I have so little patience with people who argue that we should commit acts of violence not because they will make things better but because we can’t be seen as bluffers. If people see that we were bluffing once, they’ll never think we’re serious again. Here’s my suggestion for the Do Something Caucus: why don’t you try your strategy in a game of poker?
Okay, every time you get dealt a pair, why don’t you go ahead and bet like you’ve got a straight flush. And if someone calls you on it, just keep throwing money in the pot so they won’t get the idea that you were bluffing. Never fold.
Being good at poker involves the same skills as being good at statecraft. Sometimes you can bluff your way out of a jam. Some times you can’t. And you have to know when to cut your losses or you are going to go broke.
You know, you don’t want to get involved in a civil war that will harm our national interests, but you don’t want people to be killed with chemical weapons, either. So, you talk tough to try to prevent the use of chemical weapons. It doesn’t work.
Do you really think the Iranians are going to conclude that just because we were holding a pair of deuces in Syria that we’re definitely holding a pair of deuces with regard to their nuclear program? One problem we can’t fix, and the other we can (at least, for a while).
How many years did we extend the Vietnam War just so we could create a “decent interval” between our withdrawal and the collapse of the regime in Saigon? Why didn’t we fold earlier? Because we wanted to be more credible? To save face?
It didn’t work. We just lost more money and lives, and had nothing positive to show for it. No one gives a shit that it took a couple of years for Saigon to fall.
If we’re just going to drop a couple of cruise missiles on Syria, we’re not going to change anything. And if we do anything more than that, we’ll be committed to war and the aftermath. And that’s a headache we do not deserve.
If you have a strategy that you think might work, go ahead and share it. But if you are going to argue that acting will probably be somewhere between ineffective and disastrous, but we have to do it anyway, then I have a poker game you are invited to join.
And if we do anything more than that, we’ll be committed to war and the aftermath.
Boots onna ground!
BooMan, do you really trust your instincts about what escalation is inevitable?
You do understand that we probably don’t want the rebels to win, don’t you?
Go ask a secular Syrian, regardless of sect or religious background if they want the rebels to win. Ask a Christian. Ask your average Sunni.
You’ll get an even stronger negative response than if you go ask an average person in Cairo what they think about the Muslim Brotherhood.
But that wasn’t what you asked.
You asked if I trust my instincts. Yes, I do.
I have two main instincts.
The first is that there is no outcome that we want in Syria, so success is an impossibility.
The second is that once we start bombing, we will be sucked into choosing an outcome that we don’t want and then pursuing it until the American public punishes the fuck out of us for being idiots.
When the best the foreign policy establishment can come up with is “This won’t work, it will probably make things worse, but we have to do it because…” it doesn’t really matter how you end that sentence.
You want to end it with “we have to maintain the taboo on chemical weapons”? Fine. But you could end it with any other conceivable phrase and the logic wouldn’t be any better.
We don’t want the rebels to win, at least not the ones we’ve seen so far. Success is impossible in-country, but could be couched in terms of containing failure elsewhere, as one does in such circumstances.
But beyond maintaining the taboo on chemical weapons, which is probably worth risking something for, we have to hope that we can make a counter-move which wrests Assad’s ability to manipulate ourselves and his erstwhile allies into a confrontation which none of us may have otherwise elected to escalate. That seems the prize, to me, and I wonder if taking no action is the right way to achieve that.
Why are you talking about the rebels winning? Secretary Kerry isn’t talking about the rebels winning. He’s talking about there being consequences for the return of chemical warfare. I know that isn’t something that matters much to you – now that it’s become convenient, you’re in the “gas bombs are no different from bullets” crowd, and a hearty congratulation for that – but it’s pretty clear that the administration does consider chemical weapons attacks a big deal, and is reacting to that, not a desire to help the rebels.
When the best the foreign policy establishment can come up with is “This won’t work, it will probably make things worse, but we have to do it because…”
Kindly link to “the foreign policy establishment” saying that deterrence strikes can’t work to deter chemical weapons usage. Kthnxbai.
You are usually fairly logical in your arguments, but I haven’t said anything about CW attacks being no different than conventional attacks.
I’ve said that we shouldn’t intervene in this particular case because it will lead us into the war. You argue that it is possible to do something minor and symbolic. I argue that it is not, because the follow-on pressure for results will overwhelm policy makers.
You’ve dismissed the significance of chemical weapons, and the legitimacy of the need to deter them, over and over.
You haven’t written a single word taking exception to any of the many, many comments posted on your site explicitly making those points.
By all means, if you wish to lay out your position on the unique danger posed by chemical warfare, and why international law is correct to single it out, and thereby clear up this confusion, have at it.
I understand why some people make the argument that “dead is dead” and chemical weapons aren’t more morally objectionable than conventional weapons. I haven’t made that argument.
There is a very good reason to punish the Assad regime for using chemical weapons. In fact, there is a very good reason to make sure he winds up dead or in The Hague.
And that is what we are going to do now, step by step, until it’s over.
If that was all that we’re talking about, I’d support it. But it’s not all we’re talking about, and until you stop riding around on your high horse and take the collateral effects seriously, I am going to continue to dismiss you as a Do Somethingite.
I take the collateral effects seriously.
But the return of chemical warfare cannot be allowed to happen. It is bigger than Syria, it is bigger even than the Middle East.
This is the pivot point for a global-scale problem. It stops here, or it doesn’t stop.
So, what? You think that dropping some cruise missiles on Syria that you admit will not change the course of the war, which currently favors the regime, will really send a message.
I don’t.
