Looks like Assad may be testing the waters to see if chemical weapons really are an uncrossable red line.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/24/world/middleeast/israel-says-syria-has-used-chemical-weapons.html?_r=0
Quote
Israel Says It Has Proof That Syria Has Used Chemical Weapons
TEL AVIV — Israel declared Tuesday that it had found evidence that the Syrian government repeatedly used chemical weapons last month, arguing that President Bashar al-Assad was testing how the United States and others would react and that it was time for Washington to overcome its deep reluctance to intervene in the Syrian civil war.
In making the declaration — which went somewhat beyond recent suspicions expressed by Britain and France — Israeli officials argued that President Assad had repeatedly crossed what President Obama said last summer would be a "red line." But Obama administration officials pushed back, saying they would not leap into the conflict on what they viewed as inconclusive evidence, even while working with allies on plans to secure the weapons if it appeared they were about to be used or handed to Hezbollah.
The declaration from Israel's senior military intelligence analyst was immediately questioned in Washington. Officials said an investigation was necessary, but added that American intelligence agencies had yet to uncover convincing evidence that an attack on March 19, and smaller subsequent attacks, used sarin gas, a deadly agent that Syria is believed to hold in huge stockpiles.
"We are looking for conclusive evidence, if it exists, if there was use of chemical weapons," Jay Carney, the White House press secretary, said when pressed on the Israeli assessment.
In a briefing in Tel Aviv, an Israeli military official was vague about the exact nature of the evidence, saying that it was drawn from an examination of photographs of victims and some "direct" findings that he would not specify.
Secretary of State John Kerry suggested there were mixed messages emerging from Israel, saying that he spoke to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Tuesday morning and that the Israeli leader "was not in a position to confirm" the intelligence assessment. Israeli officials said they would not try to explain the apparent difference between Mr. Netanyahu's statement and that of his top military intelligence officials.
At the same time, Daniel B. Shapiro, the American ambassador to Israel, said that contingency plans to address the use of chemical weapons in Syria were "very much part" of the discussions between Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and his Israeli counterpart here on Monday.
The Israeli intelligence analyst, Brig. Gen. Itai Brun, told participants at a security conference in Tel Aviv that the Syrian government "has increasingly used chemical weapons." That echoed accusations that Britain and France made in a letter last week to the secretary general of the United Nations, calling for a deeper investigation.
"The very fact that they have used chemical weapons without any appropriate reaction," General Brun said, "is a very worrying development, because it might signal that this is legitimate."
General Brun's statements were the most definitive to date by an Israeli official regarding evidence of possible chemical weapons attacks on March 19 near Aleppo, Syria, and Damascus, the capital. Another military official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said that the evidence had been presented to the Obama administration but that it had not fully accepted the analysis.
None of the assertions — by Israel, Britain or France — have included physical proof. Experts say the most definitive way to prove the use of chemical weapons is to collect soil samples promptly at the site and examine suspected victims.
A senior Defense Department official noted that "the use of chemical weapons in an environment like Syria is very difficult to confirm." He added: "Given the stakes involved, low-confidence assessments by foreign governments cannot be the basis for U.S. action. The president has clearly stated that the use of chemical weapons would be a game changer. Thus, we must be absolutely confident of use before determining how to respond."
That will not be easy. The Syrian government, which has accused insurgents of using chemical weapons and has requested that a United Nations forensics team investigate, has refused to allow that team to enter the country because of a dispute over the scope of its inquiry.
Mr. Kerry, at a meeting of NATO foreign ministers in Brussels, urged that members of the alliance be ready to respond if it was determined that Syria had in fact used chemical weapons.
But after his phone call with Mr. Netanyahu he told reporters, "I don't know yet what the facts are," adding, "I don't think anybody knows what they are."
Israeli military officials insisted at an annual conference of the Institute for National Security Studies, one of the country's leading research institutes, that after a month of investigations they now understand what happened. General Brun said, "It is quite clear that they used harmful chemical weapons." He cited "different signs," including photographs of Syrians "foaming at the mouth." In a briefing after those comments, another Israeli military official said it was believed that the attacks involved sarin gas, the same agent used in a 1995 assault on the Tokyo subway system that killed 13.
The Syrian attacks killed "a couple of dozens," the military official said, in what Israel judged as a test by Mr. Assad of the international community's response. He said that the government had deployed chemicals a handful of times since then, but that the details and effectiveness of those attacks were sketchier.
"Their fear of using it is much lower than before using it," the official added. "If somebody would take any reaction, maybe it would deter them from using it again."
The public statements regarding the attacks, made days after the British and French governments wrote to Secretary General Ban Ki-moon of the United Nations saying they, too, had evidence of chemical weapons, could complicate the situation for Washington.
If the United States has been more reluctant than its allies to come to firm conclusions about chemical weapons, it may be because such proof could force Mr. Obama's hand. In August, the president told reporters that any evidence that Mr. Assad was moving the weapons or making use of them could prompt the United States to act.
"That would change my calculus," he said. "That would change my equation."
Mr. Obama's aides have since amended his statement, saying that he was referring to major use of chemical weapons — akin to what Saddam Hussein employed against the Kurds two decades ago — or the transfer of weapons to terrorist groups. Mr. Hagel's spokesman, George Little, said in Amman, Jordan, where Mr. Hagel arrived on Tuesday, that the president's warnings remained in place.
"We reiterate in the strongest possible terms the obligations of the Syrian regime to safeguard its chemical weapons stockpiles and not to use or transfer such weapons to terrorist groups like Hezbollah."
The United States has made efforts to gather evidence from the field in Syria, but with few apparent results. Majid, a rebel commander from the eastern suburbs of Damascus, said recently that his battalion had been contacted, through intermediaries, by the Central Intelligence Agency, requesting samples to be tested for the presence of chemicals. Speaking via Skype from Jordan, and on the condition that he be identified only by his first name for his safety, Majid said that the C.I.A. had requested soil, urine and hair samples from several areas around Damascus.
