Israel Says It Has Proof That Syria Has Used Chemical Weapons

[The Minsky Moment]

"chain of custody"?  This is foreign policy, not a criminal prosecution.  Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is too high a standard, and I would not be inclined to presume Assad "innocent"

[Viking]

"chain of custody"?  This is foreign policy, not a criminal prosecution.  Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is too high a standard, and I would not be inclined to presume Assad "innocent"

The standard of proof isn't an absolute thing here. The standard of proof you use is based on if you were bluffing or not when you drew the red line.

[derspiess]

"chain of custody"?  This is foreign policy, not a criminal prosecution.  Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is too high a standard, and I would not be inclined to presume Assad "innocent"

You want to base foreign policy (military action, specifically) on the trustworthiness of these rebels?

[The Minsky Moment]

You want to base foreign policy (military action, specifically) on the trustworthiness of these rebels?

Nope. 
Fortunately that is not necessary.

[derspiess]

You want to base foreign policy (military action, specifically) on the trustworthiness of these rebels?

Nope. 
Fortunately that is not necessary.

So what action do you think we should take based upon this evidence?  Or do you need to hear an Obama statement on the subject before you can answer? 

[derspiess]

This looks like some relatively solid proof.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/04/sarin-tainted-blood/

No chain of custody.  We're not going to go to war on the rebels' word that the samples were taken from the actual victims in question and not tampered with.

We did ten years ago.

No.  IIRC, under the terms of the ceasefire, the Iraqis were required to prove that they had disposed of their chemical weapons, and they failed to do so.

Do you think we should intervene militarily in Syria?

[Malthus]

"chain of custody"?  This is foreign policy, not a criminal prosecution.  Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is too high a standard, and I would not be inclined to presume Assad "innocent"

The standard of proof isn't an absolute thing here. The standard of proof you use is based on if you were bluffing or not when you drew the red line.

My read of the situation is that the US has no intention of boots-on-the-ground in Syria at this time, as long as they stick to killing each other and don't stray beyond their borders. It would not matter if Assad personally send Obama a signed affidavit confessing to using Sarin pinned to a Syrian orphan dead of Sarin poisioning.

[Kleves]

Won't Obama have to do something if it turns out chemical weapons were used, if only for domestic political reasons?

[Viking]

Do you think we should intervene militarily in Syria?

Yes. I think we should give weapons, training and intelligence to anybody fighting against our enemies and we should bomb our enemies. Assad and The Nusra Front are definitively our enemies. I say screw the pottery barn rule. If any faction in Syria wants any kind of surviving society, government and military they need do their very best to satisfy us that they are good guys.

The west does need to re-think it's attitude to war. We only fight when diplomacy has been exhausted and talking is pointless. The problem here is that in asserting that you are basically admitting that negotiating a peace deal is pointless as well. All are wars are total, not for us, but for our enemy at least. Ask yourself, when was the last time a western army let a defeated enemy live?

Basically if you are not evil we will negotiate, if you are evil we will destroy you. There is a threshold there that once met moves us from bending over backwards to reach a deal to resolutely destroying the enemy. I don't think Milosevic, The Taliban, Saddam or Qaddafi understood this. I don't think anybody outside the west understands this and few in the west do either.

The west has a clear line between war and peace. Those who cross this line without cause are considered monsters. I don't think the ROTW has that same dichotomy. I think they have a third category which includes what we might call cold peace and rival/competitor. Call that third category raiding. It is violence/posturing short of war. We don't have that category in the west and see it is a violation of peace. The ROTW sees it as a means of testing strength short of war and an opportunity to gain glory and honor.  By not responding to raiding we are seen as weak which encourages more raiding and when we respond we respond totally out of proportion which makes us seem brutal, malevolent, unpredictable and possibly acting on some conspiracy since our behavior is otherwise incomprehensible.

"Among other evils which being unarmed brings you, it causes you to be despised."

We may not be unarmed, but too often we act as if we were towards people testing to see if we will respond with arms.

Assad and Nusra are our enemies. Strangely both think that the other is in league with us. To be blunt, the logic for intervening in Syria is that both sides think they are fighting against us and that victory in their little shithole over our other enemy is a victory against us in their own minds.

[Malthus]

Won't Obama have to do something if it turns out chemical weapons were used, if only for domestic political reasons?

Is there a domestic constituency likely to demand that he do something? Maybe he will authorize sales of weapons to rebels or lob a couple of drones, but I doubt he will send in the marines.

[Viking]

Won't Obama have to do something if it turns out chemical weapons were used, if only for domestic political reasons?

There is no conclusive evidence of the use of Chemical Weapons and we will not rush to war without getting our facts straight first. The american people will never again allow themselves to be herded into a war based on a lie or incomplete evidence.

6 months later

We condemn this use of chemical weapons, but since every body involved is dead there is little we can do.

[Kleves]

Is there a domestic constituency likely to demand that he do something?

I imagine the Republicans will throw a shit-fit. Also, I think there is some credibility cost generally if Obama does substantially nothing after all his bluster about red lines, game changers, etc.; especially because this is not the only situations in which Obama has employed this same rhetoric.

[derspiess]

Yes. I think we should give weapons, training and intelligence to anybody fighting against our enemies and we should bomb our enemies. Assad and The Nusra Front are definitively our enemies. I say screw the pottery barn rule. If any faction in Syria wants any kind of surviving society, government and military they need do their very best to satisfy us that they are good guys.

That could lead to bombing pretty much everybody.  How do we single out al-Nusra from their allies and attack only them?

I say let the fire burn itself out.

[Ed Anger]

Bomb everybody.

[derspiess]

Is there a domestic constituency likely to demand that he do something?

I imagine the Republicans will throw a shit-fit.

Just the neo-con types, plus a few opportunists.  We paleoconservatives will certainly support a non-interventionist policy.