And you think that the failure to act in Syria, due to a cold-calculation of our national interest, would lead to what? A bunch of African dictators suddenly mixing up batches of neurotoxins for shits and giggles? Not that many nations even have chemical weapons, at least that we can confirm.
And can we have some actual evidence, please, that the Syrian regime decided that this attack was in their best interests and totally made sense for them?
Depends on how many cruise missiles, and what they hit.
You seem to think the fall of Assad is the only thing that could serve as a deterrent against future use. You haven’t explained why losing, say, most of an air force, several security ministries, the presidential palace, and another whole pice of Assad’s very favorite toys would make no impression on anyone watching it happen, or on Assad himself. That’s rather an extraordinary claim.
And you think that the failure to act in Syria, due to a cold-calculation of our national interest, would lead to what? A bunch of African dictators suddenly mixing up batches of neurotoxins for shits and giggles? Not that many nations even have chemical weapons, at least that we can confirm.
Nations tend not to expend money on weaponry they don’t think they can use, or to have a deterrent-in-kind against a type of weaponry they don’t think will ever be used agains them. Yet another reason why the chemical weapons norm shouldn’t be tossed aside.
And for perhaps the fiftieth time, yes, the administration should show its evidence – though I doubt there is any level of evidence that would convince you to abandon your campaign.
You expect our armed forces to decimate their entire air force with cruise missiles? That’s nuts. Maybe their runways…
Let me see who agrees with me that this is a bad idea.
Here are your options:
Which one do you like?
Amazing. You get an answer that above Joe maintains is “above his paygrade”.
Uhhhh…from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Nice own-goal.
You expect our armed forces to decimate their entire air force with cruise missiles?
No, I gave you too much credit, and took your “a couple of cruise missiles” phrasing to be a figure of speech.
Because it would be really, really, really stupid to believe that anybody was actually talking about “a couple of cruise missiles.”
But, apparently, you meant it.
So…okay then.
Well, that was a particularly weasely response.
Our cruise missiles cost somewhere between $500k and $1.5 million a pop. And they can’t destroy more than about two closely-spaced planes a piece. Not to mention, there’s a thing called taking off and flying your planes in order to prevent them all being destroyed on the ground. Then there’s the narrow window (a couple of days) that the administration is hinting at for the operation, which doesn’t give you a lot of time to track down every hidden hangar full of planes.
If you want to take out an air force, you need to do it from the air, not the sea. You need to get in the airspace.
What you can do, though, is blow up every jet-grade runway in the country. If they can’t take off, you’ll eliminate their air force for a few days, at least.
So our plan is to start a war with the Assad regime, but we’re going to be scrupulously careful not to win it? And we’re supposed to adequately punish Assad for the use of chemical weapons without the rebels winning?
Given the way Assad is acting now, I don’t think I’ll regard any result of the civil war that leaves him alive and in power as a punishment, but I don’t see any outcome that kills him or removes him from power which isn’t a rebel victory.
I’m not a pacifist, and believe that military force is an appropriate course of action in some cases. I agree that the fact that Assad appears to be committing serious crimes against humanity is genuinely terrible. The fact that allowing him to get away with it would set (more) precedent for the use of chemical weapons is a very serious problem. I just don’t see how using military force could plausibly solve the problem we actually have.
So our plan is to start a war with the Assad regime, but we’re going to be scrupulously careful not to win it?
No. We’re not going to be “scrupulously careful not to win it.” We’re going to do something other than try to win it. This is not a difficult point. If you play dumb here, you’re going to have to do it solo from here on out.
And we’re supposed to adequately punish Assad for the use of chemical weapons without the rebels winning?
I don’t believe the rebels winning is a necessary condition to create a deterrent effect, no.
I’m not going for cosmic justice for Assad. I’m going for deterrence agains future chemical warfare.
I don’t believe the rebels winning is a necessary condition to create a deterrent effect, no.
I do. Assad is, obviously, overwhelmingly concerned with crushing the rebels, so doing stuff to “punish” him that doesn’t hinder his ability to crush the rebels isn’t going to deter him from doing anything that actually helps him crush the rebels.
If we’re just going to drop a couple of cruise missiles on Syria, we’re not going to change anything.
“A couple of cruise missiles” won’t change the direction of the civil war, no.
Surely, you’ve noticed that there is another issue at play than the outcome of the civil war: the return of chemical warfare. Is that something that should be no big deal, or is it something that should come with a big cost to anyone who does it?
I want the next asshole who thinks about gassing a few thousand people to look at what happens to Bashar al-Assad and think twice. More than twice, if we can get decent targeting intel.
“Won’t change the course of the civil war…look at what happen[ed] to Bashar al-Assad” doesn’t add up.
I want the next asshole who thinks about gassing a few thousand people to look at what happens to Bashar al-Assad and think twice. More than twice, if we can get decent targeting intel.
What’s the difference between gassing them and murdering a few hundred, if not more, with guns, knives and other weapons?
If you don’t know by now why chemicals weapons are singled out under international law for special condemnation, I doubt an explanation from me will help you.
Why don’t you google the question. There is almost a century of literature.
It’s still killing people. Notice we didn’t do squat these past few weeks about Egypt. Why are lives there worth less? And it’s not like we adhere to all of the laws under the Geneva Conventions(which was quoted as a reason for getting involved in the Syria mess).
Why don’t you google chemical weapons history, and learn for yourself why they are singled out for special condemnation under international law?
Seriously, why don’t you? There is an enormous amount of literature on the subject. It is there for you to learn, and either accept or reject.
Why won’t you do this?
