Should the US use military force in Syria?

[Steely Glint]

A) Respect and enforce the principle since 1920 that chemical warfare is never tolerated.
B) By using military force in response to the use of chemical weapons.

The use has been very sporadic since then and even in WWII the Nazi's and Allies didn't really use them.

Iraq was extravagant in its use of chemical weapons in the Iran-Iraq war, their use accounted for 5% of the Iranian casualties in that 8 year long war. Since it was an ally at that time and it was using them on an enemy, nothing was done. It used them again in 98 against the kurds, killing 3-5 times as many as the attack in Syria, and by that time it wasn't an ally but an enemy. Still, nothing was done. There are also allegations of chemical weapon use by America in Vietnam (the real shit, not Agent Orange) and by the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. Though both of those strike me as somewhat dubious, and I mention them as an aside. Point is, I'm afraid A) is a boat that sailed a long time ago.

[Loki]

The Kurdish gassing was in '88, when Iraq was still a friend. Also, the rules were simply different during the Cold War.

[Steely Glint]

My mistake, I was thinking of the post-Gulf War use which was in 91 to put down an uprising. So, that's three incidents.

And I do wonder how different the rules really are. For example, there's this article claiming the chemical weapons were in fact supplied by Saudi Arabia to be used by the rebels, but they went off by accident (or something, didn't read it in too great detail). Now, let's assume for a moment that the article isn't horse-shit*, what do you imagine the consequences would be, for Saudi Arabia? I'm going to go with "fuck" and "all". At least on a public level, there may be some kind of behind the scenes reprimand or consequences... but in terms of maintaining these notional taboo about chemical weapons use by the use of force? Never would happen.

* an assumption I do not make, by the way, but roll with it.

[Loki]

As far as I know, Saudi Arabia doesn't have chemical weapons. All the sources citing this claim seem to be conspiracy websites.

I would imagine that we wouldn't invade Saudi Arabia, but that doesn't mean there wouldn't be real consequences. After all, we placed fairly severe sanctions on Pakistan when it first acquired nuclear weapons, despite the country being an ally at the time.

[katsung47]

As far as I know, Saudi Arabia doesn't have chemical weapons. All the sources citing this claim seem to be conspiracy websites.

I would imagine that we wouldn't invade Saudi Arabia, but that doesn't mean there wouldn't be real consequences. After all, we placed fairly severe sanctions on Pakistan when it first acquired nuclear weapons, despite the country being an ally at the time.

Saudi Arabia doesn't have high tech. weapons too, all of them are supplied by US. Especially when they need an excuse.

.
U

S 'backed plan to launch chemical weapon attackon Syria, blame it on Assad govt': Report

By ANI | ANI – Wed30 Jan, 2013.


London, Jan 30(ANI): The Obama administration gave green signal to a chemical weapons attackplan in Syria that could be blamed on President Bashar al Assad's regime and inturn, spur international military action in the devastated country, leakeddocuments have shown.

A new report, thatcontains an email exchange between two senior officials at British-basedcontractor Britam Defence, showed a scheme 'approved by Washington'.

As per the scheme'Qatar would fund rebel forces in Syria to use chemical weapons,' the DailyMail reports.


Barack Obama made itclear to Syrian president Bashar al-Assad last month that the U.S. would nottolerate Syria using chemical weapons against its own people.

According toInfowars.com, the December 25 email was sent from Britam's Business DevelopmentDirector David Goulding to company founder Philip Doughty.

The emails werereleased by a Malaysian hacker who also obtained senior executives resumes andcopies of passports via an unprotected company server, according to Cyber WarNews.

http://in.news.yahoo.com/us-backed-p...045648224.html

[Dreadnaught]

At this point we've already unzipped our pants so we will look like idiots if we don't take out what's inside.

[LittleFuzzy]

There are just so many things wrong with that metaphor Dread.

