[Herra Tohtori]

I'm just wondering.

Would something like strategic air strikes even be sufficient to discourage Assad - or any other factions - from using chemical weapons if they were so inclined?

At this point, destruction of military OR civilian infrastructure may not have much of an effect on anything on the damned country.

It seems unlikely that anyone wants to involve ground troops in this, but I'm not really convinced that air strikes could even do anything to improve the situation.

Unless, of course, they launched massive incendiary bombardment at the known CW stores, but that would mean knowing where exactly they are, and that kind of intel is hard to get without operatives on the ground.



As inefficient as it seems, I'm at this time inclined to agree with the official Finnish view that there is simply too little information to base actions on, especially military intervention. I do expect that the UN inspectors will conclude that chemical weapons have been used. However, as troubling as it is, at this point it's an unsolved whodunnit with very partial field of evidence.

Logistically speaking the most likely culprit is Assad, but there is a chance that it isn't.

If it isn't Assad, then aerial bombardment will solve absolutely nothing, and will divert attention away from a potentially much bigger problem which I already pointed out in my previous post: Unknown quantities of chemical (and other?) weapons of mass destruction at hands of unknown, unpredictable factions.

Both the possibility of Assad having used chemical weapons, and having lost control of his chemical weapons stockpiles, are what we would call really really bad things in global politics, and I fully expect that will become a factor in the political exchange fairly soon. Neither US, Russia, or anyone else is going to want to see mass quantities of chemical weapons leaking into hands of terrorist groups outside Syria, be they islamic or otherwise. I would expect Russians in particular to be much more aware of this eventuality, considering their geopolitical location makes them much more vulnerable to domestic terrorism than the US.

[MP-Ryan]

There is a fundamental communication gap occurring here.

First off, by 'experiments' I mean that Afghanistan and Iraq harkened back to tactics tried to further strategic interests nearly 50 years ago with modern equipment and modern thinking.  Both conflicts demonstrated that those tactics still don't work, and for pretty much the same reasons.  I don't see a need to rehash every little hot war that pitched Western proxies against Soviet proxies from 1948 through 1960 to hammer home the point because you're probably already familiar with them and just as capable of reading about them on your own if you don't already know the military history in question.  Iraq and Afghanistan are significant outliers in the way geopolitics was conducted throughout and after the Cold War.  The economic and political cost of both follies has be enormous, and Western citizens have already pretty much demonstrated that they are unwilling to tolerate the same loss of life among their militaries for no discernible advancement overseas, not to mention the loss of life in those countries.  I'm fairly confident in predicting that no Western government is going to even contemplate another intervention like Afghanistan or Iraq for multiple decades.

Syria actually is quite comparable to the Balkans.  In that case, you had near-civil war and a large massacre of a civilian population that led Western countries to intervene - and note that intervention there did not take the form of military occupation.  In essence, Western powers got involved to protect civilians and stop war crimes, and it was ultimately very successful.  It differs on a couple counts, though:  namely, there wasn't a large stateless network of fighters actively opposed to Western intervention capable of causing severe havoc, nor was Russia capable of causing as much strife as it currently is.  China barely got involved.  None of those three key factors are complete barriers to intervention in Syria, though; there are merely barriers to occupation.

Nakura, you, and docfu have all made the same assumption that intervention has to target Assad and/or involve occupation, leading to either a power vacuum (allowing Islamists to take over) or a quagmire like Iraq/Afghanistan.  What I'm saying is that neither of those are desirable or pragmatic courses of action.  Pragmatically, my TL'DR earlier is quite correct - nobody can afford an occupation for all kinds of reasons, let alone the United States.  It isn't going to happen.  Furthermore, taking out Assad at this juncture accomplishes nothing; his successors are worse.  Taking out the whole governance structure gives the Islamists an in.

The far more likely course of action is a series of tactics designed to cripple the Syria military's ability to wage offensive warfare, and target both government and rebel forces abilities to deploy chemical weapons.  There are enough quick-response forces throughout NATO that this is quite practical.  Furthermore, NATO and Turkey are both quite capable of declaring and enforcing a civilian safe-zone near the Turkish border for refugees, which solves the problem of refugees fleeing into Turkey and yet provides an area well-away from the main fighting to prevent loss of civilian life.  With both measure sin place - active hunting and destruction of chemical weapons delivery (and the people responsible for it), active destruction of large-scale offensive capabilities, and establishment of civilian safe zones, Western forces can pretty much sit back and let the rebels and the government sort themselves out.  Meanwhile, if Russia and China can be brought on board, the whole conflict can be referred to the ICC and allow it to run a parallel investigation, ensuring that any surviving leadership on both sides can be dragged before the court for war crimes when the dust settles.  In fact, merely threatening ICC involvement to both sides may be enough to significantly reduce the likelihood of future chemical weapons deployment.

