[SypheDMar]

This post was in response to Lorric's.

What?

As humanitarians, we absolutely have to intervene. As cosmopolitans we have to intervene. Just because Russia is holding the UN hostage does not mean that the rest of the world does not support the cause. Even Iran condemns chemical weapons (with known reason). If we do a limited strike and if we do it right, we can actually remove the tainted image of what we did in 2003.

It would be ideal if we could have multilateral support, with UN and the British. Right now, we may have the French, the Finns, and Israel. But this isn't a popularity contest, and we are going in full well that it is not a profitable endeavor. We know full well that, despite what the senate hearing says, regime change is a bad idea.

Ryan is right. If we let the Holocaust and Rwanda and Serbia/Bosnia repeat, "never again" means jack ****. The UN means jack ****. And we are giving every other country free reigns to start gassing its own people. As a cosmopolitan, I cannot stand for that. The liberal in me accepts that this is a case in which I have to be a hawk about. Hopefully, we can stay focused on only doing a very limited engagement.



---------------------

The US and the UN may indeed not care, but I as a person do. Many Syrian Americans also want the US to do something, though the degree varies from a limited strike to a regime change. Iran condemns chemical weapons. The prime minister of the UK was expecting support for a possible engagement until it was denied by Parliament. It might not be a popular support, but it is a humanitarian one.

As for a legal basis for intervention: the world has a responsibility to protect. It doesn't matter if it is Auschwitz, Darfur, or any of the times we failed to help civilians from genocide. The responsibility and the legality is there. We can choose to ignore it or accept it. We have a right to intervene.

I can see intervention being problematic if it is stretched in a long period, but not intervening against the use of chemical weapons on civilians is giving Syria the go ahead to do it again. And again. And again. We can stop it now, or we can let it continue until an unspecified future, like Darfur. Or we can ignore it altogether and keep a clean conscience.

In this lose-lose situation, there is a moral high ground: uphold the purpose of the UN. Even if the intention is different, allowing the UN to fail is, dare I say, a sin.


Edit: I can see several differences between this and Iraq.

First, aside from McCain and those like him, many in Congress from both spectrum are cautious of putting boots in the ground. Many are also cautious about allowing military use too, so there is expected limits. The military advisors seem to be wary of full scale invasion as well. And since nobody wants to repeat the blunder of Bush and his intelligence team, those who have seen the photos have not simply taken Obama's word for granted. There are pictures of civilians affected. So unlike the WMD, we have actual proof.

[Lorric]

(Remember Baghdad? As a fan of history that's something that annoys me greatly)

You're talking about what the Mongols did, not something we did, right?

[JCDNWarrior]

The response to a limited strike may not be so limited. Iran and Syria have already stated they'd be aiming their weapons on Israel, for instance, nor do I expect the cruise-missile armed ships to survive against the modern weaponry installed by the Russians. The escalation will in best cases be a hot proxy war which at the current state is very likely to result in initial defeat on the side of the USA (and allies), at worst conventional WW3.

In regards to Bagdad, I mean this.

In response to SyphedMar:

I understand what you're saying, as a person I would like there to be some solution, immediately in fact, to be applied with as minimal damage as possible and one that settles both sides. This is however not something that can be achieved, especially not from the outside. As a human I want all the fighting in the world to stop, the Libyan and Syrian civil war to end and I want every human to succeed at life and happiness. I see the beauty of life and want to see it preserved. This is however not the opinion of those that actually call the shots, who don't give a damn about the environment, about other humans but only care about their own careers, their own bottom lines, their own clients, their own desire for wealth, power and control. That's why my initial response may seem so cold and uncaring for the people I mentioned don't think like a caring person would.

I would also like the U.N. to uphold their publicly published purpose, the rights of all human beings to life, liberty and happiness. These are important declarations. The solution has to be political, though and contain, among other things the denunciation, identification and dissolution of the foreign fighters active in Syria attacking ancient Christian and Jewish communities alike (as well as other Arab communities not of the same sect as theirs). I don't care much for Assad but attacking the entire country is not the solution at all.

In short, what I, and you, want morally has sadly no say in the matter as it's not about pure humanitarianism but it's a war of conquest like any other that imperialism has brought throughout the ages - there's absolutely nothing new under the sun and it's important to identify the Syria crisis as another chapter rather than what we as caring people want or demand of the U.N.

I hope that clarifies my stance now I could finally voice my opinion on the topic.

[Flak]

So BF3 indeed came true, except it is in Syria rather than Iran.

[Lorric]

In regards to Bagdad, I mean this.

Oh. I didn't know about that.

One more tragedy to add to the list...

[karajorma]

As humanitarians, we absolutely have to intervene.

And do what exactly? What are we going to do as humanitarians that is going to make the situation any better?

[SypheDMar]

To start, do something about the use of chemical weapons. The option currently being discussed is better than the alternative of doing nothing.

