Syria: the case for action

[TheCurmudgeon]

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]

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

I have to die of something ...

[jmm99]

... I HATE chemical weapons ...

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

Regards

Mike

[jmm99]

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/...ive_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]

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]

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

[TheCurmudgeon]

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]

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]

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/l...pt-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]

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]

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]

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]

......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]

......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]

Syria, the case for inaction (and for action?)

My latest in 3quarksdaily.com http://www.3quarksdaily.com/3quarksd...tion.html#more

[slapout9]

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]

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]

Disclaimer Concerning Information Purportedly About MSF in Syria (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]

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]

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

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

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.