Strike On Syria?

[Era Might]

I don't know... America could be lying about chemical weapons but if it was I don't think it'd be for a monetary goal. I'm about to speak without fact checking (you should already know that by now). There's a reason why the US, and much of the world, hasn't done much in Syria. While taking Bashar out would be good for stability in the region, replacing him with a religious government wouldn't. Even Israel would prefer Bashar over that possibility. I'm not convinced that the chemical gas claims are disingenuous though. I think I remember one of my Syrian friends showing me something about it from a oppositional news source (though I guess that could be faked as well). 

 

I'm no expert in the Middle East / Arab region but it seems like the situation right now is something like the Third World in the 60's, Left-wing and Right-wing authorities trying to establish and maintain control, and the U.S. and Russia watching over it all. The situation is different, of course, but that question of "religious government" is crucial. What shape is the Middle East going to take? The Western dream solution would be for them to develop into national secular democracies, etc. I don't know if that's realistic. It seems like the first major goal of the West is to prevent someone like Iran from gaining hegemony over the region (probably wouldn't happen anyway, but you never know in these chaotic situations). And then preventing terrorist / fundamentalist groups from taking over individual countries. Making a limited response to chemical weapons use may seem like nothing, but what are the options? The idea, it seems, is to insist on this international norm against chemical weapons...maybe it's not a huge victory for the West, but it at least maintains precedent and does not just write the region off, and helps prevent that hegemon or fundamentalist government from gaining legitimacy in the future. idk, that's my armchair analysis.

Edited August 28, 2013 by Era Might

[Aloysius]

saw on the first page the question of what purpose the USA would have to get involved?  why, it's a little proxy war against Iran and, to a lesser extent, Russia.  there is EVERY motivation for the US to want to get involved in Syria.  any reason you could imagine for them not to want to get involved is completely off of the radar of the geopolitic game that they play at those high levels, budgets don't matter at that level--war is the health of the state--and good diplomatic relations with Russia are actually bad for war profiteers who need motivation for keeping the military funding growing.   of course they want to get involved.  if Assad falls, Iran is much more vulnerable in the Middle East... and the war drums have been beating now through two presidencies as the neocons in the CFR and congress and in both White Houses, have been drooling over war with Iran.  the US absolutely has been wanting to claim a reason to knock out Assad; however, they were for a long time hoping that the internal conflict would bleed him dry first; instead, Assad was summarily winning the war by conventional warfare (and therefore had no reason to turn to chemical weapons), so the US needs an excuse to ensure that he doesn't win... enter the big chemical weapons fiasco that would have had ZERO strategic purpose for Assad, and would have a LOT of strategic purpose for the Syrian Rebels (probably some small group of extremists to release it on their own people) and a LOT of strategic purpose for the USA and the west, whose hegemony in the middle east depends upon weakening Iran's power.

 

it's a fact that the Syrian rebels have obtained at least sarin gas, probably more stuff as well, there are videos showing them testing it on Rabbits, and even videos that are verifiably from within the Syrian rebel movement of them placing suspicious canisters onto rockets.  moreover, much of the evidence from the attack shows something very inconsistent with the Syrian government's stockpile of sophisticated chemical weapons, there are plenty of inconsistencies in the symptoms that have been pointed out but the real kicker pointed out by experts is the lack of protective gear from the people treating the victims, and the complete lack of symptoms exhibited by people who are treating the victims--huge inconsistency if Assad had lobbed something from his arsenal, but makes perfect sense if the rebels either had an accident with some of the chemical weapons they had obtained, or if some of the extremists within the various rebel factions had decided it was time to bring the west into the war and launched something basic themselves.

