someone we are not afraid of. Kind of makes me understand why Iran is hell bent on obtaining Nuclear Weapons. If they gassed some people today we would attack, after they have nucs we wouldn't dare. In fact I would bet if they had them now we wouldn't attack Syria out of fear about what Iran might do. Guess we will find out in another ten years when they do have them.

Just remember this time the consequences are a result of our own choices.

[LawBeefaroni]

You mean like when Russia gassed the Chechen rebels and their hostages?

http://cns.miis.edu/stories/02110b.htm

Seriously? You think remifentanil is anything like sarin?


From your link, which concludes that, despite some poor legal and procedural moves, the use was ultimately not a violation:

One might consider remifentanil, a related analogue to fentanyl, to be a possible candidate for the Russian version of the incapacitating agent used in the Moscow theater. Among other opiate analogues, remifentanil is rather unique and extremely potent, with relatively fast action but also short duration. Its chemical structure also allows the body to quickly metabolize the substance into non-toxic and water soluble forms. It is therefore possible that this or a similar compound was chosen because of lower associated risks for both the hostage-takers and hostages. And, as is the case with other compounds, an effective antidote to opiates is widely available in the form of naloxone (Narcan). While Russian authorities insist that emergency personnel were prepared with 1,000 antidotes in anticipation of the raid, controversy continues over whether local hospitals and physicians were adequately informed about the gas used during the operation.

...
In this case, however, not only is it apparent that the use of the opiate gas was legitimate given the circumstances, the decision to do so appears in the end to have been morally justified from the perspective of the Russians. Ultimately, as this issue is debated over the coming weeks the overall intent in possessing this form of RCA and delivery system may prove to be the key: This fentanyl-like drug was not intended to serve as either a lethal or incapacitating agent on a battlefield. Russian officials believed it to be the most humane solution to a volatile hostage situation.

And what Syria [allegedly] used:

Like other nerve agents, sarin attacks the nervous system. It stops nerve endings in muscles from switching off. Death will usually occur as a result of asphyxia due to the inability of the muscles involved in breathing to function.

Chemical nerve agents like Sarin use concentrated amounts of pesticides called organophosphates. Sarin might be more than 1,000 times more toxic than organophosphate pesticides, which were recently linked to fatal poisonings in India. De Bretton-Gordon said last month that exposure to a nerve agent is a "very toxic and a horrible way to die."

[LawBeefaroni]

I would say it is the use of CW by someone we are not afraid of. Kind of makes me understand why Iran is hell bent on obtaining Nuclear Weapons. If they gassed some people today we would attack, after they have nucs we wouldn't dare. In fact I would bet if they had them now we wouldn't attack Syria out of fear about what Iran might do. Guess we will find out in another ten years when they do have them.

Just remember this time the consequences are a result of our own choices.

I don't follow this train of thought. If you're against Iran getting a nuclear arsenal, wouldn't you also be against Syria deploying internationally prohibited chemical weapons? You're jumping from Benghazi to Moscow to Iran without saying much about Syria.

We're talking about Syria.

[Rip]

You mean like when Russia gassed the Chechen rebels and their hostages?

http://cns.miis.edu/stories/02110b.htm

Seriously? You think remifentanil is anything like sarin?


From your link, which concludes that, despite some poor legal and procedural moves, the use was ultimately not a violation:

One might consider remifentanil, a related analogue to fentanyl, to be a possible candidate for the Russian version of the incapacitating agent used in the Moscow theater. Among other opiate analogues, remifentanil is rather unique and extremely potent, with relatively fast action but also short duration. Its chemical structure also allows the body to quickly metabolize the substance into non-toxic and water soluble forms. It is therefore possible that this or a similar compound was chosen because of lower associated risks for both the hostage-takers and hostages. And, as is the case with other compounds, an effective antidote to opiates is widely available in the form of naloxone (Narcan). While Russian authorities insist that emergency personnel were prepared with 1,000 antidotes in anticipation of the raid, controversy continues over whether local hospitals and physicians were adequately informed about the gas used during the operation.

...
In this case, however, not only is it apparent that the use of the opiate gas was legitimate given the circumstances, the decision to do so appears in the end to have been morally justified from the perspective of the Russians. Ultimately, as this issue is debated over the coming weeks the overall intent in possessing this form of RCA and delivery system may prove to be the key: This fentanyl-like drug was not intended to serve as either a lethal or incapacitating agent on a battlefield. Russian officials believed it to be the most humane solution to a volatile hostage situation.

And what Syria [allegedly] used:

Like other nerve agents, sarin attacks the nervous system. It stops nerve endings in muscles from switching off. Death will usually occur as a result of asphyxia due to the inability of the muscles involved in breathing to function.

Chemical nerve agents like Sarin use concentrated amounts of pesticides called organophosphates. Sarin might be more than 1,000 times more toxic than organophosphate pesticides, which were recently linked to fatal poisonings in India. De Bretton-Gordon said last month that exposure to a nerve agent is a "very toxic and a horrible way to die."