This return of chemical warfare doesn’t seem to be causing much outrage outside of your usual suspects. Maybe that’s because Assad is using it on his own people rather than an enemy nation. Perhaps it doesn’t seem like much of a deviation from mass slaughter by airplane, artillery, and tank bombardment.
Even more reason to take it to the UN. Let the nations decide if this convention needs to be respected.
You’re right; many people have decided, for their own shitty little reasons, that chemical warfare is just no big deal.
I think it would be a little more credible if the US hasn’t constantly been involved in nefarious shit with chemical weapons, like being partially responsible for Saddam gassing Iranians. Deterrence as joe speaks of would definitely resonate more loudly with me if it was applied equally and soundly around the board. That hasn’t seemed to be the case.
You know, seabe, Florida law enforcement has done a lot of racist shit over the years.
So when they charged George Zimmerman, it just didn’t resonate with me.
Call it the boy who cried wolf too many times. I do not trust why we are entering into this war based both on our past history of being part of some of the most heinous crimes in the contemporary, and obvious negligence to other conflicts where lives are valued less. Maybe we aren’t acting solely based on an amoral interest anymore, and we’re turning a new leaf. But it is going to take more than a new head of the executive to convince me that we are concerned about the principle of deterrence when it comes to chemical warfare. The 1980’s weren’t too far off, and many of the same assholes in poet then were in power as short as five years ago.
Not to mention its not clear how this deters anyone. Huge leaders who use hear weapons are in desperation mode, and aren’t rational actors. Just as the death penalty doesn’t deter murderers, I don’t see how this deters future madmen.
The “boy” in question, President Obama, shot down the last two charges of chemical weapons usage by the Syrian regime. This situation is exactly the opposite of the boy who cried wolf. It’s the boy who kept telling people “Go home, there’s no wolf,” now crying wolf for the first time.
You keep saying “We,” but “we” don’t set policy. John McCain and Lindsay Graham have been banging away for intervention on behalf of the rebels, for exactly the amoral national-interest reasons you discuss – but the people who are coming out now in favor of a response to the chemical warfare atrocity (Barack Obama, John Kerry, joe from Lowell heh) are the people who have spent the last two years resisting the effort to drum up a war on behalf of the rebellion.
Also, Bashar Assad is not a madman, but a cool calculator, and he is not in a desperate situation.
For what other reasons do you believe he used chemical weapons? What calculation is he banking on? An (inevitable) US response of said usage that will furthet screw with relations in the rest of the region, most especially Iran and Hezbollah, just for the fuck of it? Why? Because of Israel? Spite? Explain to me his thinking if not desperation. Syria was one of the best opportunities to renew engagement with this part of the world, and I hoped for normalized relations. Obviously outside actors and forces beyond control got on the way.
Not that I want to turn into Oui, but SEE MY CONSPIRACY-MONGERING DIARY!
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/08/26/1234078/-Why-Would-Assad-Launch-a-Chemical-Weapons-Attack-N
ow?detail=hide
Yes that’s what I was getting at, but it still doesn’t make much sense unless you believe that if Iran and the US normalize relations then Syria will lose a lot of their funding and forces to continue fighting the rebels. I don’t see why they would, unless you think the US would nudge Iran in that direction.
Regarding the issue of chemical weapons proliferation, especially if it turns out that Assad has deliberately adulterated neurotoxins with riot control agents to confound the UN and discredit victims claims. On the other hand I think we need to unravel Assad’s motives and not fall into any Byzantine traps which may have been laid for us with our typically predictable responses.
To be honest I don’t believe either Russia or Iran are thrilled with Assad’s calculus in using weapons of mass destruction on his own people. In both cases it significantly constrains their options in dealing with a US response and it may have thwarted other regional aspirations which may have been improved by a denouement in the immediate Syrian crisis.
I seriously wonder if some kind of limited strike against Assad might even be tolerated or given covert back-channel acquiescence by his erstwhile allies under the right circumstances. Ironically Israel’s condemnation of Assad seemed a bit tardy which also bears consideration; Assad may not be the only actor with mixed feelings about a possible US/Iranian détente; hard to say. Middle East geopolitics is a very tricky wicket these days.
One lesson of history is that sometimes the behind-the-scenes wheeling and dealing isn’t publicly acknowledged until decades after the fact. Let’s hope they’re making a good job of it.
You’re accepting the allegation that the Syrian government willfully released chemical weapons. Did we get it right in the Iran/Iraq war? Of course not since it was a) in our interests not to do so and b) materials for those weapons came from the US.
Did the US government and/or public demand the heads of those responsible for the release of deadly chemicals in Bhopal? (Thousands died and hundred of thousands injured.) That would be no. We shielded those that were criminally negligent. That also ties into Barrett Brown:
In this case I am. Given the scope of the attack and lethality of the agents used and the districts of Damascus targeted. It was the MSF assertion of neurotoxin affects that tipped the scales for me. Considering the volatility and difficulty of handling the precursor agents and their shelf life and the sophistication of the delivery system required I’m concluding it is pretty unlikely it was the rebel groups. I discussed this a bit in previous threads.
What does neurotoxins tell you? There was shelling of those suburbs you mention. Do you have evidence Bashar Assad ‘s missiles carried the chemical agents? In a false flag operation at 02:45 at night, the toxic agents could have been released covertly in any number of ways. What comparison do you have for the “lethality of the agents” used in identical circumstances. Why won’t Obama wait two weeks for the UN inspection team to gather the forensic evidence. All the bs about additional shelling and degrading the chemical agents is such bull shit it drips off the faces of Hague, Fabius, Merkel, Peres, Kerry and Prince of darkness Prince Bandar. Anything is possible with this alliance of deceit from the Gulf of Tonkin incident to the Hariri assassination in Beirut in 2005. Remember the masterpiece after Saddam invaded Kuwait and the act by ‘nurse Nayirah’ before the US House Human Rights Caucus? Deceit, deceit, deceit … wait for the concrete forensic evidence. All the rest is pure speculation. Who is talking about the NSA spynetwork these last few days? Angela Merkel may suffer a surprise defeat in the coming German elections. A few bombs is a best medicine. Its our conscience and the moral high ground, I must vomit now.
