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

[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.