Massive use of chemical weapons in Syria, 1,429 killed including 426 children

[11B4V]

What the hell you been watching.

Everything except the geezers.

It would appear not.

[Admiral Yi]

It would appear not.

OK Grab On.

[The Minsky Moment]

Ideally Obama should have attacked (missiles/bombs) immediately (1-3 days) when evidence of chemical weapons use was found, ideally with prearranged support from France and/or Britain.  Failing that there should have been a delayed attack (missiles/bombs, 4-7 days) with attempts to gather support.  Failing that there should have been increased military and humanitarian support for the less psycho rebel factions and setting up of covert raids using their help to destroy the chemical stockpiles that could be identified. 

Any of those would have been viable courses of action.   It also would have been viable to say we considered a military strike and concluded it would have no useful effect in the present circumstances but all options are open and we may act as appropriate at a time and place of our choosing.  Maybe not optimal but viable.

Drawing the line in the sand in an area far from vital to US interests was a big error in the first place, but having done so there was a year to do some basic contigency planning about what to do if the line was crossed.  Clearly that was never done, unless the plan was "improvise and flail about in confusion".

[The Minsky Moment]

the bad guys peed their pants and ran away.

When did that happen?

[Admiral Yi]

When did that happen?

Sometime late last week?  I was on vacation at the time and not paying that much attention to dates and such.

[crazy canuck]

Clearly that was never done, unless the plan was "improvise and flail about in confusion".

Yeah, that is the thing that is the most damning.  There was a strongly worded warning not to use chemical weapons but then everyone involved in issuing the warning appears to have been caught off guard that they were actually used.  It seems apparant the working assumption was that the warning would be enough and no further thought was given to other potential outcomes.

[The Minsky Moment]

Sometime late last week?  I was on vacation at the time and not paying that much attention to dates and such.

Has Assad given up his chemical weapons? No.
Is he going to anytime soon? No.
Is there anything stopping him from using them again? No.
Has his position in the war been compromised? No on the contrary the US decision to negotiate protocols with him state-to-state arguably enhances his claim to legitimacy.
Has he or his regime been prejudiced in any way?  Not that I can see.

[The Brain]

Vogue says Assad is A-OK.

[KRonn]

More importantly for him, he has made Russia relevant on the world stage, and not as a mere spoiler.

This I think is the most important aspect, while all the attention is on what the US and Pres Obama are doing or might do regarding an attack, or the diplomacy over Syria giving up WMDs. Russia gains in the Mid East by having more influence and stature over all through negotiating this issue. Russia helps Assad greatly here, and so gains big with Syria's ally Iran as well. Since Russia has been mostly on the opposite side with US, European moves on Iranian nuke development this adds to Russia's influence. If Iraq can be pulled into that orbit as it becomes closer to Iran that's another potentially big plus for Russia. 

[Admiral Yi]

Is there anything stopping him from using them again? No.

Of course there is.  Both Assad and his principle sponsor have publicly committed to a process that will prevent their use.  Assad has shown that he can be deterred by credible threats.

[Berkut]

Assad has shown that he can be deterred by credible threats.

[Admiral Yi]

Serious.  The US was discussing strikes, Putin proposed a means to verify that Assad will not use chems.  How else would you interpret it?

[Maximus]

Of course there is.  Both Assad and his principle sponsor have publicly committed to a process that will prevent their use.  Assad has shown that he can be deterred by credible threats.

I don't think most people consider those commitments credible.

[Malthus]

Clearly that was never done, unless the plan was "improvise and flail about in confusion".

Yeah, that is the thing that is the most damning.  There was a strongly worded warning not to use chemical weapons but then everyone involved in issuing the warning appears to have been caught off guard that they were actually used.  It seems apparant the working assumption was that the warning would be enough and no further thought was given to other potential outcomes.

Worse, the working assumption appears to have been that an international consensus of some sort was necessary to enact the threat already made - and then Obama could not obtain the consensus.

He should either have obtained the consensus in advance of the threat, gone ahead and delivered on the threat without the consensus, or have avoided making the threat in the first place.

[Berkut]

Serious.  The US was discussing strikes, Putin proposed a means to verify that Assad will not use chems.  How else would you interpret it?

The point of striking was not to prevent use of chemical weapons, but to punish the use of chemical weapons.

The "credible threat" was made months ago, and Assad clearly was not deterred by it.

I guess we could make more threats, but since we didn't follow through on the first one, I don't see how additional ones can be presumed to be MORE credible than the one we backed off from, and I certainly don't see how we can presume that Assad (much less anyone else) is more likely to be deterred by what, by definition, must be seen as a less credible threat.