#ProTip: if you're going to assert that a major red line for international action has been crossed, you need more than
Quotean Israeli military official was vague about the exact nature of the evidence, saying that it was drawn from an examination of photographs of victims and some "direct" findings that he would not specify.
They're foaminfg at the mouth, what more do you want .?
It would help if you title and article matched up better. Title says proof, the artcle says they are kind of wishy washy. We need to keep our powder dry for Iran, cause that day is coming up soon.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 24, 2013, 05:43:44 AM
It would help if you title and article matched up better. Title says proof, the artcle says they are kind of wishy washy. We need to keep our powder dry for Iran, cause that day is coming up soon.
After 2 yeatrs of Civil War, I really doubt that the air defence network of Syria is anywhere near as formidible as IRan's ,.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 24, 2013, 05:03:04 AM
They're foaminfg at the mouth, what more do you want .?
Soil samples? Surveillance evidence of transfer, preparation and loading of CW warheads? Intercepted communications?
I'm not defending the regime, but if we are to declare that this red line has been crossed, we should have more to go on than vague statements by the Israelis.
The French and the Brits have also voiced suspicions haven't they?
How do you propose to obtain soil samplse and such in the midst of a vicisous civil war?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 24, 2013, 05:03:04 AM
They're foaminfg at the mouth, what more do you want .?
How about the actual evidence. Nebulous phrases like "different signs" and unpublished photos described as showing "foaming at the mouth" don't really constitute evidence. The former means nothing and the latter is subject to interpretation.
Right now it seems like the israelis are stretching the scant evidence they have to try and confront obama's red line, possibly with implications vis a vis obama's red line on iran.
If the Israelis have real evidence they should present it and if they don't they should keep silent about it since not doing so only damages their credibility.
It isn't just the Isrealis though, it's the Brits and French as well.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 24, 2013, 06:42:37 AM
It isn't just the Isrealis though, it's the Brits and French as well.
QuoteIn making the declaration — which went somewhat beyond recent suspicions expressed by Britain and France
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 24, 2013, 06:22:30 AM
How do you propose to obtain soil samplse and such in the midst of a vicisous civil war?
We have spies in Syria don't we? Shouldn't be too hard to pick up a bag of dirt.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 24, 2013, 06:22:30 AM
The French and the Brits have also voiced suspicions haven't they?
How do you propose to obtain soil samplse and such in the midst of a vicisous civil war?
Well, MI6 has people in Syria right now, as do a number of other government crisis-response organisations. These people take risks every day: they could get a soil sample if needed.
:o Once the red line has been crossed, there's only the turquoise line and the fuchsia line left before they get to the really serious colors.
Quote from: Kleves on April 24, 2013, 08:58:13 AM
:o Once the red line has been crossed, there's only the turquoise line and the fuchsia line left before they get to the really serious colors.
Yet another reason Gheys shouldn't be allowed in international diplomacy.
We must not allow a Pantone gap. :mad:
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 24, 2013, 05:03:04 AM
They're foaminfg at the mouth, what more do you want .?
Evidence that it is not one of about a dozen other conditions that can cause foaming at the mouth on death, including but not limited to epilepsy, heart attack, snake bite, and rabies.
As Viking already said, the Israelis (as well as the British and French) need to put up or shut up. If they have suspicions about specific incidents they should certainly investigate them and share their intelligence with the US and others who could help. However, they need to stuff the public pronouncements until
after they solidify something.
Fact is that unless Syria unleases a cloud of doom on one of its neighbours, no one will give a shit no matter what they may say otherwise. They could gas thousands of their own folks, it still would not make getting permanently sucked into boots-on-the-ground in Syria any more attractive.
The Israelis are whistling in the wind on this. Even if they could prove it to everyone's satisfaction, the US is unlikely to actually do much of anything, because they don't wanna.
Quoting from the Financial Times today:
Quote[Britain and France] informed the UN that there was credible evidence that Syria has used chemical weapons . . . [They] cited soil samples, witness interviews and opposition sources to support the charges. They said the regime had used chemical weapons in or near the cities of Homs, Aleppo or Damascus.
:contract:
I also don't get what the Israeli motivation would be to make this up. Whatever their problems with Assad, it's not like they are eager to see the opposition groups rise to power.
The argument that the Isrealis should "put up or shut up" also makes no sense; it's not like Syria is going to allow Israeli inspectors in to do tests.
The party that needs to put up or shut up is Assad and the UN. On the UN side, to demand inspections. On Assad's side, to permit them. The evidence already is sufficient to justify that.
Otherwise we may as well admit that that the prohibitions on use of chemical weapons are a dead letter.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 24, 2013, 01:32:19 PM
Quoting from the Financial Times today:
Quote[Britain and France] informed the UN that there was credible evidence that Syria has used chemical weapons . . . [They] cited soil samples, witness interviews and opposition sources to support the charges. They said the regime had used chemical weapons in or near the cities of Homs, Aleppo or Damascus.
:contract:
I also don't get what the Israeli motivation would be to make this up. Whatever their problems with Assad, it's not like they are eager to see the opposition groups rise to power.
The argument that the Isrealis should "put up or shut up" also makes no sense; it's not like Syria is going to allow Israeli inspectors in to do tests.
The party that needs to put up or shut up is Assad and the UN. On the UN side, to demand inspections. On Assad's side, to permit them. The evidence already is sufficient to justify that.
Otherwise we may as well admit that that the prohibitions on use of chemical weapons are a dead letter.
It's a dead letter. No-one wants to get involved in Syria.
The Syrians must know that by now. They can do whatever they want to their own people, the UN will make noises, the US will make noises, but nothing will happen. If they step outside Syria, bets are off.
Is chemical weapons where Obama drew the line? I haven't thought much about Syria lately and my memory is failing me.
