Syria under Bashir Assad (closed end 2014)

[Bill Moore]

I was reading earlier today on the AP newswire a Syrian Kurd stated it wouldn't make sense for Assad to use a chem weapon that close to his stronghold. However, it would make perfect sense for rebels to use it on some civilians and point the finger at Assad. We've been saying for months chemical weapons represented a "red line" and hinted force would be used. He certainly made an interesting point. Ultimately, there is no way of knowing who set off that weapon. None. Without that information, I doubt we won't see more out of the UN than a strongly condemnation. I'm sure both Assad and the rebels will quiver in abject terror when they read it.

If Muslim nations take the lead, it may devolve into a sectarian war. Iran is focused on Western interference at the moment, so other Muslims taking the lead will throw a wrench in that. If Turkey and Saudi Arabia take the lead, I would expect to see the rhetoric change- most likely stop- and Syrian Shi'ite militias with new toys and training. It's not like they don't have decades of experience supporting proxies. I don't think boots-on-the-ground is an option for two reasons:
1. It would be political suicide at home.
2. Getting there is mighty tough with Iraq and Turkey in the way.

Extremists will say whatever Muslim country comes to help the other side is a Puppet of the West, so that's about par for the course.

I for one am not certain Assad's forces employed chemical weapons and remain apprehensive we're being played by the more extremist elements of the opposition. Having seen our intelligence community fail repeatedly based on bias sources, and seeing what they want to see, plus our adversaries are more than capable of running their own deception operations. Also think it is possible that Iranian surrogates (Assad's allies) may have done it without Assad's permission for some reason that Iran thinks will support their interests. However the Assad may well have directed it, but why?

Can't help but wonder if this will be another USS Maine, Tonkin Gulf, or WMD in Iraq incident to justify some action.

I have to disagree with your two reasons for not intervening. Turkey isn't in the way, Turkey is no friend of Syria and may well support an intervention. I'm not sure where Iraq stands, but they do seem to be closer to Iran than us at times. However, we have plenty of access through Turkey, Jordan and simply coming across the beach.

It may or may not be a political disaster at home. If it goes bad and we accomplish nothing it will undo all the current administration's previous successes. However, I'm sure that will not influence the decision makers, because they're nation first, and personal interests a distant second.

[jcustis]

The fallacy behind a "limited strike" in Syria (and yes, Carney and Kerry and Hagel and Dempsey will call it that--just watch the lips) is that there's nothing "limited" about the Syrian problem.

No matter the first kinetic step taken, the US immediately assumes a significant problem set. I am not so sure we have enough apolitical talent to deal with the genie that some seem hell bent on letting out of the bottle. We for sure don't seem ready to handle our three wishes upon his release.

[Dayuhan]

I for one am not certain Assad's forces employed chemical weapons and remain apprehensive we're being played by the more extremist elements of the opposition. Having seen our intelligence community fail repeatedly based on bias sources, and seeing what they want to see, plus our adversaries are more than capable of running their own deception operations. Also think it is possible that Iranian surrogates (Assad's allies) may have done it without Assad's permission for some reason that Iran thinks will support their interests. However the Assad may well have directed it, but why?

Possible reasoning, if indeed Assad did initiate it:

The US doesn't want to intervene, but (unwisely IMO) committed itself to action if a "red line" is violated". Always worth making the other guy do what he doesn't want to do.

A US strike will be limited: essentially the purpose of the strike is not to have an impact on Syria, but to show that the administration backed up its "red line". The strike will thus be survivable.

A limited strike will gain the Assad regime the Muslim world street cred of being the ones fighting the Bad Americans without subjecting them to excessive risk. It also puts his antagonists in the uncomfortable position of being allied to the Bad Americans.

A US strike would give the Iranians an excuse to intervene more openly.

Not saying that's what happened (like the rest of us, I don't know what happened), only that there could be some internal logic to an Assad-sponsored chemical strike.

[Tukhachevskii]

Easy solutions? I don't think so. Binary logic is a poor basis for foreign policy; i.e Syria is part of the axis of evil, therefore anyone that fights them is ipso facto on the side of good, therefore the US (as the self-appointed Universal good guy) will support them...er, even if "they" quite like beheading people in the name of Allah (who else?)

From:http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...OBCYAAAph6.jpg

[Tukhachevskii]

Support Assad

Interesting stuff from Daniel Pipes thinking along similar lines to myself. Although, as a conservative (of the old fashioned European variety rather than the loony-toons in the US) I view Assads regime as the legitimate (de jure) government fighting exactly the same kind of fools we've been fighting in Afghanistan. The US sees only permanent enemies. I use a TEA model (came up with that myself, we Brits love our tea); threats, enemies, allies. Your threats determine your enemies and your enemies determine your allies. During the nineteenth century the French castigated the UK as perfidious Albion. We were not perfidious, we merely took each case on its merits. Today's enemies are tomorrow's allies, it's the threats that need addressing. Once the threats are dealt with we resume business as normal. The liberal universal perspective is prone to crusades against universal enemies who must either submit to the enlightened (the US) or be exterminated (a curious mirror image of Islamic universalist thought!).