 

now, as to the LEGAL question, President Obama has consulted a bunch of international bodies from NATO to the Arab League to the UN, but he refuses to consult the only body that could give him the permission he needs, under the war powers act, to engage in such a strike.  this is totally unacceptable, and especially if he goes in without a UN resolution he will be on even more flimsy ground than Kosovo was (and that was already on pretty flimsy ground, he should need approval from the US congress).  this is absolutely illegal NOT ONLY under international law, but under US law.  http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/50/1541

 

someone tried to tell me it'd be okay if we classified what Assad is accused as doing as "terrorism"... however, as I pointed out, the Authorization for Use of Military Force that allows the President to attack "terrorists" actually only specifically authorizes attacks against Al Qaeda and their allies (in its broadest possible sane reading), and of course President Assad is an enemy of Al Qaeda (which is why Al Qaeda forces are among the Syrian forces fighting against him)... meaning that the President would be authorized to attack the Syrian Rebels by the AUMF, but to attack anyone else he would need authorization from congress.  Of course, we've always been at war with Eastasia, haven't we?

[CatholicsAreKewl]

saw on the first page the question of what purpose the USA would have to get involved?  why, it's a little proxy war against Iran and, to a lesser extent, Russia.  there is EVERY motivation for the US to want to get involved in Syria.  any reason you could imagine for them not to want to get involved is completely off of the radar of the geopolitic game that they play at those high levels, budgets don't matter at that level--war is the health of the state--and good diplomatic relations with Russia are actually bad for war profiteers who need motivation for keeping the military funding growing.   of course they want to get involved.  if Assad falls, Iran is much more vulnerable in the Middle East... and the war drums have been beating now through two presidencies as the neocons in the CFR and congress and in both White Houses, have been drooling over war with Iran.  the US absolutely has been wanting to claim a reason to knock out Assad; however, they were for a long time hoping that the internal conflict would bleed him dry first; instead, Assad was summarily winning the war by conventional warfare (and therefore had no reason to turn to chemical weapons), so the US needs an excuse to ensure that he doesn't win... enter the big chemical weapons fiasco that would have had ZERO strategic purpose for Assad, and would have a LOT of strategic purpose for the Syrian Rebels (probably some small group of extremists to release it on their own people) and a LOT of strategic purpose for the USA and the west, whose hegemony in the middle east depends upon weakening Iran's power.

 

Interesting points. I disagree with the notion that the U.S. has been patiently waiting for an excuse to go in. 100,000 deaths is a good enough excuse if we wanted to find one. Let's consider Libya. There were thousands of deaths at most before we intervened militarily.

 

I don't know why we would be attacking now. Imo we're either bluffing or Iran/Syria pose such a great threat to us at this point that the benefit of knocking assad out outweighs  the instability his fall would bring to the region. 

 

 

 

someone tried to tell me it'd be okay if we classified what Assad is accused as doing as "terrorism"... however, as I pointed out, the Authorization for Use of Military Force that

allows the President to attack "terrorists" actually only specifically authorizes attacks against Al Qaeda and their allies (in its broadest possible sane reading), and of course President Assad is an enemy of Al Qaeda (which is why Al Qaeda forces are among the Syrian forces fighting against him)... meaning that the President would be authorized to attack the Syrian Rebels by the AUMF, but to attack anyone else he would need authorization from congress.  Of course, we've always been at war with Eastasia, haven't we?

 

 

Isn't the fact that Syria funds Hezbollah enough justification for us to attack him? 

Edited August 28, 2013 by CatholicsAreKewl

[Era Might]

if Assad falls, Iran is much more vulnerable in the Middle East... and the war drums have been beating now through two presidencies as the neocons in the CFR and congress and in both White Houses, have been drooling over war with Iran.  the US absolutely has been wanting to claim a reason to knock out Assad; however, they were for a long time hoping that the internal conflict would bleed him dry first; instead, Assad was summarily winning the war by conventional warfare (and therefore had no reason to turn to chemical weapons), so the US needs an excuse to ensure that he doesn't win... enter the big chemical weapons fiasco that would have had ZERO strategic purpose for Assad, and would have a LOT of strategic purpose for the Syrian Rebels (probably some small group of extremists to release it on their own people) and a LOT of strategic purpose for the USA and the west, whose hegemony in the middle east depends upon weakening Iran's power.