The only reason that I can see that Israel is involved is to make sure that nobody does anything about it. The Israelis know full well that few people will believe them and that nobody, not even the US, really trusts them.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 24, 2013, 01:32:19 PM
Quoting from the Financial Times today:
Quote[Britain and France] informed the UN that there was credible evidence that Syria has used chemical weapons . . . [They] cited soil samples, witness interviews and opposition sources to support the charges. They said the regime had used chemical weapons in or near the cities of Homs, Aleppo or Damascus.
:contract:
I also don't get what the Israeli motivation would be to make this up. Whatever their problems with Assad, it's not like they are eager to see the opposition groups rise to power.
The argument that the Isrealis should "put up or shut up" also makes no sense; it's not like Syria is going to allow Israeli inspectors in to do tests.
The party that needs to put up or shut up is Assad and the UN. On the UN side, to demand inspections. On Assad's side, to permit them. The evidence already is sufficient to justify that.
Otherwise we may as well admit that that the prohibitions on use of chemical weapons are a dead letter.
I've been a bit fuzzy on Israeli motivations for the last few years now. I think the wish washy way this is being presented indicates that the Israeli government is divided on the issue.
Well, having just checked, it is true that the UK and France have outlined concerns that nerve agents have been used (as opposed to other, much less harmful agents that fall under the Chemical Weapons Convention, like riot gas). 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.
Jokes aside, looks like Obama's red line might have been crossed so we might well see what his interpretation of "game changer" is.
Quote from: Warspite on April 25, 2013, 04:07:00 AM
Well, having just checked, it is true that the UK and France have outlined concerns that nerve agents have been used (as opposed to other, much less harmful agents that fall under the Chemical Weapons Convention, like riot gas). 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.
Jokes aside, looks like Obama's red line might have been crossed so we might well see what his interpretation of "game changer" is.
Strongly worded letters?
Seriously though, I may be evil, but I don't want American intervention in this. It is horrible but once the surely islamist-heavy opposition wins, non-islamotard parts of the world will be in a much bigger problem than now.
Quote from: Malthus on April 24, 2013, 09:42:55 AM
Fact is that unless Syria unleases a cloud of doom on one of its neighbours, no one will give a shit no matter what they may say otherwise. They could gas thousands of their own folks, it still would not make getting permanently sucked into boots-on-the-ground in Syria any more attractive.
The Israelis are whistling in the wind on this. Even if they could prove it to everyone's satisfaction, the US is unlikely to actually do much of anything, because they don't wanna.
If they gassed thousands of their own folks, or even could be proved definitely to have killed hundreds like that I think Obama would have a lot of pressure to launch an air campaign or lose credibility due to his prior statements.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 25, 2013, 06:51:00 AM
Quote from: Malthus on April 24, 2013, 09:42:55 AM
Fact is that unless Syria unleases a cloud of doom on one of its neighbours, no one will give a shit no matter what they may say otherwise. They could gas thousands of their own folks, it still would not make getting permanently sucked into boots-on-the-ground in Syria any more attractive.
The Israelis are whistling in the wind on this. Even if they could prove it to everyone's satisfaction, the US is unlikely to actually do much of anything, because they don't wanna.
If they gassed thousands of their own folks, or even could be proved definitely to have killed hundreds like that I think Obama would have a lot of pressure to launch an air campaign or lose credibility due to his prior statements.
Unfortunately, we are quite likely to see. Who seriously thinks that the Syrian government will simply give in to the bayonet-up-the-butt treatment for leaders rather than using all its weaponry, if it is pushed to the wall?
My own guess is that unless the use of gas is so undeniable and widespread that it simply
cannot be overlooked, particularly if they use gas outside of Syria itself, what you will see is a 'we will set up a commission to study the situation' or some such. Maybe lob a missile or drone.
After all, killing thousands of Syrian civilians is nothing new or remarkable for this government.
Quote from: Malthus on April 25, 2013, 08:21:54 AM
Unfortunately, we are quite likely to see. Who seriously thinks that the Syrian government will simply give in to the bayonet-up-the-butt treatment for leaders rather than using all its weaponry, if it is pushed to the wall?
My own guess is that unless the use of gas is so undeniable and widespread that it simply cannot be overlooked, particularly if they use gas outside of Syria itself, what you will see is a 'we will set up a commission to study the situation' or some such. Maybe lob a missile or drone.
After all, killing thousands of Syrian civilians is nothing new or remarkable for this government.
It rarely comes to bayonets up the butt because leaders usually call it a day and escape to some country that will give them asylum. Presumably that is still an option? I think a rational actor would rather skip town instead of make a last stand with nerve gas.
Quote from: alfred russel on April 25, 2013, 08:57:37 AM
It rarely comes to bayonets up the butt because leaders usually call it a day and escape to some country that will give them asylum. Presumably that is still an option? I think a rational actor would rather skip town instead of make a last stand with nerve gas.
The problem is that virtually nobody is a rational actor. People are dealing with immediate problems, mostly reactively. Root cause analylsis and problem resolution is not only hard but usually very costly (in terms of political capital) and in most cases the rationalisation is, "yes this is the cause of the problem but because of all these other problems we have to deal with we can only afford the cheap short term solution". This is why deep reforms either happen in revolutions (where reforms often cost negative political capital) or in crises.
Quote from: alfred russel on April 25, 2013, 08:57:37 AM
Quote from: Malthus on April 25, 2013, 08:21:54 AM
Unfortunately, we are quite likely to see. Who seriously thinks that the Syrian government will simply give in to the bayonet-up-the-butt treatment for leaders rather than using all its weaponry, if it is pushed to the wall?
My own guess is that unless the use of gas is so undeniable and widespread that it simply cannot be overlooked, particularly if they use gas outside of Syria itself, what you will see is a 'we will set up a commission to study the situation' or some such. Maybe lob a missile or drone.
After all, killing thousands of Syrian civilians is nothing new or remarkable for this government.
