Syria - civil war incoming?

[Eco-Logic]

I haven't been involved in this conversation at all, but I can't help but state that the US has showed no leadership at all in its handling of this situation and the US response from all sides of the isle has been embarrassing.

[Rip]

March 1988: Over the span of two days in March, the ethnic Kurd city of Halabja in northern Iraq (population 70,000) was bombarded with chemical and cluster bombs, which included sarin, in the Halabja poison gas attack. An estimated 5,000 people died.

April 1988: Sarin was used four times against Iranian soldiers in April 1988 at the end of the Iran–Iraq War, helping Iraqi forces to retake control of the al-Faw Peninsula during the Second Battle of al-Faw. Using satellite imagery, the United States assisted Iraqi forces in locating the position of the Iranian troops during those attacks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarin

[El Guapo]

I haven't been involved in this conversation at all, but I can't help but state that the US has showed no leadership at all in its handling of this situation and the US response from all sides of the isle has been embarrassing.

Aisle.

[YellowKing]

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

Sure. But I'm not the one making the decision. I trust that the people who are making the decision know what they're doing.

Personally I think the danger of nations being given carte blanche to use chemical weapons is far greater than the danger of violence spilling over into the rest of the Middle East. Every time we do something over there the talking heads say we're going to ignite World War 3.

As much as they like to talk about it, none of those nations truly wants to start a war with Israel and the US. Assad will take his lumps. If he was actually serious about starting a war, he'd have retaliated against Israel on the numerous occasions they entered Syrian airspace.

[El Guapo]

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

Sure. But I'm not the one making the decision. I trust that the people who are making the decision know what they're doing.

Personally I think the danger of nations being given carte blanche to use chemical weapons is far greater than the danger of violence spilling over into the rest of the Middle East. Every time we do something over there the talking heads say we're going to ignite World War 3.

As much as they like to talk about it, none of those nations truly wants to start a war with Israel and the US. Assad will take his lumps. If he was actually serious about starting a war, he'd have retaliated against Israel on the numerous occasions they entered Syrian airspace.

They didn't just enter Syrian airspace, they dropped bombs on Syrian targets. That's a pretty solid casus belli were Assad inclined to take it.

[Daehawk]

Why are we the world's police force? Is Syria part of NATO or something? And why should we intervene in a sovereign country's civil war? Would we want the same to happen if we had another one?

We have no business sticking our noses in.

[Isgrimnur]

Both sides in our Civil War weren't shy about asking for help from the Brits and the French.

[LawBeefaroni]

March 1988: Over the span of two days in March, the ethnic Kurd city of Halabja in northern Iraq (population 70,000) was bombarded with chemical and cluster bombs, which included sarin, in the Halabja poison gas attack. An estimated 5,000 people died.

April 1988: Sarin was used four times against Iranian soldiers in April 1988 at the end of the Iran–Iraq War, helping Iraqi forces to retake control of the al-Faw Peninsula during the Second Battle of al-Faw. Using satellite imagery, the United States assisted Iraqi forces in locating the position of the Iranian troops during those attacks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarin

Yes, this was brought up many times in the Iraq war runup. I think even here, for rounds 2 and/or 3. And the fact that the US was an Iraqi ally at the time of the gas attacks did not go unnoticed.

Here. Go nuts. History is a bitch.


Funny story. Back in 1988 I was 15. I listened to Skinny Puppy's song about it. Then I went to the library and spend about 2 hours reading back newspapers. When I got home my dad said, "That shit-music will make you stupid." I unloaded on him about Hussein and Hezbollah until he went crosseyed. I told him I got it from one of their songs. He still called it "shit-music" but never again said it would make me stupid. Instead I think he muttered something about it taking away my innocence.

[El Guapo]

Why are we the world's police force? Is Syria part of NATO or something? And why should we intervene in a sovereign country's civil war? Would we want the same to happen if we had another one?

We have no business sticking our noses in.

The outcome of the civil war involves clear United States interests, whatever you think of what we ought to do. There is a very strong selfish interest in intervening, so it's not just a charitable endeavor (though there's obviously a strong "it's the right thing to do" argument as well).

[LawBeefaroni]

I haven't been involved in this conversation at all, but I can't help but state that the US has showed no leadership at all in its handling of this situation and the US response from all sides of the isle has been embarrassing.

Aisle.

This is my favorite common misspell. I truely wish they were all on both sides of an isle. Preferably a desert one.

[Eco-Logic]

I haven't been involved in this conversation at all, but I can't help but state that the US has showed no leadership at all in its handling of this situation and the US response from all sides of the isle has been embarrassing.

Aisle.

This is my favorite common misspell. I truely wish they were all on both sides of an isle. Preferably a desert one.

Exactly, and point taken as well.

[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.

