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

[OmCheeto]

There are some isolationist tendencies but his record is more complex, contradictory. Obama tripled the troops in Afghanistan, did air support in Libya, and then there's all the drone action.

And didn't he kill Obama? Um, I mean, ok, Osama?

 

[russ_watters]

I don't believe that. The "red line" comment was 6 months back - nobody remembered it before Obama started brining it up as one of his casus-bellis for bombing Syria.

This is false. Maybe you forgot, but I didn't and people definitely reminded him and discussed it in the media immediately after the attack, before he said he wanted to respond to it. Here's such an article:

President Barack Obama said the alleged mass chemical attack in Syria “is clearly a big event of grave concern,” he told CNN in an interview aired Friday morning. But the President was hesitant to get the U.S. more involved. Citing the ongoing human and financial burdens the U.S. still faces in Afghanistan, he was unwilling to “get involved with everything immediately” and “drawn into very expensive, difficult, costly interventions that actually breed more resentment in the region.”

Two years ago this month, Obama called for the ouster of Syrian strongman Bashar Assad. A year ago, Obama drew what he called a “red line” saying the use of chemical weapons would change his “calculus” on the conflict, which has claimed more than 100,000 lives over the last two and a half years. Syrian opposition groups say this red line has now been crossed with this one attack Wednesday morning claiming as many as 1,300 lives in the eastern suburbs of Damascus.

Now that that moment seems to have arrived, though, the President is hedging.

http://swampland.time.com/2013/08/23/obama-blurs-red-line-in-syria/

IMO, if Obama was a strong leader he would ignore public opinion, the congress and the UN, and just bomb Assad when the iron was hot (pictures of gas-victims flooding in). Sure, there would be some dissent afterwards, but probably far far far less than if he did it now.

Agreed.

 

[russ_watters]

There are some isolationist tendencies but his record is more complex, contradictory. Obama tripled the troops in Afghanistan, did air support in Libya, and then there's all the drone action.

My belief is in-line with Time's assessment of him as a "reluctant warrior". His positions were in many cases not feasible as policy so the actions don't always seem to fit his ideology. For example, the Afghan surge: sometimes in order to withdraw from a war you first have to win the war.

 

[nsaspook]

You must recognize that our material support for the rebels started when they started being gassed.

The CIA directly arming and training the rebels is a recent development but we have been 'facilitating' arms transfers with some very unsavoury people for a long time.
http://world.time.com/2013/05/29/libyans-arming-syrian-rebels/

 

[fargoth]

Providing weapons may not be pacifistic, but it is more pacifistic (and isolationist) than joining the war with ground troops.

Well, many countries don't arm them, as well as not join the war with ground troops - That would be the more pacifistic thing to do.
With this logic, every country in the world is currently at least as pacifist as the US (although most are more pacifistic).
The US's involvement in this is not altruistic, and portraying it as a pacifistic stance is dubious at best.
If everyone would have kept out of this, Asad would have done what his father did in Hama and no more.

You must recognize that our material support for the rebels started when they started being gassed. Um...you didn't actually say what his power play is here.

US was providing support for the rebels since 2012: http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jun/21/world/la-fg-cia-syria-20130622

 

[jim hardy]

After seeing Assad's TV interview Monday night

I am not convinced we are supporting the right side over there.

He had a point when he said to Charlie Rose , to effect (kindly excuse I can't remember verbatim) :

As head of state what would you do when foreign hooligans come into your country and foment a violent revolution , killing people? Coddle them? Do you know of such a thing as 'soft war' ?
And why does US insist on calling them "opposition" ? Opposition engages you in civil debate, not blow up churches and behead people. Do you call the 9-11 hijackers 'opposition' ? No, you call them terrorists.
Why do you support them in my country ?

Zbigniew Brzezinski wrote in "Grand Chessboard" that Iraq was a beach-head (he likened it to Normandy) for spreading democratic and west friendly governments to the resource-rich region.
But even he seems not supportive of this.