It rarely comes to bayonets up the butt because leaders usually call it a day and escape to some country that will give them asylum. Presumably that is still an option? I think a rational actor would rather skip town instead of make a last stand with nerve gas.
The problem in Syria isn't simply a meglomaniac leader, but the fact that the leader's family lead his whole minority ethnic clan into power - the Alawites. They form like 11% of the population and have been lording it over the rest as a result of the Assad family ascendancy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alawites
The leader may well wish to escape for a life of luxurious exile, perhaps a Russian Dacha or whatever, but he can hardly take 11% of the population with him, and they *may* have little to lose from fighting to the last ditch - particularly as their most likely opponents are going to be Islamoid fundies who consider them not only hated regime collaborators, but also heretics from orthodox Islam as well.
BTW, this adds to US reluctance to get involved. What if the US crushes the Syrian gov't, and the rebels the US supported end up engaging in an Islamic pogrom against the Alawites as a result - which is not an impossible scenario? Involvement may end up with an unlimited commitment to rule the place just to avoid the humiliation of being complicit in massacre.
Well, cnn sez WH sez that sarin has been used.
We are now at BONERCON 4.
Some seriously confused messaging going on by the administration right now.
CNN is beating the war drums.
Quote from: Warspite on April 25, 2013, 11:17:06 AM
Some seriously confused messaging going on by the administration right now.
Like we've never seen that before :lol:
Hagel interview can be seen here.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/25/17913974-white-house-us-believes-syrian-regime-used-chemical-weapons?lite
QuoteBy Kristen Welker, Jim Miklaszewski, Courtney Kube and Tracy Connor, NBC News
The White House said Thursday that the U.S. believes "with some degree of varying confidence" the Syrian government has used chemical weapons — specifically the nerve agent sarin — against its own people.
A letter from the White House to members of Congress said the assessment was based on "physiological samples" but called for a United Nations probe to corroborate it and nail down when and how they were used.
"We are continuing to do further work to establish a definitive judgement as to whether or not the red line has been crossed and to inform our decision-making about what we'll do next," a White House official said.
"All options are on the table in terms of our response," the official added.
Secretary of State John Kerry told reporters at the Capitol that the U.S. believes chemical weapons were used twice, but the letter doesn't specify that.
"Our intelligence community does assess with varying degrees of confidence that the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons on a small scale in Syria, specifically the chemical agent sarin," the letter said.
"We do believe that any use of chemical weapons in Syria would very likely have originated with the Assad regime," it added.
"Thus far, we believe that the Assad regime maintains custody of these weapons, and has demonstrated a willingness to escalate its horrific use of violence against the Syrian people."
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel said he had not seen the evidence supporting the assessment, but added that use of chemical agents "violates every convention of war."
Sarin is a man-made nerve agent that has been used in terrorist attacks in Japan and possibly during the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control. In large doses, it can cause convulsions, paralysis and death.
The U.S. has long believed that Syria was stockpiling chemical weapons. Intelligence reports indicate that it has sarin and the nerve agent tabun along with traditional chemicals like mustard gas and hydrogen cyanide. A 2011 CIA report said Syria was also developing the potent nerve agent VX, which could render a city uninhabitable for days.
Syria's information minister, Omran al-Zoubi, said in an interview with Russian TV that the government has not and will not use chemical weapons and blamed potential evidence of their existence on "armed terrorist groups," the state news agency reported.
A spokesman for the rebel Free Syrian Army, Fahd Almasri, claimed Syria has launched chemical attacks in nine places and was poised to do so again at the Lebanon border and in Damascus "when Assad knows he is finished."
"Now is the moment to find a solution very quickly," Almasri told NBC News in a phone interview.
President Obama has said the verified use of chemical weapons by the regime would be a "red line" and a "game-changer" for U.S. and international military intervention in the Syrian civil war.
"Precisely because the President takes this issue so seriously, we have an obligation to fully investigate any and all evidence of chemical weapons use within Syria," said the letter, which was signed by Obama's legislative director, Miguel Rodriguez.
The letter was a response to a request from a bipartisan group of senators who asked the White House for answers after the Israeli military's top intelligence analyst cited photographs of people "foaming from the mouth" as evidence of chemical weapons use.
Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, called the development "deeply troubling."
"While more work needs to be done to fully verify this assessment...it is becoming increasingly clear that we must step up our efforts," Corker said.
"I should make clear, however, that it if it comes to the use of military force, before the president takes any action to commit U.S. forces to any effort in Syria or elsewhere, I expect him to fully consult with the Senate and seek an authorization for the use of military force."
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said the assessment could spark a dangerous reaction from Damascus.
"I am very concerned that with this public acknowledgement, President Assad may calculate he has nothing more to lose and the likelihood he will further escalate this conflict therefore increases," Feinstein said.
The White House official called for a high level of scrutiny — but also caution.
"Given our own history with intelligence assessments, including intelligence assessments related to weapons of mass destruction, it's very important that we are able to establish this with certainty and that we are able to present information in a way that is airtight," the official said.
NBC News' Kasie Hunt, Kelly O'Donnell, Robert Windrem and Charlene Gubash contributed to this story
Quote from: Malthus on April 25, 2013, 10:08:59 AM
BTW, this adds to US reluctance to get involved. What if the US crushes the Syrian gov't, and the rebels the US supported end up engaging in an Islamic pogrom against the Alawites as a result - which is not an impossible scenario? Involvement may end up with an unlimited commitment to rule the place just to avoid the humiliation of being complicit in massacre.
It's not just Alawites, if the Assad regime falls there won't be a single extented Christian family left in the country with a few short years.
All the other minorities are likely to fare rather badly, goodness what will happen with the Kurds in the North-East.
Incidentally, has anyone been checking on the casualty figures being collected by the various human rights/NGOs ?
The latest figures I saw, showed a couple of interesting trends, namely rebel and government casualties are very similar in total, to with a few hundred dead.
