So what do we do? Is this issue clear cut?
There are those who say we aren’t the world police. There are those who think we should mind our own business. Other people feel the use of chemical weapons violates the most basic of all international values.
Right now, depending on you listen to and on who you believe, it appears that the United States and its allies are preparing for a strike on Syria. The objective remains unclear to the public right now.
I have mixed emotions. The use of chemical weapons on a military or a civilian population is deplorable. (couldn’t the same argument be made for bombs?) The use of chemical weapons crosses the line that the United States and its allies will tolerate. On the other hand, can we afford to be the world’s police? Probably not.
Our efforts in Libya as part of an international team certainly were successful, despite much weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth by many conservatives. Would we be so lucky with Syria? How about the allies? UK, France, Germany and who else?
I wouldn’t count on any fireworks yet. It’s hard to decide who is friend and who is foe in that civil war. We don’t want to end up being our own enemy on this one.
What do you think?
I can’t do better than this.
http://cdrsalamander.blogspot.com/2013/08/syria-subjective-desires-fed-by.html
__________________________________________________________
On Syria, here are 14 points that need to be pondered a lot more than they are. I think in may ways we Westerners are misreading what is going on in Syria – something I reviewed in the free-swim portion of Midrats Sunday.
1. Bashar is the second son whose oldest brother was to be next in line until died in a car accident in ’94. Bashar was a mild-mannered ophthalmologist and had less than 7-yrs to transition from a London eye doctor to head of a government.
2. Bashar is the leader of a family who has seen two of his brothers die prematurely in accidents and a brother in law killed in a civil war. His only surviving brother is the head of the Republican Guard and a survivor of a previous assassination attempt.
3. He is a member of a small Shi’ite sect who are not even seen as Muslims by Sunni fundamentalists. They are hated by most Syrians for the preferential treatment they have received for over 40 years. He knows if he does not hold power, Alawites will be slaughtered wholesale. His tribe does not have the best reputation either.
4. He has no options for him, his family, his tribe and his co-religionists other than victory.
5. He is of no serious threat to his neighbors and is focused on one thing; survival.
6. Some focus on taking out his “offensive power” – most of which is on paper only. Even if he had the ability, he has nothing to gain by attacking Western naval and air targets when his capital is infested with insurgents. He gains nothing from attacking his neighbor to the south. He gains nothing from attacking British bases in Cyprus.
7. What he needs are three things; time, Russia & Iran. Giving the West an excuse to attack him buys him nothing.
8. Always ask, “Who gains?” Small uses of gas helpful at the Tactical level? No. Useful at the Operational level? No. From a Strategic or Political level, does his use of gas produce any positive effects? No; for him.
9. If the international community thinks that Assad used poison gas, who gains positive Political and Strategic effects? The anti-Assad forces.
10. If Assad falls, who gets possession of all of Syria’s poison gas stockpiles? The anti-Assad forces.
11. Who in the anti-Assad forces has the most military power to keep and control the gas? Al-Qaeda affiliated groups.
12. Who has the most to gain from Assad’s use of gas? Al-Qaeda.
13. What is one weapon-set Al-Qaeda has wanted to use against the West since even before 9/11? WMD; chemical, biological, or nuclear.
14. What is the #1 target of Al-Qaeda if they had WMD? The West in general, USA specifically.
So, if we contribute to the fall of Assad, we are giving our enemy the weapons they want to kill thousands of OUR people.
If that is the case – is it in our national interest to see Assad survive? Yes.
Is that pretty? No.
Which is worse, thousands of dead Sunnis or thousands of dead Shi’ite & Christians? They are all bad … but none of them are worse than thousands to tens of thousands of dead Americans gassed in subways in 2016.
_______________________________________________________________________
As a former intel specialist, and as a life long follower of international relations, defense, tactics, and geopolitical strategy…..
I don’t see Assad wasting WMD assets on a suburban neighborhood.
The UN reported back in May that the rebels had WMD and they threatened to use it.
If Assad used it…he gains only more enemies with no tactical or strategic gain at all.
If the rebels used it and Assad is blamed….. they gain western allies.
Furthermore, the president has not contacted Congress nor the UN nor the American people to put his case for using US forces in Syria. From The Hill: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/319167-official-white-house-seeks-syria-response-just-muscular-enough-not-to-get-mocked
A U.S. official briefed on the military options being considered by President Obama told the Los Angeles Times that the White House is seeking a strike on Syria “just muscular enough not to get mocked.”
“They are looking at what is just enough to mean something, just enough to be more than symbolic,” the official told the paper, giving credence to similar reports describing a limited military strike in the aftermath of last week’s alleged chemical weapons attack.
So…limited missile strikes? And for use of gas within sovereign boundaries? If we haven’t intervened because Assad has DEFINITELY killed 50,000+ people including civilians, why are we intervening because of these 300+? Because of gas? We already know that he has WMD? Either nations are allowed to have it or they are not? Would we attack Russia if they had used gas on the Chechens? Actually, Russia did use gas…or at least chemicals, in Afghanistan. Or China if they had used gas internally? If not then, why do we have the right to do so here?
