Last Syrian Gas Attack

[Loki]

Wouldn't the votes matter anyway, for a historical record at least? And haven't there been NATO 'interventions' not sanctioned by UN security council (like Kosovo)?

It would have no effect on the legality of the operation, and I've yet to hear anyone serious say that the "UN supports X" when one or more permanent members vetoed the relevant resolution (even if it's on a 14-1 vote). The NATO-only operations are on dubious grounds legally, and were conducted without the support of the UN. You said you wanted the operation "approved by the UN". That pretty much means you're opposed to the operation.

Speaking of legitimacy: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/28/wo...nst-syria.html

[GGT]

"Schizophrenia of the Arab world" indeed.

I think (this time around) the US needs to resist the temptation to Do Something, Anything! before all the facts are in...which is incredibly difficult when we see innocents and children being gassed or poisoned by "chemical weapons" under a brutal and vicious regime. We have Humanitarian ideals and goals, but sometimes that's just not enough to intervene, or too much expectation for 'powerful' leading nations.

We got snookered into Iraq after seeing images of destroyed towns, bloated dead bodies of women and children, mass graves. We saw Saddam refuse or block UN weapons inspectors....and his fake Baby Milk Factory signs were presumed to be hiding WMD. Ya know, those WMD that didn't exist? That's made me skeptical, just like millions of westerners and Arabs.

Loki, UN inspectors collected tissue samples of the deceased victims, but it will take some more time to get "conclusive" results identifying type/transmission of suspected "chemical weapons". I'd prefer we wait for that scientific data, instead of making our own conclusions and declarations prematurely, blinded by propaganda, taken in by the "schizophrenia" of the region, and rushing in without ALL the facts. Like we did in Iraq.

What do you think?

[EyeKhan]

What does "pulling the trigger" even mean, though? When congress says, "We expect President Obama to have open talks and keep us informed"...does that mean they'll have floor debates and call for a vote, taking some responsibility for the decisions? Or will they just punt to the administration and executive powers, so they have room to criticize if/when things go to hell?

Whatever the US does, I hope it's with international consensus, approval from UN and NATO, and real participation from other nations (including Saudi Arabia et al). With a clear exit strategy. Last thing we need is to "own" this like Iraq, and spend ten fricking years trying to extricate ourselves. Damned if we do, damned if we don't.

By pull the trigger I meant use military force against Syrian assets.

As far as UN approval, like Loki said, forget it. Won't happen.

And I believe the very maximum we will see in the upcoming attack will be intensive air strikes against a variety of Syrian military targets. More likely there'll be a few dozen cruise missiles lobbed at targets least likely to result in civilian collateral damage. I'd prefer to see the former - if we pull the trigger, make it count for something. In any case, we won't have any ground forces involved, unless maybe there are special forces there doing some kind of target designation.

[Loki]

Loki, UN inspectors collected tissue samples of the deceased victims, but it will take some more time to get "conclusive" results identifying type/transmission of suspected "chemical weapons". I'd prefer we wait for that scientific data, instead of making our own conclusions and declarations prematurely, blinded by propaganda, taken in by the "schizophrenia" of the region, and rushing in without ALL the facts. Like we did in Iraq.

What do you think?

Permanent 5 members have a way of making sure that UN reports omit things they don't agree with. The UN is ultimately a political, not a scientific organization.

[Hazir]

I wonder if the people in favour of an attack on Syria realise that the fall of the regime could very easily result in a bloodbath many times worse than we've witnessed so far. I would not even be surprised if the extent of such a bloodbath would draw Iran and/or Iraq into open warfare within Syria.

[Loki]

The regime will fall at some point. The question is how many people will die before that happens.

[Enoch the Red]

The regime will fall at some point. The question is how many people will die before that happens.

Isn't there also some question about who will be taking the reigns?

[Loki]

We have very limited influence over that. Having said that, the longer this lasts, the higher the chance it will be someone we really don't like.

[Hazir]

According to Die Welt Assad and his family have fled to Iran.

