PDA

View Full Version : Syria: the case for action



davidbfpo
08-29-2013, 09:52 PM
Prompted by today's debate in the House of Commons, a new (temporary) thread. First a couple of documents: 1) the public letter from the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC), with its assessment:http://slink.eu/yd

The BBC's Security Correspondent, Frank Gardiner, tweeted:
UK Govt intelligence case just published on Assad regime culpability for alleged gas attack rests more on logic than hard evidence.

His partner, Gordon Corera, has analysed the JIC letter:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23883617

2) The UK government's legal case:http://slink.eu/ye

From the later document:
If action in the [United Nations] Security Council is blocked, the UK would still be permitted under international law to take exceptional measures in order to alleviate the scale of the overwhelming humanitarian catastrophe in Syria by deterring and disrupting the further use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime.”

The Government sets three conditions:

1) “convincing evidence, generally accepted by the international community as a whole, of extreme humanitarian distress on a large scale, requiring immediate and urgent relief”;

2) “No practicable alternative to the use of force if lives are to be saved”; and

3) Force is necessary and proportionate.

In a sharply worded commentary, the normally "tame" RUSI has rejected the case presented, it ends with:
For the truth is that, although clever lawyers will always find a wheeze, the Syria operation has little justification in international law.

Link:http://www.rusi.org/analysis/commentary/ref:C521F1776B13DD/#.Uh8d3GR4anZ

davidbfpo
08-29-2013, 10:15 PM
The UK government's parliamentary motion has been defeated in the House of Commons: 272 for and 285 against. Stunning! the actual motion:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23870810

The BBC's correspondent remarked:
David cameron has lost control of his foreign policy.

David Cameron's response:
Clear the British Parliament does not want action and I will act accordingly.

Yesterday elsewhere I remarked it would be an odd turn in the 'Special Relationship' if the UK delayed support for the USA, as it was having a parliamentary debate. In a fast-moving exchange and reporting the BBC has noted that UK government gave no clear guarantee that UK military bases won't be used by US in any strike,

davidbfpo
08-29-2013, 10:51 PM
As and when the USG publishes similar documents can they be added here. I am aware that various US papers have reports based on "leaks", but would prefer official explanations or are they the official statements?:wry:

Somehow I doubt that the USA and France will launch a joint strike.

ganulv
08-29-2013, 11:49 PM
The UK government's parliamentary motion has been defeated in the House of Commons: 272 for and 285 against. Stunning!

It is so incredibly difficult for me to even imagine something like this happening with the U.S. Congress. Even the Republicans. The whole game is blame, not responsibility.

TheCurmudgeon
08-30-2013, 12:52 AM
Now you see the real legacy of Bush Presidency and Iraq. It has little to do with COIN and has everything to do with credibility. No one trusts their government is telling them the truth when it comes to foreign intelligence and everyone thinks that any military action inevitably leads to a quagmire.

The Army might as well only train for high intensity conflicts because they will not get used until the Chinese are landing in Seattle.

jcustis
08-30-2013, 02:23 AM
As and when the USG publishes similar documents can they be added here. I am aware that various US papers have reports based on "leaks", but would prefer official explanations or are they the official statements?:wry:

Somehow I doubt that the USA and France will launch a joint strike.

David, I have heard three co-workers speaking about snippets they picked up via open source.

The first told me the UN inspectors were saying the opposition employed the chemical weapons. He went on to opine that it was done to invoke a US reaction to tip the scales.

The second (a linguist) said she read it on a Arab language website that some chief of staff for the Syrian Army had defected, and was claiming to have controlled ~600 chem warheads and other munitions that were buried under civilian areas.

The third said we should have attacked the chemical weapons stocks two years ago when they were likely more centralized.

These are educated, sharp people, but I am baffled as to where they are getting this info and these odd ideas. Our government has such a credibility problem that many Americans wouldn't be swayed from their position if the Presdent himself laid irrefutable evidence at their feet.

Dayuhan
08-30-2013, 05:26 AM
I can understand why people would be reluctant to believe any US statement. I can't understand why so many people seem willing to believe anything anybody else says, or any rumor circulating on the internet.

davidbfpo
08-30-2013, 10:44 AM
David, I have heard three co-workers speaking about snippets they picked up via open source.

I will try to answer your questions, bit by bit as I locate sources. Answer is probably too grand, it will far more appropriately counter-points.


The first told me the UN inspectors were saying the opposition employed the chemical weapons. He went on to opine that it was done to invoke a US reaction to tip the scales.

I have heard several references to the UN diplomat and prosecutor, Carla de Ponte, expressing a view that the latest attack might have been by the rebels - only to be told to stay quiet. The BBC shows several historical reports that she has said similar before, in May 2013 such as:
Carla del Ponte, who serves on the Commission of Inquiry on Syria, said testimony from victims strongly suggested that opposition fighters had used sarin, an extremely potent chemical nerve agent - although there was "no incontrovertible proof".

Link:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22484115

I have noted the official Syrian stance, "It was the rebels". Which has been supported by the "usual suspects". Yes the rebels have in the past acquired CW and are reported to have used CW in attacks IIRC on military targets. If the rebels thought such an atrocity would "tip the scales" so the USA attacked, they were mistaken; after all 99% of all deaths are caused by other weapons.

This is a early assessment of the attack:http://eaworldview.com/2013/08/syria-analysis-three-points-on-chemical-weapons-attack-what-happens-now/


The second (a linguist) said she read it on a Arab language website that some chief of staff for the Syrian Army had defected, and was claiming to have controlled ~600 chem warheads and other munitions that were buried under civilian areas.

I have not heard of such a senior regime defector. The logic of burying CW and other munitions eludes me. Punishing those who side with the rebels or live where the rebels are is a clear regime tactic. There are persistent reports of unusual munitions being used, e.g. barrels of explosives and yesterday a napalm-like bomb:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-23892594


The third said we should have attacked the chemical weapons stocks two years ago when they were likely more centralized.

I read last week an Israeli new report on Syria's weapons, including CW and missiles. This referred to the CW stockpiles being moved from the east to more loyal areas, presumably a move that watchers spotted:
Assad has moved his chemical weapons stockpiles form the desert in eastern Syria to more protected areas on Syria's coast that are ruled by his Alawite sect. These stockpiles, among the largest in the world (some 1,000 tons of chemical warfare agents) are under the complete control of Assad's regime.

Link:http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4421668,00.html

Attacking CW stocks, presumably in some form of bunkers, has I guess its own problems, let alone whether a hit destroys CW. An aspect covered within:http://killerapps.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/08/27/mapped_34_places_in_syria_likely_to_get_hit_with_a _us_cruise_missile

The New Scientist has an editorial, which covers this aspect:
A high-energy blast still won't incinerate all the chemicals but it will lift any intact agents high up where they can spread hundreds of kilometres. Both types of strike are likely to kill people in the vicinity.

A study published last December shows that the bombing of Iraq's extensive chemical weapons plants early in the Gulf War in 1991 released sarin over military encampments 600 kilometres away, at doses Robert Haley of the University of Texas in Dallas says caused characteristic Gulf War illnesses and brain damage. Soldiers who were exposed were four times as likely to have symptoms as those who weren't.[QUOTE]

Returning to who was responsible, a passage that I have not seen elsewhere, which is telling IMHO:[QUOTE]...the day of the attack was the one day that week when the wind blew from government-held central Damascus towards the rebel-held eastern suburbs.

Link:http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn24112-wind-and-rockets-key-clues-in-syrian-chemical-puzzle.html

davidbfpo
08-30-2013, 12:12 PM
From A BBC Tweet:
Ironies of history: last time a UK PM was defeated on a war motion was 1782, when MPs voted to stop fighting American war of independence.

davidbfpo
08-30-2013, 12:31 PM
Just what the vote last night means to the 'Special Relationship' is unclear, although HMG must be anxious, especially if an attack goes ahead. This is a side issue here, but many SWC members will know how close that military relationship is.

My quick assessment then. For many reasons the ‘Special Relationship’ as a publicly acceptable good thing has diminished since the end of the ‘Cold War’, no doubt buttressed for many by the interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq. The relationship is very much a Whitehall-Westminster-Cheltenham axis, it has almost no public profile. Gone are the days when tens of thousands flocked to USAF bases for air displays. Fewer Brits go on holiday to the USA, a few years ago a million a year went to Florida.

I am not persuaded today the relationship has died. Within the axis it is strong and politically few argue we are not a good ally of the USA – on many issues, except Syria today!

The USA has always taken a different view of the relationship, long before the ‘pivot’ to the Pacific. It will be interesting to see how the UK’s American friends, especially those who know the depth of the intelligence-military relationship, respond – in briefings, interviews and articles.

An injured relationship in need of care is more fitting.

condottiere
08-30-2013, 01:00 PM
Could the Syrian strike be a practice run for the Iranian nuclear sites, or at least a demonstration to Tehran that they could be taken out?

omarali50
08-30-2013, 03:16 PM
The case for intervention seems strong in humanitarian terms and as a matter of realpolitik (not that rare a confluence). But the case for intervention looks weak in terms of ability to actually get it done right. Starting at the top, the president, while not at all dumb, is not some reincarnation of Bismarck. The number two (Kerry) looks like an even shakier proposition than the President. As does the NSA. The various military chiefs and intelligence chiefs may be capable enough in some narrow sense, but their record in Iraq and Afghanistan suggests that they (or the institutional culture they are embedded in) cannot (or will not) do more than their "own job", which is too narrowly defined to make them the likely agents of a brilliant strategic coup here. And the broader culture is just not interested in the role of imperialist OR worldcop. Liberals who want humanitarian intervention would prefer that it be bloodless. Right wingers who want to kill them all and let Allah sort them out have no idea what they are up against in detail and what that business of killing them all may involve at home and abroad in terms of costs to THEMSELVES.
Not only does the US lack credibility about its intentions or information, it lacks credibility about its ability to get things done right. That may be harder to fix, especially if the perception is partly correct.
Of course it's possible that they have a brilliant plan outline and are working to fill in the details (not just in terms of military planning, but PR management, international partners etc) and given a little more time, will get it right; but really, who do you think HAS that great plan?(I woudlnt know about it if they did, but how many people here think Kerry, Rice, Hagel whatever actually have a brilliant strategic plan in their head and are feverishly laying the foundations for getting it right as we speak?)...and of course its possible that they dont even need the time; that they jumped in with all this red line, got-to-take-action stuff because they ALREADY had the foundations laid in secret and will soon show everyone how wrong the doubters were..well, how likely does that seem to anyone here?
Pessimism may not be that irrational.

jcustis
08-30-2013, 04:14 PM
Omarali, your pessimism is not unfounded in the least.

The simple fact the the Congress was not recalled (and it has something like 10 days left in recess) speaks volumes. Someone with the job of advising the President to request that they come back, is either failing at that task, or doesn't know a lick about what they are doing and should be fired either way.

Again, there is nothing limited about the Syrian problem and we need to look no further than to a few administrations ago, to be able to gauge how this plays out.

As a mental exercise, what does the Council think Assad's countermove will be after, say, 24 Tomahawk missile strikes against command and control facilities and a few Ba'ath Party buildings?

ganulv
08-30-2013, 05:02 PM
As a mental exercise, what does the Council think Assad's countermove will be after, say, 24 Tomahawk missile strikes against command and control facilities and a few Ba'ath Party buildings?

I obviously don’t know whether the intelligence backs this, but maybe Hezbollah gets let off the leash? Iran would factor into that, too, of course.

omarali50
08-30-2013, 05:04 PM
I think IF the US attack is symbolic (24 tomahawks) then his response will be equally symbolic and limited.

jmm99
08-30-2013, 07:23 PM
The White House announced earlier this week that an intelligence report would be released before any military action is taken. It was released today; and John Kerry gave us a little pep talk - differentiating "us" from "them".

Kerry calls attack against Syrian civilians 'crime against humanity' (http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/08/30/20255563-kerry-calls-attack-against-syrian-civilians-crime-against-humanity?lite) (NBC News; by F. Brinley Bruton and Erin McClam, August 30, 2013):


Secretary of State John Kerry made a forceful moral case Friday for the United States to punish Syria for using chemical weapons — painting a ghastly portrait of twitching bodies, victims foaming at the mouth and more than 400 children killed.

He called Syrian leader Bashar Assad “a thug and a murderer” and pledged, to a country weary after more than a decade of war in the Middle East, that the American response would not involve troops on the ground and would not be open-ended. ...

Kerry Makes Case That Syria Used Chemical Weapons (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/31/world/middleeast/john-kerry-syria.html?_r=0) (NYT; by Michael D. Shear, August 30, 2013):


Secretary of State John Kerry declared on Friday there was “clear” and “compelling” evidence that the government of President Bashar al-Assad used poison gas against its citizens, as the Obama administration released an unclassified intelligence report on the use of chemical weapons in Syria.

“Read for yourselves the evidence from thousands of sources,” Mr. Kerry said in aggressively laying out the administration’s case for strikes on Syria. “This is the indiscriminate, inconceivable horror of chemical weapons. This is what Assad did to his own people.”

Mr. Kerry said that more than 1,400 people were killed in the chemical attack, including more than 400 children.

A four-page intelligence summary released by the White House said the government had concluded with “high confidence” that the Assad government had “carried out a chemical weapons attack” outside Damascus, based on human sources as well as communications intercepts. The suggestion that the opposition might have been responsible “is highly unlikely,” the assessment said.

Mr. Kerry said the administration had “high confidence” in the intelligence, much of which was being released to the public as he spoke. But he vowed that the government had carefully reviewed the evidence to avoid the kind of intelligence failures that preceded the Iraq war.

John Kerry makes forceful case for U.S. military intervention in Syria (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/hollande-france-ready-to-act-against-syria/2013/08/30/8a439b2a-1167-11e3-b4cb-fd7ce041d814_story.html) (WP; by Anthony Faiola, August 30, 2013):


Secretary of State John F. Kerry made a forceful case Friday for U.S. military intervention in Syria, saying that U.S. intelligence has information pinning responsibility for last week’s chemical weapons attack squarely on the government of President Bashar al-Assad.

In a speech at the State Department, Kerry said U.S. intelligence has “high confidence” that the Assad government was responsible for the attack based partly on knowledge of regime officials’ conversations about the attack and the tracking of movements of regime personnel before and after the strike.

Kerry said that for three days before the Aug. 21 attack, the Syrian government’s chemical weapons personnel “were in the area, making preparations” for the strike. He also said that “regime elements were told to prepare for the attack by putting on gas masks” and taking other precautions. And he said U.S. intelligence knows that the rockets containing the poison gas were launched only from “regime-controlled areas.”

The attack killed 1,429 Syrians, including 426 children, Kerry said.

Thus, an explicit recitation of "...the horror, the horror ...", because that is, indeed, the Obama administration's strongest point of argument.

Also, we now seem to have a revitalized French Connection.


Kerry spoke after French President Francois Hollande said Friday that his country is prepared to act in Syria despite Britain’s surprise rejection of military action, potentially making a nation that turned its back on Washington during the war in Iraq the primary U.S. ally in a possible strike against Syrian forces.
...
Hollande’s apparent willingness to take action in Syria stems, analysts say, from a number of variables. France is the former colonial power in Syria. The country, in military missions in Mali and Libya in recent years, has been reasserting its military might.

In addition, because the country sat out the war in Iraq, French politicians are not carrying the same painful baggage as those in Britain, whose troops joined the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq based on false intelligence that dictator Saddam Hussein was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction.

“There is no feeling here that ‘we are at it again’ or that ‘our government is lying to us,’ ” said Dominique Moisi, senior adviser at the French Institute for International Relations in Paris. “We are in a better position to have public opinion favoring intervention in Syria.”

Kerry also noted that France is our oldest ally - vive le ancien regime ! .... Oh, what a difference a decade makes ....

The intelligence report (presumably the "1000s of sources" were redacted to protect sources and methods) is here: Government Assessment of the Syrian Government’s Use of Chemical Weapons on August 21, 2013 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/08/30/government-assessment-syrian-government-s-use-chemical-weapons-august-21) (The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, August 30, 2013); and Syria: Damascus Areas of Influence and Areas Reportedly Affected by 21 August Chemical Attack (http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2013-08-30_map_accompanying_usg_assessment_on_syria.pdf) (1 page map).

- to be cont. -

jcustis
08-30-2013, 07:43 PM
I think IF the US attack is symbolic (24 tomahawks) then his response will be equally symbolic and limited.

I agree it would be limited, in part because his regime is already embattled and wobbling. He can't do anything like attack Israel because he knows full well Israel will go high order in a heartbeat and just start surging airstrikes.

I believe we can expect an immediate information operations offensive, with social media used as a vehicle to push pictures and video of the strikes as "errant" in nature, with even a few casualties (even if They are actually soldiers) paraded out as innocent victims.

Hezbollah in Lebabon or elsewhere could stir things up, but we don't have major assets there which are at risk. Hezbollah is not getting into a Sunni country, like Bahrain, to threaten US military assets, so any Hezbollah impact is minimalized. I don't believe they could plan and resource a terrorist attack for at least 30 days.

I worry about how the Iranian angle will play out though. It wouldn't surprise me if a limited attack spawns a limited assymetric attack (missile strike from Iran across the Gulf) that presumes the US won't go "all in". Something like that would make the Syrian situation exponentially more sticky. A kinetic situation in Syria, with Iran, and the enduring fight in AFG, will make it difficult for the US to orient on the problem set.

That buys Assad time, and allows him to progress one more day towards stalemate.

ganulv
08-30-2013, 08:13 PM
Hezbollah in Lebabon or elsewhere could stir things up, but we don't have major assets there which are at risk. Hezbollah is not getting into a Sunni country, like Bahrain, to threaten US military assets, so any Hezbollah impact is minimalized. I don't believe they could plan and resource a terrorist attack for at least 30 days.

I worry about how the Iranian angle will play out though. It wouldn't surprise me if a limited attack spawns a limited assymetric attack (missile strike from Iran across the Gulf) that presumes the US won't go "all in". Something like that would make the Syrian situation exponentially more sticky. A kinetic situation in Syria, with Iran, and the enduring fight in AFG, will make it difficult for the US to orient on the problem set.

That buys Assad time, and allows him to progress one more day towards stalemate.

Just thinking out loud, and I don’t see how it would aid Assad directly, but would Iran facilitate something targeting U.S. interests in Afghanistan?

jmm99
08-30-2013, 08:35 PM
How will this play out ? We have some indications - leaving aside attempts to read White House tea leaves.

Jack Goldsmith's political post (a rare bird, since Jack writes mostly legal) from yesterday outlines some issues. I've had respect for Goldsmith since he duelled it out with David Addington (Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Goldsmith); read this 2007 NYT piece on Jack, Conscience of a Conservative (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/09/magazine/09rosen.html?_r=0) - which evinced moral courage on his part once he found the right path).

British Bow Out of Syria Intervention, USG Plunging Ahead (http://www.lawfareblog.com/2013/08/british-bow-out-of-syria-intervention-usg-plunging-ahead/) (by Jack Goldsmith, August 29, 2013):


In a separate story (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/30/us/politics/obama-syria.html?hp), the NYT reports that “President Obama is prepared to move ahead with a limited military strike on Syria . . . even with a rejection of such action by Britain’s Parliament, an increasingly restive Congress, and lacking an endorsement from the United Nations Security Council.” And, the NYT might have added, without the support of the American people.

The segment below on the two recent polls suggest something of a shift in the American attitudes. That as it may or may not be, I certainly concur in these snips by Goldsmith:


The NYT says that the President “is basing his case for action both on safeguarding international standards against the use of chemical weapons and on the threat to America’s national interests posed by Syria’s use of those weapons.” These rationales are very weak – especially since the President would be violating international law to “safeguard international standards,” since our closest ally Britain withdrew from the fight, since the U.N. failed to authorize force, and since the Arab League does not support intervention.
...
The President is way out on a limb, by himself. Independent of legality, unilateral military intervention in these circumstances is extraordinarily imprudent, and it is hard to fathom that it is being considered by the man who based his case for the presidency in 2008 on his commitment to domestic and international legality, and on opposition to imprudent wars.

The administration seems to think that the costs of going forward in Syria are small because the planned strike will be “limited.” But even assuming that a limited strike does not produce terrible second- and third-order consequences in the region, it would still be self-defeating because (although it is limited) it would be contrary to international and domestic opinion and (because it is limited) it would bring few benefits in terms of punishing Assad or enhancing Obama’s credibility.

Jack addressed "why not congressional approval":


This is very dangerous territory for the President. Forget the Constitution for a moment. Why won’t the President pay the same respect to American democracy that David Cameron paid to British democracy? (I offered answers to this question (http://www.lawfareblog.com/2013/08/why-doesnt-president-obama-seek-congressional-approval-for-syria/) a few days ago, but the question is much more poignant now that the British Parliament has spoken against intervention.)

Jack's five answers were (adding numbers to them):


1. has a very broad view of his unilateral war powers;

2. this military action is being rushed, and formal congressional approval is not a priority in light of the President’s self-induced credibility crisis and the overwhelming military and diplomatic demands of planning the intervention;

3. the White House doesn’t want to expend (or doesn’t have) the resources that seeking and winning congressional approval would require;

4. it doesn’t want to suffer through the formal national debate;

5. and it fears it might lose the debate (either outright, or with a limitation on presidential power), which would be politically and legally humiliating.


