[Sandwich]

In the middle of all this, things are quiet with anticipation over here (Israel for you n00bs ). We're concentrating on the normal everyday life stuff, like shopping, summer blockbuster movies, and bomb-proof kids backpacks:

[Androgeos Exeunt]

Hey, stay frosty over there, Sandwich.

[karajorma]

Meanwhile The Oatmeal pretty much sums up my reactions to this entire thing.

[MP-Ryan]

Meanwhile The Oatmeal pretty much sums up my reactions to this entire thing.

NOTE:  The following is very link heavy -not- to be condescending in response to kara, but rather to give a brief lesson to any readers unfamiliar with the historical intricacies of the situation currently unfolding.

Criticism of complacency concerning the death toll of civilians in Syria is bang-on.

Making the allusion that outrage over the use of chemical weapons in Syria is hypocritical in contrast to the reaction to the previous events is not.

It is generally accepted that, although the protection of civilians in conflicts is a laudable goal, the justification in international law for armed intervention in a foreign country without a UN resolution accepted by the Security Council is flimsy at best.  Russia and China have made it quite plain that such a resolution was and is not going to materialize.  Furthermore, we don't actually have a world police force legally justified in acting without a UN resolution.  Of course, that hasn't always stopped certain coalitions.  That generally hasn't worked out well, though.

Nobody wants to be the world police.  Nobody especially wants the Americans to be the world police - except, of course, for all the times when people do want the Americans to be the world police.

Should the UN - and by extension, NATO - have intervened earlier in Syria to protect civilians and prevent mass casualties?  IMHO, yes.  However, the broken model of the Security Council prevented that (see also:  thread title and OP).  Did people in Western countries care?  For those who followed what was going on, a lot of people did.  However, there is a difference between caring what was going on and being able to motivate people to act.

People who see irony between the reaction concerning civilian deaths generally, and the reaction concerning chemical weapons use documentation, are missing the point.  A very clear line was draw when it became apparent that the Security Council was not going to act.  There is international law that governs the use of chemical weapons (though Syria is not a signatory).  CBRNE threats (the 'c' stands for chemical) are generally considered potential weapons of mass destruction (not in the perjorative sense that took on since Iraq), and one of the reasons the use of these weapons is considered illegal in international law is because of their catalyst potential.

A much larger group of people (e.g. the population of the world) has to care about the use of CBRNE threats, particularly in uncontrolled conflict and especially against civilians.  While it is sad that people essentially don't care about the civilian death toll - as The Oatmeal rightly decries - people must care about the unforeseen consequences of actions in conflicts that violate international law and have the potential to become much worse.

[karajorma]

To be honest, I do have an issue with the whole "Use of chemical weapons must result in retaliation to ensure our safety" narrative that is being presented here. Exactly how did the West retaliate against Saddam's use of chemical weapons?

While Assad is a complete and utter ****, I'd rather he had control of his chemical weapons than **** knows who would get them if we intervene and screw things up.

[Androgeos Exeunt]

The West is hoping this won't happen if they do eventually decide to intervene. It's bound to go awry somewhere, though. It usually does.

[MP-Ryan]

To be honest, I do have an issue with the whole "Use of chemical weapons must result in retaliation to ensure our safety" narrative that is being presented here. Exactly how did the West retaliate against Saddam's use of chemical weapons?

Hussein was the subject of numerous Security Council resolutions for years, a no-fly zone was strictly enforced, and the chemical weapons use in Iraq became part of the justification for a subsequently regionally-disastrous invasion - which is kind of the point that punishing forces for using them should occur as soon as possible so it doesn't lead to a bigger mess down the road.

While Assad is a complete and utter ****, I'd rather he had control of his chemical weapons than **** knows who would get them if we intervene and screw things up.

I believe I have been pretty consistent in my assertion throughout the last 6 pages that any measures in Syria need to target chemical weapons use by and in possession of both sides in the conflict.

[karajorma]

Hussein was the subject of numerous Security Council resolutions for years, a no-fly zone was strictly enforced, and the chemical weapons use in Iraq became part of the justification for a subsequently regionally-disastrous invasion - which is kind of the point that punishing forces for using them should occur as soon as possible so it doesn't lead to a bigger mess down the road.

That's a pretty poor argument though. "We need to do something now because if we don't a later American president might use it as the trumped up reason to invade." How's about instead we simply don't do that. Cause no matter how much we bomb Syria we're still going be able to claim they have CBRN weapons that we missed.