[Loki]

"for consultation"

[wiggin]

It would have no effect on the legality of the operation, and I've yet to hear anyone serious say that the "UN supports X" when one or more permanent members vetoed the relevant resolution (even if it's on a 14-1 vote). The NATO-only operations are on dubious grounds legally, and were conducted without the support of the UN. You said you wanted the operation "approved by the UN". That pretty much means you're opposed to the operation.

As a wise man once said, "If Algeria introduced a resolution declaring that the earth was flat and that Israel had flattened it, it would pass by a vote of 164 to 13 with 26 abstentions."

Screw the UN. We've sat on our asses for too long. Let's take control of Assad's chemical weapons, destroy his air defense and air force, and restrict the movement of armor and artillery.

[Loki]

I think that's far, far more than the US/Britain/France are willing to do.

[wiggin]

I think that's far, far more than the US/Britain/France are willing to do.

100% agreed. We're likely to see - if anything - just some cruise missiles, possibly a few bombing sorties and some stepped-up weapons shipments. They might even skip the missiles and bombs.

[Loki]

From what I've read, most of the Syrian military bases have been evacuated, so I'm not even sure how much damage those cruise missiles will do. At least construction workers will be happy.

[Loki]

http://www.theonion.com/articles/so-...g-to-be,33662/ Serious Onion is serious?

[wiggin]

From what I've read, most of the Syrian military bases have been evacuated, so I'm not even sure how much damage those cruise missiles will do. At least construction workers will be happy.

I doubt that cruise missile strikes on fixed targets are likely to significantly degrade their ground operational capability - armor, artillery, infantry. But I do think that many 'infrastructure' and command and control sites can hurt the regime in other ways. I'm thinking air defense radars and missile installations, runways and hangars, communications, equipment/fuel depots, leadership (e.g. military/intelligence headquarters, Assad's various palaces), etc. Total loss of life is likely to be relatively low, as is the damage to the Assad regime's ability to prosecute a successful war against the rebels. That would require a far more intrusive air campaign that is highly unlikely to actually occur. It would, however, further degrade Assad's capabilities in a conventional war (potentially paving the way for future interventions?) and be a significant blow to their egos. Don't know how much that's worth, but it might be worthwhile if just to honor the explicit US threat to attack if Assad uses chemical weapons.

I honestly don't see the US et al doing anything substantive to change the war. It's frustrating to me, but I do recognize the dilemma policymakers are in, and it's easy for me to advocate for a much more significant military intervention when I'm not the person who will have to deal with the consequences.

[Veldan Rath]

Meh, I wonder if Joe Biden will call for the impeachment of the President if he takes action against Syria without congressional approval like he threatened against another President if that one took action against Iran without congressional approval...

[GGT]

Permanent 5 members have a way of making sure that UN reports omit things they don't agree with. The UN is ultimately a political, not a scientific organization.

Does that include weapons inspectors and their conclusions? What's the point of UN Security Council resolutions if they're basically ignored? If the UN is considered a toothless and maligned political body....do they play a role in "International Law" at all?

Cameron's comments included 'waiting for UN inspections to conclude' before making a decision, and Parliament nixed the idea of an allied coalition intervention (but at least they returned from their vacations for an emergency session --- something US congress isn't likely to do, even though some are asserting that no military intervention would be "legal" without their prior approval).

My question: When politicians say they expect events to "abide by International Laws" (not just norms) what does that actually mean, especially if it excludes the UN, on the intervention side? After it's been agreed that a regime using chemical weapons on their own civilians is breaking Geneva conventions or International Laws....what comes in-between that....and being tried for War Crimes at the Hague?

[Loki]

Which SC resolutions are being ignored?

As for the legal angle, countries tend to grasp at any straw they can find. Virtually no jurist would agree that an attack against Syria would be legal. Having said that, international legality isn't always the best standard for judging international actions.

[GGT]

Initial security council resolutions said (basically) that chemical weapons were used, in violation of "International Law"...but stopped short of naming Assad, or making any recommendations. The inference was that UN inspectors could collect enough scientific data, and Intelligence agencies could collect corroborating (or conflicting) data....and form a comprehensive and clearer picture of the situation that would benefit the decision-makers. Right?