France has stated that they will do something. Let them. We’ll sell them gas to get there.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/28/opinion/bomb-syria-even-if-it-is-illegal.html?_r=1&
Funny…. I don’t remember them being this supportive of doing the same to Iraq.
I don’t think this situation would be shock and awe. From what I am reading, it would be air strikes on certain places, not full fledged war.
Here’s another point.
If Assad DIDN”T use gas…and we bomb him, he has no incentive NOT to use gas.
Its not like its hard to get. OR hide.
@Cargosquid
it is an OP-ED Contributor – very different from being on the front page.
we are in a dilemma – very similar to where we were with Libya – if we help the insurgency take out the leader – who are we helping to lead. There were some – here on this very blog – that were happy to see the Muslim Brotherhood take over in Libya (they did not understand who the MB was). Now they are not so happy. Who is the insurgency that we will help take down Assad?
The Muslim Brotherhood did not “take over in Libya.”
PM Cameron just lost a vote in Parliament. By a margin of 13 votes the members of Parliament said they do not approve of military action against Syria at this time. Technically not binding on Cameron, but it certainly handcuffs him. He has stated that it looks like the British people are not buying into military action.
It also seems like there is some backing down in a lot of quarters on the certainty of the accusation against Syria. Some are saying now that there is a caveat in that there is no proof that Assad and his top people were responsible for giving the order. Could have been a rogue military action. Speculation, however. Nothing confirmed. All that is still swirling and may have played a role in the London vote.
This is one time I agree with cargo squid. War is not the answer.
A more adept president would have avoided an ultimatum he was not prepared to act on. Obama did not really need to give Assad an ultimatum, because U.S. military strategy calls out the use of force against countries that employ WMD.
If Obama had resisted the inclination to speak out, his full range of options would have been preserved. He would have been free to do nothing by claiming there was no adequate proof of chemical attacks. Conversely, he could have quietly moved forces in place, launched an attack, and then boldly announced that the attack was necessary because the Red Line of WMD had been crossed. The Russians would have been able to do little except bluster after the fact.
Why not give Assad an ultimatum? Name me a modern president who hasn’t issued an ultimatum to a rogue country. I can’t think of a single one.
CS makes some good points. On the point of whose interests were served by the CW use, however, it almost doesn’t matter. Our policy (which is a necessary one) is that any WMD use will be imputed to the possessor country of the WMD. So, if chemical weapons were deployed, even if they were deployed by the rebels (because the points made by the Squid about why would it be in Assad’s interest to do so have some strength to them), we still retaliate against the Government that had responsibility for controlling the weapons. That’s a policy that ought to be enforced pretty rigourously, whether its loose nukes or other types of WMDs.
But it is a bloody mess.
I fear we will have to be the enforcers with Pakistan soon also.
would have been more clear for me to have said “. . .why it would NOT be in Assid’s interest . . .” etc.
@Moon-howler
Yes. But those previous ultimatums usually involved vital U.S. interests in which the president was already pre-disposed to use force. That’s not the case here. Obama is dithering because there is no clear-cut action that advances U.S. interests and it is clear to the world that he is looking for a way out. No matter what he does at this point (unless he kills Assad), he appears weak and indecisive.
Syria has been a breeding ground for terrorism for decades.
What I find odd is the neo-con mentality out of the far right as pulled its head back into the proverbial shell. I guess after giving us years in Afghanistan and Iraq, maybe they are taking a rest.
Meanwhile, Syria continues to spawn terrorism. Our allies have gotten cold feet thanks to decades in Afghanistan and Iraq. Would a few strategic strikes send a strong message to whatever powers that be in Syria?
@Kelly_3406
Kelly, you would say Obama is weak and indecisive regardless of what he did.
Syria is very much a problem, regardless of how some conservatives want to downplay its strategic importance in the middle east.
I am all for sending a few air strikes their way to see how that works out for Syria. A full scale war is another thing.
Meanwhile, where is the rest of the middle east? People in Syria are flocking across the border over into Lebanon as we speak. That’s how weak and indecisive Obama is seen over in that neck of the woods.
@Wolverine
Iraq fatigue. There might have to be a little pay back there also. Didn’t we assist them with Libya or have I confused my allies?
I am curious. Is it possible to have this discussion without finding a way to Obama-bash?
I just don’t think his strengths and weaknesses are particularly important in this discussion.
While I would not speak for all, I would say some of us who have, “been there, done that, have the CD, T-shirt and ball cap” would say, “Enough is enough.” Why are the countries most affected doing nothing? Why? Because they are content to watch us bankrupt ourselves and spill our blood. “Where have all the young men gone? Gone to grave yards everyone. When will we ever learn? When will we ever learn?”
Strong argument for what you are saying, George. On the other hand, are we Americans the only ones who will step up to the plate and insist, on penalty of extinction, That chemical warfare is totally unacceptable?
I haven’t made up my mind. 1000 people killed by sarin gas is pretty horrific.