Russia and China might be more amenable to a solution that sees Assad punished for his use of chemical weapons after the war is over. i.e something closer to what happened to Saddam. Sanctions until the UN inspectors have thoroughly crawled all over his country and up his arse might have more of an effect than semi-random strikes on places we think have weapons.


I'm not saying that's what we necessarily have to do, but I do question the fact that in 3 pages of debate no one seems to have brought up the possibility. And I do question the validity of the argument that a military option is the only possibility. The UN no-fly zones only existed to prevent further attacks on the Kurds and Shias. They didn't do much about chemical weapons. It was sanctions that had an effect on those, unpleasant as they were. 

If we're trying to avoid a bigger mess down the road, I don't think a big operation of the type you're on about has much chance of success either. Perhaps more than an occupation but we've already said that's not on the cards, so I discount the argument that it's less likely to end up in a **** up than the thing we're not going to do anyway.

[Scotty]

Or, MP-Ryan's actual argument is "We need to do something now because it will only get worse for everyone if we don't".  That seems much more likely to me, and I heartily agree.

[karajorma]

And the counter-argument I'm giving is that until Bush's madness in 2003 we were doing quite well at containing Iraq's use of chemical weapons against anyone* outside his own country. So again, I question the "We must stop him now for our own good" narrative that everyone is getting so worked up about.


*except Iran, which is why we allowed him to have chemical weapons in the first place.

[MP-Ryan]

And the counter-argument I'm giving is that until Bush's madness in 2003 we were doing quite well at containing Iraq's use of chemical weapons against anyone* outside his own country. So again, I question the "We must stop him now for our own good" narrative that everyone is getting so worked up about.

*except Iran, which is why we allowed him to have chemical weapons in the first place.

Scotty is correct on my position.

Iraq was militarily and philosophically alone, essentially.

Syria is not.  Best case scenario, Assad's forces and the current rebels do so much damage that a third player that is much more rational ends up taking power.  Other scenarios don't bear much thinking about.  The idea of a weakened Syria with a disrupted populace and unpopular government in possession of chemical weapons is a scary one, especially since Syria's government is one that has historically been willing to start foreign wars due to unrest at home - may I remind everyone about a little piece of territory known as the Golan Heights?  The idea of a Syria run by the current crop of rebels is even more frightening, and both situations are made worse by the presence of chemical weapon stockpiles.

I would be less enthused about a military strike against Syria if the Russians and Chinese would quit obstructing the business of the Security Council.  That isn't likely to happen.  Furthermore, now that chemical weapons are already flying, anything less than a forceful means of preventing further use isn't likely to work.  Note that in Iraq, the UN sanctions were enforced militarily.

All of this is notwithstanding the fact that governments or wannabe-governments that use banned weapons on civilian populations need to be shown in no uncertain terms that such behaviour is not acceptable to the international community writ large.  If the Security Council isn't doing its job, then that's part of the reason NATO exists in the first place (for those unaware, NATO was formed after it became clear that Russian and Chinese vetoes on the SC hampered any effort to stop conflicts which either of those nations tacitly or covertly supported).

Finally, we now have the public version of the report prepared by American intelligence concerning the latest attack:  http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/08/30/government-assessment-syrian-government-s-use-chemical-weapons-august-21

Note that it does not conclude Assad ordered the attack, merely that government forces were the origin of this most recent attack.  Say what you will about American intelligence justifications for military force in the [recent] past, it's difficult to believe that they would try the same sort of exaggeration again (especially as popular opinion seems to think that the whole WMDs in Iraq line was an outright lie, though it is better said to be deliberate exaggeration).

[MP-Ryan]

Feel shame, detractors! Even France has temporarily placed their white flags in storage!  In other news, David Cameron is fearful he will be forced by the Opposition to change his name to Chamberlain, even though it's not actually his fault.

(The above is firmly in jest - this thread needs some levity.  Sorry MattTheGeek, couldn't resist )

[Luis Dias]

And this discussion right here is probably and mostly a gift from the Bush administration ****ing up so badly in Iraq.

I think we should still wait for more evidence to be brought about. Even if all of the "narrative" is true, it was so badly timed and so ill-conceived that I really wonder.