[RandBlade]

Iraq was extravagant in its use of chemical weapons in the Iran-Iraq war, their use accounted for 5% of the Iranian casualties in that 8 year long war. Since it was an ally at that time and it was using them on an enemy, nothing was done. It used them again in 98 against the kurds, killing 3-5 times as many as the attack in Syria, and by that time it wasn't an ally but an enemy. Still, nothing was done. There are also allegations of chemical weapon use by America in Vietnam (the real shit, not Agent Orange) and by the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. Though both of those strike me as somewhat dubious, and I mention them as an aside. Point is, I'm afraid A) is a boat that sailed a long time ago.

As every rule there has been exceptions but they are remarkably few and far between. Regarding Iraq is it a good thing that we did nothing while those weapons were being used (leaving a humongous mess behind for over a decade and ultimately the second war)?

[Aimless]

As every rule there has been exceptions but they are remarkably few and far between. Regarding Iraq is it a good thing that we did nothing while those weapons were being used (leaving a humongous mess behind for over a decade and ultimately the second war)?

I'm not sure if you can call them exceptions unless there have clearly been many more cases where the use of chemical weapons have led to military reprisals.

[Flixy]

As every rule there has been exceptions but they are remarkably few and far between. Regarding Iraq is it a good thing that we did nothing while those weapons were being used (leaving a humongous mess behind for over a decade and ultimately the second war)?

It's more exceptions than rules, though.

[RandBlade]

Considering they weren't even used actively on the western front in WWII then I don't agree that they're more exceptions.

Try looking at the number of conflicts and working out what % of those had chemical weapons involved? Also what are recent nations that have used them without reprisal and how recently was that?

[Flixy]

So what countries used them and did suffer reprisals? Considering you implied reprisals are the rule (your point wasn't that it's 'not done' but that it's 'not tolerated', i.e. it has repercussions).

[Steely Glint]

So what countries used them and did suffer reprisals? Considering you implied reprisals are the rule (your point wasn't that it's 'not done' but that it's 'not tolerated', i.e. it has repercussions).

Syria would be the first.

[Steely Glint]

As far as I know, Saudi Arabia doesn't have chemical weapons. All the sources citing this claim seem to be conspiracy websites.

I would imagine that we wouldn't invade Saudi Arabia, but that doesn't mean there wouldn't be real consequences. After all, we placed fairly severe sanctions on Pakistan when it first acquired nuclear weapons, despite the country being an ally at the time.

Don't we already have severe sanctions against Syria? If not, why not?

[Loki]

Don't we already have severe sanctions against Syria? If not, why not?

We do (the Syrian economy is in tatters). Military conflict usually takes place after numerous acts of hostility and intransigence, not one. It's not really surprising that we'd consider conflict against a country that's been ignoring the wishes of the international community and engaging in numerous war crimes (and probably crimes against humanity) over a multi-year period. This is one of the bloodiest civil wars in the post-Cold War era. I don't see why it would be deemed hypocritical for us to take a particular interest in it.

[Dreadnaught]

There are just so many things wrong with that metaphor Dread.

I'm getting a PhD in Freudian Foreign Policy.

[Flixy]

We do (the Syrian economy is in tatters). Military conflict usually takes place after numerous acts of hostility and intransigence, not one. It's not really surprising that we'd consider conflict against a country that's been ignoring the wishes of the international community and engaging in numerous war crimes (and probably crimes against humanity) over a multi-year period. This is one of the bloodiest civil wars in the post-Cold War era. I don't see why it would be deemed hypocritical for us to take a particular interest in it.

I don't mind people taking an interest, far from it. But any reason you've just given could be applied to a number of countries where you didn't intervene over the past decades. Chemical weapons? Iraq used it before, got away with it. Country that's been ignoring the wishes of the international community? Several. War crimes? Several. One of the bloodiest civil wars? 100.000 dead so far, IIRC - Darfur was at least double, Congo millions of deaths since after the cold war, Rwanda between 5 and ten times as many, Algeria about as many as in Syria, hell, Iraq killed about as many or more after the Gulf war, against the uprisings (let alone the civil war in Chechen etc, and Somalia, Yugoslavia, Liberia..). Plus you guys caused about as many civilian deaths in Iraq, too.