Or, here

[omarali50]

The sage of London has spoken: http://www.lrb.co.uk/blog/2013/08/28...ning-in-syria/

I think my version of his analysis was better: http://www.brownpundits.com/2013/04/...i-on-pakistan/

[graphei]

So happy. Not about Syria, but that there is such great discussion here.

Having seen our intelligence community fail repeatedly based on bias sources, and seeing what they want to see

This. This a thousand times. The intelligence cycle is backwards. Politicians come up with a course of action, and then the intel weenies bend over backwards to justify it.

plus our adversaries are more than capable of running their own deception operations. Also think it is possible that Iranian surrogates (Assad's allies) may have done it without Assad's permission for some reason that Iran thinks will support their interests. However the Assad may well have directed it, but why?

I may just have to shake my Magic 8 ball at those scenarios. I find it sad that it's probably more accurate than most of the reports at this point.

I have to disagree with your two reasons for not intervening. Turkey isn't in the way, Turkey is no friend of Syria and may well support an intervention.

My reference to boots on the ground was for Iranian forces, not ours. We can get there no problem. Not to mention, Turkey has been chomping on the bit for something to happen. This is happening in their backyard and they're none to pleased about it. Iran, however, is watching a friendly state crumble and their options for support are rather limited.

I'm not sure where Iraq stands, but they do seem to be closer to Iran than us at times.

My point was I don't know how Iraq would feel about an Iranian army marching through. Tehran caused them a lot of trouble recently. Furthermore, while they are lukewarm with Iran, Iraq wouldn't risk angering Turkey, and possibly Saudi Arabia. Iraq has more to lose with those two, than they have to gain with Iran.

Is anyone else surprised by France besides me? Bueller? Bueller? I feel like I'm missing a key link here.

The fallacy behind a "limited strike" in Syria (and yes, Carney and Kerry and Hagel and Dempsey will call it that--just watch the lips) is that there's nothing "limited" about the Syrian problem.

No matter the first kinetic step taken, the US immediately assumes a significant problem set. I am not so sure we have enough apolitical talent to deal with the genie that some seem hell bent on letting out of the bottle. We for sure don't seem ready to handle our three wishes upon his release.

At some point in time, I'm going to give you a great big bear hug.

I have a bad feeling this is going to come down to sectarian war right now or sectarian war a little bit later.

[davidbfpo]

Omarali50,

Tariq Ali may speak and write well, but his views have little resonance in London, let alone the rest of the UK. His way with words and sheer audacity gained him invitations, far beyond the "international left" to speak in yesteryear.

[ganulv]

Tariq Ali may speak and write well, but his views have little resonance in London, let alone the rest of the UK. His way with words and sheer audacity gained him invitations, far beyond the "international left" to speak in yesteryear.

He is bright and quick-witted, but I find his political and social analysis to be very paint by numbers.

[omarali50]

Ganulv and David, you are too kind to Tariq. I guess he seems so harmless that there is no harm in being polite. But I think the opportunity cost of his brand of "paint by numbers" is very high in the non-western world. I try not to be too courteous to him.

[jmm99]

Assad's era might be crumbling, but some other eras may fare no better. The era of international legalism may well be past - without too many tears shed by too many. But, some sacred cows (such as the UN and EU-NATO) should feel threatened. In any event, no one seems to be making strong legalistic arguments for Syrian intervention; the arguments being made are very moralistic. Take the following three pieces, for example.

First, a very straight-forward article by Ian Hurd (scarcely a rightist), Bomb Syria, Even if It Is Illegal (NYT, August 27, 2013):

EVANSTON, Ill. — The latest atrocities in the Syrian civil war, which has killed more than 100,000 people, demand an urgent response to deter further massacres and to punish President Bashar al-Assad. But there is widespread confusion over the legal basis for the use of force in these terrible circumstances. As a legal matter, the Syrian government’s use of chemical weapons does not automatically justify armed intervention by the United States.

There are moral reasons for disregarding the law, and I believe the Obama administration should intervene in Syria. But it should not pretend that there is a legal justification in existing law. ...

Hurd then goes on to make Assad's legalistic case, noting at two points:

... the treaties rely on the United Nations Security Council to enforce them — a major flaw. ...
...
But the conventions also don’t mean much unless the Security Council agrees to act. It is an indictment of the current state of international law that there is no universally recognized basis to intervene.