And the good/bad news item, relatively few genuine civilians have been killed as compared to those involved in the fighting, by this I mean they were well under 50% of the total.
The bad news component of that, we often see civilian deaths in civil wars outnumber military deaths by multiples, perhaps ten to one. So the potential is there for the Syrian civil war to get an awful lot more bloody, women and children becoming the major victims.
A side note, my impression it the rebels have played a blinder by mobilising social media, especially youtube/video services, to tell the 'story' of massive civilian casualties.
This looks like some relatively solid proof.
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/04/sarin-tainted-blood/
QuoteSyrian Blood Tests Positive for Sarin Gas, U.S. Spies Say
By Noah Shachtman and Spencer Ackerman
04.25.13
1:11 PM
Updated 4:49 p.m.
The U.S. intelligence community has uncovered strong evidence that chemical weapons have been used in Syria. Several blood samples, taken from multiple people, have tested positive for the nerve agent sarin, an American intelligence source tells Danger Room. President Obama has long said that the use of such a weapon by the Assad regime would cross a "red line." So now the question becomes: What will the White House do in response?
In March, the Assad regime was accused of using chemical weapons during an attack on the city of Aleppo. The blood samples were taken by Syrian opposition groups from alleged victims of that strike. But American analysts can't be entirely sure where the blood came from or when the precisely exposure took place.
"This is more than one organization representing that they have more than one sample from more than one attack," the source tells Danger Room. "But we can't confirm anything because no is really sure what's going on in country."
What's clear is that the samples are authentic, and that the weapons were almost certainly employed by the Assad regime, which began mixing up quantities of sarin's chemical precursors months ago for an potential attack, as Danger Room first reported.
"It would be very, very difficult for the opposition to fake this. Not only would they need the wherewithal to steal it or brew it up themselves. Then they'd need volunteers who would notionally agree to a possibly lethal exposure," the source adds.
The U.S. military tests for evidence of nerve gas exposure by looking for the presence of the enzyme cholinesterase in red blood cells and in plasma. (Sarin messes with the enzyme, which in turn allows a key neurotransmitter to build up in the body, causing rather awful muscle spasms.) The less cholinesterase they find, they more likely there was a nerve gas hit.
The problem is, some pesticides will also depress cholinesterase. So the military employs a second test. When sarin binds to cholinesterase it loses a fluoride. The pesticides don't do this. This other test exposes a blood sample to fluoride ions, which reconstitutes sarin if it's there, in which case it can be detected with mass spectrometry.
Blood samples are drawn from a pricked finger tip into a 10 milliliter tube. They can be kept fresh for about a week before they have to be used in the blood analyzer, a gizmo about the size of a scientific calculator that produces varying shades of yellow depending on the cholinesterase level.
According to the Financial Times, one blood sample was analyzed by American analysts, while the other was examined by Britain's Defence Science Technology Laboratory.
Exactly when the results came back isn't clear. But only days ago, the Obama administration was throwing cold water on reports from Israeli and British officials of chemical weapon use in Syria. ("We have not come to the conclusion that there has been that use," White House spokesman Jay Carney said on Tuesday.) But that changed Thursday morning, when the White House issued a letter (.pdf) to Senators Carl Levin and John McCain confirming the sarin discovery.
"Our intelligence community does assess with varying degrees of confidence that the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons on a small scale in Syria, specially the chemical agent sarin. This assessment is based on physiological samples," the letter reads. "Our standard of evidence must build on these intelligence assessments as we seek to establish credible and corroborated facts. For example, the chain of custody is not clear, so we cannot confirm how the exposure occurred and under what conditions."
It's not at all clear how the Obama administration will now respond. While everyone from the President on down has warned the Assad regime not to use its chemical arms, the White House has been extremely careful not to "pin the administration down on any particular course of action while at the same time not giving Assad any comfort," Steven Simon, who served as the National Security Council's director for the Mideast until December, tells Danger Room. "There's no automaticity to any response."
That was underscored by a White House official briefing reporters on background on Thursday afternoon. The official, who refused to be quoted by name, said that the next step for the administration would be "further investigation," including by the United Nations, to confirm that chemical weapons were used deliberately by the Assad regime.
But the U.N. is already looking into the claims that chemical weapons were used during the March attack in Aleppo. One of the many reasons that the Obama administration has been very careful about going public with these sarin reports is that they're worried about spoiling that U.N. inquiry. "It could bias the investigation and hurt the U.N.'s ability to get in country," the intelligence source tells Danger Room.
The White House official said it would be premature to declare that Obama's red line has been crossed. "It's precisely because we take the red line seriously that we feel like there needs to be clear, factual, evidentiary bases for our decisions," the official said. "Given our own history with intelligence assessments, including intelligence assessments related to weapons of mass destruction" — a reference to the infamous incorrect assertions that Saddam Hussein possessed stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons before the Iraq invasion — "it's very important that we are able to establish this with certainty."
Members of Congress with access to intelligence immediately went further.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), the chairwoman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, issued a statement saying, "It is clear that 'red lines' have been crossed and action must be taken to prevent larger scale use." Feinstein appeared to mean military action to remove Assad from power: "I urge the United Nations Security Council — including Russia — to finally take strong and meaningful action to end this crisis in Syria."
Her House counterpart, Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.), was a bit more cautious. "President Obama correctly said that Syria's use of chemical weapons would be a red line for the United States," Rogers said in his own statement this afternoon. "Now that we have confirmed their use, the question is what is our plan for transition to a post-Assad Syria? I have laid out several steps, short of boots on the ground. The world is waiting for American leadership."
Quote from: mongers on April 25, 2013, 07:16:36 PM
Incidentally, has anyone been checking on the casualty figures being collected by the various human rights/NGOs ?
The latest figures I saw, showed a couple of interesting trends, namely rebel and government casualties are very similar in total, to with a few hundred dead.
And the good/bad news item, relatively few genuine civilians have been killed as compared to those involved in the fighting, by this I mean they were well under 50% of the total.