MSF’s Dr Janssens reports:
‘“MSF can neither scientifically confirm the cause of these symptoms nor establish who is responsible for the attack. However, the reported symptoms of the patients, in addition to the epidemiological pattern of the events–characterised by the massive influx of patients in a short period of time, the origin of the patients, and the contamination of medical and first aid workers–strongly indicate mass exposure to a neurotoxic agent.”
Well that MSF report you quoted seems pretty cogent. I realise the term neurotoxin isn’t very specific, by neurotoxin I mean sarin, tabun or VX and the like; chemical agents which require mixing, stabilisation or binary delivery platforms and which have highly toxic neurological affects on their victims.
I also realise that the Russians claim to have evidence that the rebels used sarin against the Khan al-Assal district in March, blaming the Bashair al-Nasr Brigade of the Free Syrian Army but they haven’t provided a credible narrative of how the rebels came to possess, transport or handle such a difficult and lethal material.
In fact their evidence which relies on the various reports of al-Nusra being apprehended in Adana, Turkey with 2kg of sarin (2kg of sarin? Really? In a thermos flask I suppose) and the earlier raid on an al-Qaeda affiliated chemical weapons facility in Iraq earlier this year just do not seem credible or connected with the use of sarin in Syria. Mustard gas, maybe. Phosgene or chlorine or something like that, perhaps, but the nerve agents are a little trickier to synthesise, store, transport and handle. Not to mention place on target with some kind of reliable, usually binary, delivery system.
I would be happy to discuss both of those incidents in detail, I have linked to the original news items in previous recent threads. Frankly in both cases they are not persuasive evidence of the kind of logistical and technical support these weapons would typical require. And citing them seems, to me, to undermine the seriousness of the Russian claim to the extent that I feel they are just having us on, so to speak, and using the international media to obfuscate the embarrassment of the misuse of their client’s chemical weapons arsenal.
As for the adulteration of, say, sarin with riot agents to confound the identification and response by the international community, well, that just seems to make sense. I really have no basis other than the claim in an al Jazeera piece by an alleged defector (whom, in the same article, denied knowledge of any involvement by Iran in Syria’s chemical weapons program, contrary to Western and Israeli allegations.) I have quoted and linked to this article elsewhere recently. It would seem to consistently explain some of the contradictory effects of most of the alleged uses of chemicals in Syria since late last year which have puzzled and confounded witnesses, doctors and weapons experts.
Somebody is using these weapons, Oui, and it seems to be the likeliest suspect in most cases; those with the motive, opportunity and the resources to do so.
.
Could be an historic lapse, did you already exclude a red flag operation by special forces?
A new article here and I diaried about the possibility based on this source.
Dutch FM Timmermans, a loyal Atlanticist and Israel supporter, isn’t buying just talk, needs proof beyond any doubt
preferably through the United Nations. Apparently Obama hasn’t disclosed his evidence to NATO partners.
The US or Israel is going to introduce a weapon of mass destruction into the miasma of the Syrian insurgency when they can’t even, apparently, keep track of truckloads of conventional arms reaching the intended recipients? I don’t think so, frankly.
The embarrassingly flimsy Britam conspiracy was debunked, fairly comprehensively, in the comments to the piece to which you yourself linked. I wonder if you read these links yourself sometimes.
And for the nth time, the UN inspectors’ brief is to identify the agent, if any, used in the attack, not the perpetrator. So Timmermans is likely to have a long wait if he is expecting to resolve that question.
That the claims of evidence being degraded by subsequent shelling and so forth are errant bullsh*t:
The point, however, is that UN inspection was only ever intended to confirm the agent used, not who was responsible for using it. That was never in the scope of the investigation at any site. I personally believe that Western sources disingenuously disclaimed the usefulness of the forensics simply to disempower Assad and dissuade him from refusing access to hold up a ‘verdict,’ so to speak, in the world media. This gives them greater freedom of action regarding subsequent Western responses without playing ‘cat and mouse’ with a convoy of UN inspectors in a hostile suburb of Damascus.
The MSF report was enough for me, in this case, I tend to trust them in these situations. I expect the UN forensics to confirm the use of sarin or something similar, though not in fully weaponised concentrations.
Wouldn’t Assad and his cohorts have to be suicidal and nuts to launch such an attack? What would they potentially gain and lose in doing that? What am I missing in not seeing any potential gain and huge potential losses?
Whereas, for the “rebels” there were huge potential gains and practically zero loss potential. Except for those civilians that were killed and injured, and if they feel any more remorse from that than we do for civilians our bombs kill and injure, they can assuage their guilt by considering them martyrs to the cause.
He could have believed that there wouldn’t be any Western military response, or that the response would help the rebels less than the gas attack would hurt them. Given that we seem to be talking about strikes that won’t actually compromise his ability to fight the rebels, these beliefs seem not only reasonable in hindsight, but likely to be correct.
IOW – you think Assad is stupid. Doesn’t get it that he’s in the crosshairs of the KSA, Qatar, Israel, Turkey, and the US just itching for any excuse to pull the trigger?
No, I don’t think he’s an idiot. I think he took a calculated risk, and his calculations are probably correct.
