News Is the US Red Line in Syria Just Empty Rhetoric?

[Vanadium 50]

His senior advisors wanted him to violate the constitution? What news channel are you watching? Not that I watch TV. It rots your brain, or so I've heard.

Front page of Friday's Washington Post.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Given that this week in the UK parliament voted against the prime ministers proposal for military intervention I was surprised to discover via the news that Obama could have pushed through his proposal without congress.

 

[Vanadium 50]

CNN reported today that the President is considering acting even if Congress votes no. That, in my view, would be very bad: Congress has the sole power to declare war. One can argue that the President's authority as Commander-In-Chief allows him to take military action without Congressional approval in certain cases - such as repelling an attack - but to have Congress vote not to strike and have the President do so anyway would cause a Constitutional crisis.

Additionally, should this come to pass, it is entirely possible that the commanding general of Centcom will refuse an order to attack under the grounds that the order is unlawful. That would make a political mess that will take years - maybe even decades = to sort out.

 

[Pythagorean]

I don't know that it would cause a constitutional crisis, there are legal justifications:

In its legal justification for action in Libya, the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) argued that Congress' authority to declare "war" was limited by the definition of war. "This standard generally will be satisfied only by prolonged and substantial military engagements, typically involving exposure of U.S. military personnel to significant risk over a substantial period," the OLC wrote.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57600702/can-obama-strike-syria-without-congress-consent/

Regardless, I do think it would make Obama look really bad, both nationally and internationally. He doesn't seem to be terribly concerned about his national image lately though.

 

[OmCheeto]

...
He doesn't seem to be terribly concerned about his national image lately though.

I don't know why your comment brought an old post to mind, but it did.

And I'd counter with the fact the congress doesn't seem to give a shaving cream about their image lately, either.

 

[Pythagorean]

As far as I've remembered in my little anecdotal world, congress has never really had to rely on their image. I guess a final-term president doesn't, either.

 

[russ_watters]

Since such actions have been done many times before and never caused a constitutional crisis before, I don't see why this would.

But now I'm leaning toward him doing nothing anyway. He's really painted himself into a tight corner.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I don't support military intervention by the west. At the very least there needs to be more time to let UN inspectors to do their work and return with solid data. What I would support though is immediate delivery of medical supplies, particularly Nerve Agent Antidote Kits, to as many people as possible in areas of conflict.

Turns out there's a white house petition for this now:
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/pe...e-instead-attacking-syria-government/lbzm6x5c

 

[Vanadium 50]

Since such actions have been done many times before and never caused a constitutional crisis before, I don't see why this would.

There have been cases where Congress has said nothing and the President has acted. But have there been prior cases where Congress - who holds the sole power to declare war - has said "No, do not declare war" and the President has attacked anyway?

 

[lisab]

The Arab League has urged the UN to take action against Syria:

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/09/20139118235327617.html

Their pleas will probably fall on deaf ears in the Security Council (Russia, China).

If non-US PFers haven't picked up on it, there is a growing sentiment in the US to just keep out of the business of other countries. More specifically, Americans ask, "Why us? Why are WE the world's police?"

The Arab League's members have more than enough resources to take care of this themselves. So what if they did? Could the US, France, and maybe the UK give them cover in the UN?

Personally, I back Obama on his views on this, that it's an atrocity that must not be shrugged off. I'm weary as hell of war but I can't believe the world is willing to let this go unpunished. I can only hope that we won't look back on this in 30 years and just hang our heads in regret. So if the Arab League wants to step in and do what should be done, my hat is off to them in making this tough moral and political decision.

 

[Pythagorean]

The MP's voting against Cameron basically said that there wasn't enough evidence that the regime was responsible for the attack.

 

[lisab]

The MP's voting against Cameron basically said that there wasn't enough evidence that the regime was responsible for the attack.

Sadly, I think they were using the war in Iraq to guide their decision. What do they say about Generals -- "They are always fighting the last war." Seems the same can be said for politicians. What a sad legacy of the Iraq debacle, because...

I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler's armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force is sometimes necessary is not a call to cynicism - it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.