The bad news component of that, we often see civilian deaths in civil wars outnumber military deaths by multiples, perhaps ten to one. So the potential is there for the Syrian civil war to get an awful lot more bloody, women and children becoming the major victims.
A side note, my impression it the rebels have played a blinder by mobilising social media, especially youtube/video services, to tell the 'story' of massive civilian casualties.
I'm not sure where you get your numbers. At the "Casualties of the Syrian civil war" page at Wikipedia the various sources are reasonably consistent with a total of 70,000 dead (plus minus 10,000 depending on source) and of these up to 50,000 were identified as civilians.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Syrian_civil_war
So now it appears there will be a likely intervention, the US/NATO, maybe UN but that depends on Russia and China going along. I'm not happy over another US involvement in another very messy situation. Given how the radicals have joined the rebels I almost want Assad to retain power now. It'd be either a nasty secular dictatorship continuing or a new nasty theocratic dictatorship if the rebels win, with a lot more bloodshed of "undesirables" having to exodus the country if the rebels win and the extremists gain some power, which is likely they would if they're helping to win the fight.
Quote from: KRonn on April 26, 2013, 08:33:08 AM
So now it appears there will be a likely intervention, the US/NATO, maybe UN but that depends on Russia and China going along. I'm not happy over another US involvement in another very messy situation. Given how the radicals have joined the rebels I almost want Assad to retain power now. It'd be either a nasty secular dictatorship continuing or a new nasty theocratic dictatorship if the rebels win, with a lot more bloodshed of "undesirables" having to exodus the country if the rebels win and the extremists gain some power, which is likely they would if they're helping to win the fight.
Given it's status as a french former colony I suggest we let the french take the lead and therefore we will be able to completely ignore the UN.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 26, 2013, 02:12:03 AM
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.
Quote from: derspiess on April 26, 2013, 08:57:56 AM
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.
:rolleyes: Ok, Mr Waffle-Obama
Quote from: derspiess on April 26, 2013, 08:57:56 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 26, 2013, 02:12:03 AM
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.
Quote from: derspiess on April 26, 2013, 08:57:56 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 26, 2013, 02:12:03 AM
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.
Assuming that they have tissue samples as well. Artificial lungs can oxygenate blood so putting sarin instead of oxygen into one of those machines can artificially create sarin tainted blood samples. We don't even know if this happened recently since blood can be preserved and I'm pretty sure nobody has studied the effects of sarin poisoning on blood preservation.
"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"
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 26, 2013, 09:27:35 AM
"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.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 26, 2013, 09:27:35 AM
"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?
Quote from: derspiess on April 26, 2013, 09:41:25 AM
You want to base foreign policy (military action, specifically) on the trustworthiness of these rebels?
Nope.
Fortunately that is not necessary.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 26, 2013, 09:58:18 AM
Quote from: derspiess on April 26, 2013, 09:41:25 AM
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? :P
Quote from: Razgovory on April 26, 2013, 09:22:57 AM
Quote from: derspiess on April 26, 2013, 08:57:56 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 26, 2013, 02:12:03 AM
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?
Quote from: Viking on April 26, 2013, 09:38:12 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 26, 2013, 09:27:35 AM
"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.
Won't Obama have to do something if it turns out chemical weapons were used, if only for domestic political reasons?
Quote from: derspiess on April 26, 2013, 10:25:37 AM
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.
Quote"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.
Quote from: Kleves on April 26, 2013, 10:45:27 AM
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.
Quote from: Kleves on April 26, 2013, 10:45:27 AM
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.
Quote from: Malthus on April 26, 2013, 10:54:31 AM
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.
Quote from: Viking on April 26, 2013, 10:52:39 AM
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.
Bomb everybody.
Quote from: Kleves on April 26, 2013, 11:06:36 AM
Quote from: Malthus on April 26, 2013, 10:54:31 AM
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.
Quote from: derspiess on April 26, 2013, 11:07:23 AM
Quote from: Viking on April 26, 2013, 10:52:39 AM
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.
Quote from: Viking on April 26, 2013, 11:22:11 AM
Quote from: derspiess on April 26, 2013, 11:07:23 AM
Quote from: Viking on April 26, 2013, 10:52:39 AM
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 :lol:
Quote from: derspiess on April 26, 2013, 11:24:44 AM
So then you would attack everyone involved :lol:
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.
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.
Quote from: derspiess on April 26, 2013, 10:01:13 AM
So what action do you think we should take based upon this evidence?
Exactly the action that is being taken as per the story
QuoteOr do you need to hear an Obama statement on the subject before you can answer? :P
I guess we'll never know b/c he already made it. :D
Quote from: Warspite on April 26, 2013, 11:44:14 AM
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.
Quote from: Warspite on April 26, 2013, 11:44:14 AM
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.
Obama has the political advantage that his own constituency is not all concerned about the credibility of threats.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 26, 2013, 04:51:26 PM
Obama has the political advantage that his own constituency is not all concerned about the credibility of threats.
That's probably fair.
Quote from: Warspite on April 25, 2013, 04:07:00 AM
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?
Quote from: derspiess on April 26, 2013, 10:25:37 AM
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.
QuoteWon'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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 26, 2013, 04:51:26 PM
Obama has the political advantage that his own constituency is not all concerned about the credibility of threats.
Question: What threats?
Quote from: Malthus on April 26, 2013, 10:39:16 AM
Quote from: Viking on April 26, 2013, 09:38:12 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 26, 2013, 09:27:35 AM
"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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 26, 2013, 07:07:14 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 26, 2013, 07:05:24 PM
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on April 26, 2013, 07:07:14 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 26, 2013, 07:05:24 PM
Question: What threats?
"Red line."
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.punchcartoons.com%2Fimages%2FM%2F1935.08.14.183.jpg&hash=265afe7e238966de51dd161c7aa6db902a518c4a)
I don't think Assad will invade Ethiopia anytime soon.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 27, 2013, 10:36:28 AM
I don't think Assad will invade Ethiopia anytime soon.