The extent to which the US has been itching for any excuse to pull the trigger has been consistently overstated (we’ve had plenty of excuses, and there haven’t been any airstrikes yet). Even now, the likelihood of us launching the sort of airstrikes that would actually seriously hinder Assad’s efforts to fight the rebels is pretty small.
As I have suggested before a Western retribution would likely sabotage any potential détente with Iran or negotiation with Russia on a diplomatic resolution of Syria; both potential threatening to Assad’s autonomy and power.
I disagree with your assessment of gains, risks and, for that matter, capability. The notion that some “black ops” scenario placed a quantity of neurotoxin agent in the hands of a rebel group in Syria with dubious loyalty and porous connections to al-Qaeda strikes me as the kind of really bad idea that even a Western intelligence organisation could see had more downside than potential.
Your notion, not mine. It’s not as if all the rebel groups aren’t resourceful. Many ways to get their hands on chemicals — likely precursers as the shelf life after mixing isn’t long.
Mustard gas, sure. Chlorine, phosgene maybe. But I haven’t heard a credible narrative which has them acquiring, handling, mixing, transporting and delivering the neurotoxin agents or precursors which the MSF suggests were used in the attack in question. A binary weapon resolves some of the overheads and risks of handling at the expense of sourcing the more complex ready-to-use weapon system.
I am open to accusations of rebel use of chemical weapons, in fact the Khan al-Assal attack seems to suggest they did. But I think it is pretty unlikely they used the neurotoxic agents we seem to have evidence of in this instance. Please, go read the Wikipedia page on sarin and put the rather elaborate infrastructure and safety precautions of handling it in context of the rebel organisation of just about any faction. Just doesn’t add up, it seems to me.
And discounting, as I have suggested, the notion that it has been covertly supplied by some Great Power you would also need a fairly elaborate scenario to explain the origin of the sarin which the rebels acquired.
Read Oui’s link. The evidence for a neurotoxin weapon attack is mixed. That writer isn’t convinced.
A Schedule 3 chemical weapon as defined under the Chemical Weapons Agreement?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXzyS9eUVgs
Don’t know if it’s true. Just know that the half of the world not including America has heard about it since May.
Read the whole thing and responded to it here. The author is thoughtful and well-informed and concludes that the suggestion which I have been making for days is plausible and needs to be addressed. This isn’t as difficult as we seem to be making it.
How much would the rebels gain by US airpower?
Have you ever read much about Francis Gary Powers, the U-2 and how it ended the Paris Peace Talks and gave us another thirty years of Cold War? Did you know that the CIA sent Powers and the U-2 over the USSR in direct contradiction to Eisenhower’s orders to ground all U-2 flights?
Maybe it’s because you aren’t expressing yourself clearly, but the rebels and the west have all the reasons in the world to bring in US airpower.
So let’s just play the tape and hear it for ourselves.
.
What Happened? If it isn’t Sarin, what is it? by Dan Kaszeta
Source – Strongpoint Security.
This is exactly the scenario which I have repeatedly suggested and cited the previous al-Jazeera article supporting:
And, yet again, the al-Jazeera piece from May:
Your citation tends to add credibility to this thesis.
It does not matter what the allegations are. The entire GOP is currently running around the country yelling Defund Obamacare/Default on the Debt. The vacuum their absence creates allows Obmama to do whatever. The latest rumor is that the bombing will start Thursday. Prediction….if the bombing takes place, there will be all out war between Paul and McCain. GOP is all politics no policy.
Speaking of “behind the scenes wheeling and dealing” this is a newsy titbit of international relations gossip:
So… Bond villains Putin and Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan have a secret meeting three weeks ago and now on the eve of a US punitive attack on Syria transcripts are splashed all over the Russian papers? Vladimir, how could you? This piece is a conspiracy theorist’s smorgasbord.
If only the Kingdom has a port on the Med…
Airdrop gas masks, chemical protection suits, gas detectors/alarms. To both/all sides.
Have the UN and the Red Cross/Crescent take the lead on this.
Oh yeah, more “/” in posts. That.
I wish the damn media would listen to you, Boo. Just yesterday on NPR they had a long interview with a guy who kept calling President Obama the avoider-in-chief because he has tried not to intervene in this mess.
And is Russia bluffing? Who knows and do we really want to find out? The penalty for enforcing the chemical red line may be nuclear war. I don’t want millions of American dead to be the price of avenging a few thousand Syrians who probably hated us anyway.
Is Putin crazy enough? I think the chances are high enough to have a good reason to chance it. i.e. a vital US interest not just making another “War Preznit”. Kerry was a hawk on Iraq and we see his influence here.
Obama has been pretty lonesome holding the line against intervention. Hillary certainly wanted to do “something.”
Another example of the power of the Presidency versus the power of the oil industry/CIA/military.
What? When did Russia threaten nuclear war to protect Syria?
Just a few days ago they threatened “dire consequences” about US intervention. Recently Putin has said something like “Russia will not stand by if the USA invades Syria”. Such a direct clash can easily escalate.
The prospect of Russia launching a suicidal nuclear attack over something that isn’t a threat to their survival is grade-A fear-mongering bullshit.
But one thing is crystal clear: Russia is not going to go to war with the USA over dirt-poor perpetually unstable Syria. And that goes a million-fold for nuclear war.