--Obama's Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/10/obama-nobel-peace-prize-a_n_386837.html

 

[Pythagorean]

I agree with the point that force can be necessary, but I have no idea about what's really happening or the evidence. I know that news stations in the U.S. were spinning the Muslim Brotherhood as freedom fighter's at one point, but they're just as violent and power-hungry as Assad. So I guess I just feel like I can't take overseas info for granted.

And it's true, the deal with Bush's WMDs probably influences my vicarious hesitation, too.

 

[jim hardy]

Lisa I don't know quite how to interpret that article you linked.

The headline infers it is the official position of the league

Arab League urges UN-backed action in Syria
Foreign ministers seek "necessary deterrent measures" against Syrian regime ...

but when I read the body it backs down quite a bit.

First line:

Arab League foreign ministers have urged ...

... oh, just the ministers not the league itself?

Saudi Arabia and the Syrian opposition pleaded with League members..

... oh, just two of them ?

However, some influential members of the League, including Egypt, Iraq, Lebanon, Tunisia and Algeria, have expressed opposition to foreign military intervention.

Two for, five against ?

That's about same as public opinion here in US.

 

[lisab]

Lisa I don't know quite how to interpret that article you linked.

The headline infers it is the official position of the league



but when I read the body it backs down quite a bit.

First line: ... oh, just the ministers not the league itself?

... oh, just two of them ?



Two for, five against ?

There are 22 countries in the Arab League: Alegria, Bahrain, Comoros, Djibouti, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, Palestine, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan,Tunisia, United Arab Emirates, and Yemen. I don't know what the final tally was, who was for/against intervention. But I think it's a fair guess that there was at least a simple majority voting "for" in order for the League to come out as "for".

That's about same as public opinion here in US.

Public opinion is not always right.

Weird, I last felt this way was in the lead up to the Iraq War. Everyone, everywhere was banging the drums of war. Public opinion was all about shock and awe and waving the flag. I felt like a lone voice saying, "No this can't be wise, and where's the proof?" Now everyone is seeing thousands of civilians GASSED to death and they say, "Look it's not our problem, move along, there's nothing to see here, let's just pretend it didn't happen." I say, we need to do something about this, how can everyone be so indifferent? Am I the lone voice again?

 

[Vanadium 50]

Lisa, I think there are a couple of reasons for this. One is the purpose of a US attack. If it's to remove the ability of the government to use chemical weapons again, this will take a lot more than a handful of airstrikes. If it's to dissuade the Syrian government from using them again because they have been "punished", the punishment will have to be severe, else they will conclude "that wasn't so bad". Again, a few airstrikes are unlikely to accomplish this objective.

The second is the likely outcome. On one side, we have a brutal dictatorship. On the other, we have people who want a new brutal dictatorship that they are in charge of. This may make things worse and not better.

The third is that there have been claims of both sides using chemical weapons. If that turns out to be the case, what should the US do? Bomb both sides?

Finally, the timing is very odd. Why now? Why not months ago when they started? And why before the UN report? If this is to prevent future use, wouldn't it have made more sense to have acted at the start? And if it's to punish past behavior, shouldn't we wait until we get that report?

 

[jim hardy]

You said it Lisa - "Where's the proof"

Just speaking for myself i can't get behind this until I'm more sure I'm not being lied to.

There's plenty of tabloid sites out there blaming this on everybody from the Saudis to the Brits to the CIA.

When I go looking for something credible all I can find is crumbs.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323423804579024452583045962.html
From that WSJ article:

Officials inside the Central Intelligence Agency knew that Saudi Arabia was serious about toppling Syrian President Bashar al-Assad when the Saudi king named Prince Bandar bin Sultan al-Saud to lead the effort.

They believed that Prince Bandar, a veteran of the diplomatic intrigues of Washington and the Arab world, could deliver what the CIA couldn't: planeloads of money and arms, and, as one U.S. diplomat put it, wasta, Arabic for under-the-table clout.

Prince Bandar—for two decades one of the most influential deal makers in Washington as Saudi ambassador but who had largely disappeared from public view—is now reprising his role as a geopolitical operator. This time it is to advance the Saudi kingdom's top foreign-policy goal, defeating Syrian President Assad and his Iranian and Hezbollah allies.

......
...
...

Not everyone in the Obama administration is comfortable with the new U.S. partnership with the Saudis on Syria. Some officials said they fear it carries the same risk of spinning out of control as an earlier project in which Prince Bandar was involved—the 1980s CIA program of secretly financing the Contras in Nicaragua against a leftist government. The covert program led to criminal convictions for U.S. operatives and international rebukes.