I'd add that the White House has as much as it wants from the key congressional leadership. Here, for example, is the position of Michigan's senior senator, Levin statement on Syria consultations (http://www.levin.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/levin-statement-on-syria-consultations/?section=alltypes) (Thursday, August 29, 2013)


WASHINGTON -- Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, issued the following statement today following consultations with the Obama administration on the situation in Syria:

"I have previously called for the United States to work with our friends and allies to increase the military pressure on the Assad regime by providing lethal aid to vetted elements of the Syrian opposition. Tonight, I suggested that we should do so while UN inspectors complete their work and while we seek international support for limited, targeted strikes in response to the Assad regime’s large-scale use of chemical weapons against the Syrian people. I appreciate the administration’s continuing efforts tonight to consult with Congress about the situation in Syria, and its commitment to further consultations with Congress."

Note that "we seek international support" (thus, the effort to bag the UK is probably going to continue); and "consult" and "consultations" do not mean formal approval - even though 80% of Americans want exactly that.

- to be cont. -

jcustis
08-30-2013, 08:41 PM
We are definitely seeing the contrast between a first term President and one who has nothing to lose since he does not face re-election. If this were 2010, Things would be moving much slower.

jmm99
08-30-2013, 08:44 PM
The WH may see in the two recent polls the light shining at the end of the tunnel. In any event, the WH momentum has not lessened.

US prepared to strike Syria despite rebuke from Britain, White House officials say (http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/08/30/20255563-us-prepared-to-strike-syria-despite-rebuke-from-britain-white-house-officials-say?lite) (NBC News; by F. Brinley Bruton and Erin McClam, August 30, 2013)


White House officials are signaling that President Barack Obama is prepared for the United States to strike Syria — after a rejection from the British Parliament and in the face of deep reservations in Congress.

An NBC News poll released Friday found that an overwhelming majority of Americans, roughly eight in 10, want the president to seek approval from lawmakers before any attack on the Syrian government for its apparent use of chemical weapons.

The poll found that support among Americans is higher for a limited military strike, such as cruise missiles fired from Navy warships in the Mediterranean Sea. But half of Americans are opposed to any military attack on Syria.

What the WH is looking at is not the 80% wanting congressional approval, but the 50% who support limited strikes. IMO: President Obama is looking at the same thing; and if ill-advice is occuring, it is presidentially self-made. In addition, the polls over the last several months have shown an increase in the percentage approving limited strikes.

Syria Poll Finds Little American Support For Air Strikes (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/28/syria-poll_n_3832395.html) (by Emily Swanson, Posted: 08/28/2013):


Americans largely oppose any U.S. intervention in Syria's civil war, according to a new HuffPost / YouGov poll (http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/toplines_syria_0826272013.pdf), with only a quarter saying they support air strikes there.

The new poll, conducted after U.S. officials claimed Syria's government killed thousands of civilians with chemical weapons, shows 25 percent of Americans now support air strikes to aid rebels in Syria, while 41 percent said they are opposed. Another 34 percent said that they're not sure.

Support for air strikes has risen since two previous HuffPost / YouGov polls. A poll conducted in April found found that 16 percent of Americans supported air strikes. A poll in June found 19 percent supported air strikes.
...
The 59 percent of respondents who said they believe Syria has used chemical weapons against rebels there were about evenly divided on whether the U.S. should conduct air strikes, with 37 percent in support and 38 percent opposed. Twenty-six percent were unsure. The June HuffPost / YouGov poll found that a plurality of those who believed Syria has used chemical weapons were opposed to air strikes, 49 percent to 29 percent.

Respondents to the latest poll were divided over whether the U.S. has a responsibility to prevent the Syrian government from using chemical weapons. Thirty-one percent said it does, 38 percent said it does not, and 31 percent said that they were unsure.
...
Two other options for intervening in the Syrian conflict were even less popular than air strikes. Sending U.S, troops to aid the rebels was opposed by a 65 percent to 11 percent majority of respondents, while providing weapons to rebels was opposed by a 49 percent to 13 percent plurality.

The WH has looked at the trend line - increasing in support for limited strikes; as well as the large undecided percentage and the increased support for strikes among those who believed that the strikes were Assad ordered.

The NBC poll simply verifies that view, NBC poll: Nearly 80 percent want congressional approval on Syria (http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/08/30/20256971-nbc-poll-nearly-80-percent-want-congressional-approval-on-syria?lite) (NBC News; by Mark Murray, Senior Political Editor, August 30, 2013):


Nearly 80 percent of Americans believe President Barack Obama should receive congressional approval before using force in Syria, but the nation is divided over the scope of any potential strike, a new NBC News poll (http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i//MSNBC/Sections/A_Politics/_Today_Stories_Teases/13336_NBC_Syria_Poll.pdf) shows.

Fifty percent of Americans believe the United States should not intervene in the wake of suspected chemical weapons attacks by Syrian President Bashar Assad, according to the poll. But the public is more supportive of military action when it's limited to launching cruise missiles from U.S. naval ships - 50 percent favor that kind of intervention, while 44 percent oppose it.

Thus, the NBC poll gives the White House a "mandate" to go ahead with limited strikes. A long holiday weekend might just be the best political time to do that.

Finally, in answer to Jon's question about what Assad will do, I can only say what I'd think I'd do in an existential situation for me and my supporters. I'd continue with my plans and kill as many enemies as possible. I'd be in an Iwo Jima situation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Letters_from_Iwo_Jima), where the Japanese general did the best he could under the circumstances. Surrender was not an option.

Regards

Mike

omarali50
08-30-2013, 09:26 PM
I cut and paste (and edited) a few comments to make this post:

http://www.brownpundits.com/2013/08/30/the-case-for-and-against-attacking-syria/

davidbfpo
08-31-2013, 11:59 AM
An impressive report by Frank Gardner 'what we know', ten minutes, with rarely seen CW experts:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23908846

Oddly it makes no reference to the US publications.

davidbfpo
08-31-2013, 02:54 PM
There is not surprisingly a good deal of political point scoring in the UK now, some suspect ministers will be sacked - for not hearing the division bell - and the media are wondering what it all means.

So from another surprising place, a Daily Telegraph editorial which ends with:
At the same time, it may be no bad thing that our leaders have learnt that they do not have free rein to commit the nation to overseas adventures – especially not when the public is unconvinced, the consequences are wildly uncertain and our military capabilities have been cut to the bone. Or that Britain has been left a humbler nation – with a far humbler Prime Minister.

Link:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/10276367/Britains-message-out-but-not-down.html

Hopefully the UK and others will actually provide some help within and beyond Syria's borders to the ordinary Syrian people who are the "jam in the sandwich". Just giving 100k ampoules of anti-nerve agent to MSF would be something (I am a supporter of MSF).

JMA
08-31-2013, 04:50 PM
Why would 24 be needed?


I think IF the US attack is symbolic (24 tomahawks) then his response will be equally symbolic and limited.

omarali50
08-31-2013, 06:27 PM
24 tomahawks was the number mentioned by Jcustis in his comment (as an example of what a US strike could be).
I am sure it will be more than 24 in reality.
But really 24 or 48 or 96, it hardly matters. Supposedly the whole point is to "make a point". Can it be made with 13?
There doesnt seem to be any objective beyond covering Obama's A for the "red-line" remark.
Unless, of course, people like me have no idea what grand strategic move is being made here (entirely possible, I must admit).

omarali50
08-31-2013, 07:14 PM
Obama, after intending to launch an illegal act of war, now wants Congress to vote. Good. Good. Intentions and how he got here may be embarrassing but he got there. Maybe in a few days he will figure out what his overall strategy really IS. That will be good for America, if not for everyone.
At least this punctures some of the conspiracy theories about what grand evil plan America was working on here (false flag and all the other BS that was crowding my facebook page..I am Pakistani, remember)...there IS no grand plan.

jmm99
08-31-2013, 07:40 PM
Obama Will Seek Congressional Vote on Syria (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/01/world/middleeast/syria.html) (By PETER BAKER and ANNE BARNARD, August 31, 2013):


WASHINGTON — President Obama stunned the capital and paused his march to war on Saturday by asking Congress to give him authorization before he launches a limited military strike against the Syrian government in retaliation for a chemical weapons attack.

In a hastily organized appearance in the Rose Garden, Mr. Obama said he had decided that the United States should use force but would wait for a vote from lawmakers, who are not due to return to town for more than a week. Mr. Obama said he believed he has authority to act on his own but did not say whether he would if Congress rejects his plan. ...

President's video statement at USAToday (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/08/31/obama-makes-statement-on-syria/2751085/).

Regards

Mike

jcustis
08-31-2013, 11:44 PM
This is a positive development from a number of angles. One I am immediately sensitive to is that the Syrian Army's C2 is certainly disrupted to some degree.

Dayuhan
09-01-2013, 12:27 AM
But really 24 or 48 or 96, it hardly matters. Supposedly the whole point is to "make a point".

I do sort of wonder what the point is, and to whom it's being made. Would a strike be intended to show Assad that you can't get away with using chemical weapons (if indeed he did), or would it be intended to show everybody else that the US administration stands by its "red lines"?

Asking approval from Congress, of course, is an excellent way for Obama to avoid acting on the "red line" comment while passing the "wimp" accusations on to someone else.

In any event, whatever the number of missiles used, I suspect that Assad's forces would simply disperse their key assets and protect them to the extent possible, soak it up, and carry on. They are not going to give up because somebody sent them some cruise missiles.

jcustis
09-01-2013, 02:10 AM
And that is where political science is rich with a history of miscalculations...where a state took an action, believing it would influence an opponent in a certain way but found out later that it never had the true pulse of the opponent.

The US isn't even in a position to take a gamble right now because it looks like Assad caught a good flop, checked into an even better turn card, and watched the US flinch when the river was shown.

He has to be chuckling right now. That, or he is very confused and worried at the mood swings he is seeing as this unfolds.

In order to prevent an adversary from thinking they got away with something (using chem) in violation of certain norms (yeah, I'm still struggling to figure out why 1,400
now matter so much), a response has to be more than swift. If this is going to go down from a stand-off, it needs to destroy something Assad holds dear, and I'm not so sure chem munitions fall into that category.

I think it also needs to be something other than chem, where the message is, "Those missiles just schwacked X,Y, and Z. Try to use more of X, Y, and Z again, and there will be more attacks."

I wouldn't target the chem because Assad doesn't need it to continue fighting. At this stage it wouldn't make sense for Assad to employ chem again unless it was part of the FPF. He can avoid using it and still chug along slowly in the fight.

If armor and artillery are already fairly dispersed at the moment, even 96 Tomahawks would have limited effect. I doubt aircraft wouldl be a more lucrative target because I have not read anything that indicated FW or RW a/c are making a significant impact.

SAM systems are traditionally more difficult to disperse often and still use effectively, but it wouldn't make sense to target that asset unless an air phase is expected.

I don't think we're at the point of selecting personalities either, so I am actually at a loss for what makes for a good target within Syria right now.

Does anyone agree with Gen "Spider" Marks, who has bern going on and on over at CNN about the US going after chem stocks? In light of the path this has taken, does anyone think it males sense to go after those capabilities?

jmm99
09-01-2013, 05:17 AM
From the WSJ (link (http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/AUMFresolutiontext.pdf)); also a clean pdf file is attached.

Analyzing this in reverse order, section (b)(1) sanctions the President's powers under the War Powers Resolution:


(b) War Powers Resolution Requirements.-

(1) Specific Statutory Authorization.-Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution.

What are the scope of presidential powers granted by this AUMF (a rather typical AUMF) ?


(a) Authorization.-The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in connection with the use of chemical weapons or other weapons of mass destruction in the conflict in Syria in order to-

(1) prevent or deter the use or proliferation (including the transfer to terrorist groups of other state or non-state actors), within, to or from, Syria, of any weapons of mass destruction, including chemical or biological weapons or components of or materials used in such weapons; or

(2) protect the United States and its allies and partners against the threat posed by such weapons.

Has Congress ever shot down an AUMF requested by a President ?

While the President is taking some risk here (of an adverse vote), the AUMF gives him far broader powers than his proposal to shoot off some missiles (whether 24 or 240). Looking ahead, the operative clauses (a) & (b) could provide something of a precedent for a future Iran resolution.

I'd vote against this particular AUMF (because of my personal worldview); but my bet is that Congress will go along with it. If that happens, the legal basis for "responsibility to protect" will be expanded to include intervention by an individual state. R2P has been viewed as requiring UNSC approval - or at least regional organization approval.

Regards

Mike

davidbfpo
09-01-2013, 11:40 AM
Curious timing, a Scottish newspaper says:
BRITAIN allowed firms to sell chemicals to Syria capable of being used to make nerve gas, the Sunday Mail can reveal today. Export licences for potassium fluoride and sodium fluoride were granted months after the bloody civil war in the Middle East began. The chemical is capable of being used to make weapons such as sarin....

Link:http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/britain-sold-nerve-gas-chemicals-2242520

Yes the chemicals have an industrial use, aluminium windows!

JMA
09-01-2013, 07:21 PM
I'll be interested to see if any lessons were learned from Libya when it comes to targeting.

Also one would have thought that national leaders would have the intelligence not to box themselves into a corner by drawing 'red lines'.

And for the Brits... how is it possible that Cameron wanted to make a move before absolute proof of the Syrian regime having used chemical weapons was presented?

Where are all the smart guys? Obviously don't go into politics.




24 tomahawks was the number mentioned by Jcustis in his comment (as an example of what a US strike could be).
I am sure it will be more than 24 in reality.
But really 24 or 48 or 96, it hardly matters. Supposedly the whole point is to "make a point". Can it be made with 13?
There doesnt seem to be any objective beyond covering Obama's A for the "red-line" remark.
Unless, of course, people like me have no idea what grand strategic move is being made here (entirely possible, I must admit).

davidbfpo
09-01-2013, 09:12 PM
JMA refers to lessons learned. It has taken awhile for the question has Assad learnt from Saddam to be posed:http://www.al-bab.com/blog/2013/september/syria-a-chilling-hypothesis.htm#sthash.eU9LQRE2.f5XeZHfK.uxfs

davidbfpo
09-01-2013, 09:17 PM
Curious timing, a Scottish newspaper says:

Link:http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/britain-sold-nerve-gas-chemicals-2242520

Yes the chemicals have an industrial use, aluminium windows!

The FCO official response, via Twitter:
The licences were revoked & the chemicals were not exported.

graphei
09-02-2013, 03:05 AM
Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/01/us-syria-crisis-arabs-idUSBRE9800GJ20130901) is reporting the Arab League is backing intervention in Syria.

I read this headline and I got a bit giddy. I was expecting them to weigh in on their onetime member. So, I click on the link and begin reading.


Syria's neighbors Lebanon and Iraq, as well as Algeria, all declined to back the text, as they have done with similar resolutions in the past. Syria itself is suspended from the League.

Okay, not surprising, so maybe Egypt and Saudi Arabia agreed.


Egypt, which has been promised $5 billion by Saudi Arabia to bolster its dwindling reserves since the army overthrew Islamist president Mohamed Mursi, had said it was opposed to foreign military intervention in Syria, but did not vote against the resolution.

The Saudi Arabians bribed the Egyptians?! Say it ain't so! Quelle horreur.

So, of the 21 states represented in the Arab League all of the key players have said no (or were paid off) and Saudi Arabia essentially pushed this through. What about the other 16 states you ask? My response: Do you really think Yemen and Djibouti can hold up against Saudi Arabia?

Ultimately, this should read: "Saudi Arabia votes for intervention in Syria." However, this is interesting. With some Western nations declining to get involved, do you think we'll see Arab nations take the lead?

jcustis
09-02-2013, 03:31 AM
This will be infteresting. Egypt and Turkey are in a war of words at the moment over the coup and suppression of the Muslim Brotherhood, and have recalled ambassadors.

Turkey has just as much a mind to influence the run up to a Syrian intervention and aftermath as the kingdom does, but there are a lot of other incentives that can drive policy, like reconstruction dollar that Turkey stands to gain. Jordan is in the same boat.

I think we all need to buckle in and prepare for the landscape of the Middle East to be irrevocably altered across the next 6-12 months.

Bill Moore
09-02-2013, 03:43 AM
http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/692754a0-1300-11e3-804f-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2dhRDi1hk


Efforts by Saudi Arabia and Syrian opposition leaders to convince the organisation to back a US military strike failed. Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Tunisia and Algeria voiced opposition to foreign military intervention.


Mr Obama had hoped the organisation would endorse language that could back a military operation without the approval of the UN Security Council. But the Arab world remains starkly divided on Syria and hostile to further US-led wars in the region despite widespread public sympathy for Mr Assad’s opponents.

We can act unilaterally, but I suspect it won't accomplish much if we don't get support from the regional actors. In fact it would be better for an Arab country to take the lead and we support, but the odds of that happening are politely very slim.

jcustis
09-02-2013, 12:57 PM
I wonder if Egypt would have played a more central figure at the conference if Mubarak was still in power, and whether it would have been an advocate for action AND a military response.

My intuition tells me yes, and this whole Arab League resolution highlights how weak in is regionally. Egypt can get away with offering tepid support to "somebody" doing "something", while not being seen as supporting US aims, because the administration has backed off on any diplomatic pressure. The US has backed off on a lot of things with Egypt because it has become very important to not piss off the provisional government (army), or put it in any undesirable public position in the eyes of its citizens.

The nature of our relationship with Egypt will morph and shift considerably during the next 6-12 months too.

The diplomats have got to be working in overdrive right now. I hope they are all on message.

graphei
09-02-2013, 04:02 PM
The saga continues:

Saudi Arabia and Israel are strange bedfellows. (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/02/us-syria-crisis-israel-saudi-insight-idUSBRE9810CE20130902)

NATO is convinced it was Assad, but the chief doesn't feel the need to do anything about it (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/02/us-syria-crisis-nato-idUSBRE9810BO20130902).

In sum, everyone agrees chemical weapons are bad, but no one is really sold on doing anything about it. If someone is gung ho, they don't want to make the first move.

davidbfpo
09-02-2013, 06:15 PM
Patrick Porter weighs in; the title is longer: Hitting Assad is unwise. But if done, it should be a punch, not a slap:http://wp.me/pLP3q-iS

JMA
09-02-2013, 06:19 PM
Bill, that surely depends on what you want to accomplish, yes?

I learned that the first principle of war was "the selection and maintenance of the aim" which the Americans changed to "Objective".

You see the Brit use of "maintenance" rules out what is now called "mission creep". (But that is another story)

So let's stick with the yanks and the word "objective".

What would the objective of a Syria intervention be?

How and who would (or should be punished) for using chemical weapons? IMHO, around that "objective" should be set.

Bombing the hell out of a bunch of Syrian facilities and/or killing a few thousand Syrian grunts would achieve what exactly when those who made the decision to use these weapons go free?


http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/692754a0-1300-11e3-804f-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2dhRDi1hk

We can act unilaterally, but I suspect it won't accomplish much if we don't get support from the regional actors. In fact it would be better for an Arab country to take the lead and we support, but the odds of that happening are politely very slim.

davidbfpo
09-02-2013, 07:36 PM
The French intelligence report, in French and using Google Translate is not an option:http://www.gouvernement.fr/sites/default/files/fichiers_joints/syrie_synthese_nationale_de_renseignement_declassi fie_02_09_2013.pdf

ganulv
09-02-2013, 07:57 PM
The French intelligence report, in French and using Google Translate is not an option

The final paragraph followed by a loose translation via my not so very good French:


Nous estimons enfin que l’opposition syrienne n’a pas les capacités de conduire une opération d’une telle ampleur avec des agents chimiques. Aucun groupe appartenant à l'insurrection syrienne ne détient, à ce stade, la capacité de stocker et d'utiliser ces agents, a fortiori dans une proportion similaire à celle employée dans la nuit du 21 août 2013 à Damas. Ces groupes n’ont ni l’expérience ni le savoir-faire pour les mettre en oeuvre, en particulier par des vecteurs tels que ceux utilisés lors de l’attaque du 21 août.

We conclude that the Syrian opposition lacks the capacity to conduct an operation of this size with chemical weapons. All of the insurgent groups lack the capacity to store and make use of chemical agents such as those used on the night of 21 August 2013, especially in the quantities used on that date. These groups lack both the experience and the knowledge to make use of such chemical agents, particularly via the means used in the August 21st attack.

Bill Moore
09-02-2013, 09:01 PM
Bill, that surely depends on what you want to accomplish, yes?

I learned that the first principle of war was "the selection and maintenance of the aim" which the Americans changed to "Objective".

You see the Brit use of "maintenance" rules out what is now called "mission creep". (But that is another story)

So let's stick with the yanks and the word "objective".

What would the objective of a Syria intervention be?

How and who would (or should be punished) for using chemical weapons? IMHO, around that "objective" should be set.

Bombing the hell out of a bunch of Syrian facilities and/or killing a few thousand Syrian grunts would achieve what exactly when those who made the decision to use these weapons go free?