Why did we all of a sudden decide that Syria had to be destabilized and its government overthrown? Had it ever been explained to the American people? Then in the latter part of 2012, especially after the elections, the tide of conflict turns somewhat against the rebels. And it becomes clear that not all of those rebels are all that “democratic.” And so the whole policy begins to be reconsidered. I think these things need to be clarified so that one can have a more insightful understanding of what exactly U.S. policy was aiming at.

http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/brzezinski-the-syria-crisis-8636

I guess Putin feels the region is important to his folks, too.

 

[nsaspook]

And it becomes clear that not all of those rebels are all that “democratic.” And so the whole policy begins to be reconsidered. I think these things need to be clarified so that one can have a more insightful understanding of what exactly U.S. policy was aiming at.

Zbigniew Brzezinski seems to have learned something from the past.

Our support of these groups will turn into a complete disaster if we don't get a handle on this.
http://lightbox.time.com/2013/09/12...-scene-of-utter-cruelty/?iid=lb-gal-viewagn#1

What follows is a harrowing series of photographs of Islamic militants publicly executing, by decapitation, a young Syrian in the town of Keferghan, near Aleppo, on August 31, 2013.

 

[Vanadium 50]

First comment:

For those who have argued that use of chemical weapons mandates such an attack, what is the standard of proof required that the Syrian regime was responsible? Beyond a shadow of a doubt? Beyond a reasonable doubt? Preponderance of evidence? More likely than not?

This is perhaps more difficult than in other cases, since the Free Syrian Army is a breakaway group from the Syrian Armed Forces, which means it is very difficult to say with certainty "only the pro-Assad forces have this particular weapon."

Undoubtedly, the best evidence is from interception of communications, which for obvious reasons will not be made public.

Second comment:

For those who argued that this action required punishment in order to deter others, would an attack that would be, according to the Secretary of State, "unbelievably small" deter others? Or would it instead embolden them by showing that the consequences will be unbelievably small?

Third comment:

Has nobody realized that we have opened the door for Russian troops to fight alongside Assad's? Assad can't get rid of his weapons by shipping them FedEx to Moscow, and he can't risk moving them and risking their capture. So he has to hand them to the Russians where they are, and have the Russians deal with their security. That, of course, requires Russians to return fire if attacked. Furthermore, you can't just emplace the Russians where the chemical weapons are, because that telegraphs to the insurgents exactly where they are. You need to position them at any installation where they might plausibly be. And, in turn, those troops also have to be able to return fire. The whole situation is ripe for escalation, which would be directly beneficial to Assad, and indirectly to Russia and Iran.

 

[fargoth]

Third comment:

Has nobody realized that we have opened the door for Russian troops to fight alongside Assad's? Assad can't get rid of his weapons by shipping them FedEx to Moscow, and he can't risk moving them and risking their capture. So he has to hand them to the Russians where they are, and have the Russians deal with their security.

Apparently he's moving them around already...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...-spread-chemical-weapons-around-50-sites.html
and has last year, too
http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hil...-chemical-weapons-stirs-fear-on-capitol-hill-

 

[turbo]

This situation is a mess. One that Obama should have avoided at all costs, instead of heeding the war-hawks. In my opinion (and the opinions of a lot of US citizens) the US does not need another war in the ME, especially one in which Russia is a proxy to the target of our aggression.

Let Russia oversee the demilitarization of Syria's chemical weapons. That should keep them busy for the next 40 years or so.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Let Russia oversee the demilitarization of Syria's chemical weapons. That should keep them busy for the next 40 years or so.

I fear "pretend to oversee" is more likely. Where do you think Assad gets most of his weapons from anyway?

 

[nsaspook]

For those who argued that this action required punishment in order to deter others, would an attack that would be, according to the Secretary of State, "unbelievably small" deter others? Or would it instead embolden them by showing that the consequences will be unbelievably small?

That's the one that gets me, the deterrence factor.