"This has the potential to go badly," one former official said, citing the risk weapons will end up in the hands of violent anti-Western Islamists.

For all I know this could be Saddam's leftover nerve gas and it got set off by accident..

with all those spies involved - I don't know what to believe.

Only thing certain is all those folks it killed.

 

[AnTiFreeze3]

As far as I've remembered in my little anecdotal world, congress has never really had to rely on their image. I guess a final-term president doesn't, either.

Congress doesn't really have to, but individuals Congresspeople do. However, constituents adore their specific Congressperson (90% incumbency re-election rate), but Congress as a whole is hated.

 

[russ_watters]

There have been cases where Congress has said nothing and the President has acted. But have there been prior cases where Congress - who holds the sole power to declare war - has said "No, do not declare war" and the President has attacked anyway?

I don't think it has ever happened. What makes you think it would happen here? And you're not equating a vote to reject approval of use of force with a vote stating not to use force, are you? I'm not sure if that has happened either, but they wouldn't be the same thing.

And regardless, you shouldn't be using the terminology "declare war". It is obsolete/irrelevant. It hasn't been used in 70 years and certainly is not on the table here.

 

[russ_watters]

The Arab League has urged the UN to take action against Syria:

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/09/20139118235327617.html

Their pleas will probably fall on deaf ears in the Security Council (Russia, China).

If non-US PFers haven't picked up on it, there is a growing sentiment in the US to just keep out of the business of other countries. More specifically, Americans ask, "Why us? Why are WE the world's police?"

The Arab League's members have more than enough resources to take care of this themselves. So what if they did? Could the US, France, and maybe the UK give them cover in the UN?

Personally, I back Obama on his views on this, that it's an atrocity that must not be shrugged off. I'm weary as hell of war but I can't believe the world is willing to let this go unpunished. I can only hope that we won't look back on this in 30 years and just hang our heads in regret. So if the Arab League wants to step in and do what should be done, my hat is off to them in making this tough moral and political decision.

30 years? We'll know for sure either way in a few MONTHS. Clinton did when he erred by not doing anything about Rwanda. Does anyone actually believe that the Syrian civil war will get LESS violent if we do nothing? The smart money would say that in a few months, tens of thousands more will be dead from dozens of chemical weapons attacks. That's my bet if we do nothing. It may even still happen if we just lob a few cruise missiles: a shot across the bow only works if they think you're serious about sinking the ship and Obama has already assured Assad he won't.

And the question of "why us" has been answered before and is being answered again here: if we don't, no one else will. No one else has the moral fortitude to act when acting is necessary.

 

[Pythagorean]

Plot twist?

BRITAIN allowed firms to sell chemicals to Syria capable of being used to make nerve gas, the Sunday Mail can reveal today.

Export licences for potassium fluoride and sodium fluoride were granted months after the bloody civil war in the Middle East began.

The chemical is capable of being used to make weapons such as sarin, thought to be the nerve gas used in the attack on a rebel-held Damascus suburb which killed nearly 1500 people, including 426 children, 10 days ago.

President Bashar Assad’s forces have been blamed for the attack, leading to calls for an armed response from the West.

British MPs voted against joining America in a strike. But last night, President Barack Obama said he will seek the approval of Congress to take military action.

The chemical export licences were granted by Business Secretary Vince Cable’s Department for Business, Innovation and Skills last January – 10 months after the Syrian uprising began.

They were only revoked six months later, when the European Union imposed tough sanctions on Assad’s regime.

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/revealed-britain-sold-nerve-gas-2242520

Though I think these chemicals are rather common outside of chemical warfare.

 

[Pythagorean]

Actually, the more I look at The Daily Record, the more it looks like tabloid.

According to The Independent, the materials were never actually shipped:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ort-nerve-gas-chemicals-to-syria-8793642.html

 

[russ_watters]

Plot twist?

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/revealed-britain-sold-nerve-gas-2242520

Though I think these chemicals are rather common outside of chemical warfare.

They are. That's why this is just British tabloid newspaper sensationalism.

Still, I wouldn't be in favor of selling anything to the Syrian government these days.