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.

Worst-case scenario is prolonged anarchy with Assad's arsenal up for grabs -- "the rebels" are not a united group. The idea behind leaving Assad in power is that you at least have a state to negotiate with.

[Anonymous Bosch]

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.

So the theoretical death toll of such WMDs trumps the actual death toll from Assad's more conventional weapons like cluster bombs and fuel-air bombs?

Sorry, but I still find the notion that one sort of weapon underwrites a response moreso than carnage itself to be questionable. Even assuming such weapons were used by the Assad regime, the case for treating poison gas as qualitatively different than far more deadly conventional weapons hardly seems clear, as the ForeignAffairs.com piece cited by Glaser points out:

The notion that killing with gas is more reprehensible than killing with bullets or shrapnel came out of World War I, in which chemical weapons, introduced by the Germans in 1915, were used extensively. The British emphasized the weapons’ inhumane aspects as part of their ongoing program to entice the United States into taking their side in the war. It is estimated that the British quintupled their gas casualty figures from the first German attack for dramatic effect.

As it happened, chemical weapons accounted for considerably less than one percent of the battle deaths in the war, and, on average, it took over a ton of gas to produce a single fatality. Only about two or three percent of those gassed on the Western front died. By contrast, wounds from a traditional weapon proved 10 to 12 times more likely to be fatal.

The specific use of "WMDs" in question have at most killed a tiny fraction of people in the particular conflict we're considering inserting ourselves into punishing. Why should weapons that have at most killed a tiny fraction of people in a Syrian civil war be more of a trigger for action than the 100,000 or so Assad killed using more conventional bombs and the like? The Oatmeal illustrates this rather nicely:

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.

That would seem to conveniently ignore the difficulties of predicting precisely where things will end up once the first 'punishment projectile' has been fired.

[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.

Worst-case scenario is prolonged anarchy with Assad's arsenal up for grabs -- "the rebels" are not a united group. The idea behind leaving Assad in power is that you at least have a state to negotiate with.

I agree that anarchy is the worst case scenario, but what exactly have we seen the past couple years if not anarchy? Seems like that's at least as likely if we do nothing.

Also, as I said Assad has consistently opposed U.S. foreign policy for years. What value has he demonstrated as a negotiating partner?

[Exodor]

The outcome of the civil war involves clear United States interests, whatever you think of what we ought to do.

How does it serve our interest to have Syria controlled by Islamists or to have the country descend into Iraq-style sectarian infighting after Assad is deposed?

It sucks for the Syrian people but as long as the conflict is contained within their borders I don't see how it's our problem.

[LawBeefaroni]

So the theoretical death toll of such WMDs trumps the actual death toll from Assad's more conventional weapons like cluster bombs and fuel-air bombs?

No, because it isn't about death tolls. There isn't a prohibition against conventional weapons. There is against chemical weapons. Now if there's a problem with that, fine. You can Glaser would benefit humanity ridding the world of every last AK-47 and 500lb HEP bomb and .556 round. Accepting one evil doesn't mean you have to ignore another. And if one is explicitly forbidden, you are actually compelled to deal with it.

Sorry, but I still find the notion that one sort of weapon underwrites a response moreso than carnage itself to be questionable. Even assuming such weapons were used by the Assad regime, the case for treating poison gas as qualitatively different than far more deadly conventional weapons hardly seems clear, as the ForeignAffairs.com piece cited by Glaser points out:

The notion that killing with gas is more reprehensible than killing with bullets or shrapnel came out of World War I, in which chemical weapons, introduced by the Germans in 1915, were used extensively. The British emphasized the weapons’ inhumane aspects as part of their ongoing program to entice the United States into taking their side in the war. It is estimated that the British quintupled their gas casualty figures from the first German attack for dramatic effect.

As it happened, chemical weapons accounted for considerably less than one percent of the battle deaths in the war, and, on average, it took over a ton of gas to produce a single fatality. Only about two or three percent of those gassed on the Western front died. By contrast, wounds from a traditional weapon proved 10 to 12 times more likely to be fatal.

Yeah, I alluded to that nonsense earlier. Mustard gas ca. 1918 isn't the same as sarin gas ca. 2013. It's like saying we shouldn't be concerned about conventional weapons either because Maxim machine guns had limited range and accuracy, tanks were extemely slow moving an unreliable, and aerial bombardment was a crapshoot at best. He's right about embelishment by the British to garner sympathy but a ton of sarin gas would make a ton of mustard gas look like a so much steam in comparison. A few hundred pounds of sarin, or less depending on dispersal methods, can product 100% casualties in a 1000 square foot area.

This is about enforcement of an international standard. The potential for chemical (and biological weapons) is far greater than any conventional threat and thus must be held to a different standard regardless of the body count in any particular conflict, including Syria.