So your opinion that is if they had used Sarin to kill those nearly 1000 people there would have been real fallout? I would say it wouldn't have mattered if they had used Sarin or VX, they would have faced nothing but jaw jacking would have been pretty much the same. Maybe more of it but just verbal outrage at the most.

But hey it is all good, I just hope people realize that dropping a little CW on people is now going to be the de facto way to draw the US into a conflict. Don't be surprised when it happens again.

Me I am a war monger so I can live with it and be happy that it may lead to us actually getting real with Iran and should result in some serious weapons transfers to Israel when they face the inevitable repurcussions.

[Anonymous Bosch]

Yeah I think the "real" goal is to show the world chemical strikes will be met with retaliation, regardless if it actually prevents Assad from using them again. We've got to at least keep up a token appearance that the rules of war we agreed to are being enforced.

The notion that one sort of weapon underwrites a response more than carnage itself seems somewhat specious. The 'special wrongness' of chemical weapons is also rather dubious as John Glaser points out in his Washington Times piece, though a case could perhaps be made that superpowers like the US ought to do what they can to stop the slaughter of innocents.

But given the inherent risks involved, that are likely to be compounded massively by regional and global politics involving Iran, Jordan, Russia, Israel, and European countries, it would seem trickier to explain how American intervention will not ultimately lead to more problems than even the most surgical of military strikes might solve, e.g. from the aforementioned article:

The potential for U.S. intervention to make the humanitarian and the strategic situation in Syria exponentially worse is very high.

“The use of force, especially in circumstances where ethnic and religious factors dominate is unlikely to produce predictable outcomes,” Gen. Martin Dempsey told Congress in April, adding that “unintended consequences are the rule with military interventions of this sort.”

In the same Senate hearing, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said “military intervention at this point could hinder humanitarian relief operations. It could embroil the United States in a significant, lengthy, and uncertain military commitment.”

“American involvement,” wrote former Carter national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski in May, “would simply mobilize the most extreme elements of [the rebels] against the U.S. and pose the danger that the conflict would spill over into the neighborhood and set Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon on fire.”

Intervention, Brzezinski added, “would simply make the situation worse. None of the proposals would result in an outcome strategically beneficial for the U.S. On the contrary, they would produce a more complex, undefined slide into the worst-case scenario.”

Shouldn't that be weighed against the importance of keeping up (token) appearances?

[LawBeefaroni]

So your opinion that is if they had used Sarin to kill those nearly 1000 people there would have been real fallout? I would say it wouldn't have mattered if they had used Sarin or VX, they would have faced nothing but jaw jacking would have been pretty much the same. Maybe more of it but just verbal outrage at the most.

Yes, that is my opinion. There absolutely would have been fallout. First off, they didn't kill 1000 people with the so you'd start there. Then you'd move on to the fact that they used prohibited lethal chemical agents with the intent of killing everyone in the building. The fallout would be immense, and not just from outside the country. It would be like your local police department opting to use VX instead of flash bangs and tear gas the next time a shooter holes up in an office complex.

They used a non-lethal method. Non-lethal doesn't mean "cannot kill" it means "not designed to kill." I hope you can see the difference. Sarin gas is designed to kill, and kill horribly. The gas the Russians did use is designed to make people go to sleep.

But hey it is all good, I just hope people realize that dropping a little CW on people is now going to be the de facto way to draw the US into a conflict. Don't be surprised when it happens again.

No, it will be the de facto way to get the US and other nations to drop a few million dollars in high explosives and incendiary bombs on your head. How are we being drawn into Syria?

Me I am a war monger so I can live with it and be happy that it may lead to us actually getting real with Iran and should result in some serious weapons transfers to Israel when they face the inevitable repurcussions.

We all have our fantasies.

[El Guapo]

Yeah I think the "real" goal is to show the world chemical strikes will be met with retaliation, regardless if it actually prevents Assad from using them again. We've got to at least keep up a token appearance that the rules of war we agreed to are being enforced.

Yep, the trick is to give him a bloody nose and a black eye without knocking him out -- which nobody except El Guapo wants.

Well, me, McCain, and Lindsey Graham.

Honestly I don't see many good reasons to leave Assad in power if we have any choice about it. Syrian foreign policy is already 100% aligned against the U.S. and Israel. Worst case scenario is the new guys do the same thing, only with different verbiage.

[Carpet_pissr]

Yeah I think the "real" goal is to show the world chemical strikes will be met with retaliation, regardless if it actually prevents Assad from using them again. We've got to at least keep up a token appearance that the rules of war we agreed to are being enforced.

Yep, the trick is to give him a bloody nose and a black eye without knocking him out -- which nobody except El Guapo wants.

Well, me, McCain, and Lindsey Graham.

Honestly I don't see many good reasons to leave Assad in power if we have any choice about it. Syrian foreign policy is already 100% aligned against the U.S. and Israel. Worst case scenario is the new guys do the same thing, only with different verbiage.

You can save some typing in the future by just using "Johnsey McGraham", as Graham is so far up McCain's ass, he is no longer recognizable as a separate being.