Didn't we invade the country of the last person who used chemical weapons on a large scale twice, and the second time didn't we topple his government, chase him to a hole in the ground, have a trial, convict him and hang him. That seems to be a "unbelievably big" punishment that under that theory should deter anyone.

http://www.biography.com/people/saddam-hussein-9347918

 

[Bandersnatch]

That's the one that gets me, the deterrence factor.

Didn't we invade the country of the last person who used chemical weapons on a large scale twice, and the second time didn't we topple his government, chase him to a hole in the ground, have a trial, convict him and hang him. That seems to be a "unbelievably big" punishment that under that theory should deter anyone.

http://www.biography.com/people/saddam-hussein-9347918

But to say that the US invaded Iraq because of chemical weapon use is a major stretch at best.

 

[nsaspook]

But to say that the US invaded Iraq because of chemical weapon use is a major stretch at best.

I'm pretty sure Colin Powell would agree with that today but at the time his previous use and possible possession of CW and other weapons was a major talking point.

The rationale for the Iraq War (i.e. the 2003 invasion of Iraq and subsequent hostilities) has been a contentious issue since the Bush administration began actively pressing for military intervention in Iraq in late 2001. The primary rationalization for the Iraq War was articulated by a joint resolution of the U.S. Congress known as the Iraq Resolution.

The U.S. stated that the intent was to remove "a regime that developed and used weapons of mass destruction, that harbored and supported terrorists, committed outrageous human rights abuses, and defied the just demands of the United Nations and the world".

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

Prior to the war, the governments of the United States and the United Kingdom claimed that Iraq's alleged possession of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) posed a threat to their security and that of their coalition/regional allies

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

 

[mheslep]

Third comment:

Has nobody realized that we have opened the door for Russian troops to fight alongside Assad's? Assad can't get rid of his weapons by shipping them FedEx to Moscow, and he can't risk moving them and risking their capture. So he has to hand them to the Russians where they are, and have the Russians deal with their security. That, of course, requires Russians to return fire if attacked. Furthermore, you can't just emplace the Russians where the chemical weapons are, because that telegraphs to the insurgents exactly where they are. You need to position them at any installation where they might plausibly be. And, in turn, those troops also have to be able to return fire. The whole situation is ripe for escalation, which would be directly beneficial to Assad, and indirectly to Russia and Iran.

I'm not sure it is fair to say that door has just now been opened. For instance, the Russians have had a military presence at the Syrian port of Tartus since the Soviet era. If the Russians want to use the pretense of they were present are were fired upon then they've had it for some time. Granted getting involved with removal of chemical weapons gives them more reason, but only for a limited time window.

The chance of an escalation with the Russians does point to the broader strategic consequences of a future US decline, that is, how that world might look. In a year 2000 world, Russia would not consider belligerent action that might involve the US. But in some future, a US with a much smaller military, or a US that has all it can handle with one engagement elsewhere, in that world perhaps a Russia calculates it can stymie the US in a case like Syria, can block the US in a 1990's Bosnia and allow Milosevic to continue the massacre.

 

[russ_watters]

First comment:

I'd call it reasonable doubt. But they don't necessarily have to make the evidence public.

Second comment:

No. A weak response is pointless or worse.

Third comment:

Has nobody realized that we have opened the door for Russian troops to fight alongside Assad's?

Yes, I said it in post #235

Obama backed himself into a corner here and then Putin rolled-up a barrel and threw Obama over it. There are several different possible ways this could go and all of them are bad for us or Obama, with the exception of one: Russia and Assad are honestly going to get rid of Assad's chemical weapons, with little gamesmanship. And few people actually believe that/it looks like the gamesmanship has started.

So I see that as the most likely possibility. It is a huge win for Putin and Assad.

 

[russ_watters]

Well, many countries don't arm them, as well as not join the war with ground troops - That would be the more pacifistic thing to do.

Agreed.

With this logic, every country in the world is currently at least as pacifist as the US (although most are more pacifistic).