The specific use of "WMDs" in question have at most killed a tiny fraction of people in the particular conflict we're considering inserting ourselves into punishing. Why should weapons that have at most killed a tiny fraction of people in a Syrian civil war be more of a trigger for action than the 100,000 or so Assad killed using more conventional bombs and the like? The Oatmeal illustrates this rather nicely:

Name a conflict that the US has been involved in and 99% of the time I bet you could repanel that just by changing the names and numbers. I'm not ignoring what the regime had done prior to the use of chemical weapons. The difference is we don't have a mandate to punish them for those actions. We do for their use of chemical weapons.

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.

That would seem to conveniently ignore the difficulties of predicting precisely where things will end up once the first 'punishment projectile' has been fired.[/quote]
Well then maybe that's where the debate should lie, not in whether killing by a bullet or a nerve agent is worse. That's the strawman.

[El Guapo]

The outcome of the civil war involves clear United States interests, whatever you think of what we ought to do.

How does it serve our interest to have Syria controlled by Islamists or to have the country descend into Iraq-style sectarian infighting after Assad is deposed?

It sucks for the Syrian people but as long as the conflict is contained within their borders I don't see how it's our problem.

Obviously it doesn't serve our interests for an intervention to fail. If we think those are the probable outcomes then we should obviously not intervene. I could just as easily ask: how does it serve our interests to see a dictatorial enemy of the United States crush his internal opposition, or to see rebels succeed in overthrowing him without our help and then resent us for deserting them in their hour of need?

So, putting it in objective terms, the following United States interests are involved: (1) The Syrian government currently gives immense material support to anti-U.S. and anti-Israel terrorist organizations, including Hezbollah; (2) The Syrian government is openly allied with Iran, which acts in open opposition to U.S. policy throughout the region (and which maintains a nuclear program that the U.S. is opposed to); (3) Syria has no peace treaty with Israel, and has not been a positive force in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; (4) Syria has supported anti-U.S. and anti-Iraqi government insurgents in Iraq; (5) if the rebels triumph, they are more likely to be pro-U.S. if we help them (both because they'll like us more, and because we can selectively aid pro-U.S. elements more).

The conflict is not the most important issue impacting U.S. interests, but it absolutely involves U.S. interests. Like I said, that U.S. interests are implicated does not mean that it is necessarily a good idea to intervene (the how is at least as important as the why), but this matters for our self-interests.

[Daehawk]

Has that helped us any by helping Libya or Egypt?

[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.

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.

Worst-case scenario is prolonged anarchy with Assad's arsenal up for grabs -- "the rebels" are not a united group. The idea behind leaving Assad in power is that you at least have a state to negotiate with.

I agree that anarchy is the worst case scenario, but what exactly have we seen the past couple years if not anarchy? Seems like that's at least as likely if we do nothing.

Also, as I said Assad has consistently opposed U.S. foreign policy for years. What value has he demonstrated as a negotiating partner?

The US is not a party to the Syrian civil war negotiations. The best-case scenario is a negotiated solution that removes Assad from office and installs a replacement acceptable to the negotiating parties.

Yeah, it's still going to be inimical to US interests, but at least it results in a stable Syria.

Obviously it doesn't serve our interests for an intervention to fail. If we think those are the probable outcomes then we should obviously not intervene. I could just as easily ask: how does it serve our interests to see a dictatorial enemy of the United States crush his internal opposition, or to see rebels succeed in overthrowing him without our help and then resent us for deserting them in their hour of need?

The conflict is not the most important issue impacting U.S. interests, but it absolutely involves U.S. interests. Like I said, that U.S. interests are implicated does not mean that it is necessarily a good idea to intervene (the how is at least as important as the why), but this matters for our self-interests.

US interests are best served when one enemy faction is fighting other enemy factions, weakening both. This war is bleeding Iran, Russia, Al Qaeda, the Muslim Bro'hood, the Saudis, and a motley bunch of other powers that we would like to see stalemated indefinitely.

[Anonymous Bosch]

I'm not ignoring what the regime had done prior to the use of chemical weapons. The difference is we don't have a mandate to punish them for those actions. We do for their use of chemical weapons.

The U.N. Secretary-General would seem to disagree:

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has also challenged the assertion that the U.S. government has the authority to unilaterally intervene in Syria.

“The use of force is lawful only when in exercise of self-defense in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations charter and/or when the Security Council approves of such action,” said Ban, according to Reuters. “That is a firm principle of the United Nations.”

[Rip]

He then said Russia might restart Syria's suspended S-300 air defence missile contract. Describing the weapon as "very efficient", he said: "If we see that steps are taken that violate the existing international norms, we shall think how we should act in the future, in particular regarding supplies of such sensitive weapons to certain regions of the world."

