Syria: the case for action

[davidbfpo]

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/comment.../#.Uh8d3GR4anZ

[davidbfpo]

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]

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?

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

[jcustis]

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?

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]

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]

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.

[ganulv]

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]

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.