JCDN: I acknowledged that politicking plays a part in this (McCain as an obvious example), but I'd like to think we learned a bit since 2003: that Wilsonian nation building does not work and is largely unprofitable.

[Sandwich]

Meantime, Israel is "a coffee shop in a slaughterhouse": http://www.timesofisrael.com/a-coffee-shop-in-a-slaughterhouse/

The most interesting thing about that article is the account of all the various sides that are arising against each other in the Middle-East. I hate to say it but I found myself laughing at the ridiculousness of it all as I read it.

We've all been thinking about large-scale interventions and their effectiveness (or lack thereof). Why has no-one considered the perhaps cliche but still feasible "007" solution? Have a surgical team eliminate Assad, and (somehow - don't ask me how) replace him with someone who can and will put the Syrian army on-hold. Hopefully - and it's a long shot - the rebels would agree to stop fighting if they are assured of internationally-monitored national reforms implemented by the government.

This solution sounds insane, I know, but it seems to be the only one that doesn't come with the horrendous "side effects" that the larger-scale military options do.

[SypheDMar]

If anyone is doing it, nobody will talk about it. Like 007.

[Sandwich]

"...The Mossad sends their regards"? *runs*

[StarSlayer]

The United States "officially" proscribed political assassination as of Executive Order 12333. 

[karajorma]

To start, do something about the use of chemical weapons. The option currently being discussed is better than the alternative of doing nothing.

I stated a viable third alternative. Which is to make a threat about what will happen if they are used again.

[SypheDMar]

I have to apologize for gleaming over your post. It does sound very pragmatic and unemotional. It's unfortunate that this isn't on the table, at least not for the politicians.

My only issue is that it forces a heavier commitment in the future than now. And if it doesn't, then we just allowed one side to use chemical weapons again when it would've been stopped earlier had option 1 been applied.

[Bobboau]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/06/us-syria-crisis-usa-iran-idUSBRE98504120130906

the word powder keg comes to mind...

[Bobboau]

also
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/05/us-syria-crisis-usa-rebels-idUSBRE98405L20130905

[Scotty]

To start, do something about the use of chemical weapons. The option currently being discussed is better than the alternative of doing nothing.

I stated a viable third alternative. Which is to make a threat about what will happen if they are used again.

And then what happens when the bluff is called, or worse the other side simply doesn't care?  Time is wasted, lives are lost unnecessarily, and initiative is willingly surrendered.  None of those are good things.  And in the meantime we're supposed to hope that a maniacal dictator and the various groups of murdering rebels that only hate him marginally more than they hate each other just sort of play nice when it comes to tossing gas?

I hope you'll excuse me when I say that I don't think your third alternative is truly viable.

[Luis Dias]

To start, do something about the use of chemical weapons. The option currently being discussed is better than the alternative of doing nothing.

I stated a viable third alternative. Which is to make a threat about what will happen if they are used again.

That's out of the table as viable though. If Obama were to make that speech even I would laugh at him, Tehran would be crying their pants off, heart attacks left and right just for the comedic shockwave.

[karajorma]

Yes, unfortunately it's probably too late for it now. But, if it had been made before the "Let's bomb Syria" rhetoric had started, it might have worked.

[Luis Dias]

Ross Douthat makes a good article in the NYT.

I suggest anyone interested to read it:

http://douthat.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/03/syria-and-the-pax-americana/?ref=rossdouthat

I would go this far with my imaginary address: The justification that I have the president cite — that we should sometimes be willing to use military force “to limit the ambitions of bad actors and keep them successfully boxed in” — seems like the best justification by far for U.S. military action in situations where there isn’t a direct threat to America’s homeland or to our close allies. The best, and maybe the only one. As I wrote recently in the context of Egypt and Libya, I do not believe that the United States should have a policy of taking sides in internal conflicts where neither side obviously deserves our support, because history suggests that great powers generally have much more to lose than to gain from entangling themselves militarily with local factions in complicated conflicts. Nor do I think much of the so-called “responsibility to protect” as a justification for humanitarian intervention, not least because the evidence that such interventions actually save lives in the aggregate is relatively weak: They’re just as likely to embolden outgunned rebellions and accelerate attacks on civilians by the government being targeted. Nor, finally, do I support military intervention as a kind of map-rearranging tool of statesmanship: The costs in blood and treasure are too high, and American power too limited, to treat regime change and nation building as tasks to be undertaken outside of truly extraordinary, aftermath-of-World-War-II-type circumstances.

[MP-Ryan]

Rather than going back to page 8 and responding to kara and luis in detail, I'm going to pick up where the discussion has gone (so my apologies if I miss responding to one of the details you two started talking about).

In my opinion, Sandwich has hit the nail if not precisely then at least closer than some other speculation.  Several pages ago I alluded to some specialized units that are funded by various NATO countries.  I haven't forgotten about that.