The statement could also be a veiled threat to revive a contract for the delivery of the S-300s to Iran, which Russia cancelled a few years ago under strong US and Israeli pressure.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/s ... g20-summit

I'm sure that won't cause us any grief down the road......

[LawBeefaroni]

I'm not ignoring what the regime had done prior to the use of chemical weapons. The difference is we don't have a mandate to punish them for those actions. We do for their use of chemical weapons.

The U.N. Secretary-General would seem to disagree:

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has also challenged the assertion that the U.S. government has the authority to unilaterally intervene in Syria.

“The use of force is lawful only when in exercise of self-defense in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations charter and/or when the Security Council approves of such action,” said Ban, according to Reuters. “That is a firm principle of the United Nations.”

How about a little context? Ban Ki-Moon "disagrees" mainly because the Security Council hasn't approved any action because they are awaiting the results of their own report, which I think is perfectly prudent. Will they authorize strikes if they confirm claims that Syria used sarin gas (or other CW)? I'm guessing yes, although it may be too late if the US acts first. In which case Ban Ki-Moon can remain indignant until the results of their report comes back. I think I've been pretty clear in this thread that we need compelling evidence and I personally don't have the time or resources to verify so I'm taking all reports with a grain of salt but have to trust in the most sound ones.


In addition we the Geneva Protocol, the Chemical Weapons Convention, and whatever else saying we have more of a mandate to act now than when only conventional weapons were used, Ban Ki-Moon's blessing or no.

[Rip]

I'm not ignoring what the regime had done prior to the use of chemical weapons. The difference is we don't have a mandate to punish them for those actions. We do for their use of chemical weapons.

The U.N. Secretary-General would seem to disagree:

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has also challenged the assertion that the U.S. government has the authority to unilaterally intervene in Syria.

“The use of force is lawful only when in exercise of self-defense in accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations charter and/or when the Security Council approves of such action,” said Ban, according to Reuters. “That is a firm principle of the United Nations.”

How about a little context? Ban Ki-Moon "disagrees" mainly because the Security Council hasn't approved any action because they are awaiting the results of their own report, which I think is perfectly prudent. Will they authorize strikes if they confirm claims that Syria used sarin gas (or other CW)? I'm guessing yes, although it may be too late if the US acts first. In which case Ban Ki-Moon can remain indignant until the results of their report comes back. I think I've been pretty clear in this thread that we need compelling evidence and I personally don't have the time or resources to verify so I'm taking all reports with a grain of salt.


In addition we the Geneva Protocol, the Chemical Weapons Convention, and whatever else saying we have more of a mandate to act now than when only conventional weapons were used, Ban Ki-Moon's blessing or no.

If you think the security council is going to authorize action based on something in the report, you have officially gone off the deep end. It won't happen even if the report says they have proof that Bashar launched the CW personally loading each and every cannister himself.

[El Guapo]

The US is not a party to the Syrian civil war negotiations. The best-case scenario is a negotiated solution that removes Assad from office and installs a replacement acceptable to the negotiating parties.

Yeah, it's still going to be inimical to US interests, but at least it results in a stable Syria.

US interests are best served when one enemy faction is fighting other enemy factions, weakening both. This war is bleeding Iran, Russia, Al Qaeda, the Muslim Bro'hood, the Saudis, and a motley bunch of other powers that we would like to see stalemated indefinitely.

Actually, the best case scenario is that the Unicorn King blesses Syria with a thousand years of peace and prosperity. But back in the real world, Assad's not leaving office unless and until he is dragged out at gunpoint. If he had any interest in leaving office, he would have done so 50 war crimes ago. Two plus years of massacres and bloodshed means that his chances of avoiding trial and execution once out of office are nil. He ain't going nowhere voluntarily.

Second, I'd note that your intended policy is exceptionally cruel, insofar as it condemns Syria to ruinous civil war for the foreseeable future, and that's if it works as designed.

Lastly, it's also short sighted. No matter what we do, the civil war is not going to last forever. The longer it lasts, the less of Syrian civil institutions, such as they are, are left. We also lose any influence or control over who emerges. How well did the extended conflict and stalemate in Afghanistan in the 90s ultimately work out for the U.S.?

[Anonymous Bosch]

How about a little context? Ban Ki-Moon "disagrees" mainly because the Security Council hasn't approved any action because they are awaiting the results of their own report, which I think is perfectly prudent. Will they authorize strikes if they confirm claims that Syria used sarin gas (or other CW)? I'm guessing yes, although it may be too late if the US acts first. In which case Ban Ki-Moon can remain indignant until the results of their report comes back. I think I've been pretty clear in this thread that we need compelling evidence and I personally don't have the time or resources to verify so I'm taking all reports with a grain of salt.

