Syria: the case for action

[davidbfpo]

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...t-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/0,7...421668,00.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/...cruise_missile

The New Scientist has an editorial, which covers this aspect:[QUOTE]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:

...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/...al-puzzle.html

[davidbfpo]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.