 

[Vanadium 50]

The chemical is capable of being used to make weapons such as sarin

Or toothpaste.

 

[mheslep]

The discussion of US military action in Syria often conflates two related but separate issues of i) the use of chemical weapons against civilians by the Assad government and ii) the ongoing civil war and all of its consequences. Despite the confusing US policy statements, it seems clear that pending US military action has been triggered in the main by the use of these weapons. Though the US deplores the actions of the Assad government in general, the civil war in itself is not the principal cause of action.

A response to the use of chemical weapons use has a clear rationale. A UN resolution and international treaties call for action by all member states, military if necessary, to stop the use. If the civilized world hopes to keep the use of chemical weapons beyond the pale, it must act here, else not be surprised when, say, the like of a N. Korea attacks Seoul with them in the future. Or, imagine the use of such weapons against Israel. Israel has suffered conventional rocket attacks for years and responded with conventional weapons. However, a past Israeli PM has directly threatened that "the use of gas against the Israeli people" would provoke a response that would "return [the attacker] to the status of desert".

The idea equating US response in this case to US intervention in every conflict around the world does not apply; every conflict does not involve large scale use of chemical weapons. Attacking the user of the chemical weapons need not mean the US directly supports the Assad governments opponents, even if the opponents gain indirect advantage.

As for the effectiveness of a potential US attack, the bar need not be that all of the Syria's chemical weapons stores are destroyed. Rather, the main point is to deter Assad, make the regime pay a cost. The Assad government is in a fight for its survival which it may well lose. Attacks on, for example, Assad's vulnerable air power will be felt. Even if Assad manages more chemical attacks post US intervention, the point is made to others (e.g. N. Korea) that the use of these weapons will extract a high cost.

 

[Pythagorean]

As for the effectiveness of a potential US attack, the bar need not be that all of the Syria's chemical weapons stores are destroyed. Rather, the main point is to deter Assad, make the regime pay a cost. The Assad government is in a fight for its survival which it may well lose. Attacks on, for example, Assad's vulnerable air power will be felt. Even if Assad manages more chemical attacks post US intervention, the point is made to others (e.g. N. Korea) that the use of these weapons will extract a high cost.

So I guess the assumption is that Assad is responsible for the chemical attack?

 

[Dembadon]

The discussion of US military action in Syria often conflates two related but separate issues of i) the use of chemical weapons against civilians by the Assad government and ii) the ongoing civil war and all of its consequences. Despite the confusing US policy statements, it seems clear that pending US military action has been triggered in the main by the use of these weapons. Though the US deplores the actions of the Assad government in general, the civil war in itself is not the principal cause of action.

A response to the use of chemical weapons use has a clear rationale. A UN resolution and international treaties call for action by all member states, military if necessary, to stop the use. If the civilized world hopes to keep the use of chemical weapons beyond the pale, it must act here, else not be surprised when, say, the like of a N. Korea attacks Seoul with them in the future. Or, imagine the use of such weapons against Israel. Israel has suffered conventional rocket attacks for years and responded with conventional weapons. However, a past Israeli PM has directly threatened that "the use of gas against the Israeli people" would provoke a response that would "return [the attacker] to the status of desert".

The idea equating US response in this case to US intervention in every conflict around the world does not apply; every conflict does not involve large scale use of chemical weapons. Attacking the user of the chemical weapons need not mean the US directly supports the Assad governments opponents, even if the opponents gain indirect advantage.

As for the effectiveness of a potential US attack, the bar need not be that all of the Syria's chemical weapons stores are destroyed. Rather, the main point is to deter Assad, make the regime pay a cost. The Assad government is in a fight for its survival which it may well lose. Attacks on, for example, Assad's vulnerable air power will be felt. Even if Assad manages more chemical attacks post US intervention, the point is made to others (e.g. N. Korea) that the use of these weapons will extract a high cost.

Good post.

 

[lisab]

So I guess the assumption is that Assad is responsible for the chemical attack?

My personal opinion: any government that has stockpiles of WMD is responsible for their use, whether they ordered it or not. Otherwise you'll have tyrants simply shrugging their shoulders and saying, "Golly, we didn't order the (nuke/gas/poison/infectious) attack, we can't be held responsible."

 

[russ_watters]

So I guess the assumption is that Assad is responsible for the chemical attack?

