Israel Says It Has Proof That Syria Has Used Chemical Weapons

[Viking]

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.

I say attack anybody allied to al-Nusra as a matter of principle.

[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.

I say attack anybody allied to al-Nusra as a matter of principle.

So then you would attack everyone involved

[Viking]

So then you would attack everyone involved

Yes, any anti-Assad group which doesn't immediately stab nusra in the back and any pro-Assad group that doesn't immediately stab assad in the back.

[Warspite]

If you want to intervene in Syria, intervene. That's fine. But don't make it another Iraq.

What is not needed is another distortion of intelligence in justifications for war. That's partly what the reticence over declaring the red line crossed is about.

We don't even need a CW red line to be crossed. Assad has demonstrated, like other before him, that bullets and artillery are as cruel a means as any other of butchering one's own population.

[The Minsky Moment]

So what action do you think we should take based upon this evidence? 

Exactly the action that is being taken as per the story

Or do you need to hear an Obama statement on the subject before you can answer? 

I guess we'll never know b/c he already made it.   

[Viking]

If you want to intervene in Syria, intervene. That's fine. But don't make it another Iraq.

What is not needed is another distortion of intelligence in justifications for war. That's partly what the reticence over declaring the red line crossed is about.

We don't even need a CW red line to be crossed. Assad has demonstrated, like other before him, that bullets and artillery are as cruel a means as any other of butchering one's own population.

CW are pretty useless against trained troops or untrained troops in open terrain. I agree about the intelligence. If we had no intention of doing anything if the red lines were crossed then whoever drew them was criminally irresponsible. However, those lines were drawn. That means this isn't actually about the CW, it is about the deterrence values of red lines.

[The Minsky Moment]

If you want to intervene in Syria, intervene. That's fine. But don't make it another Iraq.

What is not needed is another distortion of intelligence in justifications for war. That's partly what the reticence over declaring the red line crossed is about.

That's true but . . .
The problem in Iraq was the politicization of the intel gathering  and interpretation process as manifested in pressure to fit the evidence to the desired conclusions.  That is obviously not a good thing but I don't see any reason to conclude that is what is happening here.  If anything the Obama administration appears to be biased towards non-intervention and accordingly is treating the evidence with caution.

The problem with Iraq was NOT that a decision was made based on incomplete or not entirely conclusive evidence.  Decisions often have to made on imperfect evidence.  And a decision not to act is just as much a decision as a decision to act.

[Admiral Yi]

Obama has the political advantage that his own constituency is not all concerned about the credibility of threats.

[garbon]

Obama has the political advantage that his own constituency is not all concerned about the credibility of threats.

That's probably fair.

[dps]

So while the Israeli statement is still vague, it is apparently backed up by other sources -- and it's not like the UK, France and Israel have ever collaborated secretly on Middle Eastern adventures.

I assume that this was meant sarcastically, no?

[Sheilbh]

Do you think we should intervene militarily in Syria?

If chemical weapons are being used, yes. Probably through military aid to the rebels, maybe the creation of some no-fly/safe zones for civilians and maybe target the weapons or their delivery method and remove that capability from the regime.

Having said that the US and UK governments have said they're not quite happy with the intelligence they're getting. I think it's right to wait for that higher level of confirmation before intervening.

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

No. Which domestic constituency will give a shit? The neo-cons have been pushing for more action on Syria for years, I can't see anyone else being swayed.

[Razgovory]

Obama has the political advantage that his own constituency is not all concerned about the credibility of threats.

Question:  What threats?

[Admiral Yi]

Question:  What threats?

"Red line."

[jimmy olsen]

"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.

Military intervention in this situation has never included boots on the ground, so I don't see your point. That doesn't mean he won't bomb the hell out of Assad if pressed.

[Razgovory]

Question:  What threats?

"Red line."

Ah okay.  Well it is vague.  Personally I see no advantage in intervening.  I like Assad better then his enemies.  If the war went on for another 10 years, that would be fine.  Of course, I didn't see much advantage in the Libya thing, and that worked out better then I expected.