Daniel Larison agrees:
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/military-action-no-matter-how-ineffective-or-risky/
So it seems fitting to observe that the sentence from Miller I quoted above is possibly one of the dumbest things anyone has written about Syria in the last two years. Assuming the Syrian government used chemical weapons, it doesn’t mandate an American response. The U.S. may choose to attack Syria, but it isn’t required to do so by any international convention or commitment that it has made. To say that the U.S. must respond is false, but it’s the second part of this formulation that is breathtakingly foolish. The U.S. has to respond to something “no matter how ineffective or risky” that response is? Oh, all right. Costs and consequences are irrelevant to the decision to start bombing another country, and action has to be taken for the sake of taking action. There could be no better statement of irresponsible do-somethingism than this.
The natural assumption is that the US would target Syrian chemical weapons depots in response to the use of chemical weapons. But that might not be true. Even if the locations of the chemical weapon stockpiles are truly known, successful hits on them could release the chemical agents. Plus there are additional factors making them difficult to target. Stockpiles can be moved and/or they can be kept in hardened bunkers.
The most probably response seems to be a cruise missile strike. Dispersed, mobile, or hardened targets are not especially vulnerable to cruise missiles. Relatively exposed immobile targets are. Communications nodes, air control towers, fuel tank farms and the like are. My guess is an American strike would have the goal of grounding as much of Assad’s air power as possible and to kill or disrupt his military leaders and their ability to coordinate and move around his forces.
On topic:
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2013/08/medias-reporting-on-syria-as-terrible-as-it-was-on-iraq/
The whole thing smells like Gulf of Tonkin.
Has anything ever not reminded you of Vietnam?
joe, extraordinary rendition. A little ride in a helicopter over the jungle. A flight over the South Atlantic. They still attach the magnetos.
So your answer is, “No, there is nothing that has ever not reminded me of Vietnam. I object to the implication that anything could ever not be Vietnam.”
Congratulations.
Could you at least attempt to be less of a dick? There’s only one rule here, and you’re breaking it.
Could you attempt to be even slightly objective?
ha! Ha! The pot calling the kettle black.
Joe, it’s different from Vietnam. JFK proposed withdrawing from Vietnam and bought the farm. Obama just dragged his feet for awhile.
BooMan: When the best the foreign policy establishment can come up with…
You may consider the New York Times Editorial Board to be the peak of foreign policy thinking, but I sure as hell don’t. I’ll take Barack Obama and John Kerry over them in a heartbeat.
I understand the skepticism of many people regarding what intelligence services say (I’m pretty skeptical myself), but what it comes down to for me is that President Obama has demonstrated that he doesn’t want any part of this. He has also demonstrated that he’s not going to be name-called into doing stupid things. So if his administration is saying that Assad’s forces are responsible, I’m inclined to believe that the President is convinced that this is true, as much as he wishes it wasn’t. He’s not the Messiah and he can make bad decisions, but I think it’s clear that he does not want us to go to war in Syria, so talk of “Gulf of Tonkin” or Iraq seems a bit over-the-top.
Can the US take out the majority (say, 90%) of Syria’s chemical weapons stocks with air/missile strikes without hitting major population centers. If that’s possible, I could see that being a net-positive; the existence of these weapons in a volatile region (well, their existence at all, really) is a constant threat to the people living there. If the attack is limited and targeted on the chemical weapons, I could see Russia being publicly pissed, but privately acquiescing.
However, I recall earlier reporting, when the President made his “red line” statement, that Syria has this crap stashed all over and in urban areas where bombing the stashes would likely cause some of the chemical weapons to be released among the population. If that’s the case, then I’m with Booman. Don’t do anything.
I agree. Obama has avoided this as much as possible. But he’s not really running the military-industrial complex. No President has run it in fifty years.
History matters.
So far, this is the only credible on-the-ground independent report we have.
Doctors Without Borders: Syria: Thousands Suffering Neurotoxic Symptoms Treated in Hospitals Supported by MSF
In interpreting this, Juan Cole has the following analysis about the possibility of this being a rebel attack:
The current Wikipedia page on Syria and weapons of mass destruction-chemical weapons is informative of some recent information. One interesting report is the use of 3-Quinuclidinyl benzilate also called BZ. There have also been reports of the use of Sarin. Production and stockpiling of Sarin are outlawed under the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1993 as a Schedule 1 substance. Syria is not a signatory to this convention. Israel is a signatory but has not ratified the treaty and thus has not fulfilled the disclosure requirements. Egypt is not a signatory to the treaty.
If one were seeking a short-term action in order to deter Syria and other countries from using nuclear weapons, the most effective response would be destruction of the stockpiles and the delivery devices. Destruction of the stockpiles requires that their locations be known, that the means of destruction do not have the effects of a chemical attack itself, and that the attack is complete in its destruction of the chemical weapons. Destruction of the means of delivery would have the advantage of assuring Israel that the risk of a chemical weapons attack on it has been reduced. Given the confused situation in Syria, it is not clear to what degree either of these steps is practical and what means would best accomplish them.
Before any violation of Syrian sovereignty by those seeking to deter Syria against further chemical attacks, there should be indisputable evidence of Syria’s involvement in the attacks and the nature of the chemicals; in principle the UN team on the ground has the authority to determine the second but apparently not the first. (Note that deterring the rebels of further chemical attacks is pretty much a fools errand; they have nothing diplomatic to lose.)
In making the case for Syrian government culpability, the United States is at a disadvantage because of its credibility. The stunt that the Bush administration pulled in the UN Security Council in order to go to war in Iraq and the fact that US government has not held accountability or redressed the record makes statements by the Obama administration suspect. That problem comes from a too-willing attitude in the White House to deliver the vague statements received from the military and intelligence agencies without a clear appreciation that other nations might have better intelligence of the events. That credibility gap has grown not diminished over the Obama administration. Should the report that is being declassified have the same flaws as the UK intelligence report that justified the assertion that Iraq was pursuing weapons of mass destruction, the effects on US diplomacy would be extremely damaging. What was seen as an anomaly of the Bush administration will become widely seen as systemic of US foreign policy. The promised report better get the facts right, be upfront with what is not known, and source the facts in such a way that the will be as inarguable as the presence of Soviet IRBMs in Cuba in 1962.