For one, these guys should know that going chemical would be basically risking the livehood of the government. Then we should also ask the efficiency of such methods. Did they achieve anything they couldn't achieve by any other means? 100k lives have been lost so far. Why risk everything with an attack that has WMD all over it with so small an apparent pay-off? And why did this attack occur exactly 2 days after the inspectors have finally entered the country, two years since the war started? Think of those odds. Then suddenly you have Kerry warmongering and getting everyone psyched for the action to come.

It is fishy. I make (in my head) a ****ton of speculations, I adhere to none (not my thing). I like this kind of agnostic way of thinking (ararar). For instance, it is possible that Assad called one of his captains and said something like "These UN ****tards just arrived, lets give them a present of our own since I kinda miss watching US missiles flying over the ME!". It is also possible that the captain in question was asked to fire the damned CW before the inspectors arrived and they just kept constantly missing the deadlines and did it anyway. It is also possible that some traitor admiral (or just a maverick crazy one?) decided it was neat to **** with Assad's mind.

All of those are damned possible. But it is also possible that one rebel group decided that another one was getting too ahead of them. It is possible that this group got hold of a CW facility and decided that the best way to use them was against this other group, blame the government while we are at it and get a ****ing amazing bonus of extra US firepower against Assad. And what better timing other than when the inspectors are inside Syria?

Hell, I can go into Alex Jones territory and even imagine that such an attack had american help.

So no, I am not bought into this. The situation is messy and I want to learn more before I condone everything that USA is obviously going to do anyway.

There's also the situation of Israel. I find it interesting that Israel is pretty much absolutely shut up about this. They are quite intelligent (their last strike against two different objectives while only announcing one of them was a master stroke of genius) and I think they are doing a "This one is on you yankees".

[Sandwich]

Meanwhile The Oatmeal pretty much sums up my reactions to this entire thing.

NOTE:  The following is very link heavy -not- to be condescending in response to kara, but rather to give a brief lesson to any readers unfamiliar with the historical intricacies of the situation currently unfolding.

*SNIP*

It's posts like this one that make me want to implement the karma post rating system around here. Very well written.

There's also the situation of Israel. I find it interesting that Israel is pretty much absolutely shut up about this. They are quite intelligent (their last strike against two different objectives while only announcing one of them was a master stroke of genius) and I think they are doing a "This one is on you yankees".

Here's what Netanyahu has been saying in Hebrew (turn on English captions). Always check out what message heads of state convey to their citizens if the native language isn't English.

[karajorma]

I would be less enthused about a military strike against Syria if the Russians and Chinese would quit obstructing the business of the Security Council.  That isn't likely to happen.  Furthermore, now that chemical weapons are already flying, anything less than a forceful means of preventing further use isn't likely to work.  Note that in Iraq, the UN sanctions were enforced militarily.

Again, sanctions against Iraq worked well enough that there were no WMD's in Iraq a decade later. If the West were to push a diplomatic solution, you might see less issues from China and Russia. The problem Russia and China have is that the solutions the West have supplied are all either military or could lead to military solutions, which neither country want.

And I am somewhat suspicious about why the UN went straight to Chapter 7 on Syria. That's not usually how things are done.

All of this is notwithstanding the fact that governments or wannabe-governments that use banned weapons on civilian populations need to be shown in no uncertain terms that such behaviour is not acceptable to the international community writ large.  If the Security Council isn't doing its job, then that's part of the reason NATO exists in the first place (for those unaware, NATO was formed after it became clear that Russian and Chinese vetoes on the SC hampered any effort to stop conflicts which either of those nations tacitly or covertly supported).

Yeah, cause the US and UK would never ignore a chemical weapon attack on a civilian population if it fit with their geopolitical aims.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack#Discovery_and_response


If the West want the UN to work, how about giving up their veto too? It's not like the West hasn't been obstructionist about their use of the veto either.

Since the Security Council's inception, China (ROC/PRC) has used its veto 6 times; France 18 times; Russia/USSR 123 times; the United Kingdom 32 times; and the United States 89 times. The majority of Russian/Soviet vetoes were in the first ten years of the Council's existence. Since 1984, China and France have vetoed three resolutions each; Russia/USSR four; the United Kingdom ten; and the United States 43.

Yeah, the Russians and the Chinese are always the ones gumming up the UN with their veto.

If giving up the veto won't result in Russian and China giving up theirs, how about simply forming a new organisation where no one has the veto and simply not allowing Russia and China to join unless they agree to have the same power as everyone else. It's not like the most populated nation on Earth having no representation in the UN is entirely unprecedented.