I'm not seeing that logic at all, could you explain it?

Certainly at the very least Russia doesn't qualify as more pacifistic as the US and that's only regarding the Syria situation. Beyond that, there are a lot of conflicts/wars going on currently and recently.

The US's involvement in this is not altruistic...

You keep saying that without arguing why you think it. Again, when a country/person acts against his interest, that's a pretty good indicator that they have an altruistic motive.

... and portraying it as a pacifistic stance is dubious at best.

I didn't say that. You misunderstood apparently.

If everyone would have kept out of this...

Who is "everyone"? So far, the only significant actors here are Russia, Assad and some foreign Islamic fighters. The US involvement has barely started.

...Asad would have done what his father did in Hama and no more.

I don't think such things should be condoned.

US was providing support for the rebels since 2012: http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jun/21/world/la-fg-cia-syria-20130622

[/quote]
I wasn't aware the CIA was training rebels, but I did say "material support". Even after Obama promised to provide weapons, he didn't do it right away (I think it has started by now). Contrast that with Russia who is the major benefactor of Assad.

 

[Dotini]

The news is Kerry and Lavrov have agreed to a deal that sees disclosure of Syria's chem stockpile within a month and destruction by next year.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...03b068-1cb3-11e3-80ac-96205cacb45a_print.html

According to the AP article in my morning paper, the US is still in the three decades old process of destroying its stockpile of 31,500 tons of chem weapons, with 3000 tons remaining to be destroyed by 2023.

Even if the Syria stockpile is only 1000 tons, I hope they have a way of destroying it safely on such a short timeline.

 

[OmCheeto]

The news is Kerry and Lavrov have agreed to a deal that sees disclosure of Syria's chem stockpile within a month and destruction by next year.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...03b068-1cb3-11e3-80ac-96205cacb45a_print.html

According to the AP article in my morning paper, the US is still in the three decades old process of destroying its stockpile of 31,500 tons of chem weapons, with 3000 tons remaining to be destroyed by 2023.

Even if the Syria stockpile is only 1000 tons, I hope they have a way of destroying it safely on such a short timeline.

I think you may have misread the piece.

...inspection of Syrian chemical weapons will take place by November, with destruction to begin next year.
...
...the internationally verified transfer of Syria’s chemical stockpiles to Russia, where they eventually would be destroyed.

I would imagine the [STRIKE]Soviets[/STRIKE]^* Russians already have facilities set up, as do we.

Interpolating the numbers from the wiki entry on my local Chemical Weapons Destruction Facility:

2001: facility completed
Sept 2004: Army began weapons disposal
Oct 2011: completed disposal
contained: 3,717 tons

It might take a couple of years to destroy. But I don't care how long it takes. I'd just like to see them out of Syria.

all bolding mine

---------------------------
* Showing my age.

 

[nsaspook]

Interpolating the numbers from the wiki entry on my local Chemical Weapons Destruction Facility:

We could even help Russia, we could barge the Syrian CW up the river, restart Umatilla for a few years and be sure it's gone. Now who could object to that?

I'm with you, the quicker we get it out of Syria the better.

But there is a little legal complication that needs to be addressed.
The CWC article 1 forbids transfering CW to anyone.

1. Each State Party to this Convention undertakes never under any circumstances:

(a) To develop, produce, otherwise acquire, stockpile or retain chemical weapons, or transfer, directly or indirectly, chemical weapons to anyone;

 

[chemisttree]

According to the AP article in my morning paper, the US is still in the three decades old process of destroying its stockpile of 31,500 tons of chem weapons, with 3000 tons remaining to be destroyed by 2023.

Even if the Syria stockpile is only 1000 tons, I hope they have a way of destroying it safely on such a short timeline.