Alas, I think you overstate the value of the UN report:

The value of the UN report is likely to be limited since the mission's mandate, agreed by the Syrian government, was to determine whether chemical weapons had been used, not by whom.

So while the UN report may or may not confirm the usage of sarin gas or other chemical weapons, it's unlikely to prove whether the weapons were launched by the Assad regime or rebel forces.

In addition we the Geneva Protocol, the Chemical Weapons Convention, and whatever else saying we have more of a mandate to act now than when only conventional weapons were used, Ban Ki-Moon's blessing or no.

You suggest the U.S. has a mandate to enforce international law. But as the Washington Times' legal analyst explains:

Assad’s illegal use of chemical weapons against his own population provides no legal justification in either international or in U.S. law for a military strike against Syria. The world recognizes only two justifications for armed intervention: self-defense, and U.N. Security Council approval.

International law requires that the United Nations Security Council approve military action. The United States, nevertheless, has acted in the past without such approval, when actions were taken to address “imminent threats” or to assist with “urgent humanitarian need.”

…which makes our supposed interest in 'upholding international law' seem somewhat disingenuous. The realpolitik has it that U.S. military intervention in Syria has two aims: to make clear that American dictates are to be taken seriously -- in this case, Obama's delineation of a red line barring chemical weapons -- and to reinforce an international agreement making such means beyond the pale. But those supposed aims would be ill-served by unilateral U.S. armed intervention against Syria absent the active assent and support of other actors around the globe, and not least the U.N.

[Rip]

The US is not a party to the Syrian civil war negotiations. The best-case scenario is a negotiated solution that removes Assad from office and installs a replacement acceptable to the negotiating parties.

Yeah, it's still going to be inimical to US interests, but at least it results in a stable Syria.

US interests are best served when one enemy faction is fighting other enemy factions, weakening both. This war is bleeding Iran, Russia, Al Qaeda, the Muslim Bro'hood, the Saudis, and a motley bunch of other powers that we would like to see stalemated indefinitely.

Actually, the best case scenario is that the Unicorn King blesses Syria with a thousand years of peace and prosperity. But back in the real world, Assad's not leaving office unless and until he is dragged out at gunpoint. If he had any interest in leaving office, he would have done so 50 war crimes ago. Two plus years of massacres and bloodshed means that his chances of avoiding trial and execution once out of office are nil. He ain't going nowhere voluntarily.

Second, I'd note that your intended policy is exceptionally cruel, insofar as it condemns Syria to ruinous civil war for the foreseeable future, and that's if it works as designed.

Lastly, it's also short sighted. No matter what we do, the civil war is not going to last forever. The longer it lasts, the less of Syrian civil institutions, such as they are, are left. We also lose any influence or control over who emerges. How well did the extended conflict and stalemate in Afghanistan in the 90s ultimately work out for the U.S.?

and it isn't just Assad, there is a full regime of people that don't know anything other than being in power. Once it falls they are as good as dead and there aren't many countries lined up offering to take them. For them this is a fight to the death. Assad is just the face of the regime and is in no more control than the president of Iran is in control.

[Kraken]

The US is not a party to the Syrian civil war negotiations. The best-case scenario is a negotiated solution that removes Assad from office and installs a replacement acceptable to the negotiating parties.

Yeah, it's still going to be inimical to US interests, but at least it results in a stable Syria.

US interests are best served when one enemy faction is fighting other enemy factions, weakening both. This war is bleeding Iran, Russia, Al Qaeda, the Muslim Bro'hood, the Saudis, and a motley bunch of other powers that we would like to see stalemated indefinitely.

Actually, the best case scenario is that the Unicorn King blesses Syria with a thousand years of peace and prosperity. But back in the real world, Assad's not leaving office unless and until he is dragged out at gunpoint. If he had any interest in leaving office, he would have done so 50 war crimes ago. Two plus years of massacres and bloodshed means that his chances of avoiding trial and execution once out of office are nil. He ain't going nowhere voluntarily.

Second, I'd note that your intended policy is exceptionally cruel, insofar as it condemns Syria to ruinous civil war for the foreseeable future, and that's if it works as designed.

Lastly, it's also short sighted. No matter what we do, the civil war is not going to last forever. The longer it lasts, the less of Syrian civil institutions, such as they are, are left. We also lose any influence or control over who emerges. How well did the extended conflict and stalemate in Afghanistan in the 90s ultimately work out for the U.S.?

Of course Assad will go involuntarily. I didn't mean that he will agree to his own departure. That will be a chit for his handlers to offer up.

Now here's an interesting angle, speculative though it be.

As opponents of a strike against Syria scramble to find alternative avenues for a peaceful solution, there is one murky diplomatic route, rarely mentioned, which now seems more necessary than ever to explore: talking to Iran.