Until that report comes out, there is not much more to discuss.
The wider motives of US involvement in Syria need discussion, but they are complex and not germane to this issue if the US action is indeed targeted at deterring further use of chemical weapons in Syria.
If one were seeking a short-term action in order to deter Syria and other countries from using [chemical, you mean] weapons, the most effective response would be destruction of the stockpiles and the delivery devices.
I disagree. The most effective response, especially to deter future use, would be to exactly a massive price from the regime.
Not take the shooter’s gun, but beat the living hell out of him for everyone to see, and say “This is what happens.”
“Is this your homework, Larry.”
“The little bastard is stonewalling me.”
If you exact a massive price, you either go counter-force or counter-value. Counter-value inherently means more civilian casualties and even counter-force (like the 1998 Clinton strikes on Baghdad) are not without civilian casualties.
So what are your targets for this massive price, given that there is at least a year of civil war’s destruction in the country already?
I pay people to figure those things out for me. They work in this cool five-sided building near the Potomac.
Shall I ask you what the Medicare reimbursement chart should read?
Interesting who you trust to be minimalist even in exacting a massive price. Or is that your point? In the old RW phrase, “turn it to glass”?
You are dodging the counter-force/counter-value argument entirely. What constitutes exacting a massive price in your imagination?
Again, tactical details are above my paygrade.
What do you think Uncle Sam should pay for gall bladder surgery?
So you are at, “Let’s go kill some Syrians to punish Assad and let’s do it big. USA. USA. USA. Don’t mess with Uncle Sam.”
Well, $300 sounds fair for gall bladder surgery.
No, I’m all “Stop asking me stupid questions that it’s not my job to answer.”
Your frustration that I won’t run down your rabbit hole is Not. My. Problem.
I’m thinking that surgery to remove necrotic extremities from diabetes patients should charge by the finger, not by the digit. Your thoughts?
Military airfields, fuel tank farms, air control facilities, command/control/communications facilities, motor pools, air-defense radars – anything that makes it hard for Assad to employ air power, to move around ground forces, and to coordinate the whole. Hitting air defense systems would cause great worry of stronger follow-on strikes.
The goal would not be to destroy chem weapon stockpiles directly but to degrade Assad’s forces ability to use its air power and heavy weapons advantages.
So you are for imposition of a no-fly zone.
Are you aware of nature of the political forces you might be advantaging? Or is the idea just to perpetuate the civil war?
And what is the politics that will result from these actions?
Actually I did not say one thing about imposing a no-fly zone. And since you brought it up, no, that is not what I “favor”.
I suggested a cruise missile strike would be aimed to do ad much damage to Assad’s ability to deploy air power, to maneuver his heavy ground weapons, and to degrade his CCC capability. And probably to strike at fixed-position air defense facilities, since those are easy to hit and are likely to cause future doubts in the minds of Syrian planners.
Nope… not one word about imposing a no-fly zone.
All the things you mentioned are necessary to impose a no-fly zone. So you didn’t mention it yet that would be the end result.
Not at all. Yours is a silly statement. To impose a no-fly zone would take much more than a cruise missile strike. Targeting trucks (motor pools) used to move around heavy ground weapons is not at all needed to impose a no-fly zone. And targeting fixed SAM-2/3 sites does nothing to degrade the hundreds of mobile SAM site Syria operates. And even if one cruise missile strike wiped out everything (which is impossible but let’s say you are right) that does not force the USA to impose a no-fly zone.
Notice how the US is not surging 4+ aircraft carriers to the area? There’s a major clue for you that whatever strike is being considered it is limited in its objective.
Let’s recap here. I believe that you are not advocating for a no-fly zone.
“Military airfields, fuel tank farms, air control facilities, command/control/communications facilities, motor pools, air-defense radars – anything that makes it hard for Assad to employ air power, to move around ground forces, and to coordinate the whole. Hitting air defense systems would cause great worry of stronger follow-on strikes.
The goal would not be to destroy chem weapon stockpiles directly but to degrade Assad’s forces ability to use its air power and heavy weapons advantages”
My comment was not about the kind of strike the US plans to use. The essence of your statement here is pretty much the exact gameplan they would use to impose a no-fly zone minus motor pools and fuel tank farms.
Cruise missile strikes for one or two days is obviously not going to eliminate Syria’s air power and air defenses. I agree that the strike being proposed is limited in its objective.
This entire comment seems based on the assumption other nations have intel directly contradicting the USA position that Assad’s forces almost assuredly launched the attack. It’s just as likely these nations have their own sources which tend to confirm the US stance. Considering Britain and France are already leaning towards the “something must be done” position, it seems like the odds favor the confirmation scenario.
I don’t think the professional diplomats and military planners of the world think along the lines you suggest. I think most nations knew Bush/Cheney were spinning a tall tale in 2002 and I think these same pros know the Obama team is not cut from the same cloth.
This comment is based on an assumption that if you are going to do something that is effective as oppose just a big fireworks show, what would that be?
It is also demanding that the diplomatic and military people making these decisions show their work to the public because they have lost trust and credibility.
If professional diplomats and military planners don’t think along the lines I suggest, what lines to they think along?