It is wrong to call it an assumption. It is the CONCLUSION of a large segment of the international community.

 

[russ_watters]

My personal opinion: any government that has stockpiles of WMD is responsible for their use, whether they ordered it or not. Otherwise you'll have tyrants simply shrugging their shoulders and saying, "Golly, we didn't order the (nuke/gas/poison/infectious) attack, we can't be held responsible."

Agreed, and to take the logic further: if the rebels used the weapons, the only likely place they could have gotten them is from Assad's forces. So a response attack to destroy the chemical weapons capability would still have to be directed at Assad's forces.

 

[Pythagorean]

Would US action be restricted to just destroying chemical weapons capability?

 

[nsaspook]

Agreed, and to take the logic further: if the rebels used the weapons, the only likely place they could have gotten them is from Assad's forces. So a response attack to destroy the chemical weapons capability would still have to be directed at Assad's forces.

I don't think we are planning to destroy his chemical weapons capability with this or any air-power only strike. To knowingly hit those targets in Syria is close to a war crime unless we also plan to police the area and clean up the contamination quickly using ground forces. The last time we stupidly used an air-strike on a large cache of CW in Iraq we created a mess that still exists to this day.
So I think that's off the table and now we have to make the devil feel pain in hell to make him stop using them, not an easy task with the current limitations on the use of force per Obama.

The Iraq CW mess.
http://cns.miis.edu/stories/100304_iraq_cw_legacy.htm
https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/iraq_wmd_2004/chap5_annxB.html

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Would US action be restricted to just destroying chemical weapons capability?

To what extent is that even possible? Given that who used the weapons and where they are is still largely unknown. Not to mention that there could be innocent casualties as nsaspook points out. I agree that steps need to be taken to deter further action but I'm skeptical that a military strike will suffice. Further investigation to pin point exactly who used the weapons and authorised their use followed by legal apprehension of those individuals to put through a war crimes trial at the Hague would get my vote at the moment. Plus provision of medical supplies (as mentioned above) and countermeasures like mass dropping NBC suits.

 

[nsaspook]

Experts Explain Why The US Shouldn't Bomb Syria's Chemical Weapon Sites

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/expe...as-chemical-weapon-sites-2013-8#ixzz2dlQsoWAI

'Cure worse than the disease': Experts say bombing chemical weapon sites may cause problems

WASHINGTON (AP) — You simply can't safely bomb a chemical weapon storehouse into oblivion, experts say. That's why they say the United States is probably targeting something other than Syria's nerve agents.

 

[edward]

Time could be on our side depending on how sophisticated the shells that deliver the gas are.

Sarin degrades after a period of several weeks to several months. The shelf life can be shortened by impurities in precursor materials. According to the CIA, some Iraqi sarin had a shelf life of only a few weeks, owing mostly to impure precursors.[13]

Its otherwise short shelf life can be extended by increasing the purity of the precursor and intermediates and incorporating stabilizers such as tributylamine. In some formulations, tributylamine is replaced by diisopropylcarbodiimide (DIC), allowing sarin to be stored in aluminium casings. In binary chemical weapons, the two precursors are stored separately in the same shell and mixed to form the agent immediately before or when the shell is in flight. This approach has the dual benefit of solving the stability issue and increasing the safety of sarin munitions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarin

Bold mine.

 

[jim hardy]

In binary chemical weapons, the two precursors are stored separately in the same shell and mixed to form the agent immediately before or when the shell is in flight.

So all you have to do is mix the stuff?

Some wacko who knew a neighborhood was due to be shelled could sure make it look like a CW attack.

Have the inspectors found any of the actual munitions?

To spook's point - what if that same wacko has a basement full of the stuff in glass jugs - you don't want to blow up his house.

I guess a lot of what they know they aren't saying . Don't want your enemy to know how much you actually know...
time will tell

 

[Pythagorean]

To what extent is that even possible? Given that who used the weapons and where they are is still largely unknown. Not to mention that there could be innocent casualties as nsaspook points out. I agree that steps need to be taken to deter further action but I'm skeptical that a military strike will suffice. Further investigation to pin point exactly who used the weapons and authorised their use followed by legal apprehension of those individuals to put through a war crimes trial at the Hague would get my vote at the moment. Plus provision of medical supplies (as mentioned above) and countermeasures like mass dropping NBC suits.