Western powers do not have to get involved in a ugly, occupying groundwar to address the primary concerns in Syria.

[MP-Ryan]

I'm just wondering.

Would something like strategic air strikes even be sufficient to discourage Assad - or any other factions - from using chemical weapons if they were so inclined?

No.  Air power in the Syrian scenario isn't going to be much good other than to take out conventional assets.  But both sides are fielding machines of war that can cause significant damage, yet are vulnerable to NATO air power.

What I suspect will happen - if it isn't happening already - is some very highly trained, highly talented NATO forces will begin operations in Syria to identify and set up targets on the stockpiles and launchers that both sides require to use chemical weapons.  I wouldn't be in the slightest bit surprised if some of them are not in-country already.  Those weapons are the problem, but they become much less of a problem once external forces can identify where they are.

Regardless, at this juncture we know at least one side (and likely both) has used chemical weapons in the conflict.  Rather than scurry about trying to assign blame, we should all be more interested in seeing the ability to deploy those weapons eliminated from BOTH sides.

[Luis Dias]

MP, you said exactly the same things I said about the differences between the Balkans and Syria, I guess where we disagree is with how much do these differences impact the "similarity" of the situation. I say they impact a big deal, whereas you say they probably do not matter that much, especially about the intervention...

Well, I am open minded about that, since I am no expert (understatement of the year?), and I might be really wrong. It's not even my main concern. I do think the US will have to do *something* or else any other psychopath in power will (in the most basic, animalistic, tribalistic fashion), regard them as weak and pityful, and will feel somewhat free to do the same given some circumstances.

Where my thoughts rest is always in what people call "the morning after". It matters little to history if the US can make two, three strikes in some random base of operations or some ammo depot or CWs warehouse or whatever. They will pat themselves in the back "that'll show'em", and Syria in one, two, three years is the same old pit of hell with shots burning the organs of their inhabitants.

No, the whole story will only have any hope to end with the crushing of the rebel factions or with the death of Assad's family. And that's a necessary step, far long from being sufficient. From that point on, a lot of good faith politics will have to be played, and with the myriad of distinct ideologies in place the best they could ever hope in the long term is to become like Egypt (which is like a paradise to them right now).

[karajorma]

I'm fairly confident in predicting that no Western government is going to even contemplate another intervention like Afghanistan or Iraq for multiple decades.

Before 9/11 you probably would have predicted the same about Afghanistan and Iraq though. I'm sure a lot of people would confidently have predicted that neither would happen because the US had learned its lesson in Vietnam.

If in 2000 I'd described both wars to you and not mentioned the reasons why, you'd probably have dismissed them as paranoid fantasy.

[Dragon]

Is it just me, or more and more of those "paranoid fantasies" are turning out true these days. Between Snowden, North Korea, the Middle East and all this mess, maybe it's time to start listening to your local conspiracy nut...

Also, I've found a nice guide to the Middle East these days. I have it in Polish, translation mine:

Iran supports Assad. Gulf countries are against Assad.
Assad is against Muslim Brotherhood. Muslim Brotherhood and the US are against General Sisi.
But... Gulf countries support General Sisi. Which means they're against Muslim Brotherhood.
Iran supports Hamas. Hamas supports Muslim Brotherhood.
The US supports Muslim Brotherhood, but Hamas is against the US.
Gulf countries support the US. But Turkey, along with Gulf countries, are against Assad. Turkey supports Muslim Brotherhood against General Sisi. Oh, and Gulf countries support General Sisi.

Welcome to Middle East, gentlemen.

So, once you understand the above, you might try explaining it to poor Syrian civilians. That probably won't help them much, but at least they'll know what they're dying for. Or not. The guide has a warranty, but it's void if any of the factions described in it changes it's mind. Which may happen. Now, enjoy your vacation in Egypt.

[karajorma]

Sounds like a typical high school but with access to tanks.

[MP-Ryan]

Before 9/11 you probably would have predicted the same about Afghanistan and Iraq though. I'm sure a lot of people would confidently have predicted that neither would happen because the US had learned its lesson in Vietnam.