That is a reasonable response to my comment. If we're only attempting to deter the regime from further use of chemical weapons that would be a limited objective (or maintenance of the aim), and if the administration assumes a limited strike will achieve that, then an argument can be made we can do this unilaterally. My argument is this isn't Sudan which was a little more black and white, and more isolated, so after we launched a few missiles they directed UBL to depart. A limited strike achieved the limited objective denying Sudan as a safe haven.

The situation is far from black and white and far from being isolated. If the strike results in further regional instability do we have a plan B? Do we care? I tend to think we do, it would do much for our credibility in the region or world if the limited strike resulted in retaliatory strikes and a widening of the war beyond the borders of Syria resulting in more deaths than those caused by the chemical weapon strike.

Bottom line, if the first round of strikes doesn't deter further use of chemical weapons, are we prepared to escalate? Are we going to do so my ourselves? This isn't resonating so well on the home front politically. Initially the President and our Secretary of State said Assad must go, now the President isn't advocating regime change, but a limited strike to stop further chemical strikes, yet regional experts are telling us a limited strike will make the situation worse. Our administration needs to learn to have a cup of shut the f*%$ up and stop boxing themselves into non defendable positions with rash statements.

davidbfpo
09-02-2013, 09:42 PM
As Iran has been the victim of CW, with large losses, some outsiders expected the official reaction to the allegations would be different. Instead, possibly more telling, former President Hashemi Rafsanjani appears to have his own views on the Assad regime, which was reported and quickly amended by the official news agency. So what did he say:
The people have been the target of chemical attacks by their own government and now they must also wait for an attack by foreigners......The people of Syria have seen much damage in these two years, the prisons are overflowing and they’ve converted stadiums into prisons, more than 100,000 people killed and millions displaced show the plight of Syria more than ever before.

Link:http://eaworldview.com/2013/09/iran-today-a-regime-split-opens-over-syria/#rafs

The local news site facing criticism has the original video of the speech.

graphei
09-03-2013, 02:32 PM
My Persian is terribly rusty and I was only able to pick out a few words of his speech. Going off the translated summary, I'd say Rafsanjani is right. Either way, Syria loses. Anyone who gets involved loses, too. This brings me to my next point.

davidfpo, I was poking around your link's website and I found THIS (http://eaworldview.com/2013/09/iran-analysis-when-a-top-diplomat-says-syrias-al-qaeda-insurgency-is-under-command-of-saudi-prince-bandar/) little gem.

Here's the title to whet your attentions: When A Top Diplomat Says Syria’s “Al Qa’eda” Insurgency is “Under Command of Saudi Prince Bandar”

I know what you're all thinking: this is nothing new from Tehran. We're all certainly familiar with their tricks.

Here's the burn. He's not a hardliner, nor has he ever been really affiliated with the more- shall we say vitriolic? parties in Tehran. He's long been advocating direct talks with us. Not that the SL or President at the time would indulge in them.

But why, why would Saudi Arabia be doing this? Well, Mr Lucas found an interesting bit here:


The new plan drawn up by Bandar and the secret service of Saudi Arabia aims to create a so-called “Sunni Hezbollah” as counterbalance to the Lebanese Hezbollah movement. The main goal of a meeting that Bandar held with [Lebanese political figures] Samir Geagea, Walid Jumblatt, and Saad Hariri was to form military resistance forces against the Lebanese Hezbollah.

And we all know who backs Hezbollah. :D Hezbollah grew directly out of the policy of 'Export of Revolution' that has never officially ended. Given Tehran's growing influence and history of meddling, Iran has long been a problem spot for many of their Sunni neighbors.

Since Arabia is the birthplace of Islam and Wahhabism, they view themselves as the keepers of Sunni orthodoxy. Shi'a are an abomination to be wiped from the Earth. They are lower than dhimmi and even kufir. Gee, if only there was a group that thought the same way? Oh snapums. There is! And it was founded by a Saudi, too! How convenient.

I've said this before. Tehran is bat-#### crazy. No doubt about that, but 15 of the 19 Hijackers came from Saudi Arabia.

We need to be very careful. What a perfect win for them. They can piss off Tehran and watch a bunch of Americans get killed in the process.

ganulv
09-03-2013, 02:35 PM
Tehran is bat-#### crazy.

But somewhat predictable, right?

graphei
09-03-2013, 02:48 PM
But somewhat predictable, right?

They are nothing if not consistent. Sing songs about destroying Zionists, paint pictures with Statue of Liberty's crown made of bombs, yell about colonialism and globalization.

Personally, I want to see how the rhetoric is going to change now that Rouhani is in office. It won't change much of what is coming out of Fars, but he's expected to set a different tenor than Ahmadinejad. Plus, many Iranians want more favorable relations with the West. Many of them are tired of the hardline rhetoric.

The Saudis, however, have always kept quiet. That's why I worry about them.

Tukhachevskii
09-03-2013, 04:59 PM
That's why I worry about them.


...we need to worry about all those ells in your hovercraft.
هاورکرافت من پر مارماهى است




Sorry, I know, serious topic, but just couldn't help it:D

davidbfpo
09-03-2013, 11:40 PM
In one screen:
The US, Britain and France are in broad agreement that the Syrian government used chemical weapons in an attack near Damascus last month. Syria has blamed rebels for the attack, and Russia says it has 'a good degree of confidence' that it was an 'opposition provocation' – although neither Moscow nor Damascus have publicly produced any evidence to support their claims. This is how the western countries' separate intelligence reports compare:

Link:http://www.theguardian.com/world/graphic/2013/sep/03/syria-chemical-weapons-dossiers-compared?CMP=twt_gu

A properly translated Der Spiegel story on German intelligence:http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/german-intelligence-contributes-to-fact-finding-on-syria-gas-attack-a-920123.html

Bill Moore
09-04-2013, 08:40 AM
A lot of people are suspicious of our intelligence on Syria's use of chemical weapons after the fiasco in Iraq based largely on the inaccurate intelligence on Iraq's WMD program. That suspicion is healthy, but not always reasonable.

I agree with those that think we have great capacity for stupidity, but there is a limit to that stupidity and I don't think we would risk making the same mistake twice on the world stage, so I suspect the intelligence that Assad's forces employed the nerve gas is probably pretty solid. Furthermore, SECSTATE Kerry made some good arguments IMO during the Congressional hearings today in the hour or so of the hearings I caught tonight on CSPAN. Most interestingly in my view is he said Iran and Russia also claimed to oppose the use of chemical weapons, which puts them in a difficult position to retaliate if we release intelligence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt Assad's forces conducted the attack. They can still act if they choose, but certainly puts them in a bad light internationally if they do, so how much do they really want to sacrifice for Assad? If they want influence in Syria when this is over, they probably need to find another champion other than Assad. It is still a gamble, but not an unreasonable one. Still a lot of questions on the day(s) after, but in reality no one can answer those questions with anything more than an educated guess. Is intervening the right thing to do? Probably. Is a limited strike the right way? Unknown.

wm
09-04-2013, 12:22 PM
I'm not sure of the value add by any US strike as a supposed punishment of the Assad regime.

This Article (http://www.firstpost.com/world/eye-on-syria-the-consequences-of-other-us-limited-strikes-1083693.html?utm_source=top_menu) provides a commentary on the apparent results of prior attempts to "punish" bad actors in the region.

I cannot comment on the source, but I will note that writers discussing punishment say that punishment has the following goals--deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation, reparation, and retribution/revenge. I'm not sure how launching a number of TLAMs at Syria meets any of them.

TheCurmudgeon
09-04-2013, 05:19 PM
WM, in the article you cite is the following:

..., Shi’ite Muslim suicide bombers blew up US Marine and French barracks in Beirut, killing 241 Marines and 58 French paratroopers. President Ronald Reagan pulled forces out of Lebanon in February 1984. Lebanon’s civil war raged on until 1990.

So there appears to be a price for inaction, six years of civil war. The good news for us was, it was not our war.

In the case of bin Laden the limited actions we did take led to a different result for the U.S.


Analysts and historians say “Operation Infinite Reach” was interpreted by bin Laden, who reportedly joked that the attack killed only camels and chickens, as evidence that the United States lacked the stomach for confrontation with his forces. In October 2000, the US Navy guided-missile destroyer USS Cole was hit by an al Qaeda suicide attack while it refueled at port in Aden, Yemen, killing 17 American sailors. A year later, the 11 September attacks in New York and Washington killed nearly 3,000 people.

In this case our actions were too weak to deter our enemy and we suffered for it.

So there is a fine line here. Looking back it is easy to see what worked and what didn't. Looking forward is another matter.

As for the five purposes of punishment, deterrence would be the one we are most interested in. Remember that there are two other considerations with punishment. First, deterrence works not only against the perpetrator, but it also can have an effect on others who would take a similar course of action. The second point is that there is a correlation between the time lag from the time the crime is committed and the time the punishment is administered. The longer the period between, the less it is apt to work. Perhaps that only applies with children and common criminals, but it is worth considering.

slapout9
09-04-2013, 07:21 PM
The second point is that there is a correlation between the time lag from the time the crime is committed and the time the punishment is administered. The longer the period between, the less it is apt to work. Perhaps that only applies with children and common criminals, but it is worth considering.

It is not just worth considering it is an imperative, this is why I keep saying we don't need a good General for most of todays situations we need a good Street Cop. America has been and is continuing to loose it's Street Survival Credibility with the Worlds Gangs weather they are state gangs or non state gangs.

On a more Strategic level we have never learned Warden's most important principle, that of the time value of action and Syria is an absolute prime example of it's misuse.

wm
09-04-2013, 07:45 PM
As for the five purposes of punishment, deterrence would be the one we are most interested in. Remember that there are two other considerations with punishment. First, deterrence works not only against the perpetrator, but it also can have an effect on others who would take a similar course of action. The second point is that there is a correlation between the time lag from the time the crime is committed and the time the punishment is administered. The longer the period between, the less it is apt to work. Perhaps that only applies with children and common criminals, but it is worth considering.

You asked in your title what point I was trying to make. I was trying to suggest that the record of recent military "punishment" operations shows that they have not had any of the 5 desired effects of punishment. I think it is probably the case that short of winning a general war and then trying the leadership of the losing side, that will always be the case. And, IMO, the only aim of punishment that this latter course will meet is that of retribution/revenge.

What we've got here from the administration is best exemplified in this scene (http://www.google.com/search?q=%22I+didn%27t+get+a+harrumph%22&rls=c om.microsoft:en-us&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&startIndex=&startPage=1) from Blazing Saddles. (It might also be "failure to communicate" as Strother Martin said (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fuDDqU6n4o)in Cool Hand Luke but that is a different point.

davidbfpo
09-04-2013, 08:12 PM
A short paper 'Additional Thoughts About the Damascus Chemical Warfare Incident' that IMHO asks more questions, than giving answers by a previously unknown expert:
Dan Kaszeta is the author of “CBRN and Hazmat Incidents at Major Public Events: Planning and Response” (Wiley, 2012) as well as a number of magazine articles and conference papers. He has 22 years of experience in CBRN, having served as an officer in the US Army Chemical Corps, as CBRN advisor for the White House Military Office, and as a specialist in the US Secret Service....

Link:http://strongpointsecurity.co.uk/site/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/D-Kaszeta-Additional-Thoughts.pdf

TheCurmudgeon
09-04-2013, 08:54 PM
You asked in your title what point I was trying to make. I was trying to suggest that the record of recent military "punishment" operations shows that they have not had any of the 5 desired effects of punishment. I think it is probably the case that short of winning a general war and then trying the leadership of the losing side, that will always be the case. And, IMO, the only aim of punishment that this latter course will meet is that of retribution/revenge..


I will agree with that.


Although my thoughts on this are the same as they are on our actions in Iraq and Afghanistan trying to create democracies where they are not feasible - are we taking this action based on an understanding of how Assad will interpret events or are we taking it based on how WE interpret events? A corollary would be, are we taking this action based on how a reasonable (or unreasonable) third party dictator would interpret these events?

TheCurmudgeon
09-04-2013, 10:21 PM
Just to be clear, I think we are making the right move to take action in this case. The question in my mind is, "what action will yield the desired result?"

That is a complex and nuanced question. But unlike others on this council I will not walk away from it just because it is complex. I have seen too many people here try to pass off the observation that a problem is complex as some form of intellectualism - with their next statement being that if it is too complex we should not get involved. Sorry, but that is poor logic and even poorer scholarship. There is nothing profound about standing on the sidelines.

If we want 1) to deter Assad from using these weapons again, and 2) deter other like-minded leaders from using the same tact - what is the response that will yield that result. What can we take away that Assad cares that much about. What can we threaten that other leaders will think twice about before they chose to use chemical weapons.

My response is - we need to know what Assad cares about first - then we act.

An appropriate response against Assad will yield the desired deterrence against others.

ganulv
09-04-2013, 10:47 PM
If we want 1) to deter Assad from using these weapons again, and 2) deter other like-minded leaders from using the same tact - what is the response that will yield that result.

What about rewording “we want to deter Assad” to “we want Assad deterred.” The ultimate deterrence might be the threat of direct intervention by the militaries of neighboring countries and/or loss of support from Iran. Non-clandestine U.S. involvement threatens to introduce a whole ‘nother political dimension to whether that might happen, doesn’t it?

Dayuhan
09-04-2013, 11:34 PM
An appropriate response against Assad will yield the desired deterrence against others.

The problem with punishment and deterrence is that both are invariably based on assumptions about how other parties will respond. It's easy to say that "If we do x, they will do y", or if we had done x, they would have done y". These assumptions are impossible to verify and as likely to be wrong as right. Any course of action based on assumptions about the responses of other parties has to be balanced by consideration of the lively possibility that we will do x and they will do z, or something from a completely different alphabet.

TheCurmudgeon
09-04-2013, 11:59 PM
What about rewording “we want to deter Assad” to “we want Assad deterred.” The ultimate deterrence might be the threat of direct intervention by the militaries of neighboring countries and/or loss of support from Iran. Non-clandestine U.S. involvement threatens to introduce a whole ‘nother political dimension to whether that might happen, doesn’t it?

I agree that the action, whatever it is, need not be from the U.S. alone or from the U.S. at all. It is not like we have never worked through surrogates before. Even better if the action is taken as part of a coalition.

But it does need to be tailored to achieve the desired result - deterrence.

There were four other objectives of punishment. Revenge should not apply since his actions were not against us directly. I could argue that democracies see all citizens as the rightful powers in any political system. That said any attack on a innocent civilian is an attack on the "Democratic Us" (kind of like the royal "we"), and therefore an attack on all like-minded humans. This is the foundation of R2P. I will not make that argument nor do I believe it is accurate. Incapacitation is laudable, but unachievable. In this case incapacitation means eliminating the ability of Assad to use chemical weapons - a bridge too far in my estimation. Rehabilitation, I think not. Reparation, I don't see how. Perhaps we could seize all of Assad's foreign assets and offer to give them to the relatives of the victims, but I see jurisdictional issues until the relatives file an action in a US Court. Even then it is a wildly unlikely option. So our only reasonable security interest is deterrence. Deterrence against Assad or any other government that would use weapons of mass destruction against their (or any other) population.

If there were a non-military way to achieve this I would be for it. I don't see one.

TheCurmudgeon
09-05-2013, 12:06 AM
The problem with punishment and deterrence is that both are invariably based on assumptions about how other parties will respond. It's easy to say that "If we do x, they will do y", or if we had done x, they would have done y". These assumptions are impossible to verify and as likely to be wrong as right. Any course of action based on assumptions about the responses of other parties has to be balanced by consideration of the lively possibility that we will do x and they will do z, or something from a completely different alphabet.

This is the "it's too hard" argument. Let me lay this out.

Blue Team - psychologists, political scientists, and military people brought together to determine Assad's vulnerability (what we want to target) as well as his most likely response.

Red Team - Same makeup whose mission is to determine the most dangerous reaction.

White Team - A more robust element designed to look at third party outsiders (Iran, Russia, Lebanon, Turkey, Israel) to look for issues that could lead to a regional conflict.

Silver team - same makeup as the Blue and Red Teams, but whose mission is to study what total inaction will result in.

Each team should have at least two native Syrian's if possible. They review all relevant data and provide a series of courses of action that have been war gamed (action, reaction, counteraction). Leadership then recommends options to the President's team.

You are never going to be 100% right , and perhaps the Silver team wins and inaction is the best course of action. But I am not willing to concede that because a problem is difficult it is therefore intractable:eek:.

Dayuhan
09-05-2013, 12:51 AM
This is the "it's too hard" argument.

Actually it's the "it's too uncertain" argument. Given the number of actors and the range of motives involved, our ability to predict outcomes is very limited, and any effort to predict outcomes is likely to be speculative.

What strikes me as odd about the proposals for action is that the adverse outcome of inaction is invariably claimed to be the possibility of escalation and regional spillover. To avert this, we propose an escalation that is very likely to produce regional spillover. I have to question a proposed response that seems very likely to produce precisely the outcome that we're trying to avoid.

From a cynic's perspective, if a stalemate continues, the rebels and the government will continue to butcher each other and anyone caught in between. If Assad wins, he will butcher the rebels and anyone associated with them. If Assad falls, the rebels will butcher each other and anyone associated with Assad. That's horrible any way it comes out, but is it really an equation that we need to be in? If AQ and Iran/Hezbollah are going to square off and duke it out, why should we be trying to pry them apart? No doubt the whole thing is going to be very bad for Syrians, but are a few thousand tons of explosives delivered by cruise missile going to make it any better?

jmm99
09-05-2013, 04:42 AM
Senate committee approves Syria attack resolution - Committee voted 10-7, with both Democrats and Republicans voting for and against resolution. (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/09/04/senate-syria-committee-vote/2762415/) (USA Today, by Gregory Korte, 4 Sep 2013):


WASHINGTON — The Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted to authorize President Obama to use limited force against Syria Wednesday, after adopting amendments from Sen. John McCain designed to urge Obama to "change the military equation on the battlefield."

The Senate resolution would limit hostilities to 60 or 90 days, narrow military action to Syria's borders and prohibit U.S. troops on Syrian soil. McCain's proposal didn't change that scope but urged that the end goal should be "a negotiated settlement that ends the conflict and leads to a democratic government in Syria."

The vote was 10-7. Five Republicans and two Democrats voted against it. Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., voted "present."

Here's the amended AUMF (http://www.foreign.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/DAV13973.pdf).

Regards

Mike

Dayuhan
09-05-2013, 07:01 AM
McCain's proposal didn't change that scope but urged that the end goal should be "a negotiated settlement that ends the conflict and leads to a democratic government in Syria."

How do you do that "bashing head on wall" emoticon?

I'd love to know how Mr. McCain proposes to achieve that goal within 90 days, without putting boots on ground.

The document looks like a prescription for disaster to me, and I hope it gets voted down. We'll see.

Realistically, force has to be proportional to goals, and "limited force" needs to be paired with limited goals. The goals here seem out of proportion to the approved means and thoroughly unrealistic. That's not even starting on the potential for unintended consequences...

CrowBat
09-05-2013, 07:55 AM
It is a ridiculous solution for ridiculous situation - caused by lack of action when there was time.

Sure, in theory, there is a way to do something serious even in a 'limited action' scenario. Especially an 'Obama & Democrats style' Operation - that is: a combo of TLAM-strikes and UAV/UCAV-ops aiming at Assads and their top commanders - would be the most promising.

But, it's already crystal clear they'll not going to do that, so why bother even discussing this.

davidbfpo
09-05-2013, 10:20 AM
Amongst all the factors involved in Syria I have yet to see a real discussion over the internal power politics within the Syrian state, notably who gave the order to use CW.

So last night I caught a BBC News clip, with John Simpson, their chief foreign correspondent, concluding Bashar Al-Assad was not in charge, but the front for much harder men. If there is a "red team" plus exercise I hope the leadership question is included.

Note the clip is in a G20 wrapper.

Link:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23967669

TheCurmudgeon
09-05-2013, 11:25 AM
Amongst all the factors involved in Syria I have yet to see a real discussion over the internal power politics within the Syrian state, notably who gave the order to use CW.

I have to admit my first thoughts is that no one could be stupid enough to use chemical weapons on the same day UN chemical weapons inspectors arrive to look at the last site ... and then immediately allow the inspectors to look at the site of this attack. It would make more sense if another fraction within the government ordered the strike with the hopes of removing Assad. At a minimum, if it was an act of a "lone gunman" in the military I would expect a targeted assassination or two if Assad is still in control.

Of course it could have been the opposite. Assad wanting to prove to the rebels that he can do anything with impunity, so don't push him. Without understanding his psyche it is hard to tell.

TheCurmudgeon
09-05-2013, 11:34 AM
Actually it's the "it's too uncertain" argument. Given the number of actors and the range of motives involved, our ability to predict outcomes is very limited, and any effort to predict outcomes is likely to be speculative.

Inaction is no less uncertain.


What strikes me as odd about the proposals for action is that the adverse outcome of inaction is invariably claimed to be the possibility of escalation and regional spillover. To avert this, we propose an escalation that is very likely to produce regional spillover. I have to question a proposed response that seems very likely to produce precisely the outcome that we're trying to avoid.

The motivation for action here is not to prevent regional spillover.