Contrary to conventional wisdom, Iran’s support for Bashar al-Assad is neither unconditional nor everlasting. Despite having assisted the Assad regime from the beginning of the conflict with weapons and personnel, the war in Syria has not strengthened Iran, which likely wants to get out of the Syrian quagmire as soon as possible -- if it can do so with some influence in Syria intact.

...

In fact, there are plenty of reasons Iran might have already cut Assad loose, were it not for the fact that Syria is Iran’s most important regional ally.

But that relationship is changing. The fall of Saddam Hussein has paved the way for much friendlier relations between Iran and Iraq and rendered Syria less vital for Iran than it used to be.

So there is a good chance that Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei would be willing to “cut the head off the snake” in Damascus and keep the body. Assad is not as important for Tehran, as is ensuring that Syria’s power structure is friendly to Iran’s interests. Aware that a negotiated solution is the only way to achieve that, Iran has long called for political reforms in Syria.

As statements from the past weeks show, Washington and Tehran are closer to each other than many might think. On its side, Iran gave full support to the UN probe into the alleged chemical attacks.

Perhaps a negotiated exit for Assad is closer than you think if his masters are losing patience with him.

The civil war doesn't have to last forever, only long enough to convince both sides that victory is impossible. Inasmuch as the momentum has favored Assad for the past few months, maybe a US strike is a necessary balancer.

If you crush his regime and let the insurgents run a victory lap, though, Syria will for all intents and purposes cease to exist. It will break down into feuding ethnic and religious groups, none of them in control. There's your "ruinous civil war for the foreseeable future". If you want to avoid that, the state has to endure -- without Assad.

I am more interested in the geopolitics than in humanitarian concerns, but the latter flow from the former.

[Rip]

If you subscibe to the thought that Iran is his master. The masters are within Syria and have ruled it for a very long time for a reason.

To think a few missles will topple them is foolhardy. But we will probably be able to reflect on that before the month is over.

[Carpet_pissr]

If you subscibe to the thought that Iran is his master. The masters are within Syria and have ruled it for a very long time for a reason.

To think a few missles will topple them is foolhardy. But we will probably be able to reflect on that before the month is over.

I don't think ANYone is saying a few missiles will topple the regime.

[Kraken]

I saw an attractive proposal: The US should take out Syria's air defenses. Apparently Assad has invested heavily in, and is proud of, an elaborate antiaircraft system. The US could wreak havoc on that with cruise missiles at very little risk. Assad would take it personally and find it hard to rebuild, but the balance of power on the ground would be unaltered since the rebels have no air force. Meanwhile Syria becomes more vulnerable to somebody who does have an air force, should they decide to use it.

I don't know how realistic that is militarily but it sounds tempting.

[Isgrimnur]

Given that the Syrian Air Defense Force is all Russian equipment, I'm sure the Russians would love to sell it to them all over again.

[El Guapo]

Perhaps a negotiated exit for Assad is closer than you think if his masters are losing patience with him.

The civil war doesn't have to last forever, only long enough to convince both sides that victory is impossible. Inasmuch as the momentum has favored Assad for the past few months, maybe a US strike is a necessary balancer.

If you crush his regime and let the insurgents run a victory lap, though, Syria will for all intents and purposes cease to exist. It will break down into feuding ethnic and religious groups, none of them in control. There's your "ruinous civil war for the foreseeable future". If you want to avoid that, the state has to endure -- without Assad.

I am more interested in the geopolitics than in humanitarian concerns, but the latter flow from the former.

Calling Iran Assad's masters is way overstating that relationship. Iran is Syria's ally, and is the stronger partner, but isn't anywhere close to being a patron state. Iran withdrawing its support would weaken Assad, but they're not capable of ending him by doing so.

As for victory being impossible, no stalemate is ever going to convince Assad to leave. Leaving will almost certainly mean his death. He is not going to do that. If a stalemate happens, he'll just keep fighting and ruling whatever part of Syria is under his control. So again, nothing in the civil war is going to convince him to leave, or to negotiate his departure.

If Assad is ousted by an underling (a coup, basically) a negotiated resolution becomes feasible, because the new regime may have less blood on their hands and would get some credit for ousting Assad, so they could plausibly give up power without getting executed. But there's nothing to negotiate before that happens. The U.S. may be covertly courting Assad people to try to convince someone to do that, but short of that there's nothing to talk about.

Lastly, why are you so sure that Syria will break up along ethnic lines if the rebels win? That hasn't happened in Libya yet, for example (things aren't settled there, but it's not breaking up along ethnic / religious lines). And Syria's not all that diverse - it's over 90% Arab, and over 60% Sunni. Not exactly ethniclashistan. And what reason is there to believe that post-victory rebel infighting will be worse and less stable than a protracted Assad - rebel stalemate?