The US method of destruction is to burn it and test everything in sight... ground, air, water, workers, surfaces. Our operations on Johnston Atoll took a long time for those reasons. The Russians treat with strong base and only analyze the soup and associated equipment. Much safer, cheaper and a whole lot quicker.
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/cbw/cw.htm

 

[Dotini]

As an occasional reader of Sun Tsu and Machiavelli, I enjoyed this piece in The Guardian which considers Putin's recent acclaimed op-ed in the NY Times, and thoroughly relegates morality based foreign policy as more dangerous than policy rooted in pragmatism.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...elli-nyt-op-ed
"America's long tradition of morally guided politics was inherited from John Stuart Mill and finds its latest expression with Obama's foreign policy adviser Samantha Power, an influential scholar of humanitarian intervention. In a recent speech, she warned that inaction over Syria would remain on our conscience."

 

[OmCheeto]

Not trying to be funny here, but Al Jazeera does seem to have a sense of humor.

The end of the rebel alliance?

Tensions escalate in Syria, as self-declared jihadists say Western-backed moderates may be used against them.

Joni was dead on;

"...laughing and crying
You know it's the same release"

----------------------------
Crossing my fingers that we don't do a deathstar on ourselves...

 

[Vanadium 50]

Historian Walter Russell Mead has an interesting take on it here.

Part of the essay:

The precedent is now set that, if it has Russia’s support at the UN, a rogue regime can gas its own people and emerge in a stronger diplomatic position. Unless something changes this new status quo, the use of chemical weapons in a civil war is no longer a grave crime against humanity. It is more of a violation, like a speeding ticket. Assad has some points on his license, but he’s still at the wheel of his car.

Mead is most famous for his description of the US historical foreign policy not in term of left and right or hawks and doves, but in terms of four themes: Wilsonian, Jeffersonian, Hamiltonian and Jacksonian camps. I don't always agree with Mead, but I do feel that there is value to examining events along those axes.

He also analyzes why President Obama failed to get public opinion and Congress behind him here. Again, an except:

By what must have seemed very natural and logical steps, President Obama’s progressive worldview led him into a logically absurd and politically unsustainable dead end. At every step along the way, he carefully and thoughtfully balanced conflicting values and points of view. He ended up proposing to violate international law to uphold universal values against a regime evil and dangerous enough to bomb but not wicked or threatening enough to overthrow. In the service of this dubious vision he announced that he would consult the Congress without being bound by its result. The President told the country that the war in Syria constitutes a security threat, but he was unable to persuade the public that his stand against the moral evil of chemical weapons would advance the security interests of the United States in a complex and ugly civil war.

The nation recoiled from the incoherence, half measures and inner contradictions of a policy too elegant, too nuanced, too delicately balanced for the rough and tumble of war. The President’s approach to international relations led him to call for a war that the country wanted nothing to do with, and has deeply and quite possibly permanently alienated that part of public opinion which is at least potentially capable of supporting military action abroad. He is now scrambling to salvage some vestige of credibility from the debacle; we wish him well in this. The American people gain nothing when their President looks weak to the world.

 

[russ_watters]

If Russia enters the war on Assad's side, it will look more like a reward than a speeding ticket.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Mead makes that point, Russ. The articles are worth reading. One of the things that will intrigue future historians is how in the process of setting a new foreign policy, one shaped by people like Samantha Powers, the US has ensured outcomes that run counter to that policy. How is it that so many people who voted for that administration opposed its policies? Or, put the other way, how is it that the administration was unable to make the case to even the people who voted for it? (CNN poll had self-identified liberals opposing a Congressional resolution for the use of force at 45-53)

 

[mheslep]

The speeding ticket analogy, or whether or not Assad is punished, relies again on the premise of the US as world policeman. US national security interests should lie first in reducing the risk of the use of chemical weapons. Removing the several tons of Assad's chemical stockpile seems to be more effective in that regard than bombing uncertain targets.