From a cynic's perspective, if a stalemate continues, the rebels and the government will continue to butcher each other and anyone caught in between. If Assad wins, he will butcher the rebels and anyone associated with them. If Assad falls, the rebels will butcher each other and anyone associated with Assad. That's horrible any way it comes out, but is it really an equation that we need to be in? If AQ and Iran/Hezbollah are going to square off and duke it out, why should we be trying to pry them apart? No doubt the whole thing is going to be very bad for Syrians, but are a few thousand tons of explosives delivered by cruise missile going to make it any better?

Here I agree. There may have been a time when we (as in the World, and in particular, the Arab World) could have gotten involved to limit the destruction. That time has passed.

Again, don't confuse the reasons for taking action with anything to do with taking sides or even bringing an end to the conflict. In this particular situation no one is arguing that Assad can't defend his regime using conventional weapons. No one is arguing that the rebels cannot kill Government forces using conventional weapons. They can kill each other using conventional weapons to the last person as long as they are killing each other over political power and not as a form of genocide. And following the logic of your argument, could a few tons of explosives delivered by cruise missile make it any worse?

This has to do with the use of chemical weapons. The ramifications of inaction are not limited to the boarders of Syria.

TheCurmudgeon
09-05-2013, 11:51 AM
What about rewording “we want to deter Assad” to “we want Assad deterred.” The ultimate deterrence might be the threat of direct intervention by the militaries of neighboring countries and/or loss of support from Iran. Non-clandestine U.S. involvement threatens to introduce a whole ‘nother political dimension to whether that might happen, doesn’t it?

I am not sure it does. It is not like the players on the world stage (both state and non-state) believe that we are doing nothing behind the scenes. Overt action at least does not allow for wild speculation.

Consultation with key players (particularly Russia) can limit "damage". We have to keep their interests in mind.

wm
09-05-2013, 11:55 AM
I think we are presented with the analog of the following scene found in the 1983 movie Trading Places (Eddie Murphy as Billy Ray Valentine; Dan Akroyd as Louis Wintorpe III)

http://076dd0a50e0c1255009e-bd4b8aabaca29897bc751dfaf75b290c.r40.cf1.rackcdn.c om/images/files/000/397/172/original/original.jpg



Billy Ray Valentine: [watches Louis clean his shotgun] You know, you can't just go around and shoot people in the kneecaps with a double-barreled shotgun 'cause you pissed at 'em.

Louis Winthorpe III: Why not?

Billy Ray Valentine: 'Cause it's called assault with a deadly weapon, you get 20 years for that ####.

Louis Winthorpe III: Listen, do you have any better ideas?

Billy Ray Valentine: Yeah. You know, it occurs to me that the best way you hurt rich people is by turning them into poor people.


The administration seems to want to take the Winthorpe approach when the Coleman approach might be more likely to have some real impact.

Dayuhan
09-05-2013, 12:41 PM
For what it's worth:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/165224353/National-Executive-Summary-of-Declassified-Intelligence


English translation of French report on alleged use of chemical weapons by Syria.

National executive summary of declassified intelligence

Assessment of Syria’s chemical warfare programme

Cases of previous use of chemical agents by the Syrian regime,

Chemical attack launched by the regime on Aug 21

omarali50
09-05-2013, 04:53 PM
There can be many ways to put unbearable pressure on the Syrian regime, but I am still not convinced that the US has an official or general culture that is capable of doing it with good results. I don't mean "we are not tough enough" or "we are too squeamish". I mean neither the populace, nor its leaders are really clear about wanting to do this (and about how to do such things in general). If they are not clear going in, it probably won't work.
Suez moment? http://www.thenational.ae/thenationalconversation/comment/is-the-us-facing-a-suez-moment-over-syrian-crisis#full

jmm99
09-05-2013, 05:05 PM
Mueller et al, Airpower Options for Syria - Assessing Objectives and Missions for Aerial Intervention (http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_reports/RR400/RR446/RAND_RR446.pdf) (RAND, 2013):


Key Findings

Destroying the Syrian air force or grounding it through intimidation is operationally feasible but would have only marginal benefits for protecting Syrian civilians.

Neutralizing the Syrian air defense system would be challenging but manageable; however, it would not be an end in itself.

Defending safe areas in Syrias interior would amount to intervention on the side of the opposition.

An air campaign against the Syrian army could do more to ensure that the regime fell than to determine its replacement.

Airpower could reduce the Assad regime's ability or desire to launch chemical weapon attacks, but eliminating its arsenal would require a large ground operation.

See also, Table 1. Summary of Mission Assessments at page 16.

Pew, Public Opinion Runs Against Syrian Airstrikes - Few See U.S. Military Action Discouraging Chemical Weapons Use (http://www.people-press.org/2013/09/03/public-opinion-runs-against-syrian-airstrikes/) (3 Sep 2013):


President Obama faces an uphill battle in making the case for U.S. military action in Syria. By a 48% to 29% margin, more Americans oppose than support conducting military airstrikes against Syria in response to reports that the Syrian government used chemical weapons.

The new national survey by the Pew Research Center, conducted Aug. 29-Sept. 1 among 1,000 adults, finds that Obama has significant ground to make up in his own party. Just 29% of Democrats favor conducting airstrikes against Syria while 48% are opposed. Opinion among independents is similar (29% favor, 50% oppose). Republicans are more divided, with 35% favoring airstrikes and 40% opposed.

The votes that count are those in Congress, which doesn't necessarily follow the polls.

Regards

Mike

TheCurmudgeon
09-05-2013, 06:24 PM
Don't forget that Israel has already made attacks on Syria.


Israel carried out an air attack in Syria this month that targeted advanced antiship cruise missiles sold to the Syria government by Russia, American officials said Saturday. The officials, who declined to be identified because they were discussing intelligence reports, said the attack occurred July 5 near Latakia, Syria’s principal port city. The target was a type of missile called the Yakhont, they said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/14/world/middleeast/israel-airstrike-targeted-advanced-missiles-that-russia-sold-to-syria-us-says.html

jmm99
09-05-2013, 09:45 PM
Pelosi Uses Conversation With 5-Year-Old Grandson To Push For Attack On Syria (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/09/03/pelosi_uses_conversation_with_5-year-old_grandson_to_push_for_attack_on_syria.html) (Real Clear Politics Video, 3 Sep 2013; from Fox):


REP. NANCY PELOSI: I'll tell you this story and then I really do have to go. My five-year-old grandson, as I was leaving San Francisco yesterday, he said to me, Mimi, my name, Mimi, war with Syria, are you yes war with Syria, no, war with Syria. And he's five years old. We're not talking about war; we're talking about action. Yes war with Syria, no with war in Syria. I said, 'Well, what do you think?' He said, 'I think no war.' I said, 'Well, I generally agree with that but you know, they have killed hundreds of children, they've killed hundreds of children there. ' And he said, five years old, 'Were these children in the United States?' And I said, 'No, but they're children wherever they are.'

So, I guess I have to admit: I'm not smarter than a 5-year old. :)

Regards

Mike

Dayuhan
09-05-2013, 11:25 PM
Inaction is no less uncertain.

It certainly keeps us out of the picture, and that's something. The demon you know, and all that... while things are ugly now, we're proposing a substantial escalation that has little chance of making anything better and a very substantial chance of making them worse.


The motivation for action here is not to prevent regional spillover.

I don't see how the goals of this operation can be separated from overall policy goals re Syria.

There's a point at which general principles regarding chemical weapons are in conflict with the real-world calculus of costs and benefits presented by Syrian intervention. Overall, the prospect of intervening in Syria is no more attractive than it was before the use of chemical weapons. There's still no credible ally on the ground. There's still no clear, practical, achievable goal. There's still a huge raft of probable unintended consequences. So do we go out and stick our collective schlong in the meat grinder purely to deter future use of chemical weapons?


There may have been a time when we (as in the World, and in particular, the Arab World) could have gotten involved to limit the destruction. That time has passed.

There may or may not have been such a time. Of course there will be no shortage of claims that at any given juncture we could have done x and "they" would have done y. That's pure speculation. We do not know where the road not taken would have led, and we do know that there were good reasons for not taking that road.


This has to do with the use of chemical weapons. The ramifications of inaction are not limited to the boarders of Syria.

So what happens if you fire off your punitive strike and they turn around and use chemical weapons again, maybe on a larger scale? What's the next step up on the punitive escalator? Have we got a next step up that we can actually use without head-butting the tar baby?

We're not in a position to get on the high horse and claim that the use of chemical weapons must be punished in any circumstances, because we and everyone else know that we've let the use of chemical weapons pass before, when it suited us to do so. At some point our interests have to come into the calculation.

jmm99
09-06-2013, 12:25 AM
Several pages ago, I asserted that good legal arguments could be made pro and con Syrian intervention; that legal arguments are therefore not critical to the question; but that the question should be decided on the basis of underlying policy(ies).

Ken Anderson has done the heavy lifting by outlining five different international jurisprudential viewpoints: Five Fundamental International Law Approaches to the Legality of a Syria Intervention (http://www.lawfareblog.com/2013/09/five-fundamental-international-law-approaches-to-the-legality-of-a-syria-intervention/) (by Kenneth Anderson, September 5, 2013).

First his introduction and posited facts:


Lurking behind international law arguments over a possible US armed intervention in Syria without Security Council authorization are fundamental divides over the nature of international law itself. These divides include its authority with respect to sovereign states, the sources of authority it draws upon and methods of interpretation, and the degree to which it is essentially a “closed” system of law that looks to itself for answers and legitimacy or an “open” one that does not exhaust all the possibilities of legitimacy and action. These deep differences in conception and approach to international law are not simply intellectual arguments without practical implication; on the contrary, they account for much of the sense that the several sides in these international law debates somehow fail to address each other’s arguments.
...
The factual assumptions are those made in the ASIL essay: first, the now largely undisputed claim that the Assad regime engaged in a major chemical weapons attack; and, second, the United States will undertake some military response even if it has no authorization from the Security Council and even if reasonably certain that such authorization, if requested, would be blocked by Russia and possibly others.

Here are the five legal philosophies that have been argued - each with a short snipped description (much more in Ken's article):


1. Formalism as Positive Charter Law. Formalism looks to the “formal” law for answers and, moreover, tends to treat those answers as dispositive – a “closed” system in the sense registered above. Any other concerns of policy have to be drawn into the formal system in order to count as law, and law as such trumps policy. Moreover, there is a hierarchy of sources, and the UN Charter is at the apex. Thus, the clearest formalist argument is that US armed action against Syria, irrespective of the reason in morality, politics, or policy, without authorization of the Security Council, violates the plain language of the Charter ....
...
2. Formalism Beyond Positivism. Formalism is not the same as strict Charter positivism, however. Positivism looks to the “positive” law, particularly as written in the Charter’s provisions. But international law, even on a formalist view, includes customary international law, which is evidenced by state practice and the opinio juris of states indicating that their practices are driven by a belief that they act from a sense of binding legal obligation. This is part of formal international law, but important parts of it will always subject to interpretive debate. It is not beyond reason that even some “formalists” would be willing to go beyond strict Charter positivism and acknowledge that the Charter’s wrapping of customary international law of “inherent” self-defense into Article 51 can be seen to create a certain question as to whether the “inherent” rights of self-defense, that the Charter purports not to “impair,” is both formal international law but not necessarily qualified by the Charter’s language of “armed attack.” ...
...
3. Responsibility to Protect (R2P). Neither formalist positivism nor formalism-beyond-positivism yields that sought by those seeking intervention on the basis of humanitarian concerns. They offer an argument that is essentially morality and policy – humanitarian necessity. The best formal legal argument is a descriptive claim offered as justification under the moral argument; mass atrocities are indisputably a gross violation of international law, and that command of law justifies a response under international law itself. It is expressed as a responsibility to protect, and it is – on this argument – both compelled as a legal conclusion arising from the underlying prohibition on mass atrocities and, moreover, something that has gained sufficient acceptance in the community of international law to qualify as, if not necessarily “law,” at least not contrary to international law. The question is where international law locates the “remedy” called for by R2P – cabined within the Security Council’s authority exclusively or not? ...
...
4. “Illegal but legitimate.” One approach that has gained a certain traction is to frankly acknowledge that intervention is illegal under international law, but assert that international law is trumped in such a case by emergency and necessity, in this case humanitarian emergency and necessity. This might be understood as a peculiar form of the strong formalist position – which, recall, had two distinct conditions, first, that one looked to “formal” sources to determine the law and, second, that this formal law take normative precedence over everything else. This “illegal but legitimate” claim is one that, since first offered in the Kosovo intervention, has had peculiar attraction to otherwise formalist international lawyers; it allows them to continue to accept formalism’s “descriptive” condition while abandoning its second, normative claim that the formal law trumps. ...
...
5. “Pragmatic” International Law. Perhaps out of implicit recognition of the methodological and conceptual difficulties in arguments for intervention based in R2P and humanitarian intervention, along with a political desire to confine the “war aims” of an intervention as well as its actual scope, the US government has made the issue not humanitarian intervention, emergency, or necessity, but instead the violation of what Secretary of State Kerry, President Obama, and other officials have described as the long-standing international norm against the use of chemical weapons. The central argument as it stands now is not that the chemical weapons sharply worsen the humanitarian situation – though of course that is true – but instead the defense of the norm against any use of chemical weapons. ...

Pragmatism (which is the rest of Ken's discussion) tends to be a two (or more) -edged sword; multiple good arguments can arise from different practical values being chosen (e.g., Putin vs Obama).

See, Michael Glennon, The Fog of Law: Pragmatism, Security, and International Law (http://www.amazon.com/The-Fog-Law-Pragmatism-International/dp/0804771758) (2010); Fixing the UN : A fractured planet needs pragmatism (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/23/opinion/23iht-edglennon_ed3_.html) (by Michael Glennon, April 23, 2003):


BOSTON— Some day, following the collapse of the international security system this winter, policymakers will return to the drawing board. When they do, one lesson is that rules must flow from the way states actually behave, not from the way they ought to behave.

"The first requirement of a sound body of law," wrote Oliver Wendell Holmes, "is that it should correspond with the actual feelings and demands of the community, whether right or wrong." This insight will be anathema to continuing believers in natural law, the armchair philosophers who "know" what principles must control states, whether states accept those principles or not. But these idealists might remind themselves that the international legal system is voluntarist. For better or worse, its rules are based upon state consent. ...

Ken Anderson, Living with the UN: American Responsibilities and International Order (http://www.amazon.com/Living-Responsibilities-International-PUBLICATION-Institution/dp/0817913440) (2012); free download of the 1st 121 pages (SSRN link (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2039790)):


As a policy message for the US political system, it means two fundamental things: American conservatives need to understand that the UN is not going anywhere; it is a permanent feature of the international landscape, and they have to elaborate policy heuristics to deal with that permanence. American liberals, by contrast, need to understand that the UN is not going anywhere; they need to understand that the UN is an institution that has grown up and reached its full potential, which is to say, not very much at all. The UN is what it is; and it will neither disappear nor fulfill any grand dream of liberal internationalist global governance.

And, Michael Schmitt, Legitimacy Versus Legality Redux: Arming the Syrian Rebels (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2308844) (2013):


This article examines the international law issues surrounding the US policy decision to arm Syrian rebels. Topics discussed as potential violations of international law include the prohibition on the use of force, the principle of non-intervention, Security Council action and State responsibility for any unlawful activities of the rebels. The Article also examines possible justifications for the action under international law including self-defense, military aid to a government, humanitarian intervention, an action against the enemy during an armed conflict, and the taking of countermeasures. The article concludes that arming the rebels is questionable as a matter of law, although it notes that it may be legitimate (it draws no conclusions on this latter point).

Regards

Mike

TheCurmudgeon
09-06-2013, 01:14 AM
Dayuhan, You are not going to convince me that intervention in this case is unwise any more than I am going to convince you that it is the least bad choice. I guess you and I are going to have to agree to disagree ... or disagree on agreeing ... your choice.

JMM, regarding international law, there is no such beast. Why the President keeps referring international norms. Norms are generally agreed upon social conventions, like turning around and facing the doors when you get into an elevator. Laws are norms that everyone agrees are so important that they have been codified and breaking them results in punishing the offender. No such animal exist in the international sphere.

Holmes explains why this is - law is based on "actual feelings and demands of the community." This would require the world community to agree on how they feel about sovereignty or whether food and healthcare are reasonable demands of a states citizens. Since there is no internationally agreed upon common norms that are so important to every member of the group that they agree to create enforceable laws, there are none. The rest is all legal mambo-jumbo.

wm
09-06-2013, 11:25 AM
regarding international law, there is no such beast. Why the President keeps referring international norms. Norms are generally agreed upon social conventions, like turning around and facing the doors when you get into an elevator. Laws are norms that everyone agrees are so important that they have been codified and breaking them results in punishing the offender. No such animal exist in the international sphere.

Holmes explains why this is - law is based on "actual feelings and demands of the community." This would require the world community to agree on how they feel about sovereignty or whether food and healthcare are reasonable demands of a states citizens. Since there is no internationally agreed upon common norms that are so important to every member of the group that they agree to create enforceable laws, there are none. The rest is all legal mambo-jumbo.

I think this is a little strong. Laws that are designed to regulate conduct are of little use unless an effective means to enforce them and/or punish their breach also exists. I submit that no effective international form of enforcement exists, not that no international law exists.

A lack of agreement about norms does not mean that those norms do not exist. Your claim is a variation of the fallacious argument from ignorance ("I do not know of any universally accepted norms so there aren't any" would be the basic argumentum ad ignorantiam) Perhaps folks simply have not reached the appropriate level of "mental maturity" to uncover those universally applicable norms. If evolutionists are correct, then humans and human relations are, after all, a work in progress.

JMA
09-06-2013, 11:32 AM
There's still no clear, practical, achievable goal.



I would really appreciate you explaining how you were able to arrive at this conclusion.

TheCurmudgeon
09-06-2013, 12:29 PM
I think this is a little strong. Laws that are designed to regulate conduct are of little use unless an effective means to enforce them and/or punish their breach also exists. I submit that no effective international form of enforcement exists, not that no international law exists.

... and as long as no effective international form of enforcement exists, it is not a "law" - only generally agreed upon norms of conduct. The defining characteristic of a law is that it is codified and it is enforceable. There is no enforcement mechanism, hence there is no law.


A lack of agreement about norms does not mean that those norms do not exist. Your claim is a variation of the fallacious argument from ignorance ("I do not know of any universally accepted norms so there aren't any" would be the basic argumentum ad ignorantiam) Perhaps folks simply have not reached the appropriate level of "mental maturity" to uncover those universally applicable norms. If evolutionists are correct, then humans and human relations are, after all, a work in progress.

I did not claim that there were no agreed upon international norms, only that none of those norms were important enough to all the relevant players to be turned into actual enforceable international laws. We have an international court but any country can opt out of its jurisdiction. The US opts out of war crimes when it comes to its Soldiers.

To boot, you throw in the fallacy of equivocation by confusing biological evolution with social evolution, unless you are claiming that people in certain parts of the world are not as biologically evolved as others are. :D

davidbfpo
09-06-2013, 08:38 PM
An interesting column by Dr. John Bew, from Kings College, who next month starts as the Henry A Kissinger Chair in Foreign Policy and International Relations at the Library of Congress in Washington, DC:http://www.newstatesman.com/2013/08/syrian-atrocities


Another lesson from the Syrian conflict is that non-intervention does not work in a strategic vacuum. To be successful, the policy needs to be more than a checklist of arguments against intervention. Counterintuitively, as Britain’s most anti-interventionist foreign secretary, Lord Castlereagh, recognised, it requires a credible threat of force.....

With deep reluctance, Barack Obama has been forced to reach the same conclusion, but his reticence and equivocation over a long period have left him at the mercy of events. It is hard to lead from behind when you don’t even want to look.

Dayuhan
09-06-2013, 10:56 PM
I would really appreciate you explaining how you were able to arrive at this conclusion.

Probably the same way that retired MG Robert Scales reached this conclusion:


So far, at least, this path to war violates every principle of war, including the element of surprise, achieving mass and having a clearly defined and obtainable objective.

That conclusion was reached (in my case at least) by reading the various statements made by those who articulate objectives. For the overall policy objective, we have the Senate Foreign Relations Committee:


"It is the policy of the United States to change the momentum on the battlefield in Syria so as to create favourable conditions for a negotiated settlement that ends the conflict and leads to a democratic government in Syria"

Does anybody think that the proposed strikes - or anything else the US is going to do in 90 days without putting boots on the ground - is going to end the conflict and lead to a democratic government in Syria? Does anybody think that firing a few hundred missiles at Syrian military targets is going to advance that objective in any significant way? If so, why?

For the specific goals of this proposed strike, General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff:


“To deter, that is to say change the regime’s calculus about the use of chemical weapons, and degrade his ability to do so”


That is a very nebulous goal. We don't know what "the regime's calculus about the use of chemical weapons" is, and we have very little idea how the regime will react. Any assumption about how others will react to a given action is by nature speculative and uncertain. Will they be deterred, or provoked? I don't know, neither do you, neither does anyone else.

I do not see "maybe if we blow some stuff up they'll stop being bad" as a clear, practical, and achievable goal. Do you?