[Kraken]

As for victory being impossible, no stalemate is ever going to convince Assad to leave. Leaving will almost certainly mean his death. He is not going to do that. If a stalemate happens, he'll just keep fighting and ruling whatever part of Syria is under his control. So again, nothing in the civil war is going to convince him to leave, or to negotiate his departure.

Again, it is not going to be his decision. We keep talking past one another on this point. Every endgame short of outright victory for Assad -- which appears impossible -- ends with Assad's departure. The questions are when and under what terms, and (most important) what he leaves behind. Those questions will be decided by the Iranians, the Russians, and dissident Syrians, possibly with the Americans stirring the pot.

Assad has no friends in the region other than Iran and his Allawite tribesmen.

Lastly, why are you so sure that Syria will break up along ethnic lines if the rebels win? That hasn't happened in Libya yet, for example (things aren't settled there, but it's not breaking up along ethnic / religious lines). And Syria's not all that diverse - it's over 90% Arab, and over 60% Sunni. Not exactly ethniclashistan. And what reason is there to believe that post-victory rebel infighting will be worse and less stable than a protracted Assad - rebel stalemate?

Because it's already happening, and because Syria is a regional keystone. Everybody's got fingers in that pie. Look at all the pretty colors!

Ethnic and linguistic breakdowns are just one part of Syria’s complexity, of course. But they are a really important part. The country’s largest group is shown in yellow, signifying ethnic Arabs who follow Sunni Islam, the largest sect of Islam. Shades of brown indicate ethnic Kurds, long oppressed in Syria, who have taken up arms against the regime. There are also Druze, a religious sect, Arab Christians, ethnic Armenians and others.

...

The first is what you might call the Fareed Zakaria case for why Syria is imploding (he didn’t invent this argument but is a major proponent). Zakaria starts with the premise that Syria, like many other Middle Eastern (and African) countries, has highly artificial borders that were created by European colonial powers. Those powers also tended to promote a minority and rule through it. This tactic badly exacerbated some preexisting sectarian tensions. It also forced countries into unsustainable power imbalances, with minorities ruling over majorities. That’s not actually how Assad came into power — his father seized it in a coup — but Zakaria’s thesis is that what we’re seeing in Syria is in some ways the inevitable re-balancing of power along ethnic and religious lines, with the Sunni Arab majority retaking control from the Alawite minority. He compares the situation to post-2003 Iraq, when members of the Shiite majority violently took power from the Sunni minority that, under Saddam Hussein, had ruled them. That would explain why so much of the killing in Syria has been along sectarian lines. It would also suggest that there’s not much anyone can do to end the killing because, in his view, this is a painful but unstoppable process.

The other way to look at this is that it’s a war first and a sectarian conflict second. Religious and ethnic antagonisms have been around for many, many generations in the Levant, including Syria. Maybe what’s happening is that the war began for political reasons — people protesting dictatorship, the dictatorship overreaching in suppressing those protests by force, things spiraling out of control until it’s civil war — but that the fighting is causing people to retreat to sectarian identities and antagonisms, to make the old divisions deeper and more vicious. Sectarian conflict, after all, can have its own self-reinforcing logic: Alawites are bonding together in part because they fear, not without reason, that they’ll be slaughtered in Sunni revenge killings if Assad loses. Sunnis see Alawite militias forming and thus perceive all Alawites as their enemies, so they start attacking members of that religious sect, which makes other Alawites more likely to form in-group militias. And on.

[El Guapo]

Really? Because that map has a whole lot of yellow (Sunni Arab) on it. Basically what it shows is the vast majority of the country is Sunni Arab, with three minority pockets - Kurdish regions in the north, a small Druze region in the southwest, and a mixed region along the coast. Yeah, there's a sectarian element that's a legacy of colonialism - specifically, that the French empowered the Alawite minority, that the Alawites are consequently disliked by everyone else, and that the Alawites reasonably fear sectarian reprisal if Assad falls. But that's not to say that the post-civil war Syria is a war of all against all. What Zakaria is saying (per the summary you posted) is not that Syria is going to descend into anarchy, it's that power is violently transferring from the ruling minority (alawites) to the majority (Sunni Arabs), with potentially catastrophic consequences for the Alawite minority.

Also, an Assad victory is very much still a possibility, absent a Western intervention. Most accounts of the Civil War are that Assad has the military momentum, is retaking rebel held areas, and that the rebel movement is fracturing. Assad winning may even be the most likely result at this point absent foreign powers tipping the scale. So no, it's not a question of when Assad leaves at this point. *Whether* Assad leaves, and if he does leave then when he does, are going to be decided militarily, either by Assad winning, by the rebels winning, or by a foreign intervention.