Anyway, I'm not asking how countries manage to call military interventions 'legitimate', even if they're not technically 'legal'. That's politics. I'm asking who (which agencies) determines what we generally call "International Law"? They apparently outline a number of violations....so where are the corresponding "International Laws" that outline interventions?

[Loki]

There were no such resolutions. You're confusing informal statements by individual countries with formal resolutions authorized by the SC. The UN inspector thing is a total gimmick; they don't even have a mandate to assign guilt (their mission is to figure out whether chemical weapons were used).

There's customary international law and treaty international law. The former is created on the basis of practice. The latter requires countries to sign off on specific treaties/conventions (including the UN Charter). There's no legal support for attacking someone without SC approval except in self-defense from either angle.

Edit: highly likely the attack will commence before the weekend ends.

[RandBlade]

Any action won't include the UK. Apparently intelligence that Iraq has WMD > Footage showing the after effects of Syria not just having but actually using WMD for some people. Partisan ****s

[Hazir]

International law is basically the law of the sandbox; the strongest always is right in the absence of an independent arbiter. Which in my mind means that any claim that somebody is acting in accordance with or in violation of international law in cases where there is no unanimous SC resolution is blowing smoke out of his ass. Is a military strike against international law if the SC doesn't say so? I very much doubt that could be answered with a solid yes. People who talk about International Law too often forget that we still lack a World Government.

As for intervention in Syria; I am against it. The fact that Assad is a murderous asshole shouldn't make us blind to the fact it is outright against our own interests that the Syrian rebels come to power. We can't win by putting our dog in this fight.

[Loki]

Hazir, you're conflating being supported by international law and being punished for violating it. The great powers do have a major role in creating IL, but they also violate it quite frequently. Your problem is with them not getting punished for those violations (a legitimate argument).

And I think you're being wildly optimistic about what an intervention will accomplish. It's certainly not going to lead to Assad's overthrow.

[Hazir]

Hazir, you're conflating being supported by international law and being punished for violating it. The great powers do have a major role in creating IL, but they also violate it quite frequently. Your problem is with them not getting punished for those violations (a legitimate argument).

And I think you're being wildly optimistic about what an intervention will accomplish. It's certainly not going to lead to Assad's overthrow.

I think I am not; international law as far as I am concerned is (with the possible exception of intra-national law in the EU) nothing more than a bunch of rules that don't mean very much if there's nobody with a both legitimate and legal big stick around to enforce them. I don't see anybody in that position.

I am also not wildly optimistic about the results of an intervention. I think though that any intervention can only weaken the regime. And I'd rather not throw away these old shoes before we know if the new shoes won't be a lot worse.

[Loki]

Whether a law exists and whether it's regularly enforced are not the same thing. There are laws against jay-walking in the US, but those laws are very rarely enforced. It doesn't mean that it's legal to jay-walk.

The more this drags on, the lower the possibility of Assad being replaced by someone reasonable. The more people die, the more radicalized and sectarian the Syrian population will become.

[GGT]

Hazir, you're conflating being supported by international law and being punished for violating it. The great powers do have a major role in creating IL, but they also violate it quite frequently. Your problem is with them not getting punished for those violations (a legitimate argument).

That's what I've been asking you to explain! UN inspections can't assign guilt, I get that. There's a difference between treaties and 'customary practices', I get that too. But why do nations' leaders/politicians keep using the term "Law" or "legal" when there's such an ambiguous or subjective definition?

There's no legal support for attacking someone without SC approval except in self-defense from either angle.

That's why I'm confused about the terminology. Why did France say Assad's regime should be held legally and morally accountable? If the legal outline for attacking someone comes from SC....except in cases of self-defense....it seems a manipulation of "self-defense" to justify attacks and bypass the UN. Another example of muddy terminology.

Sorry if I was nit-picking, but words and language matter, especially in the space between politics and policy, and military strikes. I won't bother to extend the tangent into what's been done to mangle and confuse the term WAR -- War on Terrorism, War Powers, Acts of War, etc. but that bothers me, too.

[Flixy]

They might want him to be tried at the ICC for war crimes some time in the future?

[GGT]

They might want him to be tried at the ICC for war crimes some time in the future?

If that's the goal, would western military intervention lead to that?

[Flixy]

No, but one thing doesn't exclude the other.