As for differences between the Bush and Obama administrations, I would point out that the continuity between the two is stronger and for the simple reason that the senior officials (absent political appointees) in the military and the State Department are the same. The sources of information from the Middle East are very much the same. The bureaucratic agendas of the working parts of the national security and foreign policy establishments are very much the same. And the Village personal networks and culture within which all these senior level people move are pretty much the same.
Which means that the White House staff must do more due diligence, be skeptical, and share more information honestly with the public in order to demonstrate that they are indeed different. There has been too much continuity of policy for the White House to assume that the public trusts them on this.
I linked to two articles that state best what we know. I have no idea what other nation’s intelligence information shows; only that different sources will produce different details and different evidence.
The Obama administration just announced the intel showing Assad was behind the gas attack will be released in a day or two.
Good.
This:
http://www.sott.net/article/262416-Syrian-Opposition-Armed-to-block-Iran-Iraq-Syria-gas-pipeline-con
struction
Well, in this country we never admit that our war-making is about oil, gas, and/or other valuable natural resource. Fortunately for the war-mongers, Americans never tire sequels.
Well, Syrtia has none of those in significant quantities. She doesn’t even really have enough fresh water to support her population. So it would seem there are other factors at work.
It’s about the gas pipeline. But don’t let me interfere with your willful ignorance or denial.
Bent double, like old beggars under sacks,
Knock-kneed, coughing like hags, we cursed through sludge,
Till on the haunting flares we turned our backs
And towards our distant rest began to trudge.
Men marched asleep. Many had lost their boots
But limped on, blood-shod. All went lame; all blind;
Drunk with fatigue; deaf even to the hoots
Of disappointed shells that dropped behind.
GAS! Gas! Quick, boys!- An ecstasy of fumbling,
Fitting the clumsy helmets just in time;
But someone still was yelling out and stumbling
And floundering like a man in fire or lime.-
Dim, through the misty panes and thick green light
As under a green sea, I saw him drowning.
In all my dreams, before my helpless sight,
He plunges at me, guttering, choking, drowning.
If in some smothering dreams you too could pace
Behind the wagon that we flung him in,
And watch the white eyes writhing in his face,
His hanging face, like a devil’s sick of sin;
If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud
Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,-
My friend, you would not tell with such high zest
To children ardent for some desperate glory,
The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est
Pro patria mori.
So he’s ignorant and in denial for thinking there might be other reasons beyond the acquisition of natural resources for civil war and military intervention? Seems kinda simplistic.
A pipeline is just a convienience. The gas will reach market through other methods of transit. Don’t let me get in the way of your oversimplifuications.
It’s never a question of the product reaching market. It’s a question of who profits. Does Iran, Iraq and Syria profit or does Qatar and Saudi Arabia (and their Western oil partners) profit?
If it’s about Kuwait connecting to the Nambucco pipeline, it’s about breaking the Russian monopoly on the natural gas supply to Europe more than it is about the natural gas.
And that situation is also one reason for European countries moving as rapidly as possible to locally produced renewables.
For Kuwait, that marks an ability to reach a market much more conveniently than what it is currently doing through shipment in LNG ships.
A Syria-Iraq-Iran pipeline is only in play if there is the intent to strangle Iran’s oil and gas industry through cutting off trade through the Mediterranean or connection with the Nambucco pipeline. Iran however has a huge natural gas market emerging in Pakistan and India with the completion of an already scheduled pipeline. So blocking a pipeline through Syria doesn’t have much logic behind it (unless you are a neo-con).
“Cherchez le petrol” is not always a reliable way to determine motives.
Qatar not Kuwait.
CS Monitor today on the Syria-Iraq-Iran pipeline.
Not half as complicated as you made it seem.
Qatar – right. Brain fart.
Jim Miklaszewski, Catherine Chomiak and Erin McClam, NBC News: Military strikes on Syria ‘as early as Thursday,’ US officials say
Thus say the DoD stenographers at NBC.
When’s the report detailing the casus belli coming out? After the bombs fly?
Explanation for why Qatar is funding the rebels. Haven’t seen this in the NY Times:
http://oilprice.com/Geopolitics/Middle-East/Iran-Iraq-Syria-Pipeline-Must-Tempt-Europe.html
Action cannot begin before Thursday because of the 50th commemoration of the March on Washington. Congress starts returning on Tuesday. Journalists are not going to want to miss their long weekend. Boehner and McConnell likely have already been consulted along with Reid and Pelosi and committee chairs.
Based on this strategic analysis, the strikes will happen on Thursday, be short, sharp, and over before the weekend in time for the Sunday talk shows. Targets will likely be from the minimum of CW stores and launchers to Joe’s and Quicklund’s list of targets, which include both counterforce (air control, launchers) and countervalue (Presidential palace) targets. Could also act as cover for CIA-controlled drone strikes on al-Nusra forces.
The document with the evidence justifying the attack will come out Wednesday night prior to 11 o’clock new hour ET.
And having announced potential action, US intelligence is checking out who is moving what to where.
Expected political outcome is to provide momentum for SNC and Ba’ath to begin serious negotiations. Doubt that result will happen. Not sure that effective deterrence against chemical weapons proliferation (Carney’s mantra) will happen either.
Just my speculation after hearing Carney’s non-informative news conference.
Here comes the NSA advertising (per AP)
“US intelligence officials prepare to release intercepted communications tying Assad to large-scale chem weapons attack”
Can we have a provenance check on this? The “yellowcake” document was “intercepted communications” as well.
Can we have a provenance check on this?
One that satisfied the White House? There is almost certainly one going on right now.
One that satisfies conspiratorial internet commenters? There is no such thing.