Some of you seem to think that past screwups mean that present action is a poor idea.  In hindsight, perhaps arming the rebels wasn't a great idea.  Personally, I thought Syria should have received the Libya treatment - a government that fires on civilian protestors quickly learns that it will no longer have modern military equipment to fire on the protestors with because they just got flattened by NATO / Arab league airpower.  That was two years ago.

Now, we have the situation today.  I'll recap it again for anyone in the audience not paying attention:
1.  Chemical weapons attacks have occurred FOUR TIMES in the last 12 months.
2.  Both the Syrian government and the rebels have been implicated in said strikes.
3.  Assad's forces have targeted civilian populations directly in military strikes, before the rebels were established and after.
4.  Arguably, the more desperation faced by any one side, the more likely they are to use chemical weapon stockpiles (historical precedent for this).  Ergo, ceasing logistical support to the rebels will increase the odds of greater chemical weapons attacks.  Similarly, decimating government forces without eliminating chemical weapon stockpiles will also increase the odds of attacks.
5.  The Syrian government hates everyone but Russia, China, and Iran.
6.  The Syrian rebels are highly divisive, but the dominant factions likely to win out if the rebels took power hate everyone but Iran and Al-Qaeda.
7.  Everyone in authority positions in Syria pretty much despises the West, and will continue to do so.
8.  Damascus is a mere stones' throw from the Israeli border, and much as the Syrian rebels and government despise each other AND the West, if there's anyone they hate more it's actually the Israelis.  Who happen to also be much hated by Iran.

If we stop arming the rebels, government forces will destroy them and continue the campaign against civilians (religion has only tangentially entered the discussion via linked sources so far, but let me remind everyone that Assad's government is Baath and a minority in Syria; he has no love of the protesting civilians, which are primarily from different Islamic sects and will happily use military force on said civilians to secure his power base.  This we do know; this is why I assert that more civilians die without intervention because an Assad victory WILL specifically target civilians).

Now that chemical weapons have been openly used by both sides, we face the problem of escalation.  With swift, severe denouncement of the chemical weapons use with actual consequences - which diplomacy has failed to muster for two years - there is no incentive to not use them further.  In fact, now that the line was drawn, backing down emboldens both sides.  After all, if we promised consequences and failed to deliver them this time, chances are we won't do it next time.  This is called appeasement diplomacy and it doesn't work.  It never has worked.  Britain has tried it numerous times and it has ALWAYS, without fail, backfired and made things worse.

So - strikes into Syria.

It seems that a number of people around here - and public opinion generally - is that strikes are going to be cruise missiles targeting Assad and this is a bad thing.  I happen to agree.  I also note that this is not what NATO forces appear to be gearing up for, though Assad's forces are being listed as the primary target.

What I suspect will happen - and hope will happen - is a series of missile strikes covering up the deployment of special forces units specifically targeting all known and possible sites of chemical weapons storage in Syria to specifically destroy those stockpiles maintained by both sides.  Much like Afghanistan and Iraq (and countless operations before), it would not surprise me in the slightest to learn that elements from SAS / JTF2 / SEAL / Ranger / Delta Force / Mossad / Force Recon or a variety of other units with names the general public won't recognize in the slightest have been parked in Syria for months before now.  The probability that they have not been is quite low, considering the precedents set from the early 1980s to the present.  Furthermore, I expect we will see specific targeting of Assad's more advanced military hardware capable of delivering chemical weapons strikes (as the majority of the stockpiles appear to remain in the hands of the Syrian government).  Expect to see helicopter staging areas and artillery / launchers specifically targeted.  This is the form that I think intervention should take and probably will take.  Also, the proposition that NATO forces (specifically naval assets) would be lost or heavily damaged in such an intervention is ludicrous.

A few of you keep talking about how the humanitarian justification is bull****.  It's hypocrisy, but it isn't bull****.  There are very good reasons why the West should be intervening to protect civilians (and luis, much as you say this isn't Rwanda or Sbrenica yet, just watch what would happen if we quit arming the rebels; while murder on religious grounds and affiliation isn't technically genocide, it's close enough).

Regardless, my desire to see a strike in Syria is not motivated primarily by civilian deaths.  I think it's an important issue, and it justifies action, but the primary justification in my mind is that chemical weapons attacks need to be denounced and stopped right now before they spread any further, which is an eminently pragmatic position.  If these attacks go any further, there is a very real risk of the Syrian civil war expanding across the Middle East.  While Iran is already egging on terrorist groups to strike American assets in the Middle East if a strike in Syria occurs, no one will risk actual national military confrontation (least of all the Iranians) over NATO intervention in Syria.  If, on the other hand, a chemical weapon strikes hits in or close to Israel, or even targets Israel, all bets on Middle Eastern stability are off.  If Israeli forces deploy openly beyond their national borders right now, the Middle East will explode.