[MP-Ryan]

Again, sanctions against Iraq worked well enough that there were no WMD's in Iraq a decade later.

Not entirely true.  There were no new chemical weapons in Iraq by 2003; there were, however, stockpiles of degraded chemical weapons and a couple biological laboratories found that were not properly declared to the UN.  But again, sanctions "worked" in Iraq because Iraq was pretty much alone and beaten to a pulp following Desert Storm.  It also wasn't in the middle of a high-stakes civil war to determine its future, which provides significant incentive to take every military advantage one can get.

If the West were to push a diplomatic solution, you might see less issues from China and Russia. The problem Russia and China have is that the solutions the West have supplied are all either military or could lead to military solutions, which neither country want.

This is true... that said, Russia has been obstructionist from the very beginning, supporting Assad and arming him.  They haven't stopped (and now everyone else is arming the rebels).  That's not advocating in good faith for a peaceful solution either.

Yeah, cause the US and UK would never ignore a chemical weapon attack on a civilian population if it fit with their geopolitical aims.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack#Discovery_and_response


If the West want the UN to work, how about giving up their veto too? It's not like the West hasn't been obstructionist about their use of the veto either.

Since the Security Council's inception, China (ROC/PRC) has used its veto 6 times; France 18 times; Russia/USSR 123 times; the United Kingdom 32 times; and the United States 89 times. The majority of Russian/Soviet vetoes were in the first ten years of the Council's existence. Since 1984, China and France have vetoed three resolutions each; Russia/USSR four; the United Kingdom ten; and the United States 43.

Yeah, the Russians and the Chinese are always the ones gumming up the UN with their veto.

If giving up the veto won't result in Russian and China giving up theirs, how about simply forming a new organisation where no one has the veto and simply not allowing Russia and China to join unless they agree to have the same power as everyone else. It's not like the most populated nation on Earth having no representation in the UN is entirely unprecedented.

You're arguing against an argument I never made.  I'd say you're setting up a strawman but I think this is likely more a case of careless reading than intentional shenanigans.

I never said that vetoes in any form were good (they are decidedly awful); what I said was that NATO was formed in direct response to the Russian and Chinese vetoes on the Security Council.  I know full well every veto-carrying member has abused it at some point; that was not the point I was making.  I was pointing out that NATO's existence is largely a result of the broken structure of the Security Council and its five permanent members.  I was simultaneously pointing out that precedent exists for NATO to act when the Security Council's uselessness is in full display for all to see, as in the present situation.

[Luis Dias]

You know, this is where ideology stings the most. The most enthusiastic and vibrant of us will always see things in these tones like these:

This is true... that said, Russia has been obstructionist from the very beginning, supporting Assad and arming him.  They haven't stopped (and now everyone else is arming the rebels).  That's not advocating in good faith for a peaceful solution either.

This is entirely true but absolutely irrelevant. It's not even morally questionable given the context. And the context is that everyone needs their own market to export their own weapons. The US is by far the greatest exporter of weapons. Now take into consideration that the second biggest importer of US weapons is .... Egypt. This month there was also a massacre perpretated by a government in which more than a thousand people died. Where was the US's outrage? The outcry?

You keep assuming a model of the geopolitical planet that I think it's just absolutely wrong. You assume that all these countries are actually independent and make their own policies and alliances. This is clearly evident when you state that China and Russia are behaving in bad faith just because they disagree into pushing Assad out of his office. But the truth of the matter is that Assad is not just "some guy" that happens to rule some crazy country. The truth of the matter is that Syria is much more important for Russia (and China) than for any other country, not only as a weapons importer but also as the most important geopolitically located country in the ME / Mediterranean.

If you stop regarding these countries as agents in a wider world and start looking to them as pawns in a big chess game with a few players only, you begin to realise that Russia can only be really commited to support Assad until the end, so as not to suffer the big loss in the major board of the ME. And they are not doing so in either "good faith" or "bad faith", but just straightforward global strategy analysis.

You're arguing against an argument I never made.  I'd say you're setting up a strawman but I think this is likely more a case of careless reading than intentional shenanigans.

But he's actually more to the point. You keep repeating this general idea that we somehow should just forget about the past and the "mistakes" (wink wink) that the US has made until now, and just decide overall which is the best idea, everyone agrees to it and there! Bam! Everything's solved!