I suspect that the actual goal is to stage a demonstration to show that the administration backs up its less that judicious (IMO) "red line" comments with action. That might be clear, practical, and achievable (smart is another question) if it were clearly stated, but of course it hasn't been and will not be.

TheCurmudgeon
09-07-2013, 12:16 AM
Probably the same way that retired MG Robert Scales reached this conclusion


MG (Ret) Scales is presenting the opinion of certain members of the Army who don't like being pushed to the background and would prefer a boots-on-the-ground solution - Destroy the Syrian Army.


The Senate Foreign Relations Committee does not set foreign policy, so what they say (or more correctly, what SEN John McCain says) is not our policy objective.

Our policy objective is to deter or eliminate Assad's use of chemical weapons.


That is a very nebulous goal. We don't know what "the regime's calculus about the use of chemical weapons" is, and we have very little idea how the regime will react.

There is nothing nebulous about the goal. It is a very clear goal. However, you confuse the goal with the ways and means used to achieve the goal, two very separate things.


Any assumption about how others will react to a given action is by nature speculative and uncertain. Will they be deterred, or provoked? I don't know, neither do you, neither does anyone else.

Maybe not, but you don't know what inaction will bring either. I can say with fair confidence that inaction will not deter or eliminate Assad's use of chemical weapons. So inaction gets us no closer to our goal.



I do not see "maybe if we blow some stuff up they'll stop being bad" as a clear, practical, and achievable goal. Do you?

That depends on what you blow up.


I suspect that the actual goal is to stage a demonstration to show that the administration backs up its less that judicious (IMO) "red line" comments with action. That might be clear, practical, and achievable (smart is another question) if it were clearly stated, but of course it hasn't been and will not be.

I would agree that this is part of the goal. I don't see how that is a bad thing. If the US is going to make military threats it needs to be prepared to back them up. The fact that we are doing it in such an overt fashion means that the target audience extends beyond the boarders of Syria. Just food for thought.

jmm99
09-07-2013, 02:03 AM
Does anyone have historical examples where A, who has used WMD, has been deterred from their future use by some act of B ?

I can think of WWII (Roosevelt's "no first use of gas", but with retaliatory threat of responsive use) and the Cold War (mutual assured destruction); but neither of them really fits the case I described - actual first use by A and then what did B actually do to deter A.

I suppose you could put up the opening stage of OIF (toppling the regime and killing / detaining the leaders) as something of an example (leaving aside the obvious problem of WMD existence and use in 2003 vs earlier).

Does anyone have a neat example of WMD deterrence, after first use, without a ground war ?

Regards

Mike,

TheCurmudgeon
09-07-2013, 02:43 AM
Jim, the problem you present is one of the dog that does not bark. It is difficult to prove that deterrence works.

Perhaps the only example I can offer is the Cuban missile crisis.

jmm99
09-07-2013, 04:40 AM
Cuban missile crisis - close example, even though the Soviets-Cubans did not "first use" the WMD; nor did the US "first use" its nukes in Italy and Turkey. From the Russian perspective, it was the Turkish missile crisis.

1. MAD threatened by both sides (threats appear to have been real).

2. Case settled out of court; USSR gave up the Cuban missiles; US gave up the Turkish and Italian missiles; otherwise, status quo ante.

In that case, the power grip of the Russky ally (Castro) was actually strengthened by the outcome. On the other hand, it made Jack Kennedy look damn good to most Americans. He looked good to me at the time.

President Kennedy's statement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_missile_crisis#Crisis_ends):


I consider my letter to you of October twenty-seventh and your reply of today as firm undertakings on the part of both our governments which should be promptly carried out ... The US will make a statement in the framework of the Security Council in reference to Cuba as follows: it will declare that the United States of America will respect the inviolability of Cuban borders, its sovereignty, that it take the pledge not to interfere in internal affairs, not to intrude themselves and not to permit our territory to be used as a bridgehead for the invasion of Cuba, and will restrain those who would plan to carry an aggression against Cuba, either from US territory or from the territory of other countries neighboring to Cuba.

Where does all of that take us ?

Regards

Mike

Dayuhan
09-07-2013, 11:30 AM
Our policy objective is to deter or eliminate Assad's use of chemical weapons.

There is nothing nebulous about the goal. It is a very clear goal. However, you confuse the goal with the ways and means used to achieve the goal, two very separate things.

A clear idea of what you want with no clear idea of how to get it delivers very little clarity. We have no idea what Assad's tolerance for punishment is, neither have we any idea of the extent to which he believes his survival depends on the use of chemical weapons. There's nothing even vaguely resembling MAD (which really did deter, for obvious reasons) here, nobody's proposing to destroy anyone. The extent of the action proposed seems calibrated to what Americans are willing to accept (and what will let the President say he backed up his threat) than to what will realistically deter or degrade Assad's capabilities.


Maybe not, but you don't know what inaction will bring either. I can say with fair confidence that inaction will not deter or eliminate Assad's use of chemical weapons. So inaction gets us no closer to our goal.

What's more important, the goal of deterring the use of chemical weapons or the goal of keeping the country out of a war that serves no American interest? I don't think anybody missed Kerry's comment about how the option of boots on the ground should be retained in the event of complete chaos. Given that complete chaos is a substantial probability no matter who wins or doesn't, do we really want to be taking steps down that road? It's not like we haven't let the use of chemical weapons pass unchallenged before; we have and everyone knows it. The only message we can realistically send is that the use of chemical weapons is unacceptable to us except when it suits out interests.


I would agree that this is part of the goal. I don't see how that is a bad thing. If the US is going to make military threats it needs to be prepared to back them up. The fact that we are doing it in such an overt fashion means that the target audience extends beyond the boarders of Syria. Just food for thought.

Well, if we have to launch a hundred missiles because our President inserted his foot in his mouth, maybe we have to. Do we need to pretend that it's going to deter anything, or change the momentum on the battlefield, or lead to a negotiated settlement?

I guess maybe we do; pretense being an apparent requirement in public diplomacy. Maybe we'll get lucky and Congress will vote it down (getting him off the hook), or if they don't, maybe we'll get very lucky and not get sucked any deeper in. Not sure I like the odds on that, but as always my opinion means exactly nothing.

JMA
09-07-2013, 11:39 AM
Dayuhan, You are not going to convince me that intervention in this case is unwise any more than I am going to convince you that it is the least bad choice. I guess you and I are going to have to agree to disagree ... or disagree on agreeing ... your choice.


Reminds me of your exchange with him a year ago:

http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showpost.php?p=139129&postcount=624

100,000 dead, 2m refugees later. Then was the time to nip this in the bud.

JMA
09-07-2013, 12:22 PM
Probably the same way that retired MG Robert Scales reached this conclusion:



Nah... Don't accept that you have access to those in the Administration/Pentagon/other that set goals/objectives/targets for such operations.

Obama said the following when in Sweden:

"But we can send a very clear, strong message against the prohibition -- or in favor of the prohibition against using chemical weapons. We can change Assad’s calculus about using them again. We can degrade his capabilities so that he does not use them again. And so what I’m talking about is an action that is limited in time and in scope, targeted at the specific task of degrading his capabilities and deterring the use of those weapons again."

http://www.enewspf.com/latest-news/latest-national/latest-national-news/45890-remarks-by-president-obama-and-prime-minister-reinfeldt-of-sweden-in-joint-press-conference-sept-4-2013.html

Back to what you said:

"There's still no clear, practical, achievable goal"

Clear ... Yes

Practical ... Yes

Achievable ... Yes - with some difficulty, but as long as the politicians don't try to micro-manage the implementation the US military have the ability to do the job.

TheCurmudgeon
09-07-2013, 06:48 PM
What's more important, the goal of deterring the use of chemical weapons or the goal of keeping the country out of a war that serves no American interest?

That is a false dichotomy. Deterring the use of chemical weapons IS in the interest of America.

Speaking as a Soldier, I HATE chemical weapons. Anything we do to keep anyone in the world from using those weapons is something I am in favor of.

TheCurmudgeon
09-07-2013, 06:51 PM
Reminds me of your exchange with him a year ago:

http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showpost.php?p=139129&postcount=624

100,000 dead, 2m refugees later. Then was the time to nip this in the bud.

Dayuhan, Fuchs, and Madhu provide a needed counterpoint to those of us who might be inclined to see the military option as the best option. Without them this board would be overtly one sided. While I don't agree with everything he says, I will defend to the death - OK, maybe not THAT far, but at least to the point of typing this message - their voice on this site.

TheCurmudgeon
09-07-2013, 07:28 PM
Where does all of that take us ?

I don't know. I am always skeptical of using lessons from the past. This is because personalities of leaders matter too much. Would the results have been different is Putin had been in charge? In addition, what was acceptable to the American people forty years ago may no longer be acceptable now. Add to that the global internet and the ability of videos from the war one to be on tonight's news (remember the American Soldier's bodies being dragged threw the streets of Mogadishu) you get a different world. Could we have sustained our support for Korea if that kind of reporting was available of the Chosen valley debacle?

I don't know if there is any example from the past that can be applied directly to this situation. Even if there was, I am not sure it would be relevant.

JMA
09-07-2013, 07:38 PM
Dayuhan, Fuchs, and Madhu provide a needed counterpoint to those of us who might be inclined to see the military option as the best option. Without them this board would be overtly one sided. While I don't agree with everything he says, I will defend to the death - OK, maybe not THAT far, but at least to the point of typing this message - their voice on this site.

Exactly! ... and you have right to allow yourself to be bored to death in the process

Bill Moore
09-07-2013, 07:47 PM
That is a false dichotomy. Deterring the use of chemical weapons IS in the interest of America.

Speaking as a Soldier, I HATE chemical weapons. Anything we do to keep anyone in the world from using those weapons is something I am in favor of.

Most of us hate IEDs also, which is exactly why our adversaries use them. We have a low probability of deterring their use, just as we have failed to defeat IED networks and deter their use because they're effective. When we base our strategy on defeating a tactical weapon (nukes are different) instead of defeating our adversary we are probably off course.

Bill Moore
09-07-2013, 07:56 PM
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/08/25/320372/any-us-war-on-syria-can-spark-wwiii/

US military intervention in Syria can lead to WWIII: Analyst


“US military involvement [in Syria] obviously would not resolve the crisis. It would just make it worse as always happens when the US military gets involved in parts of the world where it has no business being,” said Kevin Barrett in a Saturday interview with Press TV.


“This is a dangerous move because we’re really on the edge of a potential World War III in Syria. The region is being destabilized more and more at every moment,” he pointed out.

Perhaps, but I see it a little differently.

WWIII was our war, largely consisted of proxy wars around the globe, with the USSR (Cold War).

WWIV is our global war against Islamic Extremists, and an intervention in Syria would most likely be a huge mess, but it would be part of the current conflict, so perhaps better qualified as a major campaign within WWIV.

Since the Bush administration linked our invasion of Iraq under the WOT then Syria should also fit. It is already a national civil war that is part of the larger regional civil war between Sunnis and Shia (and others), and it already a proxy war for a number of countries who are leveraging the Civil War to pursue their national interests.

JMA
09-07-2013, 07:56 PM
I don't know. I am always skeptical of using lessons from the past. This is because personalities of leaders matter too much. Would the results have been different is Putin had been in charge? In addition, what was acceptable to the American people forty years ago may no longer be acceptable now. Add to that the global internet and the ability of videos from the war one to be on tonight's news (remember the American Soldier's bodies being dragged threw the streets of Mogadishu) you get a different world. Could we have sustained our support for Korea if that kind of reporting was available of the Chosen valley debacle?

I don't know if there is any example from the past that can be applied directly to this situation. Even if there was, I am not sure it would be relevant.

There are always arguments from elsewhere to be considered. Like this for instance:

Must intervention be legal?
http://www.economist.com/node/2970169

And this:

Intervention to Stop Genocide and Mass Atrocities
http://www.cfr.org/genocide/intervention-stop-genocide-mass-atrocities/p20379

TheCurmudgeon
09-07-2013, 08:35 PM
Most of us hate IEDs also, which is exactly why our adversaries use them. We have a low probability of deterring their use, just as we have failed to defeat IED networks and deter their use because they're effective. When we base our strategy on defeating a tactical weapon (nukes are different) instead of defeating our adversary we are probably off course.

I don't hate IEDs, as strange at that may sound from someone who was in charge of recons that have been attacked by IEDs. I understand IEDs. As much as possible they are targeted at the enemy just like any other explosive devise (like missiles fired from drones). I hate chemical weapons because I have to wear that intolerable MOPP gear ... and while I am wearing it I get to watch those civilian's around me (who theoretically I am there to protect) die while I am helpless.

No, I understand IED's. I HATE chemical weapons.

TheCurmudgeon
09-07-2013, 08:39 PM
Exactly! ... and you have right to allow yourself to be bored to death in the process

I have to die of something ...:D

jmm99
09-07-2013, 09:26 PM
... I HATE chemical weapons ...

That does tend to limit conversation about the subject, doesn't it ?

Regards

Mike

jmm99
09-07-2013, 10:10 PM
The Economist article accurately sets out the Russian-Chinese position:


It may not matter much, for under international law, there is no inherent right of armed humanitarian intervention, even to stop genocide. The UN charter only sanctions force in self-defence (Article 51) or when authorised by the Security Council to prevent a breach of the peace or an act of aggression (Chapter VII). It specifically forbids intervention “in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state”, though this injunction can be overridden by a Chapter VII authorisation.

and the Obama administration's position:


It would, of course, be possible to intervene in Darfur without going through the UN. This need not be as drastic an assault on international law as some legal sticklers fear. Provided that China and Russia did not object too publicly (and how could they in the face of such carnage?), an intervention could be justified with reference to NATO's campaign in Kosovo, which proceeded without UN approval. That might even set a useful precedent for dealing with future catastrophes.

That has been the position held by Susan Rice and Samantha Power for years with respect to "humanitarian interventions" that they approve.

That is also the bottom line in the Waxman CFR article:


The United States should prepare to operate in cases of urgent necessity absent UN Security Council authorization.

The strategy laid out in this report emphasizes improving the Security Council’s functioning through unilateral and multilateral efforts that help raise the costs of actions that slow or thwart its responsiveness. That said, the United States should be prepared to act outside the Security Council if necessary. Although it should not go so far as to declare in advance an explicit intention to do so, the United States should not completely hide its willingness to do so either.

For policymakers, this means being prepared to act within a legal gray zone when the moral calculus so dictates. Military and civilian contingency planners should actively consider scenarios for which Security Council action is neither present nor immediately forthcoming. Operating in an international legal gray zone will require tremendous investments of political and diplomatic capital, especially with respect to allies reluctant to act without clear legal authority. But the potential payoff can be high not only in terms of immediate humanitarian imperatives but also in shaping the future legal environment in ways more responsive to such needs.

As the Kosovo crisis shows, operating this way in cases of urgent humanitarian necessity inevitably shapes the future normative terrain, especially as international bodies react ex post facto and the precedential value of actions are debated. For the United States, this means it must conduct its diplomacy and justify publicly its actions in ways to promote long-term a more protective regime. Meanwhile, those states skeptical of or hostile to a more human rights–protective regime must come to see it as in their own long-term interests to facilitate rather than undermine timely and decisive action.

The same article notes (fn 66):


66. Notably, article 4 of the Constitutive Act of the African Union prohibits the use of force against and interference in the internal affairs of other member states, but it also declares “the right of the Union to intervene in a Member State pursuant to a decision of the Assembly in respect of grave circumstances, namely war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity.” See http://www.africa-union.org/root/au/AboutAu/Constitutive_Act_en.htm.

So, the argument of the Obama administration is that a state or ad hoc group of states has the same right as the UN or regional organization to protect against "war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity".

Of course, the same sort of argument could be extended to "freedom fighters" - providing that the UNSC, the regional organization or the ad hoc coalition (or hegemonic state) believes that the protected group consists of "freedom fighters", rather than "terrs".

All of these legal-policy arguments are two-edged swords. Personally, I have no objection to a more Hobbsian world; and I've no love for the UN Charter including Article 2(4):


All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations.

In fact, I enjoy seeing these globalists tripping over their own constraints.

My objection to US intervention in Syria is simply based on my own presumption against US force projection within Eurasia and Africa, absent exigent circumstances which I don't see proven here.

Regards

Mike

Fuchs
09-07-2013, 10:27 PM
concerning the 'Kosovo precedent':

There is s school of thought which says that repeatedly violating IL sets enough precedents to change IL in a way which for the future legalises such actions.


I think that's bullocks, designed to sway the gullible ones and to lessen the cognitive dissonance of the perpetrators.

TheCurmudgeon
09-08-2013, 12:39 AM
That does tend to limit conversation about the subject, doesn't it ?

Only when you are talking to me. Feel free to talk amongst yourselves:D

TheCurmudgeon
09-08-2013, 12:48 AM
My objection to US intervention in Syria is simply based on my own presumption against US force projection within Eurasia and Africa, absent exigent circumstances which I don't see proven here.

What would constitute "exigent circumstances"? It seems to me that allowing the any country to use chemical weapons constitutes exigent circumstances, but that is based on my view of chemical weapons. I am curious how you would define that term.

As for Chinese and Russian views on sovereignty, they see things from the communal perspective - the group takes priority over the individual. If I have to kill 5 million of my own innocent citizens to preserve the state for the good of the 50 million left alive, it is justified. The good of the many outweighs the good of the few, and especially the one. Democratic states take the exact opposite view - the rights of the one always outweigh the needs of the many. Ayn Rand's "virtue of selfishness" in action.

I understand both sides, and I take neither as the answer. It is always conditional. "Without condemning, or condoning, I understand." But the question of sovereignty is totally different than the question of whether or not chemical weapons (or nuclear and/or biological weapons) can be used in any instance, internal or external.

Fuchs, international law (an oxymoron in and of itself) is exactly what the powerful countries declare that it is - nothing more, nothing less.

jmm99
09-08-2013, 01:54 AM
noting that this construct applies to US force projection in Eurasia and Africa; not to the Western Hemisphere and its two boundary oceans, as to which I tend to be a bit hawkish.

In decreasing level of "exigency":

1. Attack on US - subsets: direct attacker; indirect attacker. Trigger has been squeezed, and bullet has hit or is on the way.

2. "Immediate" threat of attack on US - same subsets. Trigger is being squeezed.

3. "Imminent" threat of attack on US - same subsets.

At the third level, we are dealing with what some might call probabilities (I tend to prefer "fuzzy calculus" and "fuzzy logic"). In any event, decisions are judgment calls influenced by biases and emotions - including, as a valid component, hatred of something or someone.

Because of US globalism (hegemonic expansion), the US has "contracts" all over the place; e.g., we have an obligation to defend Turkey to the extent Article 5 of NATO requires that. Obviously, "hegemonic contraction" as to Eurasia and Africa would require abrogation of those agreements requiring US force presence and/or force projection within those continental land masses.

I could go on - and on; but I think that gives you the picture.

Regards

Mike

Dayuhan
09-08-2013, 11:55 PM
100,000 dead, 2m refugees later.

How many of them were Americans?


Then was the time to nip this in the bud.

Assuming we had the option of nipping it in the bud... an assumption that lacks any credible basis.


Obama said the following when in Sweden:

"But we can send a very clear, strong message against the prohibition -- or in favor of the prohibition against using chemical weapons. We can change Assad’s calculus about using them again. We can degrade his capabilities so that he does not use them again. And so what I’m talking about is an action that is limited in time and in scope, targeted at the specific task of degrading his capabilities and deterring the use of those weapons again."

http://www.enewspf.com/latest-news/latest-national/latest-national-news/45890-remarks-by-president-obama-and-prime-minister-reinfeldt-of-sweden-in-joint-press-conference-sept-4-2013.html

Back to what you said:

"There's still no clear, practical, achievable goal"

Clear ... Yes

Practical ... Yes

Achievable ... Yes - with some difficulty, but as long as the politicians don't try to micro-manage the implementation the US military have the ability to do the job.

Anything but clear, practical, and achievable. How do you "change Assad's calculus about using them again" when you have no idea what that calculus is? We thought we'd "sent a message" by invading Iraq and deposing Saddam merely on the suspicion (nominally at least) that he had WMD. That apparently was not the deterrent we thought it would be. What makes us so sure this "deterrent" will be any more effective? Given that we've very courteously provided several weeks advance notice of a strike, our ability to degrade capacity to use chemical weapons will probably be limited as well. There will be no strike on chemical weapons stocks, and the delivery systems used (apparently nothing large, sophisticated, or difficult to reproduce) are probably dispersed, under cover, or tucked away in places we won't attack for fear of collateral damage. Libya demonstrated that there limits to what we can accomplish with cruise missiles.

The only message I see being sent here is that our President made a silly comment about a "red line", now we have to back it up, so we will do as much as the American popular mood will let us do and hope maybe it will be a deterrent. That seems pretty vague, and leaves us with the lively possibility that at the end of the 90 days Assad crawls out of his hole and does it again, meaning we have to either escalate or back down? Are we prepared to escalate? Do we want to be taking the first step if the interests we have at stake aren't sufficiently compelling to justify a second?

Dayuhan
09-09-2013, 12:02 AM
That is a false dichotomy. Deterring the use of chemical weapons IS in the interest of America.