 

[nsaspook]

Assad want's a billion. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/09/18/syria-assad-fox-news-interview/2834687/
while the M.I.C. complains the non-war cost them 400 billion.
John Kerry Costs U.S. Defense Industry $400 Billion

 

[KWilliamsAF]

Both sides in the Syria war are extremist. Most of the Islamic moderates, Christians and secular leaders are with Assad. Russian and China will support Assad if we intervene directly in the fight. Let them work out their own problems if it can be contained. I feel for the poor civilians caught in the middle but it's their country to fix and not worth one drop of American blood.
http://www.mypixshare.net/files/img/user_uploads/displayimage.php?id=k1e22oa3dvy81244627.gif
http://www.strategyinternational.or...ism-in-syria-geopolitics-and-future-scenarios

Well said!

 

[nsaspook]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/27/us-un-assembly-syria-resolution-idUSBRE98P1AJ20130927

(Reuters) - Ending weeks of diplomatic deadlock, the United States and Russia agreed on Thursday on a U.N. Security Council draft resolution that would demand Syria give up its chemical arms, but does not threaten military force if it fails to comply.
...
Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said on Thursday that his country was ready to help guard Syrian chemical weapons sites and destroy Assad's stockpiles but would not ship any of the chemical arms to Russia for destruction.

 

[Bystander]

How many hat colors?

Thirty-five years ago I spent an evening listening to an explanation of Beirut's problems from an ex-patriate participant; about all I could understand was "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

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

A little hasty browsing yields articles mentioning nine to eleven factions "allied" against Assad, and occasionally against each other. Consider the number of possible alliances among a dozen or so mutually belligerent groups, and tell me just who's wearing the black hats and who the white?

T'ain't all that clear, and good guys today can be bad guys tomorrow without any rhyme or reason.

 

[Astronuc]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/22/w...said-to-show-widespread-torture-in-syria.html

Obama administration officials, who never fully backed the rebel movement to oust Mr. Assad, had shifted instead to pushing his opponents to sit down with his envoys. Mr. Assad had begun talking confidently of his essential role in a common struggle against terrorist threats.

“I feel like we have had at least one or two Srebrenica moments in Syria already,” said Robert Kagan, a scholar at the Brookings Institution who has pushed for American action. “The White House has completely hardened itself to whatever horrendous news might come out of Syria because the president doesn’t want to get involved.”

And the outcome won't be good.

It seems now that Iraq and Syria are center stage for conflict between Sunni and Shi'a.

How to bring peace and mitigate the enmity of so many?

 

[Dotini]

It seems now that Iraq and Syria are center stage for conflict between Sunni and Shi'a.

How to bring peace and mitigate the enmity of so many?

I agree with this premise, and with the difficulty of the question.

I would ask about the historical and religious basis for the Sunni/Shi'a conflict. Why are two branches of the same religion engaged in genocide with each other? What's wrong with them?

Does ultra-conservative Saudi Wahhabism play an important role in stage managing this conflict from the periphery? It seems to me the Shi'a in Syria are much more culturally liberal, to judge by attitudes in Damascus towards western clothing, shaving, alcohol, for example, and therefore quite decadent in the eyes of conservatives. In the past, heresy has been used as justification for very strong measures.

 

[Astronuc]

I agree with this premise, and with the difficulty of the question.

I would ask about the historical and religious basis for the Sunni/Shi'a conflict. Why are two branches of the same religion engaged in genocide with each other? What's wrong with them?

I don't want this to become a religious discussion, but here is some history care of the BBC.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/subdivisions/sunnishia_1.shtml

One could wonder about the Protestant-Catholic or other sectarian conflicts. It seems there are political and cultural aspects as well.

 

[nsaspook]

From the Times:

Ahmed al-Ahmed, an activist in central Syria, said through Skype: “The report is nothing new for us. It just documented what has been going on all along.”
“There were many photos before these that were even worse,” he said.

Sadly very true, it's pretty tame stuff when compared to the mass murders in Africa like the Rwandan Genocide where the 'West' had a mixed and sorry involvement.

 

[russ_watters]

So I guess the pendulum of caring has swung back to where our official stance appears to be to pretend not to notice the atrocities. After crashing and burning when he tried the stance of caring about the chemical weapons attacks, there's really nothing else Obama can do now now but ignore anything/everything happening there.