 

The U.S. has hegemony in the Middle East? How so?

[Jaime]

How many military attacks does President Obama get to order before he has to give his Nobel Peace Prize back?

[CrossCuT]

How many military attacks does President Obama get to order before he has to give his Nobel Peace Prize back?

rotfl  rotfl  rotfl  rotfl  rotfl  rotfl  rotfl  rotfl  rotfl

[Era Might]

It was 2009, everyone was on an Obama high. It's kinda like John Adams winning the Vice Presidency.

Edited August 28, 2013 by Era Might

[Aloysius]

I disagree with the notion that the U.S. has been patiently waiting for an excuse to go in. 100,000 deaths is a good enough excuse if we wanted to find one. Let's consider Libya. There were thousands of deaths at most before we intervened militarily.

 

your mistake, I think, is assuming that the number of deaths has anything to do with whether we want to intervene.  we haven't been patiently waiting to intervene out of some humanitarian concern, humanitarian concerns are just used by shrewd geopolitical thinkers to get otherwise good people onto their side in favor of wars.  like I said, we were perfectly happy to watch the Syrian Rebels keep Assad busy and weaken him with a long civil war where it is in our interests for both sides to be occupied fighting there... I think we were hoping they would topple him eventually but be too weak themselves to create their own strong Islamist government... because as much as we dislike Assad, it's even worse in our minds to add an unpredictable, 'democratic' in the sense of 'majority rules', ideologically Islamist government so close to Israel.  now it looks like we miscalculated and the rebels are losing... if we do turn out to keep it limited to just strategic strikes, one reason for that may be that we're hoping that the war will continue to extend.  Weaken the government enough that the rebel forces can remain strong, and Islamist radical fighters will continue to pour in to fight against Assad so that two sides we don't like for different reasons will keep devoting themselves to fighting each other.  the government weakening helps our position against Iran, and radical Islamist fighters will keep getting killed off in the fight in the process.

[God the Father]

 I think the president and everyone involved are smart people, and have reasons for doing what they do. That's why they're in government.

 

rotfl

[CatholicsAreKewl]

your mistake, I think, is assuming that the number of deaths has anything to do with whether we want to intervene.

No. My mistake was that I wasn't clear enough. I was referencing the # of deaths as an excuse to enter Syria, not the reason for entering. My point was that they could have invaded long ago if they had really wanted to.

we haven't been patiently waiting to intervene out of some humanitarian concern, humanitarian concerns are just used by shrewd geopolitical thinkers to get otherwise good people onto their side in favor of wars. like I said, we were perfectly happy to watch the Syrian Rebels keep Assad busy and weaken him with a long civil war where it is in our interests for both sides to be occupied fighting there...

Hmm, I wonder if our government sees it that way. Instability in Syria could lead to instability in surrounding areas. I don't think the U.S. is looking at this situation with a drooling lip. Israel certainly isn't (the actions of Syria under a Bashar rule is at least somewhat predictable).

I think we were hoping they would topple him eventually but be too weak themselves to create their own strong Islamist government... because as much as we dislike Assad, it's even worse in our minds to add an unpredictable, 'democratic' in the sense of 'majority rules', ideologically Islamist government so close to Israel.

From what I have seen in my limited time in Syria, I would argue that there is still a big chance for a religious government to eventually spring up if Bashar is taken out. Even if that isn't the case, a stateless Syria is still very dangerous. Consider the fact that you can sneak a whole tank across Lebanon's borders. There are a lot of possibilities that open up that aren't in America/Israel's best interests.

if we do turn out to keep it limited to just strategic strikes, one reason for that may be that we're hoping that the war will continue to extend. Weaken the government enough that the rebel forces can remain strong, and Islamist radical fighters will continue to pour in to fight against Assad so that two sides we don't like for different reasons will keep devoting themselves to fighting each other. the government weakening helps our position against Iran, and radical Islamist fighters will keep getting killed off in the fight in the process.