Let's even say it were physically possible. Is it behaviorally possible for the US to go into a country without diving into a never-ending black hole of social responsibility? I mean, as long as we're there, we might as well install our own puppet dictator and sell them some nukes just to make sure democracy stays safe.

/facetious

 

[russ_watters]

Would US action be restricted to just destroying chemical weapons capability?

My understanding is that that's the only thing on the table right now.

Let's even say it were physically possible. Is it behaviorally possible for the US to go into a country without diving into a never-ending black hole of social responsibility?

The idea of a social responsibility in war seems to me to be a byproduct of US actions in previous wars. We've done enough re-building that now people think it is a responsibility. But I don't see why that should be true. After all, we're having enough troubling with the idea that we have a responsibility to stop a murderous dictator in the first place!

 

[russ_watters]

Further investigation to pin point exactly who used the weapons and authorised their use followed by legal apprehension of those individuals to put through a war crimes trial at the Hague would get my vote at the moment.

Legal apprehension? Please tell me you are joking, Ryan? How exactly would that be possible?

 

[russ_watters]

I don't think we are planning to destroy his chemical weapons capability with this or any air-power only strike.

It is a bit vague, but that's what it appears to me Obama is saying:

Now, after careful deliberation, I have decided that the United States should take military action against Syrian regime targets. This would not be an open-ended intervention. We would not put boots on the ground. Instead, our action would be designed to be limited in duration and scope. But I’m confident we can hold the Assad regime accountable for their use of chemical weapons, deter this kind of behavior, and degrade their capacity to carry it out.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...19213c-125d-11e3-b4cb-fd7ce041d814_story.html

To knowingly hit those targets in Syria is close to a war crime unless we also plan to police the area and clean up the contamination quickly using ground forces.

What war crime would that be? Where is that written? I've never heard of any such thing.

 

[russ_watters]

[April 26, 2013]
The UN says the death toll is 70,000, with roughly eighty percent being civilians. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Syrian_civil_war

So my question is: how many is enough?

Now the number is over 100,000, with around 1,500 of them killed by chemical weapons. Clearly, the answer to my 5 month old question is that that's not enough. So I have two new questions:

1. Does anyone actually believe there won't be more?
2. Is there any number that is enough? 500,000? A million?
3. What will the next cruel dictator think when he's considering using chemical weapons and sees the world community did nothing to stop Syria from using them?

 

[lisab]

Now the number is over 100,000, with around 1,500 of them killed by chemical weapons. Clearly, the answer to my 5 month old question is that that's not enough. So I have two new questions:

1. Does anyone actually believe there won't be more?
2. Is there any number that is enough? 500,000? A million?
3. What will the next cruel dictator think when he's considering using chemical weapons and sees the world community did nothing to stop Syria from using them?

1. There will be more, sadly.

2. No idea. This whole thing has had me in a dilemma since the beginning -- as MarneMath puts it, we seem to be trying to solve unsolvable problems in the ME. I keep wondering how our response would be were it not for our Iraq involvement. From a practical standpoint it make sense to consider the other wars we are involved in before getting into a new one. From a moral standpoint, it doesn't, though.

3. This is what worries me most, and it's why I think we can't let this go. We need to really get this guy. As The Economist put it, Hit Him Hard.

I should add, in my opinion, that "red line" was there before Obama pointed it out to us. I'd feel the same way about this issue even if he had not mentioned it.

 

[nsaspook]

It is a bit vague, but that's what it appears to me Obama is saying: http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...19213c-125d-11e3-b4cb-fd7ce041d814_story.html
What war crime would that be? Where is that written? I've never heard of any such thing.

Sorry, but Obama is simply not telling the "whole" truth and I think it's the main reason he punted it to congress (the real military requirements are much larger than what can be justified by the war powers act). This is Joint Chiefs Chairman General Martin Dempsey a month ago.
http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2013/...ntion-is-act-of-war-that-could-cost-billions/

Options to prevent the use and proliferation of chemical weapons would also include lethal force through the destruction of known stockpiles, movement interdiction, or through the physical seizure of known chemical weapons sites.

Dempsey said this option would also require a no-fly zone along with "air and missile strikes involving hundreds of aircraft, ships, submarines."