What would make us think anyone will be deterred? We invaded Iraq and deposed Saddam merely because we thought he had WMD; that didn't deter Assad. What makes us think a cruise missile strike will deter anyone? Is the level of force proposed here based on what we think will deter, or on what we think the American people will tolerate? I suspect the latter.


Speaking as a Soldier, I HATE chemical weapons. Anything we do to keep anyone in the world from using those weapons is something I am in favor of.

Hating chemical weapons seems an excellent reason to keep our people out of a situation that seems likely to involve their use.

I have no problem at all with a US President establishing an absolute red line against the use of chemical weapons against Americans. I have no problem with a US President declaring that anyone who uses chemical weapons against Americans will be hunted down and destroyed with every resource the country can bring to bear. I have no problem with a US President backing those words with any action necessary. When we get to the point of declaring that any use anywhere against anyone justifies a unilateral American response, that's a big step down the "Team America, World Police" road. I don't think that's a road we want to be on.

TheCurmudgeon
09-09-2013, 12:14 AM
noting that this construct applies to US force projection in Eurasia and Africa; not to the Western Hemisphere and its two boundary oceans, as to which I tend to be a bit hawkish.

In decreasing level of "exigency":

1. Attack on US - subsets: direct attacker; indirect attacker. Trigger has been squeezed, and bullet has hit or is on the way.

2. "Immediate" threat of attack on US - same subsets. Trigger is being squeezed.

3. "Imminent" threat of attack on US - same subsets.

At the third level, we are dealing with what some might call probabilities (I tend to prefer "fuzzy calculus" and "fuzzy logic"). In any event, decisions are judgment calls influenced by biases and emotions - including, as a valid component, hatred of something or someone.

Because of US globalism (hegemonic expansion), the US has "contracts" all over the place; e.g., we have an obligation to defend Turkey to the extent Article 5 of NATO requires that. Obviously, "hegemonic contraction" as to Eurasia and Africa would require abrogation of those agreements requiring US force presence and/or force projection within those continental land masses.

I could go on - and on; but I think that gives you the picture.

I guess I have always looked at exigency as a special set of conditions where action is not normally warranted, but because of the exigency you will act and the action is limited to the circumstances of the exigency.

Using criminal law as the basis, you cannot enter a house of a private citizen without a warrant. That is the general rule. But if you are in hot pursuit and the suspect enters a private residence you can enter the residence in order to effect the arrest. Hot pursuit creates the exigency.

Here there is a civil war where the conditions do not warrant intervention. However, the use of chemical weapons creates an exigent circumstance. Like the hot pursuit I did not enter the residence to conduct a general search for evidence of a crime, I entered to effect an arrest. Likewise, I will intervene in the civil war only as far as I need to in order to reduce or eliminate the use of chemical weapons.

jmm99
09-09-2013, 01:13 AM
I think we agree on this:


... exigency as a special set of conditions where action is not normally warranted, but because of the exigency you will act and the action is limited to the circumstances of the exigency ...

My example would be, assuming arguendo, the US has no military forces and no military commitments in Eurasia and Africa, but the US is hit with another 9/11. If so, the appropriate response would be to disintegrate the group(s) responsible (my motives being retribution, reprobation and specific deterrence) sans remission.

As to Syria, I've said that the administration's strongest point is chemical warfare ("... the horror, the horror ...), which John Kerry argues well. But, that does not create an "exigent circumstance" for me.

Regards

Mike

slapout9
09-09-2013, 06:44 AM
......you have to demonstrate... Ability...Oppoutunity...and Jeopardy. That is kinda tuff to do for Syria. Something is not right with this whole Syria scenario. Secretary Kerry is arguing pure emotion.....is it because the facts and the law are not on his (USA) side?

TheCurmudgeon
09-09-2013, 11:32 AM
......you have to demonstrate... Ability...Oppoutunity...and Jeopardy. That is kinda tuff to do for Syria. Something is not right with this whole Syria scenario. Secretary Kerry is arguing pure emotion.....is it because the facts and the law are not on his (USA) side?

That depends on who the intended target is. Assad has the Ability to use chemical weapons, he has the Opportunity, and there is Jeopardy on the part of the civilian population. There is no enforceable international law that is going to justify action. If that is what you are looking for it is not there. Syria is not a signatory to the chemical weapons convention and even if it was all it would have to do is disavow the convention.

The ramifications go beyond Syria. Just look at the rhetoric - people saying we are hypocrites for not acting when Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran. I suppose the next time someone uses chemical weapons we can say "well, we didn't do anything about Syria, so why should we act now?"

I understand the trepidation to get involved in a chaotic situation. I don't understand all the mental gymnastics people are going through to argue why we should not act. You can say, "yes, we should act because Assad used chemical weapons but we are not going to because X, Y, or Z." Dayuhan argues the unknown unknowns ... OK, I get that. Others argue that they don't trust the intelligence ... that this is just another attempt to get involved in a War in the middle east. Really!! I think the odds are better that the intelligence is good than that the President is itching for a fight in Syria. He could have done that on humanitarian grounds at any time. Unless you don't believe that there is a humanitarian problem in Syria, that Doctors without Boarders are in the hip pocket of the CIA.

I can't say what will happen if we act or if we fail to act. I do believe that there is no such thing as international law. It is the law of the playground. It is what the strong states are willing to act upon - nothing more, nothing less.

A CSM once said that when you fail to enforce the standard you create a new standard. That is what we are doing here - we are creating a new standard that chemical weapons can be used in civil wars. So it is now OK for N. Korea to use them against S. Korea regardless of civilian casualties. That is the new standard.

BTW, North Korea is not a signatory to the chemical weapons convention either.

omarali50
09-09-2013, 02:33 PM
Syria, the case for inaction (and for action?)

My latest in 3quarksdaily.com http://www.3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2013/09/syria-the-case-for-inaction-or-action.html#more

slapout9
09-09-2013, 02:44 PM
and let me know what you think. This is Wesley Clark and he is talking about the Policy Coup that has happened in our country by the hard right. Plan to invade 7 countries in 5 years including Syria (yes I know the interview is dated but...) seems to still be part of the general USA agenda for the Middle East.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ha1rEhovONU

TheCurmudgeon
09-09-2013, 03:12 PM
and let me know what you think. This is Wesley Clark and he is talking about the Policy Coup that has happened in our country by the hard right. Plan to invade 7 countries in 5 years including Syria (yes I know the interview is dated but...) seems to still be part of the general USA agenda for the Middle East.

I am sure that this was the truth in 2004 - with the five years running out in 2009. Remember the Axis of Evil? I remember reading that the neocons saw Iraq as the first domino in a domino theory intended to spread democracy throughout the middle-east.

That was probably policy under the Bush Administration - at least until the utter failure of planning in Iraq bogged us down. People complain about mission creep - there was no mission creep. There was a total lack of understanding of the situation. There was a total lack of establishing the proper military objectives needed to succeed in gaining the political objectives (not that that was even possible). We are just lucky that we did not start attacking the next domino before reality set in.

What was the Bush Adminstrations policy is not our current policy. If it was we would have used the initial unrest to enter into Syria - not wait until chemical weapons were used.

jmm99
09-09-2013, 03:16 PM
Disclaimer Concerning Information Purportedly About MSF in Syria (http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/press/release.cfm?id=7042&cat=press-release) (From official website, September 2, 2013):


Doctors Without Borders/Medecins Sans Frontires (MSF) is aware that incorrect, manipulated information about MSF and Syria is circulating on the internet and social media.

We reiterate what we stated in our press release on August 24:


MSF does not have the capacity to identify the cause of the neurotoxic symptoms of patients reported by three clinics supplied by MSF in Damascus governorate.

MSF was not and is not directly present at these clinics.

MSF does not possess the capacity or ability to determine or assign responsibility for the event that caused these reported symptoms to occur.

Any statement or story that asserts any of these things is false.

We ask you to please continue checking MSF's official websites to find accurate, correct information on MSF communications and activities in Syria.

So, yes, we can definitely agree that MSF is not in the CIA's pocket. The question then becomes: what is the source of the "incorrect, manipulated information about MSF and Syria" ?

Regards

Mike

Fuchs
09-09-2013, 03:34 PM
What was the Bush Adminstrations policy is not our current policy.


Years of propaganda, millions of people emotionally invested in seeing things a certain way... does it really matter whether it's still the policy?
I suspect it's long since transformed into the basis of how things are being looked at.

Could you imagine Iran as ally of the United States?


Well, it could have been for a decade. After all, they were willing to ally against AQ and lay the old conflicts to rest - their offer was rejected by the Neocons.
The new head of government in Iran appears to use a very different, quite reconciling rhetoric (even towards Jewish people). Without all the 'axis of evil' propaganda, going to negotiate with Iran in good faith would now be a most self-evident thing to do.

TheCurmudgeon
09-09-2013, 03:54 PM
So, yes, we can definitely agree that MSF is not in the CIA's pocket.

I was refering to the general humanitarian crisis, which would have been more than enough for the U.S. to intervene if that was our policy goal.

MSF Providing Care to Syrian Refugees Crossing into Iraq (http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/news/article.cfm?id=7027&cat=field-news)



The question then becomes: what is the source of the "incorrect, manipulated information about MSF and Syria" ?



Perhaps thier own web site.

Syria: Thousands Suffering Neurotoxic Symptoms Treated in Hospitals Supported by MSF (http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/press/release.cfm?id=7029&cat=press-release)

Tricky business to tug on the heartstrings of the public to get donations while not painting either side as evil enough to cause thier wrath.

TheCurmudgeon
09-09-2013, 04:53 PM
Here is a viable option to avoid military action:

Give up weapons, Russia urges Syria (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24022866#)


Russia has asked Syria to put its chemical weapons stockpile under "international control" in a bid to avoid US military strikes, and then have them destroyed.

Don't know if this is for real or simply a stalling tactic.

Funny thing ... I remember reading somewhere that Assad aquired these chemical weapons to defend his regime against Israel's nukes. Now they may be his undoing.

Hippofeet
09-09-2013, 05:07 PM
So I am open to convincing arguments either way. I am leaning towards staying out of it completely.

This doesn't help me want to go in...

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2013/09/06/us-rules-out-hitting-syrian-chemical-sites.html?ESRC=dod.nl

I know we don't want to blow up chem weapons stockpiles. But if WE don't control them, and ASSAD doesn't control them, who does?

So we fire those missiles at what? Assad's troops, and war assets?

The risk vs. reward on this is screwed up, IMO. I've read the U.S. reports available (unfortunately, I don't have them on a tab right now to link) and they don't say much except WE know Assad (or someone he is ultimately responsible for) did the deed.

1,400 dead, or 350, let's not do this. I've read this thread, and I am still not convinced this is the right choice. And, it's a little late anyway, unless the goal is to force Assad's troops out of areas where we believe chem weapons are, or might be, in which case we give them to a large group of young, unemployed, angry, religiously diverse men and boys some of whom are sure to be linked to terrorist groups who hate our guts like nothing else on earth.

Let me ask this. What course of action is SURE to lead to no further action on our part? If we are talking strictly about chemical weapon deterrence. Because I don't see anything now but heavy involvement for some time to come.

jmm99
09-09-2013, 07:09 PM
has never denied that 1000s of neuropathic patients have shown up at their clinics. What they deny are reports that they (DWB-MSF) have assigned cause or responsibility for the neuropathies.

In any event, if the BBC news is correct, Russia and Syria have tentatively "agreed" on Putin's proposal. That would meet John Kerry's one-week ultimatum to Assad (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/09/us-syria-chemical-weapons-attack-john-kerry), as far as most of the World and probably the US are concerned. See, today's CNN poll (http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2013/images/09/09/6a.poll.syria.pdf).

If the BBC is correct on vote count in the House - and if the Putin proposal is accepted and even its first stages apparently implemented, US intervention would seem less likely.

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/69729000/gif/_69729522_congress_intent02_624.gif

That would be one way out of a "red line" - and, as in the Cuban Missile Crisis, both sides could declare victory and return to the status quo ante.

Regards

Mike

slapout9
09-09-2013, 08:36 PM
What was the Bush Administrations policy is not our current policy. If it was we would have used the initial unrest to enter into Syria - not wait until chemical weapons were used.

Curmudgy,
that is what concerns me. It doesn't seem to matter which administration is in power the same 7 countries are on the Target List. Obama just recently went into Libya now it is Syria's turn? I am just saying I think we have and had other options to go after Assad (spelling). He and his inner circle are ideal set of Drone Targets and if deterrence what you we really want that would be a far better COA than trying trash pieces of his country without sending it into total chaos.

TheCurmudgeon
09-09-2013, 08:58 PM
Curmudgy,
that is what concerns me. It doesn't seem to matter which administration is in power the same 7 countries are on the Target List. Obama just recently went into Libya now it is Syria's turn? I am just saying I think we have and had other options to go after Assad (spelling). He and his inner circle are ideal set of Drone Targets and if deterrence what you we really want that would be a far better COA than trying trash pieces of his country without sending it into total chaos.

I don't think we are responsible for the total chaos that is Syria, or Libya, or Egypt. We did not create these problems. We are in reaction mode.

A year ago we had a chance to act in Syria. We did not take it. If that was our strategy then we would have - when there was a hope of replacing Assad with a moderate government. Now there is a realization that Syria is not going to ruled by anything close to a moderate government even if Assad is ousted.

The new American hobgoblin is the middle-eastern terrorist -they replaced the communist hobgoblin - this is true. That is also reactionary, since prior to 9/11, you couldn't hardly find anyone who even heard of bin Laden let alone AQ.

The Arab Spring was not our doing. Neither was the civil war in Syria. These events occurred and we reacted. That is it. There is no giant conspiracy.

This administration is trying to pivot to the Pacific. World events are keeping that from happening.

slapout9
09-09-2013, 09:32 PM
The Arab Spring was not our doing. Neither was the civil war in Syria. These events occurred and we reacted. That is it. There is no giant conspiracy.



I don't believe there is a conspiracy. I believe the present administration has such a strange view of how the world works that they don't have a clue as to what to do. So they overreact.

slapout9
09-09-2013, 09:36 PM
Here is a viable option to avoid military action:

Give up weapons, Russia urges Syria (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-24022866#)



Don't know if this is for real or simply a stalling tactic.

Funny thing ... I remember reading somewhere that Assad acquired these chemical weapons to defend his regime against Israel's nukes. Now they may be his undoing.

I just saw this.....Yes. Which leads me to another point Putin understands the System that the world is operating in, not some system the he wishes it would operate in. That is why he is being seen as the adult in the room in the present situation. The UN is our (USA) system...we set it up after WW2. The present administration is trying to subvert that system....not good and Putin understands that and how to work it to his advantage and our disadvantage.

TheCurmudgeon
09-09-2013, 10:12 PM
I just saw this.....Yes. Which leads me to another point Putin understands the System that the world is operating in, not some system the he wishes it would operate in. That is why he is being seen as the adult in the room in the present situation. The UN is our (USA) system...we set it up after WW2. The present administration is trying to subvert that system....not good and Putin understands that and how to work it to his advantage and our disadvantage.

Not sure what you mean by "the present administration is trying to subvert that system". If anything, Russia (and China) are subverting that system with the denial of human rights. Not that they really like the system created to begin with. It is decidedly democratic and built on individual human rights. Russia uses the system where it is in their interest. I don't believe they complied with international law in Georgia (http://www.questia.com/library/1G1-183552555/enemies-through-the-gates-russian-violations-of-international), so I don't see Russia as any champion of international law (http://www.thelocal.se/13948/20080826/)or the UN. Although, none of this has anything to do with the current question.

What surprises me the most is how little of this thread actually deals with using chemical weapons. It is almost as if their use is irrelevant.

ganulv
09-09-2013, 10:32 PM
[The U.N.] is decidedly democratic and built on individual human rights. Russia uses the system where it is in their interest. I don't believe they complied with international law in Georgia (http://www.questia.com/library/1G1-183552555/enemies-through-the-gates-russian-violations-of-international), so I don't see Russia as any champion of international law (http://www.thelocal.se/13948/20080826/)or the UN. Although, none of this has anything to do with the current question.

The United Nations may be built on individual human rights, but I understand the Security Council veto power to be built on an effort to manage tensions among those five members. That does have something to do with the current question.

jmm99
09-10-2013, 12:20 AM
I'm shocked (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjbPi00k_ME).

and, "Rick, hide me! Do something! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86x4im8TQWY)"

Well, it appears Mr Putin made a quick decision to "do something" for his client ruler. And, John Kerry did it again; he was for the ultimatum, before he was against it. However, Mr Kerry may have to shift gears again, Obama Calls Russia Offer on Syria Possible ‘Breakthrough’ (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/10/world/middleeast/kerry-says-syria-should-hand-over-all-chemical-arms.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0) (NYT 9 Sep 2013).

And - "I don't believe they [Russians] complied with international law in Georgia ..." I thought (from reading this thread and its sister thread) that "international law" no longer exists, it it ever did exist. Apparently, it still was alive at the time of the Georgian conflict.

Regards

Mike

TheCurmudgeon
09-10-2013, 12:21 AM
The United Nations may be built on individual human rights, but I understand the Security Council veto power to be built on an effort to manage tensions among those five members. That does have something to do with the current question.

I may be wrong, but I have never seen anything that said the veto power was put in place to manage tensions. I thought it was put in place because the strong powers at the time, the ones who won the war, did not want to have to kowtow to the weaker powers, or to anyone else.

ganulv
09-10-2013, 12:39 AM
I may be wrong, but I have never seen anything that said the veto power was put in place to manage tensions. I thought it was put in place because the strong powers at the time, the ones who won the war, did not want to have to kowtow to the weaker powers.

If that were the case, why the unanimity requirement? It recognizes not only that the non-P5 nations might have it in for a member of the P5, but that they might have it in for one another.

jmm99
09-10-2013, 02:21 AM
nor did they trust the lesser members, as Curmudgeon said.

Everyone gamed the system and they still do.

I ran into this in Googling whether Eric Stein (my faculty advisor) had anything to say or do about early UNSC voting. This cable was signed by Mr Dulles (John Foster), but drafted by David Popper and Eric Stein, The Secretary of State to the Embassy in France (http://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1952-54v13p1/d251#fn2) (29 Apr 1953). Here's a couple of telling snips:


2. SC appears best UN organ since consideration by it will emphasize danger to international peace and is least subject to pressure for undue extension of debate by extreme anti-colonial group.
...
6. Although accurate prediction vote in SC not possible without consultation with other members, we believe 4 permanent members (UK, US, France, China) would vote for above resolution as would at least 3 non-permanent members (Greece, Colombia, Denmark). At least one of three remaining members (Chile, Lebanon, Pakistan) might also vote for resolution. Since this would be case under Chapter VII of Charter right of France to vote could not be challenged. Soviets virtually certain veto resolution so that SC will not be able take any effective action. However, large vote in SC despite veto would in our view achieve principal advantages outlined above.

and then (appears to be an addition by Mr Dulles):


I talked to Bonnet yesterday recommending action in SC by Laos, but did not go into details. Bonnet stated French are afraid matter might get into Assembly and lead to political attacks on France because of its alleged imperialistic policies. Such attacks, he said, might well create a public opinion in France which would force complete withdrawal from Indochina.

We are, of course, aware likelihood matter may arise in GA. However, this possibility exists regardless whether matter raised in SC, and prior initiative in SC would, in our view, set narrower and more manageable framework for any GA consideration.

The UNSC in 1953 had 11 members; passage required 7 votes (with 5 P-5 affirmative; or if a P-5 abstained or was absent, an added non-P member). The game was to get 7 votes, knowing a P-5 would veto, and then go to whatever friendly media that could be found. See Chaper V Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapter_V_of_the_United_Nations_Charter).

Prof Stein died in 2011 at 98; a Prague JD, Czech army, a Michigan JD and US army (all between 1937 and 1945) - a very personable guy with a gentleman's genuine manners.

Regards

Mike

slapout9
09-10-2013, 06:40 AM
What surprises me the most is how little of this thread actually deals with using chemical weapons. It is almost as if their use is irrelevant.

That really is a good point. You cannot threaten the USA with bullets but it can be threatened with chemical weapons which are better described as WMD. Weapons of MASS!!!! destruction from a single delivery system. We have severe leadership problems in America that are not likely to be fixed until the next election. Anytime a former Community Organizer meets a fromer KGB officer....not gonna be good for the USA.

CrowBat
09-10-2013, 07:04 AM
So what happens if you fire off your punitive strike and they turn around and use chemical weapons again, maybe on a larger scale? What's the next step up on the punitive escalator? Have we got a next step up that we can actually use without head-butting the tar baby?That's a valid point - from the standpoint of 'Western civilisation'.

But in the case of Syria, the West (and everybody else) is not dealing with a 'Western civilisation', but with a local regime that is in some aspects even 'more weird' than Saddam Hussein.

From the standpoint of Assads and Assadists, the situation is meanwhile like this:

- THEY have a holy mission, and therefore the priviledge of the rights (to do whatever they think is right)
- THEY have the say, THEY are always right, and everybody else is wrong
- They have the CWs and therefore the right to use CWs against 'foreign armed terrorist gangs (and mercenaries)' (read: anybody opposing them)

All of this is valid as long as nobody appears to take out or take away those CWs - which in turn was the reason why they never hit back in response to every Israeli attack of the last 12 years: they knew that the Israelis would hit them where it hurts.