Actually, no; as discussed with Lorric earlier, the US-Vietnam era is not a great comparator for what occurred in Iraq and Afghanistan (the hot wars of the '50s are much better)  - though I do agree that the Afghanistan and Iraq occupations were not really on anyone's radar because they were such an unusual departure from what had been shown to work as recently as a decade earlier.  The strategy used in both those conflicts seemingly got made up as it went along.

That said, repeating those mistakes is even more unlikely because of that.  If anything, one should be more concerned about interventions of a type for which their is no precedent being tested in Syria, or for which the precedent is very old and the lessons likely forgotten.  It took 50 years for the thinking that led to Iraq and Afghanistan to re-surface; I'm not concerned about that thoroughly-discredited strategy being utilized again in the foreseeable future seeing as those lessons were just re-learned.

[Lorric]

You know, this doesn't mean they'll automatically get it right if they do. They could screw up again. Just in a different way.

I have no confidence in them. Forget about the overall plan for Iraq and Afghanistan, you just have to look at them, the poor planning, the amount of stupid decisions that were made, the list goes on and on and on...

If action is taken Ryan, I really, really hope you're right, but I have no confidence in anything approaching a favourable outcome.

[Nakura]

I'm actually pretty torn on Syria. NGTM-1R makes a valid point, if we allow a government to use chemical weapons against their own people and the United States/international community doesn't respond, then it sets a troubling precedent. At the same time, it's clear that Assad is the lesser of two evils in Syria and that any rebel victory will be infinitely worse for both the United States and the Syrian people, than the current government.

Aside from the fact that there is no single rebel alliance like in Libya, how will a "rebel victory" be worse for the general populace then the current government?

Radical Islamists would quite likely fill the void, persecuting religious minorities (Alawis, Christians, Shi'ites, etc.). Not only that, but what makes you think that this radical Islamist regime would be friendly towards the United States and Israel? Then there's also the problem of what happens to Syria's weapons stockpiles after the government falls? We couldn't prevent the Iraqi military's weapons from falling into the wrong hands after Saddam fell, and we played a much more active role in Iraq than we likely will in Syria. One could also look at how Egypt is doing right now.

[docfu]

Nakura, you, and docfu have all made the same assumption that intervention has to target Assad and/or involve occupation, leading to either a power vacuum (allowing Islamists to take over) or a quagmire like Iraq/Afghanistan. 

*snip*

Western powers do not have to get involved in a ugly, occupying groundwar to address the primary concerns in Syria.

Thank you for grouping me in with Nakara and "you." It feels good to be part of a group for once. I feel special.

I never said that a ground war was coming, what I said was that the U.S. will likely choose whatever option will benefit itself the most while having the least negative impact and I was simply agreeing with Nakara that we are "damned if we do and damned if we don't."

Apparently you failed to understand the meaning of that sentence. It means there really is nothing more to be said on the subject because now is the time for decision making and action. It doesn't mean that we should do nothing, or that we are called to action. It just means that whatever we do, there will be consequences. Hopefully either way the good people that want out of that style of life can escape to a better place.

You have a very good technical knowledge of the history of war and conflict. If you think that any intervention is going to help, realistically you need to watch God of War with Nicolas Cage. Terrible movie and bad acting, but he gets the point across.

This isn't anything special, it's just business as usual.

[redsniper]

Yeah I was about to say. I worry that the decision to go for a full-on occupation or not will depend solely on if it will make more or less money for the powers that be than they are currently making. Though given how pissed everyone is after Iraq and Afghanistan, I'm hoping it would be too costly now and we just stick to dropping bombs.

[MP-Ryan]

I never said that a ground war was coming, what I said was that the U.S. will likely choose whatever option will benefit itself the most while having the least negative impact and I was simply agreeing with Nakara that we are "damned if we do and damned if we don't."

Apparently you failed to understand the meaning of that sentence. It means there really is nothing more to be said on the subject because now is the time for decision making and action. It doesn't mean that we should do nothing, or that we are called to action. It just means that whatever we do, there will be consequences. Hopefully either way the good people that want out of that style of life can escape to a better place.

This I can live with.  You got lumped in with nakura and Luis earlier because of this statement...

If we have learned anything from Iraq and Afganistan, it's that military intervention will bring only limited success. Capturing Assad and holding him accountable might be the worst thing we could do, next to an air strike. The best thing would be to let his enemies take him down. I doubt there would be any impact on economic gains either way.

