Syria: the case for action

[TheCurmudgeon]

Here is a viable option to avoid military action:

Give up weapons, Russia urges Syria

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]

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/2...ml?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]

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, as far as most of the World and probably the US are concerned. See, today's CNN poll.

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.



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]

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]

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]

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]

Here is a viable option to avoid military action:

Give up weapons, Russia urges Syria



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]

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, so I don't see Russia as any champion of international law 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]

[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, so I don't see Russia as any champion of international law 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]

I'm shocked.

and, "Rick, hide me! Do something!"

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’ (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]

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]

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]

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 (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.

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]

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]

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]

'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]

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]

Syria accepts Russian proposal on weapons; France to bring resolution to Security Council (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]

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.

[Dayuhan]

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.