Lesson: hit them where it hurts, then they'll shut up.


We're not in a position to get on the high horse and claim that the use of chemical weapons must be punished in any circumstances, because we and everyone else know that we've let the use of chemical weapons pass before, when it suited us to do so. At some point our interests have to come into the calculation.Mistakes resulting from actions in the past are no argumentation for inaction now. Especially because 'action now' is very much in our very own interests.

That is: except you want to produce a precedent case?

If so, then 'stay tunned' for everybody opposing the US or any other Western powers, arming himself with CWs - as a 'light' solution (compared to North Korean and Iranian nukes).


that is what concerns me. It doesn't seem to matter which administration is in power the same 7 countries are on the Target List. Obama just recently went into Libya now it is Syria's turn?
The seven countries you're talking about are a 'problem' ever since they were created - by the West, BTW.

And then - and contrary to specific earlier actions (that resulted in some especially negative experiences) - Libya was a justified- and then an UN-authorized action, that resulted in success.

Of course, in our internet times, most of us tend to think differently; primarily because Libya didn't turn into a bright lighthouse of democracy two days after Q was shot to death. But, I do dare to remind some here, that the situation there is acutally very similar to that in a number of East European countries after 1989, and that it's actually 'normal' and there is simply going to be some instability for a number of years to come. That aside, 'spice is flowing', and the new gov is not only allied but also happy to listen to West's advice, so where is actually the problem?


I am just saying I think we have and had other options to go after Assad (spelling). He and his inner circle are ideal set of Drone Targets and if deterrence what you we really want that would be a far better COA than trying trash pieces of his country without sending it into total chaos.That is very much the same I think - and suggest - to everybody who is ready to listen. Track down and hit Assads. Make it clear to them - and any likes - that THEY will be hit, not somebody else.

Is easily doable, especially within a - say - '60 days limit', and if Obama admin's action is 'limited to UAVs and TLAMs'.


I don't think we are responsible for the total chaos that is Syria, or Libya, or Egypt. We did not create these problems.'You' didn't?

Well, that's new.

Shall we discuss the US involvement and politics in every single of these cases, in-depth and in detail?

TheCurmudgeon
09-10-2013, 12:34 PM
'You' didn't?

Well, that's new.

Shall we discuss the US involvement and politics in every single of these cases, in-depth and in detail?

I would love to hear your thoughts on the matter as long as you are willing to stick to the relevant time period (2009 - present) and the relevant actors (the Obama administration) since that was the context that the statement was made in.

If you are looking to go back to the colonial, post-colonial, WWI, WWII, and post WWII time frame than I would counter by arguing that you would have to go back to at least 632 and the failure of the Prophet Muhammad to leave a clear successor for the Islamic people.

Dayuhan
09-10-2013, 12:44 PM
All of this is valid as long as nobody appears to take out or take away those CWs - which in turn was the reason why they never hit back in response to every Israeli attack of the last 12 years: they knew that the Israelis would hit them where it hurts.

Lesson: hit them where it hurts, then they'll shut up.

So they can be deterred. They don't attack the Israelis because they know the consequences will be severe. The same factor keeps them from attacking Americans.

They may well shut up, but they won't surrender or step down. They can't: after a chemical attack they no longer have a negotiated departure option. They will continue to fight to stay in power, and they will continue to use whatever means they think necessary to keep them in power. A cornered rat bites.


Mistakes resulting from actions in the past are no argumentation for inaction now. Especially because 'action now' is very much in our very own interests.

"Our" in this case referring to whom?


If so, then 'stay tunned' for everybody opposing the US or any other Western powers, arming himself with CWs - as a 'light' solution (compared to North Korean and Iranian nukes).

Why would they do that? CW haven't deterred the Israelis from attacking Syria whenever they like, and they won't deter an American attack. They didn't deter the Syrians from rebelling. On the evidence of Syria, the track record of CW as a deterrent is pretty poor.


The seven countries you're talking about are a 'problem' ever since they were created - by the West, BTW.

So what?


Of course, in our internet times, most of us tend to think differently; primarily because Libya didn't turn into a bright lighthouse of democracy two days after Q was shot to death. But, I do dare to remind some here, that the situation there is acutally very similar to that in a number of East European countries after 1989, and that it's actually 'normal' and there is simply going to be some instability for a number of years to come. That aside, 'spice is flowing', and the new gov is not only allied but also happy to listen to West's advice, so where is actually the problem?

Syria isn't Libya. Far from it.


That is very much the same I think - and suggest - to everybody who is ready to listen. Track down and hit Assads. Make it clear to them - and any likes - that THEY will be hit, not somebody else.

Is easily doable, especially within a - say - '60 days limit', and if Obama admin's action is 'limited to UAVs and TLAMs'.

Just like finding Saddam, and Gaddafi, were easily doable? These guys can and will go to ground, and they aren't easy to find when they do.


Shall we discuss the US involvement and politics in every single of these cases, in-depth and in detail?

Involvement isn't causation, and I suspect that such a discussion would do little more than rehash old material. If we're talking about the "it's all the fault of the US" narrative, we've heard it before.

We've seen it illustrated, all too graphically, that "red line" comments are foolish: they may sound tough, but they put the other guy in the driver's seat. If he calls the bluff you have to escalate, even if it means stepping into a mess. Actually stepping in is the same problem, only boosted by an order of magnitude. If the other guy calls the bluff, you're in the same position, only more so. Do we have another escalation option?

jmm99
09-10-2013, 06:20 PM
Syria accepts Russian proposal on weapons; France to bring resolution to Security Council (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/france-to-author-security-council-resolution-to-require-syria-to-give-up-chemical-weapons/2013/09/10/0d51a06c-19ff-11e3-a628-7e6dde8f889d_story.html) (by Michael Birnbaum, Will Englund and Loveday Morris, 10 Sep 2013):


BERLIN — An unexpected Russian proposal for Syria to avert a U.S. military strike by transferring control of its chemical weapons appeared to be gaining traction Tuesday, as Syria embraced it, France said it would draft a U.N. Security Council resolution to put the plan into effect, and China and Iran voiced support.

But major questions remained over whether the specifics of a resolution backed by France and the United States could win the support of Syria’s longtime patron, Russia, whose foreign minister appeared to be balking Tuesday at France’s proposal of a binding Security Council resolution. There were also doubts about how Syria’s stockpiles of chemical weapons could be transferred to international monitors in the midst of a bloody and protracted civil war that has claimed more than 100,000 lives. ...

From the article's last page:


Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) was the first senior lawmaker to voice support for the Russian proposal.


“I think if the U.N. would accept the responsibility of maintaining these facilities, seeing that they’re secure, and that Syria would announce that it is giving up any chemical weapons programs or delivery system vehicles that may have been armed, then I think we’ve got something,” Feinstein said.

Republican Sens. John McCain (Ariz.) and Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.) said that the proposal came only because Assad feels the threat of military force and that Congress should continue considering Obama’s request for legislative backing. But the two said the proposal should be given a chance — and a test of its sincerity — by being committed to writing in a U.N. Security Council resolution.

Regards

Mike

TheCurmudgeon
09-10-2013, 08:10 PM
JMM,

There is no way that the US will allow Syria to put its chemical weapons under international control. This would disrupt what so many commentators here have stated was the Obama administrations clear and deliberate plans to go to war with Syria.

Even worse, it would indicate that such amorphous and unachievable objectives as deterring Assad's use of chemical weapons could be achieved by the mere threat of force.

:D

Dayuhan
09-10-2013, 11:18 PM
They can all accept the proposal, spend the next 6 months haggling over what constitutes "international control", maybe turn over a portion of what they have, and try to do a slightly more credible job of blaming it on the rebels next time around. Tidy solution... if you happen to be Assad, or Putin.

jmm99
09-11-2013, 02:48 AM
NYT, Obama’s Remarks on Syria (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/11/world/middleeast/obamas-remarks-on-syria.html?pagewanted=3&smid=tw-thecaucus&partner=rss&emc=rss):


I have therefore asked the leaders of Congress to postpone a vote to authorize the use of force while we pursue this diplomatic path. I’m sending Secretary of State John Kerry to met his Russian counterpart on Thursday, and I will continue my own discussions with President Putin. I’ve spoken to the leaders of two of our closet allies, France and the United Kingdom. And we will work together in consultation with Russia and China to put forward a resolution at the U.N. Security Council requiring Assad to give up his chemical weapons and to ultimately destroy them under international control.

NYT, The Basics of the Debate on Syria (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/11/world/middleeast/parsing-syria-developments-ahead-of-obamas-address.html?_r=0).

USAToday, How the Syria solution developed: The inside story (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/09/10/syria-proposal-chemical-weapons-inside/2795877/).

Regards

Mike

jmm99
09-14-2013, 06:24 PM
WP: U.S., Russia reach agreement on seizure of Syrian chemical weapons arsenal (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/us-russia-reach-agreement-on-seizure-of-syrian-chemical-weapons-arsenal/2013/09/14/69e39b5c-1d36-11e3-8685-5021e0c41964_story.html) (by Anne Gearan and Loveday Morris, September 14 2013):


GENEVA — The United States and Russia agreed Saturday on an outline for the identification and seizure of Syrian chemical weapons and said Syria must turn over an accounting of its arsenal within a week.

The agreement will be backed by a U.N. Security Council resolution that could allow for sanctions or other consequences if Syria fails to comply, Secretary of State John F. Kerry said.

Kerry said that the first international inspection of Syrian chemical weapons will take place by November, with destruction to begin next year.

“Providing this effort is fully implemented, it can end the threat these weapons pose not only to the Syrian people, but also to their neighbors, to the region,” and the rest of the world, he said.

Lavrov stressed that the documents released Saturday constitute an “agreed proposal” that does not yet have the force of law.

Senior administration officials had said Friday that the Obama administration would not press for U.N. authorization to use force against Syria if it reneges on any agreement to give up its chemical weapons. ...

WP: Framework of Agreement (http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/786569/framework-for-elimination-of-syrian-chemical.pdf) (Annex A redacted).

Reuters: U.S. not expecting U.N. resolution on Syria to include use of force (http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/world/18922638/u-s-not-expecting-u-n-resolution-on-syria-to-include-use-of-force/) (by Steve Holland, September 14, 2013)


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States does not expect a U.N. Security Council resolution on Syria's chemical weapons to include a potential use of military force due to Russian opposition, senior Obama administration officials said on Friday.

The officials, who briefed a group of reporters on condition of anonymity, said the United States would instead insist that the resolution include a range of consequences should Syria refuse to give up chemical weapons in a verifiable way.

Those consequences could include increased sanctions, the official said.

Reuters: REUTERS/IPSOS POLL - Americans want diplomacy on Syria, are unmoved by Obama speech (http://www.trust.org/item/20130913205024-5lne6/?source=hpbreaking) - Syria's problems "none of our business," 65 percent say - Only 35 percent approve of Obama's handling of crisis (by Gabriel Debenedetti, 13 Sep 2013)


WASHINGTON, Sept 13 (Reuters) - Three-quarters of Americans support efforts to resolve the crisis in Syria through an international agreement to control chemical weapons, according to a new Reuters/Ipsos poll that shows steady opposition to U.S. military action.

The poll of 776 Americans, conducted over three days this week, indicates that just 25 percent of Americans oppose diplomacy to deal with the crisis that was ignited by the Aug. 21 chemical attack in a Damascus suburb that U.S. officials say killed more than 1,400 adults and children. ... (much more in article).

Regards

Mike

Dayuhan
09-17-2013, 10:07 PM
http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/09/17/dispatches-mapping-sarin-flight-path


The UN inspectors investigating the chemical weapons attack on two suburbs in Damascus last month weren’t supposed to point the finger at the party responsible for the killings. But even so, the Sellstrom report revealed key details of the attack that strongly suggest the government is to blame, and may even help identify the location from which the Sarin-filled rockets that killed hundreds of people on August 21 were fired.

Bill Moore
09-18-2013, 01:43 AM
Interesting enough the UN Secretary General Ki-Moon said the perp of this war crime will have to be brought to justice during after his talk on the topic yesterday (16 SEP) during the question and answer period. He said he didn't know when or how yet, that the Security Council would have to answer those questions.

Dayuhan
09-18-2013, 06:26 AM
UN report. Apologies if it's been linked to elsewhere; looked around but didn't see it:

http://www.un.org/disarmament/content/slideshow/Secretary_General_Report_of_CW_Investigation.pdf

CrowBat
09-19-2013, 01:38 PM
I would love to hear your thoughts on the matter as long as you are willing to stick to the relevant time period (2009 - present) and the relevant actors (the Obama administration) since that was the context that the statement was made in.OK, then let's 'limit' this discussion to period since 2009.

The essence of ongoing 'don't get involved in Syria' argumentation in the USA is something like 'we don't want to fight for al-Qaida', primarily based on standpoint that 'every Islamist is an extremist' (sometimes going much further, and practically declaring every Moslem for 'Islamist extremist').

Such way of understanding the situation in Syria is based on complete ignorance of the facts on the ground, including not only such like that the uprising against Assadists began as wave of entirely peaceful nation-wide protesting, unrelated to ethnic or religious differences between various groups there; that it was the regime that instigated an inter-ethnic and inter-religious war in order to create precisely the situation there is now; etc., etc., etc., to such like complete ignorance of (often 'crucial') differences even between Syrian and Saudi Salafists, not to talk about such groups ranging from 'Islamists' of Liwa al-Islam, or Ahrar ash-Sham, to 'Jihadists' of the JAN or ISIS.

So, where was the failure?

Two years ago, a similar develoment like we've seen in Syria meanwhile, was prevented by relatively swift Western reaction in Libya. There the Western leaders were sane enough to overcome their 'natural' Islamophobia and say, OK, we'll support the 'anti-Q' movement. They did so, and in turn - whether intentionally or not - prevented Libya from becoming a major battlefield between the regime, moderates, Islamists and Jihadists.

This created a sort of 'precendent'; an example that many Syrians were hoping would be applied in their case too, especially if the Assadist regime would react to their protesting in same fashion the Libyan regime reacted to protesting there.

However, because there was no Western reaction, the regime in Syria not only felt free to escallate the situation, but eventually turned it precisely into the kind of struggle it knew was the only way that would save it: namely, an inter-ethnic and inter-religious, internationalized civil war, supposedly vaged 'against the same Islamist extremist terrorists that are threatening the West, and especially the USA'.

It is ridiculous but now we can hear all sorts of excuses for no intervention in Syria. Meanwhile even Hezbollah and the IRGC deployed in Syria are 'better bad guys' than the Syrian insurgents. What's more absurd: the Jihadists - i.e. non-Syrians supposedly fighting on insurgent side and against the Assadist regime - are meanwhile more busy fighting Syrian insurgent groups than the regime (they actually never really fought the regime, except with suicide attacks). Earlier today, the ISIS launched attack on one of Arabist insurgent groups in Dayr az-Zawr only minutes after the same was hit by regime's air force too (probably by pure accident, huh?).

'But', just because of these few groups of Jihadists, the West is considering practically all insurgents for 'Islamist extremists' - and doing nothing (i.e. letting them at the mercy of the latter). :rolleyes:

CrowBat
09-19-2013, 01:58 PM
"Our" in this case referring to whom?In interest of all of us.

As one can read here (http://www.indexmundi.com/syria/age_structure.html), for example, at least 34% of the population there is younger than 14, another 21% younger than 24. That means that more than 55% of the population is younger than 24.

Acting as if 'that's none of our business', or 'better all the bad guys go there and fight it out between each other', results in exposure of something like 6 million of Syrian kids to all sorts of extremism.

Instead of keeping them busy with education and jobs, for example.

Now, it could be that this sort of traumatic experience might have some sort of negative influence upon their future development. Who knows...

Ah, nevermind. Nobody ever said one should learn anything from examples of Afghanistan or Pakistan.


Why would they do that? CW haven't deterred the Israelis from attacking Syria whenever they like, and they won't deter an American attack. They didn't deter the Syrians from rebelling. On the evidence of Syria, the track record of CW as a deterrent is pretty poor.Whether they're really deterring Israeli actions is 'unclear', to put it mildy. Whether they 'won't deter an American attack' - is still circling somewhere between the stars. The fact is that the present situation is sending a 'crystal clear' message in sense of: 'oh, you can use CWs, no problem: as long as you have Russians on your side, there will be no consequences.'


So what?Ah, nothing. For a moment it transpired to me that we (the West) self-created the problem. But nevermind.


Syria isn't Libya. Far from it.I'm all ear and looking forward to hear about all the possible differences.


Just like finding Saddam, and Gaddafi, were easily doable?It took a few months in either case, but no: it certainly didn't look like some sort of unsolvable problem. Actually, the outcome was predictable something like 3-4 days after the trouble started (yes, in both cases).


Involvement isn't causation, and I suspect that such a discussion would do little more than rehash old material. If we're talking about the "it's all the fault of the US" narrative, we've heard it before.Not the USA alone, sure. But, heh... well, it is so that certain other 'big' players tend not to move if there is not the 'USA' signed at the bottom.


We've seen it illustrated, all too graphically, that "red line" comments are foolish: they may sound tough, but they put the other guy in the driver's seat. If he calls the bluff you have to escalate, even if it means stepping into a mess. Actually stepping in is the same problem, only boosted by an order of magnitude. If the other guy calls the bluff, you're in the same position, only more so. Do we have another escalation option?
Actually: none that I would know. The USA meanwhile neither have another escalation option, nor any de-escalation option left. As concluded already in my first post in this thread: thanks to lack of timely action, now there's no option for action at all... :rolleyes:

TheCurmudgeon
09-19-2013, 06:07 PM
OK, then let's 'limit' this discussion to period since 2009.

The essence of ongoing 'don't get involved in Syria' argumentation in the USA is something like 'we don't want to fight for al-Qaida', primarily based on standpoint that 'every Islamist is an extremist' (sometimes going much further, and practically declaring every Moslem for 'Islamist extremist').



No, the fundamental difference between Libya and Syria is that in Libya the rebels were a cohesive enough group to form a political entity that was recognized by foriegn powers (France first) as the actual government of Libya that then led to a UN resolution. We were largely invited into Libya. None of that happened in Syria. There was never a homogenous rebel front that could request intervention. Add to that the improbability of a UN mandate (because of Russian support for Assad) and the situation changes completely.

Now, you can argue that Syria has no oil, and therefore there was no corporate interest in the country. The business of America is business after all. But it had little to do with our myopic view of Arab extremists.

Dayuhan
09-20-2013, 12:16 AM
No, the fundamental difference between Libya and Syria is that in Libya the rebels were a cohesive enough group to form a political entity that was recognized by foriegn powers (France first) as the actual government of Libya that then led to a UN resolution. We were largely invited into Libya. None of that happened in Syria. There was never a homogenous rebel front that could request intervention. Add to that the improbability of a UN mandate (because of Russian support for Assad) and the situation changes completely.

Now, you can argue that Syria has no oil, and therefore there was no corporate interest in the country. The business of America is business after all. But it had little to do with our myopic view of Arab extremists.

In addition, the Libyan rebels occupied a discrete geographical area that was well suited to support without boots on the ground. Defending Benghazi from approaching armored forces on desert roads was a task that was clearly achievable using the means the US and its allies were prepared to use. Once the rebels took the initiative, using those means effectively became far more complicated, especially in urban areas. In Syria those complications would be present from the start.

Dayuhan
09-20-2013, 12:33 AM
In interest of all of us.

As one can read here (http://www.indexmundi.com/syria/age_structure.html), for example, at least 34% of the population there is younger than 14, another 21% younger than 24. That means that more than 55% of the population is younger than 24.

Acting as if 'that's none of our business', or 'better all the bad guys go there and fight it out between each other', results in exposure of something like 6 million of Syrian kids to all sorts of extremism.

Instead of keeping them busy with education and jobs, for example.

Now, it could be that this sort of traumatic experience might have some sort of negative influence upon their future development. Who knows...

Ah, nevermind. Nobody ever said one should learn anything from examples of Afghanistan or Pakistan.

If the US had the option of fixing up Syria, Afghanistan, or Pakistan and making life all bright and rosy for the little children, that might be a valid argument. I don't see how a protracted war and enduring misery with Americans involved is any better for the children than protracted war and enduring misery without Americans involved.


The fact is that the present situation is sending a 'crystal clear' message in sense of: 'oh, you can use CWs, no problem: as long as you have Russians on your side, there will be no consequences.'

No, the message is that the US won't act unilaterally to stop you or punish you unless you use the weapons against Americans or American interests. That's not a new message; it's pretty well established. The US must not be forced into the role of global cop or global saviour. That role is unaffordable and self-destructive.


Ah, nothing. For a moment it transpired to me that we (the West) self-created the problem. But nevermind. '

Nobody "created" the problem. The problem evolved over an extended period and numerous parties had a hand in its evolution. There is no way of knowing whether any given road not taken would have made matters better or worse. The "blame it on the West" meme is pointless and gets us nowhere.


It took a few months in either case, but no: it certainly didn't look like some sort of unsolvable problem. Actually, the outcome was predictable something like 3-4 days after the trouble started (yes, in both cases).