 

[Dotini]

Over the weekend, an Egyptian military helicopter with 5 soldiers aboard was shot down with a MANPAD, or man-portable surface-to-air missile, by militants in the north Sinai, near Gaza.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/27/w...ptian-helicopter-killing-5-soldiers.html?_r=0
“This is what everyone has long assumed could happen, and it is a confirmation of those fears — that substantial and advanced weaponry came into the country in the aftermath of the Libyan war,”

 

[lisab]

An article this week in Reuters highlighted the sectarian nature of Syria's war:

"If you think all these mujahideen came from across the world to fight Assad, you're mistaken," said a Sunni Muslim jihadi who uses the name Abu Omar and fights in one of the many anti-Assad Islamist brigades in Aleppo.

"They are all here as promised by the Prophet. This is the war he promised - it is the Grand Battle," he told Reuters, using a word which can also be translated as slaughter.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/01/us-syria-crisis-prophecy-insight-idUSBREA3013420140401

I think the West was wrong to let the use of chemical weapons go without severe consequences, and this article doesn't change my feelings about that. But if this article is even half correct, and the Syrian War is actually a religious war, what can any "outsider" possibly do to stop the violence?

 

[nsaspook]

President Bashar al-Assads father and him ran mainly secular dictatorships and the last thing they wanted was religious jihad forces fighting in the country diluting their absolute control of the people in the major cities. Outside the major cities there was plenty of religious and social tension between the groups but they knew that the army would come down on them like a ton of bricks if the religious forces fought internally instead of directing their efforts with AL-Qaeda allied groups inside external targets like Iraq. Now that these groups of Islamic Fundamentalists have internalized the fight (with outside help) it's not surprising that Bashar will fight fire with fire.

 

[Dotini]

An article this week in Reuters highlighted the sectarian nature of Syria's war:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/04/01/us-syria-crisis-prophecy-insight-idUSBREA3013420140401

I think the West was wrong to let the use of chemical weapons go without severe consequences, and this article doesn't change my feelings about that. But if this article is even half correct, and the Syrian War is actually a religious war, what can any "outsider" possibly do to stop the violence?

Dear lisab,

Thank you for the interesting article regarding apocalyptic Islamic prophecy working itself out in Syria. Your question is a tough one.

With respect to chemical weapons use, I respectfully request your attention to a recent essay by Seymour Hersch. After the reading of it, I would hope that you would be able to revise your feelings about that issue.

Highest regards,
Steve

http://www.lrb.co.uk/2014/04/06/seymour-m-hersh/the-red-line-and-the-rat-line

 

[russ_watters]

With respect to chemical weapons use, I respectfully request your attention to a recent essay by Seymour Hersch. After the reading of it, I would hope that you would be able to revise your feelings about that issue.

Highest regards,
Steve

http://www.lrb.co.uk/2014/04/06/seymour-m-hersh/the-red-line-and-the-rat-line

Since Hersh uses no and anonymous sources throughout that article, his claims are inherently unverifiable.

 

[OmCheeto]

Dear lisab,

Thank you for the interesting article regarding apocalyptic Islamic prophecy working itself out in Syria. Your question is a tough one.
...

It was so tough, that I had to sequester multiple responses yesterday.

But being old, and wise, I knew all of my answers were [STRIKE]wrong[/STRIKE] unacceptable, in a civilized world.

The only sane voice that I ran across yesterday, via wiki, was some old dead dude, from Pakistan. He shares my feelings. These feelings were imparted unto me, via a young man, from Hyderabad, and my own studies of the Quran over the last 15 years, and my studies, yesterday.

Namaste

-------------------------
ps. His initials are G.A.P.

 

[mheslep]

Regarding Syria, the WSJ published a front page news article today by Entous and Barnes that describes an ongoing baffling conflict between the US Military and ... the US Dept of State.