[Hazir]

I don't mind people taking an interest, far from it. But any reason you've just given could be applied to a number of countries where you didn't intervene over the past decades. Chemical weapons? Iraq used it before, got away with it. Country that's been ignoring the wishes of the international community? Several. War crimes? Several. One of the bloodiest civil wars? 100.000 dead so far, IIRC - Darfur was at least double, Congo millions of deaths since after the cold war, Rwanda between 5 and ten times as many, Algeria about as many as in Syria, hell, Iraq killed about as many or more after the Gulf war, against the uprisings (let alone the civil war in Chechen etc, and Somalia, Yugoslavia, Liberia..). Plus you guys caused about as many civilian deaths in Iraq, too.

It's stunning to see how Loki doesn't seem able to get that the Syria he talks about doesn't exist any longer. Syria is not the Syria of a decades old Assad dictatorship but a country engaged in a full blown civil war with more sides than I care to list. War crimes are being committed by all sides and all sides are likely to commit more of them in the immediate future and possibly years to come. Hitting out at the presumed perpetrator of this particular atrocity does nothing more and nothing less than make the US a party in a very messy civil war.

Two million people have fled Syria, that is the real problem we have at hand. Not the question if the war crimes of Assad loyalists are more worthy of punishment than those of his opponents.

[GGT]

a) What objective do we hope to achieve by military action against Syria?
b) How and in what ways will military action achieve those objectives?

A) Respect and enforce the principle since 1920 that chemical warfare is never tolerated.
B) By using military force in response to the use of chemical weapons.

As Steely said, (A) is a boat that sailed a long time ago. That leaves other "objectives" to sort out -- so far that means saving face, following through on threats, showing our junk now that our pants are unzipped, and other ego-driven goals. "Credibility", following "International Norms", and adhering to "Humanitarian Principles" are more conventional ways of saying the same thing, at least in how they're being used.

Using military force is an extension of that -- to prove US military might, maintain our reputation as a global superpower, with influence over international events (especially the middle east). Conventional wisdom says the best/only way to fight against despots or evil dictators (who gas their own civilians) is using legitimate counter-force, even if it will likely kill civilians....or worse, lead to a powder keg exploding.

Is that about right, in a nutshell?

If violating this International Convention is so intolerable....shouldn't other nations be willing military partners (besides France)? Since there's no real consensus from UNSC or NATO, let alone the Arab League, Saudi Arabia/Qatar/Kuwait/UAE etc....what makes the US the sole protector and enforcer of this Principle?

[GGT]

....Syria is not the Syria of a decades old Assad dictatorship but a country engaged in a full blown civil war with more sides than I care to list. War crimes are being committed by all sides and all sides are likely to commit more of them in the immediate future and possibly years to come. Hitting out at the presumed perpetrator of this particular atrocity does nothing more and nothing less than make the US a party in a very messy civil war.

The US supposedly wants to avoid being caught in Syria's civil war, or causing regime change --- while also saying Assad must go, and we're going to deter/detract his regime from using chemical weapons.

Two million people have fled Syria, that is the real problem we have at hand. Not the question if the war crimes of Assad loyalists are more worthy of punishment than those of his opponents.

That's the real Humanitarian Crisis that's taken a back seat in this mess, and makes the entire region more unstable. Seems to me that if directly-impacted border states with teems of refugees (Turkey, Jordan etc) thought military action would help....they'd be on board with US proposals, but they're not.

[Loki]

Um, Turkey is on record wanting to overthrow Assad. Jordan probably wouldn't either...

[GGT]

Are they on the record for participating in military intervention?

[Flixy]

Turkey, at least, yes, several times (and IIRC to actually remove Assad from power).

[Loki]

Are they on the record for participating in military intervention?