The ambiguity is in the response, not the prohibited action.
The worry is that chemical weapons become perceived (even moreso) as WMD-lite and other regimes are less reluctant than Assad to use them in similar situations.
Of course I think the current response of waiting for more intelligence is the right one, but we need plans drawn up.
The worry about what happens after Assad is fair. But, frankly, I can't think of any good outcomes right now.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 27, 2013, 05:50:05 PM
The worry is that chemical weapons become perceived (even moreso) as WMD-lite and other regimes are less reluctant than Assad to use them in similar situations.
Of course I think the current response of waiting for more intelligence is the right one, but we need plans drawn up.
The worry about what happens after Assad is fair. But, frankly, I can't think of any good outcomes right now.
I'm with you on that, but you can thing of much worse outcomes, can't you ?
We should just bomb all known stockpiles.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10022753/Syria-Al-Qaedas-battle-for-control-of-Assads-chemical-weapons-plant.html
QuoteBy Colin Freeman
6:00PM BST 27 Apr 2013
Comments84 Comments
Set amid the rolling plains outside Aleppo, the town of al-Safira looks just like another vicious battleground in Syria's civil war. On one side are lightly-armed rebels, on the other are government troops, and in between is a hotly-contested no-man's land of bombed-out homes and burned-out military vehicles.
The fight for al-Safira is no ordinary turf war, however, and the prize can be found behind the perimeter walls of the heavily-guarded military base on the edge of town. Inside what looks like a drab industrial estate is one of Syria's main facilities for producing chemical weapons - and among its products is sarin, the lethal nerve gas that the regime is now feared to be deploying in its bid to cling to power.
Last week, Washington said for the first time that it had evidence of Sarin being used in "small" amounts during combat operations in Syria, a move that President Barack Obama has long warned is a "red line" that President Bashar al-Assad must not cross.
But as the West now ponders its response, the fear is not just that President Assad might start using his chemical arsenal in much greater quantities. Of equal concern is the prospect of it falling into even less benign hands - a risk that the stand-off at al Safira illustrates clearly.
For among the rebel lines in al-Safira flutters the black flag of the al-Nusra Brigade, the jihadist group that recently declared its allegiance to al-Qaeda. Known for their fighting prowess honed in Iraq, they are now taking the lead in nearly every frontline in the Syrian war, and earlier this month, pushed to within just over a mile of al-Safira, only to for the Syrian troops to regain the ground last week.
Should the tide of battle turn in al-Nusra's favour again, though, there is the possibility of the West's worst-case scenario unfolding - Syria's weapons of mass destruction falling into al-Qaeda's control. More than 500 times as toxic as cyanide and deadly in milligram-sized doses, a single canister of sarin could unleash carnage if released on a Tube network in London or New York.
Such grim possibilities are now uppermost in the minds of Western officials as they try to work out how to prevent Syria's vast chemical stockpiles being unleashed, be it by President Assad on his own people, or by his more extreme opponents on the outside world.
Yet it is not just at al-Safira that the danger lies. As the Syrian uprising has intensified in the past year, the regime has been secretly moving its stockpiles to weapons dumps all over the country, much of which it barely controls anymore. Nobody knows, therefore, when or where a cache might be captured by the opposition's more militant factions.
"The West may be saying: 'A red line has been crossed, let's do something'. But the question is what exactly can they do?" said Dina Esfandiary, an expert on Syria's WMD programme with the International Institute for Strategic Studies, the London-based defence and security think-tank. "Syria's stockpiles of chemical weapons are huge, and President Assad has done a very good job of hiding them all over the country."
The Syrian regime's chemical warchest is indeed vast - the biggest in the Middle East, and the fourth largest in the world. Started in the 1970s ranks with help from Syria's Cold War sponsor, Russia, today its programme includes facilities for making mustard gas, sarin and another nerve agent, VX, which stays lethal for much longer after dispersal.
In charge of the programme is the innocuous-sounding Scientific Studies and Research Centre outside Damascus, a body officially tasked with academic research. In practice, it reports directly to President Assad and operates a string of chemical production facilities, some allegedly developed with help from Iran and North Korea.
As Syria has not signed the international Chemical Weapons Convention, it has never declared details of its stockpiles to the outside world. But outside intelligence estimates reckon that Damascus has between 100 and 200 warheads filled with sarin for its Scud missiles, and thousands of chemical artillery bombs filled with sarin and VX.
Bashar al-Assad (AFP)
Nobody outside the Assad regime now knows for certain where the stockpiles are now: the contents of the plant at Safira, for example, may have been moved to other, more secret storage spaces for safekeeping. But that uncertainty adds to the challenge. With such a vast arsenal scattered nationwide, the West would face a formidable task were it to attempt to secure it by force.
In December, the Pentagon told the Obama administration that it would require upward of 75,000 troops - almost half the number it took to topple Saddam Hussein. Such numbers would amount to an invasion in everything but name, and would doubtless attract hostility from both of Syria's warring sides.
An alternative would be smaller, ad hoc strikes of the sort that Israel has already admitted to doing to stop the weapons falling into the hands of its Lebanon-based enemy Hezbollah, whose Assad-backed fighters are now in Syria helping defend the regime. But these would not be practical for a large-scale neutralisation of the country's chemical threat, according to Ms Esfandiary.
"Airstrikes aren't reliable because they can just release all the chemical agents into the air," she said. "Alternatively, they only do half the job and then render a secure site open to looters."
Nor, she added, would quick-fire raids by small teams of special forces be an alternative. "You would have to first secure the sites and then do a careful analysis of what was there, followed by controlled explosions. It is, frankly, a labour intensive job, and that is why the Pentagon assessed it as requiring 75,000 men.
"Besides, there may be any number of caches hidden all over the place, and even if you could look for them properly - which is difficult with a civil war going on - you would run the risk of some being left behind."