"Thousands of special operations forces and other ground forces would be needed to assault and secure critical sites," Dempsey wrote. "Costs could also average well over $1 billion per month."

Indiscriminate effects from the targeting of NBC weapons must be very carefully controlled. If you need to destroy them it's your responsibility (within reasonable limits) to reduce human suffering because of your actions. The general knows the rules and requirements for targeting CW so I'm not surprised at his costs or troop needs to get the job done.

http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/RC-Weapons.pdf

 

[nsaspook]

3. This is what worries me most, and it's why I think we can't let this go. We need to really get this guy. As The Economist put it, Hit Him Hard.

From The Economist

So Mr Obama should focus on the third option: a more limited punishment of such severity that Mr Assad is deterred from ever using WMD again. Hitting the chemical stockpiles themselves runs the risk both of poisoning more civilians and of the chemicals falling into the wrong hands.

"Hit Him Hard" still leaves him with CW, a weaken military to control that CW and even more brutal attacks to maintain control with the forces he will have left. "launch a sustained assault with the clear aim of removing Mr Assad and his regime" is the only true military option but there is nothing outside of a direct attack (aka 9/11 via Syria) that can justify that. I also don't think we should "Do nothing", there are plenty of ways to affect that country without overt military power if we could get Russia to decide the current Syrian regime is not in their best interest.

 

[chemisttree]

The only real option we have is to arm the rebels and hope. If the Islamists take over, then our option changes to 'regime change' behind the scenes and we secretly support a Not-A-Coup all the while acting completely impotent.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Legal apprehension? Please tell me you are joking, Ryan? How exactly would that be possible?

No, not joking. You know how your country ran a mission in another without asking them and assassinated Bin Laden? Like that but with a UN mandate and a goal to capture and drag to The Hague rather than kill.

 

[kith]

1. Does anyone actually believe there won't be more?
2. Is there any number that is enough? 500,000? A million?
3. What will the next cruel dictator think when he's considering using chemical weapons and sees the world community did nothing to stop Syria from using them?

1. No
2. There is no fixed number. Maybe something like "much more than in comparable civil wars"
3. The prerequisite for a situation like in Syria is that it is not clear who the bad guy is. So it doesn't apply to most cruel dictator situations and the rational dictator knows this.

Questions to you:
1. How do you determine who the bad guy is? (Assad's motive to use chemical weapons is weak, Assad's acceptance among the population is high, militant islamists are fighting against him)
2. Why are you so confident that there will be less victims in a scenario where the US intervene compared to a scenario where they do nothing?

 

[mheslep]

...
2. Is there any number that is enough? 500,000? A million?

Rwanda: as high as one million. No intervention.

 

[mheslep]

Ryan:

A bloodless (attempt) at police action for legal apprehension could be run by any country with some cops, some hand cuffs, a couple helicopters, and maybe some night vision. A Luxembourg or an Estonia has that much capability. Certainly the UK. Plenty of time to execute such a mission at the moment, i.e. a grab operation of a sitting dictator and maybe a dozen or so in the military chain of command. Good luck.

 

[amonraa]

russ_watters, obviously you hate Assad or any secular government who enforces the idea of Arab or Levant region nationalism which protect all sects and groups in that regions, from all religions whether they are minorities or not, they are all Levant's. For some reason this fact discomforts you and your alike. Would you side would extremist Jihadi Al Qaeda affiliated groups just to outset someone you hate? I understand your love for Israel but this guy at least respected the piece deal and protected the borders with Israel. Do you have any idea these group can do when your troops on the ground? What about other Assad's allies in the neighboring countries. Believe me they are much more powerful on the ground than yours. Obama is thinking and considering the consequences to his troops and to the entire region as well, things you apparently cannot see.
Second who made USA the police of the world? Who gave Israel the right to defend itself and act above all laws in the name of defending itself while no other country is allowed what Israel is allowed to do? Have you heard of Lebanon war 2006? Have you seen the killed children and infants using forbidden bombs? You will say their enemies were taking those poor civilians as shields, then I would ask you to say the same for great Syria which is fighting terror on its land.
Want to stop the war, there's one and only one easy way, stop supporting the Al Qaeda groups and ask their allies to take them out of Syria where they originally belong.