...which read an awful lot like you were using the same binary thought process and keying in on Afghanistan/Iraq as comparators... which they are not.  Your recent post makes it clear that that is not what you were trying to say.

You have a very good technical knowledge of the history of war and conflict. If you think that any intervention is going to help, realistically you need to watch God of War with Nicolas Cage. Terrible movie and bad acting, but he gets the point across.

This isn't anything special, it's just business as usual.

That is a terrible movie with a terrible plot and terrible attention to reality and should never be cited in any form of serious argument, ever (also, it's "Lord of War" for anyone who suddenly does want to see it).  Yes, war profiteering is a huge and protected industry, but that film gives it much greater prominence than its actual role in nation-on-nation conflict.

And while there may be all kinds of background incentives for NATO countries to consider intervention, that doesn't negate laudable goals of puishment for use of chemical weapons and attacks on civilians.

[NGTM-1R]

realistically you need to watch God of War with Nicolas Cage.

And then you can listen to speeches given post WWI about the Merchants of Death who pushed us into the war!

Tell me you're not serious.

[Herra Tohtori]

not sure if pretty sure not legitimate illustrious conspiracy tinfoil nut material but amusing anyway


http://www.eutimes.net/2013/08/putin-orders-massive-strike-against-saudi-arabia-if-west-attacks-syria/

A grim “urgent action memorandum” issued today from the office of President Putin to the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation is ordering a “massive military strike” against Saudi Arabia in the event that the West attacks Syria.

According to Kremlin sources familiar with this extraordinary “war order,” Putin became “enraged” after his early August meeting with Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan who warned that if Russia did not accept the defeat of Syria, Saudi Arabia would unleash Chechen terrorists under their control to cause mass death and chaos during the Winter Olympics scheduled to be held 7-23 February 2014 in Sochi, Russia.

Lebanese newspaper As-Safir confirmed this amazing threat against Russia saying that Prince Bandar pledged to safeguard Russia’s naval base in Syria if the Assad regime is toppled, but he also hinted at Chechen terrorist attacks on Russia’s Winter Olympics in Sochi if there is no accord by stating: “I can give you a guarantee to protect the Winter Olympics next year. The Chechen groups that threaten the security of the games are controlled by us.”

Prince Bandar went on to say that Chechens operating in Syria were a pressure tool that could be switched on an off. “These groups do not scare us. We use them in the face of the Syrian regime but they will have no role in Syria’s political future.”

London’s The Telegraph News Service further reported today that Saudi Arabia has secretly offered Russia a sweeping deal to control the global oil market and safeguard Russia’s gas contracts, if the Kremlin backs away from the Assad regime in Syria, an offer Putin replied to by saying “Our stance on Assad will never change. We believe that the Syrian regime is the best speaker on behalf of the Syrian people, and not those liver eaters” [Putin said referring to footage showing a Jihadist rebel eating the heart and liver of a Syrian soldier HERE], and which Prince Bandar in turn warned that there can be “no escape from the military option” if Russia declines the olive branch.

...

Well now.

EDIT: The site (EUTimes.net) also has gems like these:

http://www.eutimes.net/2009/11/obama-orders-1-million-us-troops-to-prepare-for-civil-war/

http://www.eutimes.net/2011/01/top-us-federal-judge-assassinated-after-threat-to-obama-agenda/

http://www.eutimes.net/2011/01/top-us-official-murdered-after-arkansas-weapons-test-causes-mass-death/

http://www.eutimes.net/2010/03/world-mourns-as-communist-darkness-falls-upon-america/

http://www.eutimes.net/2010/12/three-giant-spaceships-to-attack-earth-in-2012/


ISLAMIC GOMMUNISM

[An4ximandros]

Holy ****...

EDIT: Dammit Herra, You had me ruining my pants for a moment!

[redsniper]

Oh good lord. I was about to say that sounds like parody...
Secret Chechen terrorists indeed.

[AdmiralRalwood]

http://www.eutimes.net/2010/12/three-giant-spaceships-to-attack-earth-in-2012/

Man, remember last year when giant spaceships attacked?

[Mongoose]

Are we sure this isn't The Onion's sister site?

[Flipside]

Well, the UK has voted not to get involved this time, which came as a bit of a surprise because it's a coup that is seriously going to hurt David Camerons' career.

Not sure entirely how I feel about it, part of me agrees that 'he probably did it', is not a term that would stand up in any British Court. There was a motion put forward to delay the vote until more evidence was available but it was denied, which was also a pity, that was probably the wisest course to take.