Frustrated by the stalemate in Syria, Secretary of State John Kerry has been pushing for the U.S. military to be more aggressive in supporting the country's rebel forces. Opposition has come from the institution that would spearhead any such effort: the Pentagon...

This immediately prompts the question, why doesn't the President set the policy, at least for the moment? The article makes a single sentence, single paragraph statement:

It isn't clear where Mr. Obama stands.

which sounds a description of some eccentric 3rd world leadership, not the US executive.

 

[nsaspook]

This immediately prompts the question, why doesn't the President set the policy, at least for the moment? The article makes a single sentence, single paragraph statement:

which sounds a description of some eccentric 3rd world leadership, not the US executive.

The State Dept. has plenty of forces (DOD SOF units) to enable the rebels in Syria but the President IMO has decided it's not a priority right now. The operations end of the 'Military' wants nothing to do with Syria on the ground (arming people they are fighting in other parts of the world) after two wars in that area hated by all sides and has powerful friends in congress (both D&R) that agree with that point of view. John Kerry of all people knows how it works. The Pentagon is too blunt an instrument for current Syrian operations unless we really want to level the place and I'm pretty sure any plan they give will be overkill (by design) on the need for massive amounts of troops and equipment with a dollar cost to match.

 

[mheslep]

The State Dept. has plenty of forces (DOD SOF units) to enable the rebels in Syria but the President IMO has decided it's not a priority right now. The operations end of the 'Military' wants nothing to do with Syria on the ground (arming people they are fighting in other parts of the world) after two wars in that area hated by all sides and has powerful friends in congress (both D&R) that agree with that point of view. John Kerry of all people knows how it works. The Pentagon is too blunt an instrument for current Syrian operations unless we really want to level the place and I'm pretty sure any plan they give will be overkill (by design) on the need for massive amounts of troops and equipment with a dollar cost to match.

The reference stated there is no indication that the President has decided anything on this issue. Clearly the US DoS has no access to any forces aside from its own security needs (and those too have been sometimes insufficient)

 

[nsaspook]

The reference stated there is no indication that the President has decided anything on this issue. Clearly the US DoS has no access to any forces aside from its own security needs (and those too have been sometimes insufficient)

They would have access to anything they really needed if they had a plan that would stabilize the region instead of just increasing the level of violence to a stalemate with Assads forces. I see this statement of Kerry as just a warning message to the Syria leadership to stay on track with the Russian plan of CW destruction.

 

[mheslep]

In response to the August 21 Ghouta attacks which are reported to have killed 1400, the US entered into agreement with Russia and Syria in September 2013 to remove/destroy Syria's chemical weapons. Since then, the French and others have reported another dozen chemical weapons attacks in Syria, this time with chlorine.

Western officials have said in recent weeks that they were aware of reports that the use of chlorine might have occurred more than a dozen times.

French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said there was strong evidence that Syrian President Bashar Assad’s forces had used chemical weapons, including chlorine gas, in 14 small-scale attacks since Syria agreed to join the world’s ban on such weapons last fall.

French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius accused Syria on Monday of mounting 14 separate attacks using chemical agents, mostly chlorine.

NYT
The State
WSJ
Human[/PLAIN] Rights Watch


White House Syria page, most recent entry October last year:

October 31: The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons announced that it is confident no additional chemical agents or munitions can be produced in Syria, having finished the first phase of the elimination process by destroying Syria’s capacity to make chemical weapons.

Apparently the best estimate for all Syrian fatalities is 150,000, and up to 220,000, in Syria since the war began, which includes of course women and children. So where are the tweets?

 

[Vanadium 50]

But...but...there was a Red Line!

 

[AnTiFreeze3]

But...but...there was a Red Line!

Obama and his administration have lately been the epitome of empty statements. It's a little sad.

If we undoubtedly won't become involved, then we shouldn't make threats or boundaries. If we do make threats and boundaries, we should be prepared to act upon them, lest our future threats go unappreciated.