But, of course, that is precisely how (and why) the UNSC was set up in the first place. Hurd knows that well; he wrote a recent article about it, The UN Security Council and the International Rule of Law (Chinese Journal of International Politics, May 2013). Or, as he states here, Is Humanitarian Intervention Legal? The Rule of Law in an Incoherent World (2011):

The concept of humanitarian intervention has evolved as a subset of the laws governing the use of force and has very quickly come to occupy an institutional position alongside self-defense and Security Council authorization as a legal and legitimate reason for war. It is both widely accepted and yet still highly controversial.

This article considers whether humanitarian intervention is legal under international law. This is a common question but one that produces an uncertain answer: humanitarian intervention appears to contradict the United Nations Charter, but developments in state practice since 1945 might have made it legal under certain circumstances. Those who argue for its legality cite state practice and international norms to support the view that the prohibition on war is no longer what it appears to be in the Charter.

The debate suggests that humanitarian intervention is either legal or illegal depending on one’s understanding of how international law is constructed, changed, and represented. Since these questions cannot be answered definitively, the uncertainty remains fundamental, and the legality of humanitarian intervention is essentially indeterminate. No amount of debate over the law or recent cases will resolve its status; it is both legal and illegal at the same time.

Rick Pildes, Creating New International Law “Justifications” for Using Military Force Against Syria (Lawfare, August 29, 2013), sums up (without necessarily endorsing) the three principal moralistic arguments:

As I noted in an earlier post, the newly emerging uses of multi-lateral military force for humanitarian intervention — such as to respond to states that gas their own citizens — raise profound issues about the relationship between “the rule of (international) law” and morality/political judgment. Under existing international law, it is difficult to justify legally use of military force against Syria; there is no self-defense justification and no approval from the Security Council. And try to imagine the process of revising the governing legal text — the UN Charter — to permit force in new circumstances not contemplated when the Charter was created.

National political leaders in these situations have three options.

First, they can conclude, with tragic sorrow, that even though they believe the most compelling moral and political reasons exist for using military force, they cannot act because international law prohibits it: military force would be illegal.

Second, they (and notice, of course, the prior question of who the “they” are, or must be, to justify this) can acknowledge that they are violating international law, but that they believe their actions are justified for reasons more important than the “rule of law.” ...
...
Third, they can do what the British government now appears to be doing: turn the compelling moral reasons in which they believe into new “legal” justifications for the use of force. This creates a kind of illusion (perhaps necessary, perhaps justified) that they are complying with existing international law — when the truer account is that they are creating new legal arguments outside the framework of existing law. ...

Finally, we have Jack Goldsmith, UK Legal Position On Humanitarian Intervention in Syria (Lawfare, August 29, 2013), taking down the UKG on its legal logic:

The UK “legal position” contains not a bit of legal analysis. It does not explain how humanitarian intervention as it describes it is consistent with the U.N. Charter’s clear prohibition on the use of force absent Security Council authorization or in self-defense. Presumably to be lawful in the face of the Charter, the doctrine of humanitarian intervention must be supported by customary international law. Yet the UK does not try to explain why it believes that humanitarian intervention as it describes it represents the general and consistent practice of states followed from a sense of legal obligation. It does not try to do this, I think, because there would be no basis for such a position. So in the end this is just a UK ipse dixit that (as the paper puts it in the end) intervention is justified as an “exceptional measure on grounds of overwhelming humanitarian necessity.” I.e. the UK thinks the ends justify the means, including non-compliance with the U.N. Charter.

And so it goes.

Regards

Mike

[AdamG]

A U.N. diplomat says Russia has called for an urgent meeting of the five permanent Security Council members on the crisis in Syria.

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/40...urity-council/

[AdamG]

The intelligence cycle is backwards. Politicians come up with a course of action, and then the intel weenies bend over backwards to justify it.

[graphei]

AdamG- thanks for digging up those sources.

As far as Dr. Daniel Pipes and anything that comes out of his factory is concerned, I'm very wary. Why? I'm going to keep this as professional as possible. Unfortunately, I'm familiar with his handiwork.

In spite of his educational pedigree, I believe it evident Dr Pipes had his mind made up about Islam and the billion plus Muslims that inhabit his Earth when he started his course of study. Anyone who questions him or his findings is branded an anti-semite and added to his blacklist on Campus Watch. His academic witch-hunts are repugnant and antithetical to the spirit of free discourse.

He panders to the fears of Americans and instead of using his education to dispel ignorance, he chooses to exploit it for his own monetary gain. He uses his media empire to "warn" parents their children are being brainwashed by terrorists if they study Islam in college. He has lent enthusiastic support for advocates of internment camps for Muslim Americans. In short, he is an extremist's best friend. He plays right into their hands, and he is frequently cited in their propaganda against the US as "proof" the US hates Muslims and seeks their destruction.

Somedays, I think he's a modern day Heidegger- I take that back. It's not a fair comparison. Being and Time is still solid in spite of the author being a Nazi-####wad. I can't think of anything Dr. Pipes has published that will be that groundbreaking or last that long.