This surprises me a bit for I really don't take you as naive. You are quite intelligent and so something escapes me here. You should understand that every political move on the international board is *NEVER* interpreted in this literal sense by any sensible influential politician "playing the game". What they are measuring is not how many people die, how we should punish this or that, how is this morally wrong or right. They are playing a game of world domination. And Syria is a damned ****ing really important pawn that the Russians have there. The hell with "humanitarian concerns". The US thinks exactly the same, but they are not the same team. Paranoia abounds. Do you really think the world will just let the US do "What Is Right" in Syria and lo and behold now they got Assad out of the power, only Iran rests as an enemy of the US in the ME?!?

I never said that vetoes in any form were good (they are decidedly awful); what I said was that NATO was formed in direct response to the Russian and Chinese vetoes on the Security Council.  I know full well every veto-carrying member has abused it at some point; that was not the point I was making.  I was pointing out that NATO's existence is largely a result of the broken structure of the Security Council and its five permanent members.  I was simultaneously pointing out that precedent exists for NATO to act when the Security Council's uselessness is in full display for all to see, as in the present situation.

It seems to me that vetoes are not "awful". They seem to me to be a quite good deterrent. Yes, prone to failure all the time, but conservative. It fails on the side of non-intervention, which is probably where it should fail into.

[karajorma]

I see that you're with me in agreeing that the entire situation in Syria is actually a lot more manufactured than MP-Ryan's argument seems to point to.

Not entirely true.  There were no new chemical weapons in Iraq by 2003; there were, however, stockpiles of degraded chemical weapons and a couple biological laboratories found that were not properly declared to the UN.

10 year old rotten food is not food. Unusable chemical weapons are not chemical weapons.

I'm well aware of what they found in Iraq.

But again, sanctions "worked" in Iraq because Iraq was pretty much alone and beaten to a pulp following Desert Storm.  It also wasn't in the middle of a high-stakes civil war to determine its future, which provides significant incentive to take every military advantage one can get.

If the West were to push a diplomatic solution, you might see less issues from China and Russia. The problem Russia and China have is that the solutions the West have supplied are all either military or could lead to military solutions, which neither country want.

This is true... that said, Russia has been obstructionist from the very beginning, supporting Assad and arming him.  They haven't stopped (and now everyone else is arming the rebels).  That's not advocating in good faith for a peaceful solution either.

It's a high-stakes civil war that we in the West made high stakes. If you keep shoving thousand dollar bills in the pocket of a gambler, you can't then complain about how the betting at the table has gotten out of hand. The West started backing the rebels long before the use of chemical weapons in the war. It's not like their use was a completely unforeseeable consequence of doing that.

Again, I get very suspicious of the way certain governments make a conflict worse and then claim the moral authority to step in to resolve it. How about not making things worse in the first place? 

You're arguing against an argument I never made.  I'd say you're setting up a strawman but I think this is likely more a case of careless reading than intentional shenanigans.

I never said that vetoes in any form were good (they are decidedly awful); what I said was that NATO was formed in direct response to the Russian and Chinese vetoes on the Security Council.  I know full well every veto-carrying member has abused it at some point; that was not the point I was making.  I was pointing out that NATO's existence is largely a result of the broken structure of the Security Council and its five permanent members.  I was simultaneously pointing out that precedent exists for NATO to act when the Security Council's uselessness is in full display for all to see, as in the present situation.

But that is in and of itself a strawman. The broken structure of the Security Council is because of the power of the veto, something which France, the US and UK don't want to give up. Arguing that the UN is useless while simultaneously hamstringing them is rather disingenuous at best, and outright Machiavellian at worst.  Especially when, as I pointed out earlier, I'm suspicious about whether the resolution that was vetoed was one deliberately chosen to be unpalatable to the Russians and Chinese.

[Flipside]

The part that concerns me is not what happens this week or next week, but next year and the year after.

The thing is, whilst this may indeed not be about picking sides, if only the Chemical Weapons ability is hit, and Assad still manages to push out the rebels, the West will be left to deal with a country whose leadership has been subject to an attack on their own soil by the Coalition. Such a Government would be almost impossible to establish Diplomatic links with in the future, especially with Russia and Iran backing it up.

If those strikes happen, then a side has been chosen intentionally or not, because the Coalition simply cannot afford to leave Assad in power after attacking his forces.

[Luis Dias]

That particular thing is way overdue anyway. The rebels have been having support by the West for years now and they still are. Assad will ignore it just as much as it will ignore the incoming missiles in future negotiations: either much, somewhat or not at all.