Turkey was previously ok with doing the attacking itself given sufficient international support. It somewhat backed off that position recently though.

[GGT]

I am still not convinced that a US "limited, targeted" military strike (with no boots on the ground) in Syria is the best thing to do.

My entire life has been the US intervening in the middle east, for the sake of National Security and/or National Interests. We helped install the Shah of Iran (only recently admitted to be a CIA coup)...which led to an Iranian uprising, and the hostage crisis. Reagan's administration sold arms to Iran covertly. We had the whole Iran-Contra affair (Ollie North), and trading oil for food debacle. We treated Suddam Hussein as a "friendly enemy", and kept his regime propped up for decades, through Bush I and Clinton administrations. Bush II drew the unlucky card of the 21st century, in post-9/11 world...and declared the US was going to win the *War on Terrorism*. Then the winds changed, and everything began to fit the description of "Terrorism", but nothing quite met the level of *War*.

Hasn't almost everything we've done (in the name of National Security or National Interests or global Superpower status) come back to bite us in our butts....by exponential magnitudes? And now we've got Russia moving war ships in close proximity to US war ships in the Arabian Gulf. Israel is conducting anti-missile and Iron Dome "tests", calling them US military operation "exercises".

There is either avoiding or starting another World War, but who really knows which way it will lead? That's what scares me most.

[Loki]

Most of the things you mentioned would have happened without US intervention, and there are numerous instances where we'd be worse off than we are now if we did nothing.

As for world war talk, this is nonsense. There's literally a 0% of a world war over this, unless by world war you mean a bunch of really powerful countries fighting Syria and maybe Iran.

[GGT]

Most of the things you mentioned would have happened without US intervention, and there are numerous instances where we'd be worse off than we are now if we did nothing.

Then why did the US intervene...and how would we be "worse off" if we'd done nothing?

As for world war talk, this is nonsense. There's literally a 0% of a world war over this, unless by world war you mean a bunch of really powerful countries fighting Syria and maybe Iran.

The latter. Russia and US being the most powerful. Iran, Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Palestine, Yemen, Somalia (et al) are the lesser powers who might "pick" Russian alliances for their energy and/or weapons. That leaves the US, France, and Israel. Hoping Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Jordan, Arab League nations, or European nations would be allies is just that -- hope.

[Loki]

Because intervention makes things more likely to happen the way we want them to happen. Why leave important events to chance?

Except there's no chance in hell that Russia goes to war over this. Also, most of the countries you mentioned have better relations with the US than with Russia.

[Hazir]

What do you want to happen?

Um, Turkey is on record wanting to overthrow Assad. Jordan probably wouldn't either...

And since when is what a mad man like Erdogan wants a justification for anyone's actions? You realise that this is the man who while demanding that we intervene in Syria also accuses us of being behind the protests against his government earlier this year?

[Loki]

I think the ship has long sailed that would have allowed us to get a positive outcome. I do think Assad will be forced from Damascus at some point, and we might get some brownie points if we're viewed as helping bringing about that outcome (it doesn't hurt that our relations with Assad are sufficiently bad that we'll never be able to repair them). Staying out of the conflict isn't going to lead to the pre-civil war situation. An Islamist-ruled Syria will stabilize much quicker than a Syria that still has Assad at its head. That's not to say it will be a peaceful transition. It might very well be a slightly less bad version of Iraq. But the alternative is watching this civil war drag on for decades and quite possibly lead to severe regional consequences.

Regarding the proposed set of action (limited strikes), I don't think they're the worst idea to the extent that it might discourage Assad and other dictators from using WMD in the future. I don't think the strikes will have any real effect on the battlefield though, and they shouldn't be expected to (even if the rebels immediately take advantage of the situation, the strikes won't be enough to help them maintain any momentum; for that, they need more weapons and more advanced weapons).

Regarding the Erdogan point, I think it's been obvious for a long time that there are very few "good guys" in the Middle East; you work with who exists, not who you wish existed.