[Kraken]

But that's not to say that the post-civil war Syria is a war of all against all. What Zakaria is saying (per the summary you posted) is not that Syria is going to descend into anarchy, it's that power is violently transferring from the ruling minority (alawites) to the majority (Sunni Arabs), with potentially catastrophic consequences for the Alawite minority.

That assumes that a central government endures for the sects to fight over. Maybe it will, but I think a power vacuum is likely if the government falls with Assad. Al Qaeda and other bad actors will surge into that opening as Syria's colonial-era borders cease to matter. Are the rebel groups all Sunnis fighting Alawites? How many different agendas do they represent? (I honestly don't know, but am under the impression that it's a smorgasboard.)

Also, an Assad victory is very much still a possibility, absent a Western intervention. Most accounts of the Civil War are that Assad has the military momentum, is retaking rebel held areas, and that the rebel movement is fracturing. Assad winning may even be the most likely result at this point absent foreign powers tipping the scale. So no, it's not a question of when Assad leaves at this point. *Whether* Assad leaves, and if he does leave then when he does, are going to be decided militarily, either by Assad winning, by the rebels winning, or by a foreign intervention.

What would an Assad victory look like? A permanent armed camp? At best, the rebels will morph from an organized fighting force into an Iraq-style insurgency.

Since you would like to see Assad toppled, let me ask you how you think that would work out.

[LawBeefaroni]

If you think the security council is going to authorize action based on something in the report, you have officially gone off the deep end. It won't happen even if the report says they have proof that Bashar launched the CW personally loading each and every cannister himself.

How so exactly? I'm not saying it's a sure thing but I'm saying it's a possibility.

Russia is one of the staunchest opponents on the Security Council:

Russian President Vladimir Putin warned the United States and its allies against unilateral action against Syria on Wednesday – but said he “doesn’t exclude” backing a U.N. resolution if evidence proved the use of poison gas against civilians.

That's not a ringing endorsement but how am I off the deep end? I think it's pretty much accepted that if there is evidence the UN Security Council would back action. The problem is timing (Obama wants to act sooner, the UN says wait) and the preponderance of evidence. Not lack of combined will to act if Syria did indeed use chemical weapons against civilians.

[Lagom Lite]

My 2c: A US attack on Syria under the current premises is not in accordance with international law. That's not to say such an attack would be immoral. I'd prefer to give the UN another chance though. Like stated above, Putin has actually come out and said he would back a UN resolution if the use of chemical weapons could be proven.

Now, I don't think Obama will care about the security council. There's an international deadlock on Syria, and people are dying in there. But I still think USA/NATO going in alone is a bad idea. Remember Iraq?

[Carpet_pissr]

What is the problem with presenting the proof that Putin as asking for?

[LordMortis]

My 2c: A US attack on Syria under the current premises is not in accordance with international law. That's not to say such an attack would be immoral. I'd prefer to give the UN another chance though. Like stated above, Putin has actually come out and said he would back a UN resolution if the use of chemical weapons could be proven.

Now, I don't think Obama will care about the security council. There's an international deadlock on Syria, and people are dying in there. But I still think USA/NATO going in alone is a bad idea. Remember Iraq?

As much I believe the US should be no tool of the UN, the idea of going all Shock and Awe again about WMDs again without UN backing again and without providing proof again is beyond ridiculous. It's out and out DC's way of laughing at the American people who elected them. Telling them exactly how little the electorate matters.



BTW, if I recall correctly Shock and Awe "to disarm Iraq of Weapons of Mass Destruction" was supposed to last 21 days. I have no idea how long Bush actually originally asked for troops, 90 days is probably about right.


http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/educate/ ... rticle.htm" target="_blank

* March 16, Vice President Cheney, on NBC's Meet the Press: "I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators. . . . I think it will go relatively quickly, . . . (in) weeks rather than months." He predicted that regular Iraqi soldiers would not "put up such a struggle" and that even "significant elements of the Republican Guard . . . are likely to step aside."

The war begins

* March 20, President Bush, in an Oval Office speech to the nation: "A campaign on the harsh terrain of a nation as large as California could be longer and more difficult than some predict."

Thank goodness this administration is so against the failed policies of the Bush administration.

[Lagom Lite]

As much I believe the US should be no tool of the UN

I don't think anyone wants that. The whole point of this becoming a UN thing is to give legitimacy to any action, military or otherwise. It would be a joint venture between many nations, not just the US w/friends.

One of the biggest problems I see with the US going in alone is that it sets a dangerous precedent for the other major powers to do the same. Maybe the Chinese will claim that their intelligence service have evidence that a pesky neighbor has chemical weapons, so they'd be justified to invade. Every time USA go off fighting wars by itself, the principle of international law is weakened. And that's dangerous.