I can see that being the case. I don't think we'd get involved, though. It makes more sense to me that we'd want to drag this situation out than it does that we'd want to intervene militarily. The radical islamist fighters aren't the only opposition dying, though. No matter how many rebel soldiers die during this civil war, I believe the religious views of the majority of the population that remains will still be more extreme than Bashar's. Edited August 28, 2013 by CatholicsAreKewl

[Era Might]

Possible reasons why Assad would use chemical weapons:

 

The conflict has been growing in intensity and scope for more than two years, with the United Nations estimating more than 100,000 dead and millions displaced, why would the government use chemical weapons now?

 

There are a number of theories about why the Syrian government might have chosen to use chemical weapons at this point, just days after United Nations weapons inspectors arrived to investigate earlier allegations of chemical weapons use. One theory proposed by a senior Israeli official is that the attack in the Damascus suburbs may have been a miscalculation: Syria may have been using chemical agents on a smaller scale for some time, and used an unintentionally large amount in last week’s attack. “Maybe they were trying to hit one place or to get one effect and they got a much greater effect than they thought,” said the official.

 

Another theory, argued by Juan Cole, a professor of Middle East Studies at the University of Michigan, is that a siege mentality may have contributed to the Assad government’s decision to use chemical weapons. Faced with intractable Sunni rebels in the Damascus suburbs, the Alawite-led government may have decided to send them a message that the capital would be defended at all costs. “It is the typical behavior of a weak regime facing superior demographic forces (the Alawites are far outnumbered by Sunnis) to deploy unconventional weaponry,” Mr. Cole wrote in a blog post.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/28/world/middleeast/the-conflict-in-syria.html

[Era Might]

An op-ed that touches on Aloysius' point about legality, entitled "Bomb Syria, Even if It Is Illegal":

 

Norms and institutions of international criminal law, including 11 years of experience with the International Criminal Court, have strengthened since then. Special tribunals for Cambodia, Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia reflect a growing consensus that perpetrators of atrocities should be punished.

 

But if the White House takes international law seriously — as the State Department does — it cannot try to have it both ways. It must either argue that an “illegal but legitimate” intervention is better than doing nothing, or assert that international law has changed — strategies that I call “constructive noncompliance.” In the case of Syria, I vote for the latter.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/28/opinion/bomb-syria-even-if-it-is-illegal.html

[Aloysius]

Possible reasons why Assad would use chemical weapons:

I find these arguments entirely unconvincing as they all boil down to a huge coincidental breakdown of Assad's strategic thinking just at a moment when he was hugely dominating the war and when weapons inspectors were right nearby, and in any event, they are far less likely motivations than the far more likely scenario of radical islamists using the weapons to draw the west into the war.. and I think there's a good deal of evidence to suggest that.

 

and perhaps the Syrian Rebels are not all Islamists, but there are huge factions of militant Islamists among them.  and it's a lightning rod for them (huge numbers of the Syrian Rebels are certainly not Syrian)

 

 catholicsarekewl, of course there are problems for us with instability in Syria, I don't claim that we started the insurrection or that we would've chosen for it to happen that way... but I think they made a calculation after it occurred that it was better to deal with the chaos this way, and of course the position taken by Russia and China played into that calculation.  and no, I don't think they could've gone with the number dead at this point, they needed to be able to point to chemical weapons... they had already stated that as the "red line"

[Aloysius]

An op-ed that touches on Aloysius' point about legality, entitled "Bomb Syria, Even if It Is Illegal":

:sick:

 

of course that doesn't touch at all on the one thing that should govern whether US forces do something above all else--the United States Congress should be in control of that decision.

 

as far as just declaring that international law has changed and we can do what we want... well, that's all well and good for us sitting up here high and mighty, but no one would accept any other nation on earth pulling something ridiculous like that, and quite frankly, the world shouldn't accept the US doing it either.

[CatholicsAreKewl]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxyBKKYPT4c

"I haven't really decided what to do yet but i'm really upset. I might not even invite Bashar to my next birthday party."

Edited August 29, 2013 by CatholicsAreKewl