[Rip]

Yeah I think the "real" goal is to show the world chemical strikes will be met with retaliation, regardless if it actually prevents Assad from using them again. We've got to at least keep up a token appearance that the rules of war we agreed to are being enforced.

Yep, the trick is to give him a bloody nose and a black eye without knocking him out -- which nobody except El Guapo wants.

Well, me, McCain, and Lindsey Graham.

Honestly I don't see many good reasons to leave Assad in power if we have any choice about it. Syrian foreign policy is already 100% aligned against the U.S. and Israel. Worst case scenario is the new guys do the same thing, only with different verbiage.

I would prefer this over as Jon Stewart calls it "Just the Tip" strategy. If it is outrageous enough to justify an attack it is enough to knock his(the regime's) ass out. I don't believe in fire for effect military doctrine, it is foolish.

[El Guapo]

Yeah I think the "real" goal is to show the world chemical strikes will be met with retaliation, regardless if it actually prevents Assad from using them again. We've got to at least keep up a token appearance that the rules of war we agreed to are being enforced.

Yep, the trick is to give him a bloody nose and a black eye without knocking him out -- which nobody except El Guapo wants.

Well, me, McCain, and Lindsey Graham.

Honestly I don't see many good reasons to leave Assad in power if we have any choice about it. Syrian foreign policy is already 100% aligned against the U.S. and Israel. Worst case scenario is the new guys do the same thing, only with different verbiage.

I would prefer this over as Jon Stewart calls it "Just the Tip" strategy. If it is outrageous enough to justify an attack it is enough to knock his(the regime's) ass out. I don't believe in fire for effect military doctrine, it is foolish.

Yeah I agree with this. On top of that I find it extremely troubling that the administration's stated goal is to end the war via "negotiated settlement". The two sides are in a mortal conflict at this point - either Assad stays or he goes, and he's only going if he is removed by force, especially after committing all the war crimes he has over the past two years. A settlement would only be window dressing to a surrender by one side.

Given that, I have to conclude that the administration is fine with leaving Assad in power but doesn't want to say so. Either that or they are crazy naive. And I'm not happy about either option.

[LawBeefaroni]

Yeah I think the "real" goal is to show the world chemical strikes will be met with retaliation, regardless if it actually prevents Assad from using them again. We've got to at least keep up a token appearance that the rules of war we agreed to are being enforced.

The notion that one sort of weapon underwrites a response more than carnage itself seems somewhat specious. The 'special wrongness' of chemical weapons is also rather dubious as John Glaser points out in his Washington Times piece, though a case could perhaps be made that superpowers like the US ought to do what they can to stop the slaughter of innocents.

But given the inherent risks involved, that are likely to be compounded massively by regional and global politics involving Iran, Jordan, Russia, Israel, and European countries, it would seem trickier to explain how American intervention will not ultimately lead to more problems than even the most surgical of military strikes might solve, e.g. from the aforementioned article:

The potential for U.S. intervention to make the humanitarian and the strategic situation in Syria exponentially worse is very high.

“The use of force, especially in circumstances where ethnic and religious factors dominate is unlikely to produce predictable outcomes,” Gen. Martin Dempsey told Congress in April, adding that “unintended consequences are the rule with military interventions of this sort.”

In the same Senate hearing, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said “military intervention at this point could hinder humanitarian relief operations. It could embroil the United States in a significant, lengthy, and uncertain military commitment.”

“American involvement,” wrote former Carter national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski in May, “would simply mobilize the most extreme elements of [the rebels] against the U.S. and pose the danger that the conflict would spill over into the neighborhood and set Jordan, Iraq and Lebanon on fire.”

Intervention, Brzezinski added, “would simply make the situation worse. None of the proposals would result in an outcome strategically beneficial for the U.S. On the contrary, they would produce a more complex, undefined slide into the worst-case scenario.”

Shouldn't that be weighed against the importance of keeping up (token) appearances?

Glaser keeps talking about intervention. That may be on the table in some circles but it's not to be confused with punishment, which is entirely different. Invervention is for the civil war. Punishment is for the specific use of chemical weapons. They do not have to be dependent on each other. The rest of his piece is a bunch of strawmen and non-sequiturs about chemical weapons (effectiveness of mustard gas in 1918, manually dismantling weapons would require 75,000 troops on the ground, etc).


As for the "special wrongness" of chemical weapons, it is not a fallacy. They kill indiscriminately, they are non-recallable, they have lasting biological and environmental effects, and, most importantly, they are WMDs. WMDs in the truest sense of the word, in that they allow a handful of individuals, or a even a single individual, to kill thousands or tens of thousands. It's not about kill counts compared to other weapons used by the Syrian regime. It's about the used of chemical agents as a banned and prohibited weapon.



As for the whole Syria debate, the tottom line is this.
"Do we seek punitive action for use of Sarin gas?" and "Do we intervene in the civil war?" are two completely seperate questions. You can say no to one and yes to the other, yes to both, or no to both. But once again the national debate is reduced to a binary decision, this time centered around some kind of hypothetical "intervention" and colored by already-entrenched biases on how to handle the region.