In both cases the dictator wasn't caught until the war was already won, on the ground. That should warn us against the assumption that we can end the war by knocking off the dictator.


Not the USA alone, sure. But, heh... well, it is so that certain other 'big' players tend not to move if there is not the 'USA' signed at the bottom.

Yes, everybody says "something must be done" and looks expectantly in the general direction of Washington DC. It's long past time for the US to demand equal participation and equal responsibility.


As concluded already in my first post in this thread: thanks to lack of timely action, now there's no option for action at all... :rolleyes:

What action at what time do you think would have made matters better?

ganulv
09-20-2013, 01:06 PM
“The Spies Inside Damascus” (http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/09/19/the_spies_inside_damascus_mossad_syria)

“Interactive: Mapping Syria’s Rebellion” (http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/interactive/2013/07/20137188552345899.html)

CrowBat
09-21-2013, 01:21 PM
@Curmudgeon
Let me start with oil (perhaps it would be good to make it clear I'm not one of 'it's all about oil' conspiracy theorists; but if you decide to brandmark me as such, then as 'it's all about gas conspiracy theorist', please).

There is oil in Syria. There are oilfields in al-Hassaka Province (on Iraqi border), presently held by the Kurds organized by the PYD and defended by the YPG. These oilfields are intact and functioning and 'spice is flowing' - primarily to Iraq and Turkey. The PYD/YPG (YPG is actually the armed wing of the PYD) is stubbornly resisting any calls from various Syrian insurgent factions to share the income from that oil with them. Lapidar Kurdish response is: 'well gents, you're all so far away from us; why should we help you if you don't help us...?'

That said, and not to be brandmarked as 'spoilers of the party', the YPG has organized one armed brigade to go fighting 'with' other insurgents in Aleppo, while at the same time was at least as busy pleasing Assadist regime: not only have PYD authorities 'sillently' taken over all the functions of the former regime, or not reacted to regime's hijacking of dozens of Kurdish teenagers that are then spent as cannon fodder of the civil war, but were also friendly pumping oil to regime-held areas (Homs) until relatively recently, when the ISIS and JAN have interrupted that flow...

There are also oifields in Dayr az-Zawr Province (and a big, Russian-built oil refinery there too). Some of these are burning and disfunctional but most of the others are held by the ISIS and JAN since this summer (after these bribed one of local regime commanders to get a free passage through regime-held areas). The Jihadists are selling some of this to the locals, so these can distilate it for them (an extremely hazardous process if you're not properly equipped, obviously)...

Now, one could say, 'hey, all of this doesn't matter: it's barely enough to satisfy Syrian domestic consumption', and I would be on the border to confirm this.

But, yet more oil was found by Croatian company INA, several years ago. However, exploration of the fields in question (east of Homs) was stopped when INA was sold to Hungarian MOL. Namely, the MOL then got kicked out of Syria because it was caught deploying operatives of the Hungarian intelligence agencies into the country, and then a new Croat government concluded earlier sale of INA to MOL was based on excessive corruption and retrogradely cancelled that process... Whatever, the result of this quagmire was that INA didn't pump more but few truckloads of crude there, and even if would've tried to do more: well, the oilfields in question still need to be completely developed, infrastructure constructed etc. - and INA lacks the money, plus it can't find investors ready to poker their bucks considering the situation in Syria since 2011...

Even should we two agree to ignore this, then perhaps we cannot ignore the following: perhaps it is so that there are poeple that consider such issues like Syrian gas, or Syria as transit country for a possible gas-pipeline connecting Qatar with Europe (in order to breach the Russian monopoly to gas exports into the EU) - as one of reasons for persistent Russian support for Assads, and even for Saudi involvement in Syria? That is at least what one can conclude on the basis of reports of recent offer by Saudi Prince Bandar to Putin, which can be read in reports like this one (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/10266957/Saudis-offer-Russia-secret-oil-deal-if-it-drops-Syria.html). And, to make sure: due to links of private nature, no, I definitely have have no doubts that 'certain circles' do have strong interests to breach the Russian monopoly, and that Syria is their 'aim No.1'... Oh, and if you want to explain that Qatar might not be interested in such solution, for example because it has more LGCs than it's going to need for a number of years longer: well, that's where there are other 'certain circles' with their own, very different ideas than those of Qataris (and Saudis, who are in effective control of Qatari gas exports)...

So, perhaps it's not about oil. And perhaps it's not about gas. Perhaps it's not about gas pipelines either. I'm certainly always ready to agree that this about oil and gas is not the reason for US myopic view of Islamic extremism: on the contrary, I'm ready to sign any declaration that the US public has absolutely no clue about all the issues I've mentioned above, any time, 24/7. But, hell, a helluva lot is going on in the backgrounds because of gas and possible gas pipelines. And the people moving these strings from the background not only have lots of more money and influence than either of us can ever imagine, but are also 'primarily from the western side of great barn'...

**********

Having cleared the issue of 'it's about gas', yup, the issue of the UN authorisation and - especially - Russia (then the UN-insue is depending on Russia) is the only major difference.

The rest: sorry, it's surely not. For the start of this part of discussion, let me address your assessment that the cohesion of Libyan rebel groups was the crucial difference to that in Syria.

Well, no doubt, various characters in Benghazi were more than happy to create a 'government-like' body - especially so once Q's thugs launched an amphibious landing of a better part of their military force north of Agedabia, that evening of 17 March 2011, and when this force entered Benghazi, two mornings later (only to be smashed by US and French air, the same evening). But, to say they were 'cohesive enough' and thus - even 'roughly' or 'indirectly' something like 'representative' of all the other rebels - including those from az-Zawiya, or Nafuza Mountains, or from Kufra and elsewhere....or call them 'homogenous'... well, that really needs... no, it cries for plenty of imagination.

Having said that, I would like to stress: please, don't take this internally. Although I do find description 'cohesive enough' rather funny, I do not intend to offend you.

... back to the topic: And sure, if we are to measure by such standards, then the Syrian political opposition to Assadists (which is actually far bigger and better developed than what was left of Libyan opposition to Q back in February-March 2011) can only be described as a 'flock of stupid sheep' - alone because they didn't find enough agreement between each other to issue a joint statement and 'invite' the West to intervene in Syria.

If that is what you actually wanted to say, then we're in agreement.

But actually...

It was so that the Benghazi clique declared itself for 'government' irrespectivelly of its actual influence, was rapidly accepted by the West as such - irrespective of its actual (un)significance, (lack of) 'cohesion' or 'homogenity' etc. And the fact is that it was because this clique was flushed with money that it was able to gain influence and create some sort of 'cohesion' in the following months.

Nothing of that kind happened in Syria. Even when people like Col Assad attempted to create an apolitical, non-religious insurgency like the 'Free Army of Syria', when they managed to liberate significant parts of Idlib and Aleppo Provinces, when locals then installed their own, indigenous and freely elected authorities (I guess you haven't ever heard about this?), etc., etc., etc., all of this was blissfully ignored by the West. All that mattered - and still matters - is that various of Syrian political parties in diaspora are not 'united enough'...

Come on. Had anybody in the West came to the idea to provide such organizations like the FSyA with few millions of bucks (definitely much less than was the case with Libya, then Syria is much poorer than relatively rich Libya, and one gets 'more bang for his/her bucks'), and this as late as of autumn 2012, they could've done the same like the Benghazi-clique did in Libya, i.e. declare themselves for 'government', then literaly buy all the other insurgent/rebel factions, and impose themselves as 'moderate force in charge of insurgency against Assads'.

Instead, the FSyA, the Idlib Council, the Homs Council, the Hassaka Council and all the other councils were left on their own device, and various 'private initiatives' from Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey etc. were left to donate to receivers of their preference - with, oh surprise, surprise - 'expected' results of extremist organizations growing in influence.

As if the same would have not been the case if Libyans were left on their own...?!?

And when that was not enough, then also enough time lapsed for the foreign extremists, like the ISIS, to install themselves in the country too.

Like if such organizations would not have appeared in Libya - if the West didn't react there on time?

If somebody wants to tell me something of that kind, then explain me how comes the US embassy in Benghazi was overrun by AQ-allies, two years after intervention and after Q's regime was removed?
...

CrowBat
09-21-2013, 01:23 PM
More importantly (from the standpoint of this discussion): what is going on in Syria now? Even now, after two years of bitter warfare, at the time the Obama admin only just began providing weapons and supplies to specific groups, and despite significant donations from various Arab states and Turkey, all the other moderate-, moderate Islamist-, or conservative Islamist- (but genuine) Syrian insurgent groups are so busy fighting the regime, that the ISIS and the JAN are free to roam wide and far in their backs, and take over one liberated area after the other.

Newest example: when the ISIS - which until now did not launch one military attack against any regime position at all (except a few in form of suicide bombings) - attacked the insurgent-held Azzaz, three days ago, the Tawhid Brigade had to be pulled out from running a highly-successful offensive into Lattakia Province, some 200km away, and rushed all the way to Azzaz to intervene there...

And 'we' are again letting Syrians down: the media is now even more full of reports about 'Extremist Islamists gaining Influence in Syria' (which is actually not the case: the Syrians still living in areas under the control of ISIS and JAN despise the extremists as much as they despite the regime), internet is full of photos of various US servicemen protesting 'I don't want to go fight for al-Qaida in Syria', and Russia is maintained happy for no gain at all... All of this despite the fact that there is still time to do something, and invest a few bucks (certainly much less than an outright military intervention would cost) - all provided one is not as frozen from Islamophobia, or so eager to provide all possible excuses bordering on absurdity.

***********

That with 200 kilometres is bringing me to the issue of geography - a topic that is so hapily ignored in our times of high-speed, 'internet warfare'.

Obviously, we're going to agree that the geography of Libya was working to advantage of local rebels. After all, following the early spate of uprisings, they were in de-facto (even though not 'effective') control of much of NE Libya (at least the swath of the coast from Agedabia to Tobruq), NW Libya (az-Zawiya etc.), Nafuza Mountains, oases like Kufra etc.

Regime-held areas between Tripoli and Sirte (with exception of Misurata) were far away from there, there is plenty of desert in between, remaining regime forces were weak, disorganized, much to dependent on support from foreigners etc., etc., etc.

Syria is relatively compact (at least more compact than Libya), and although most of its official Army fell apart by early 2012, the regime had no major problems to shuffle the conglomerate of few surviving Army brigades, but foremost elements of the 4th Division, the Republican Guards Division and various SF regiments, around the country in rapid fashion. At least not early on.

But meanwhile, the situation is entirely different, and much of remaining assets in regime's hands are so much weakened by losses that they rely on Hezbollah and Iranian-provided (and supported) Shia' units from Iraq, Lebanon, Iran and elsewhere - as well as on chemical weapons - for any kind of offensive operations. In fact, they proved entirely incompetent in regards of running offensive operations in urban areas at earlier times (which is one of major reasons for their massive losses), and would've probably collapsed in spring this year, if it wasn't for Iranian-Hezbollah intervention.

So, actually, geography might have been an issue early on, when the regime was still managing to move its units and crush specific nests of protesting and then insurgency. But, meanwhile, heh, sorry, this is definitely not the case.

davidbfpo
09-21-2013, 02:51 PM
Paul Rogers latest commentary:http://www.opendemocracy.net/paul-rogers/syria-war-and-negotiation


Even good cooperation between the former cold-war adversaries, however, would leave in place the other ingredients of the double proxy. Iran and Saudi Arabia ......But the position of Qatar and especially Saudi Arabia presents a difficulty to this evolving equation, for their support for Islamist rebels has a strong strategic basis. These states believe that Assad has to be defeated, as part of a wider war to prevent the establishment of a powerful Shi'a crescent stretching from the Mediterranean through southern Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Iran to the Indian Ocean.

Ordinary Syrians, let alone Russian-American diplomats, need real friends, not those who appear to regard them as unwilling pawns in a struggle way beyond their country.

TheCurmudgeon
09-21-2013, 05:20 PM
CrowBat:

I won't dispute your in-depth analysis of the situation. I have not had the time nor the inclination to look into these matters. I think we have learned since Libya that the "Arab Spring" is not as much about promoting democracy as we wanted to believe. Add to that the inability to find a surrogate government to support and Russian resistance and the situation changes significantly.

As things developed in Syria concurrent with the political machinations in Libya and Egypt and even Tunisia it became clear that the final outcome in many of these places was not going to be a stable democracy. Promoting democracy is a foriegn policy as well as a security objective, but is it not achievable in Syria. Promoting regional security is also a security interest but ths situation looks fairly contained (has been for almost two years). So no reason to act there.

Chemical weapons created an exigency that warranted action. Beyond that, I don't see a national security interest in Syria that warrants intervention. That could change, and so planning is always done. But without the threat of CW, I don't see a reason to intervene.

jmm99
09-21-2013, 06:05 PM
Syria turns over list of chemical arsenal in 1st step of disarmament (http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/09/20/202801/syria-turns-over-list-of-chemical.html) (by Matthew Schofield, McClatchy Foreign Staff, 20 Sep 2013):


BERLIN — Syria met the first deadline of its pledge to surrender its chemical weapons arsenal on Friday, delivering its initial disclosure to the headquarters of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons in The Hague, Netherlands, by the time limit that Russia and the United States had set last weekend.

In a statement on its website, the organization said it had received the filing but it revealed nothing else, except that the disclosure “is now being examined by the Technical Secretariat,” the group’s experts.

Reaction from the U.S. State Department, which has voiced skepticism that Syria would abide by the U.S.-Russia deal, was muted. When she was asked whether it was an encouraging sign that Syria had submitted the document on time, spokeswoman Marie Harf said she didn’t want “to get ahead of the process.”

“But you are right that there has been a document submitted,” she said, adding, “We’ve said all along that we need to see forward momentum within these timelines that we’ve set up in the framework.”

The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (http://www.opcw.org/) website has a number of relevant documents, including the as distributed US-Russian framework with Annex A (http://www.opcw.org/fileadmin/OPCW/EC/M-33/ecm33nat01_e_.pdf).

The Syrian list was submitted in accord with John Kerry's demand that it be submitted within 7 days of Syria's accession to the Chemical Weapons Convention. That Convention (Overview (http://www.opcw.org/chemical-weapons-convention/about-the-convention/)) allows 30 days for that submission and 10 years to destroy the weapons. Syria is going to be held to a much faster track according to Mr Kerry and other Obama administration spokespeople.

Regards

Mike

CrowBat
09-23-2013, 03:30 PM
I think we have learned since Libya that the "Arab Spring" is not as much about promoting democracy as we wanted to believe.Why not?

And if not, then what is it then about?

Surely, we can continue discussing the Russo-Saudi confrontation over gas-pipelines, monopolies etc., and its repercussions for Syria and so many other countries.

But, for Arabs - and, sorry, but 'Arab Spring' is about Arabs - things are actually developing between 'perfectly within expected' and 'excellently' in places like Egypt, Libya, Tunisia - and even in Yemen. That is, of course: considering local circumstances and problems inherited from earlier regimes. Anybody expecting these countries to transformate into some sort of 'brilliant watchtowers of democracy and pluralism' by the turn of some switch, perhaps then also supported by double-digit-expanding economies, is simply naive: it's not so that people and nations can adapt, adjust, learn and change faster just because the internet accelerated the flow of information.


As things developed in Syria concurrent with the political machinations in Libya and Egypt and even Tunisia it became clear that the final outcome in many of these places was not going to be a stable democracy.Sorry, but can't agree with this.

'Political machinations in Libya'?

I understand and accept that on 'some internet forums', we all to tend to 'escape into simplicity'. There is neither place nor time to write more. But, please, let's not lose the 'big picture' out of sight because of this.

Libya is undergoing a 'perfectly normal' process of reorganization of political system. An eccentric dictator renown for state-sponsoring dozens of terrorist organizations around the world and brutalizing own population in all possible ways, was removed. Presently, the political system is at a stadium where a system of power-sharing is developing in various parts of Tripolitania, Cyrenaica and Fezzan, based on tribes, militia, state authorities, renegades, civilians and military. Sometimes in the future, that system is going to evolve into something more 'Western-like', that's unavoidable.

Nothing changed in regards of religion (and is unlikely to change), and except for few isolated attacks on place of worship (most of which were protected by local Moslems), and that attack on US embassy, nothing bad happened in this regards of general security.

But, a LOT happened in regards of economic opportunities for everybody, in regards of foreign investment, in regards of female rights (especially in regards of female participation in public life, which increased drastically: now there is a law that stimulates minimal participation of women in every single political party), in regards of press freedoms, and in regards of respect for the rights of minorities etc. And, regardless of media reports about 'disastrous policy' in Libya, the country is the most Western-friendly nation in the entire Middle East and Africa, right after Israel (this is based on recent Gallup pools).

So, where is actually a problem in Libya?

Shall we perhaps take the 'most troublesome' of MENA nations hit by the 'Arab Spring' (except Syria, of course) - namely Yemen - as the next example?

The revolution there was spearheaded by women, there is press freedom, there are different political parties etc. All the same like in Libya. At least as important: since Salleh is out, the military and security apparatus are finally free to openly tackle the issue of AQ, because Mr. 'Don't-remove-me-or-AQ-is-going-to-rule' President was actually coopearting with the AQ. The new gov is happily cooperating with the USA and Saudi Arabia - especially in regards of its security and anti-terrorism.

Egypt? A nearly brilliant example of 'nation undergoing learning process'. A place where even biggest of Morsi's fans have learned - the wrong way, of course - that one should not vote for politicians based on their religion alone (which is then why the population in general is so supportive for military intervention and removal of Morsi)... Surely, it's going to take few years longer until Egyptians develop their civilian authorities well enough to takle the issue of military's dominance in politics and economy, but meanwhile it's certain they'll manage that too.

Of course, I really have to disappoint anybody who might be expecting all of the Egyptians, Libyans, Tunisians, Yemenis etc. that have removed their dictators now to decide to convert to Christianity and start preaching Gospel tomorrow morning: sorry, that's not going to happen. ;)

But, that doesn't mean that all of these countries are not well-underway in regards of developing pluralist political and economic systems.


Promoting democracy is a foriegn policy as well as a security objective, but is it not achievable in Syria.Sorry but, upon what experience is that assessment based?

TheCurmudgeon
09-23-2013, 04:59 PM
CrowBat,

In the end these are about nationalism, not democracy. Having an election does not a democracy make. Every democracy must put up with armed elements holding ministries (http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/07/201371017171952201.html) hostage. This is all perfectly normal for a democracy (ok, that was sarcasm).

As I had posted elsewhere, democracy is a state of mind, not a political system. What this was about was people wanting freedom but, as in the case where any dictator is overthrown, all those other evils in Pandora's box that had been kept closed by the iron fist of a dictator, are unleashed to wreak havoc on the society.

Why will Syria not be a democracy, because Libya is not one, becuase Tunisia (http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/2/8/82135/World/Region/Tunisian-Islamists-urged-to-accept-transitional-go.aspx) is not one, because Egypt is struggling to become one. These transitions take generations to achieve. Just look at Europe after the fall of the Soviet Union. Look at Czechoslovakia ... oh wait, you can't, because it does not exist.

This is the nature of the beast. Things take time. To believe we can magically hasten a natural process is hubris, it is folly.

TheCurmudgeon
09-23-2013, 08:59 PM
CrowBat,

I meant no disrespect. I guess I am somewhat jaded by the idea that Team America can solve every problem.

I do not believe that we can effect positive change by intervening in Syria at the moment. A time may come in the future when I may change that opinion ( there was a time in the past when I felt the door was open but it has since closed).

CW changed my mind, but only to the point of effecting the use of CW. Beyond that I can't see how we can do much militarily.

Even if I were wrong, I don't think you can get the American public to back you. They cannot distinguish between humanitarian intervention and long term nation building. Add to that the half truths we told to get the world to back the Invasion of Iraq and we are now the boy who cried wolf. It does not matter what is happening in Syria, the US is not coming to the rescue. :(

CrowBat
09-25-2013, 09:58 AM
They cannot distinguish between humanitarian intervention and long term nation building.VERY true.

Ditto in regards of 'no matter what is happening in Syria, the US is not coming to the rescue'.

I actually find this tragic, then Syria was (or, should I say, 'it still is') really the opportunity.

K, then 'stay tunned' - for all the same media and same characters that are now damning any thoughts about intervention, to damn the failure to launch that intervention, sometimes in the future (i.e. we'll see a sort of opposite reaction to invasion of Iraq, where everybody who was 'pro' back in 2002-2003, can't be more 'contra' now).

Dayuhan
09-25-2013, 11:31 AM
I actually find this tragic, then Syria was (or, should I say, 'it still is') really the opportunity.

What exactly was the opportunity?

CrowBat
10-01-2013, 06:30 AM
For nothing, Dayuhan. Nothing at all: after all, you know the best that leaving Syrians at the mercy of Jihadist- and regime-psychopats is the best solution... :rolleyes:

Meanwhile, elements of the 8th IRGC Division are deployed in Damascus area - supposedly to advise the RGD in armour ops, but malicious gossip has it that they are there to prevent further in-fighting between various Iranian, Iraqi and Lebanese Shi'a contingents that are stationed there since earlier...