What would it take to bring that crap over here in a terrorist attack?
The US has an overwhelming national interest in deterring the use of chemical weapons anywhere, anytime by anyone. I’m not sure that ends the discussion, but to say we have no clear national interest in this situation is simply mistaken.
Agreed.
Scout, check your email associated with this account please.
Moon — Definitely Iraq fatigue in the UK. Also Afghanistan fatigue. I suggest the same fatigue is driving the negative polling here. People seem to be getting a tad tired of worrying about tragedy and evil in the Middle East.
I also think that Millibrand of Labour saw the anti-war sentiment all across the Parliamentary spectrum and in the public and used it as a political weapon to embarrass Cameron in what was a vote of conscience “in principle.” Note that, after the vote, Millibrand really stuck a pin in when he obliged Cameron to swear verbally that the PM would not use Crown power to pursue the military option without the permission of Parliament. Cameron so swore. I think we can count the Brits out for sure unless Syria blatantly uses the WMDs again.
I also think the Brits need to think about what’s going to happen the next time they need OUR help. Sorry but I think they owe us for at least the next half century for us bailing their asses out in WWII. Now that I have confessed feeling that way….I still don’t know how I feel about any of this. If you can go in, send a strong message and leave, all is well. but that is just never how it works out, is it?
Are we going to punish them by refusing to buy their wine? ho ho ho. How about Patriot Pudding instead of Yorkshire pudding? Let’s see, Liverbellied broil?
I am just being sarcastic now. Ignore me. Didn’t we go help them with Libya? Weren’t they the ones leading the charge there?
Moon — 20 March 1995. Aum Shinrikyo, a domestic terrorist group, launched coordinated sarin gas attacks in the Tokyo subway. 13 dead, fifty injured, thousands with temporary vision problems.
I remember that. The difference I see is that Aum Shinrikyo was not a government entity. I am assuming the Japanese handled those toads. Do you know how they handled it?
@Scout
No. The overwhelming U.S. interest is to keep chemical weapons from being used in America or against Americans. Secondary to that is the U.S. interest to deter their use elsewhere.
Syria is a perfect example of this. If a U.S. attack against Syria somehow caused the regime to fall (e.g. killed Assad), it could allow Al Qaeda-affiliated rebels to get access to Syria’s stockpile of chemical weapons. This could increase the chances of chemical weapons being used against Americans. So the desire to punish Syria should be secondary to the desire to keep WMDs away from Al Qaeda.
A more measured interim response might be to charge Assad in World Court for crimes against humanity.
Unless you have Assad, then it becomes a matter of so what.
I don’t think there are any pat answers.
We do have a responsibility, long ago assigned by the rest of the world, to uphold a certain standard. Chemical weapons are definitely a no no.
At what point to we take off our isolatist glasses and decide we will not condone certain behavior? What if we were talking about biological weapons? Germ warfare? Do we wait for a dirty bomb? Is biological warfare any less heinous than nuclear weapons?
I don’t think we can run scared of the ‘what ifs?’ What assurances do we have now that some scum bags don’t have chemical weapons.
No. That’s just a guilty pleasure that arises from taking a hard look at the Administration’s foreign policy.
You are aware that many people don’t share your opinion?
Some Brit pundits are proclaiming this to be the end of the “special relationship” between the UK and US. I doubt that. Lyndon Johnson begged Harold Wilson to send at least a token British force to Vietnam to show solidarity with the allied forces, even just a platoon of bagpipers. Wilson absolutely refused. Reagan opted to support Britain vice Argentina in the Falklands dispute, but the support we actually gave to the Brits was reportedly minimal and didn’t make Thatcher too happy. So they say about the Falklands anyway. And, of course, there was Eisenhower telling the Brits and French to get the hell out of Suez in the 1950’s. I don’t think the special relationship will die at the hands of the Syrians.
Syria for dummies ( I learned a lot)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/08/29/9-questions-about-syria-you-were-too-embarrassed-to-ask/?tid=pm_pop
@Wolverine
Our allies were asked to help us. They refused. Who knows how it will all go down.
Then there is Russia.
@Moon-howler
AUM Shinrikyo was a commune-like cult with about 2000 members which believed the world would end soon. They carried out a small sarin gas attack in 1994 and then hit the subways in 1995. (The Japanese Police once opined that they may have been trying to hurry up the apocalypse) They used sarin in liquid form. One drop can kill you. It looks like they made it themselves. The cult had a number of members who were chemists and science workers. The Japanese were able to catch most of the cult members. Not everyone in the cult was aware of the sarin operations. 10 members, including their top chemist, actually carried it out on the subways. There were 189 indictments and 13 death sentences. All the appeals of the death sentences were turned down by the Japanese high court by 2004, but no one has been executed as of yet that I can find, not even the leader. Some say the Japanese government is having a hard time dealing with death sentences as a matter of principle. Also, some of the death-row inmates have testified in later AUM Shinrikyo trials.
The bagpipers might have made all the difference, Wolve. They sure scare the hell out of me.