Syria: the case for action

[Bill Moore]

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]

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-...er-syria/#rafs

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

[graphei]

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 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. 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]

Tehran is bat-#### crazy.

But somewhat predictable, right?

[graphei]

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]

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

[davidbfpo]

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/gra...red?CMP=twt_gu

A properly translated Der Spiegel story on German intelligence:http://www.spiegel.de/international/...-a-920123.html