Not all the sites represent a genuine danger. Some store only the basic component chemicals, which must be mixed first before being weaponised, processes which require technical know-how. But others have cannisters full of battle-ready nerve agents, which could be operated in crude fashion simply by breaking them open.
"They might not be quite as effective in amateur hands, but the fact is that they are containers full of very nasty stuff, and if they were opened on a Tube train it would very dangerous," said Ms Esfandiary. "As an instrument of terror, they also have a fear factor that more conventional weapons don't have."
Despite that, many analysts believe that the "red line" is now simply being blurred rather than crossed. With only limited evidence of Sarin use so far, they suspect Damascus is deliberately using such weapons just occasionally to test - and gradually undermine - Washington's resolve. President Assad, they reason, knows all too well that a major chemical attack would leave the US no option but to take action. But successive, smaller ones are a harder call, while still having the desired effect of spreading terror among Damascus's foes.
Outside of Syria, it also has another desired effect - underlining the differences between Mr Assad's opponents in the West. Last week, the hawkish US Republican senator, John McCain, who lost to Mr Obama in the 2008 presidential race, called on America to send in troops to secure factories such as al Safira. But Mr Obama shows no enthusiasm for doing so, and this weekend he even appeared to adjust his language slightly, saying that America would not permit the "systematic" use of chemical weapons. Critics pointed out that proscribing the use of chemical weapons on a "systematic" basis is not the same as proscribing their use altogether.
Yesterday, the Syrian information minister, Omran al-Zohbi, described the US claims of chemical weapons use as a "barefaced lie", insisting that for both legal and "moral" reasons, Damascus would never deploy them. But with Syria's civil war escalating daily, nobody - least of all a Syrian government minister - can guarantee that al Safira's deadly concoctions will remain safe forever.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 28, 2013, 12:55:23 AM
We should just bomb all known stockpiles.
"We"? Are you volunteering?
Quote from: Syt on April 28, 2013, 12:58:47 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 28, 2013, 12:55:23 AM
We should just bomb all known stockpiles.
"We"? Are you volunteering?
To press the button launching tomahawk missiles? Yes. :menace:
I didn't know Puerto Rico had those now.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 27, 2013, 05:50:05 PM
The worry is that chemical weapons become perceived (even moreso) as WMD-lite and other regimes are less reluctant than Assad to use them in similar situations.
That would only be a worry if non-proliferation were a basic and fundamental tenet of US foreign policy and the US took a firm, inflexible global leadership role about it.
Chemical weapons lack the destructive power of nukes. The difference between gassing your people and using machetes doesn't seem very important.
Oh, this would be a lovely scenario: al-Nusra capturing a chemical weapons facility or stockpile :(
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10022753/Syria-Al-Qaedas-battle-for-control-of-Assads-chemical-weapons-plant.html
Quote from: derspiess on April 29, 2013, 03:07:25 PM
Oh, this would be a lovely scenario: al-Nusra capturing a chemical weapons facility or stockpile :(
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10022753/Syria-Al-Qaedas-battle-for-control-of-Assads-chemical-weapons-plant.html
Yeah, I wonder were they'd turn up ?
My first guess is if it get overrun then, possible in Iraq against the government forces/ Shia civilians there. :unsure:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 26, 2013, 09:27:35 AM
"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"
Hey, check this out. From the president's press conference:
Quote"What we now have is evidence that chemical weapons have been used in Syria."
"We don't know how they were used, when they were used, who used them. We don't have a chain of custody that establishes [who used them]..."
"If we end up rushing to judgment without hard effective evidence... there may be objections even among some in the region sympathetic with the opposition... it's important for us to do this in a prudent way.
:D
Quote from: derspiess on April 30, 2013, 10:24:47 AM
Hey, check this out. From the president's press conference:
President may be too weaselly about this. We shall see. If if he still futzing about with evidentiary standards a month from now, then US credibility will take a hit.
Well, he's got a point: we don't know if it's been pro-Assad forces or rebels. We can suspect, but we can't confirm just yet.
And chain of custody in this context is all about empirical determination of fact, you Benghazitards.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 30, 2013, 10:36:07 AM
President may be too weaselly about this. We shall see. If if he still futzing about with evidentiary standards a month from now, then US credibility will take a hit.
70,000 are already dead. I don't think credibility is an issue anymore.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 30, 2013, 10:38:02 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 30, 2013, 10:36:07 AM
President may be too weaselly about this. We shall see. If if he still futzing about with evidentiary standards a month from now, then US credibility will take a hit.
70,000 are already dead. I don't think credibility is an issue anymore.
Yeah, but who cares? These assholes deserve each other. If intervened we'd be trying to kill them. Much cheaper for them to kill each other.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 30, 2013, 10:36:07 AM
Quote from: derspiess on April 30, 2013, 10:24:47 AM
Hey, check this out. From the president's press conference:
President may be too weaselly about this. We shall see. If if he still futzing about with evidentiary standards a month from now, then US credibility will take a hit.
You gotta admit, I scored a rare point there. GIVE ME MY DUE
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 30, 2013, 10:37:02 AM
Well, he's got a point: we don't know if it's been pro-Assad forces or rebels. We can suspect, but we can't confirm just yet.
And chain of custody in this context is all about empirical determination of fact, you Benghazitards.
I think you're missing my point. I mentioned the absence of a chain of custody the other day and Joan took exception to it.
Quote from: derspiess on April 30, 2013, 10:44:00 AM
You gotta admit, I scored a rare point there. GIVE ME MY DUE
You keep assuming I am 100% for Obama, when in fact it is closer to 93.4% ;)
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 30, 2013, 10:52:00 AM
Quote from: derspiess on April 30, 2013, 10:44:00 AM
You gotta admit, I scored a rare point there. GIVE ME MY DUE
You keep assuming I am 100% for Obama, when in fact it is closer to 93.4% ;)
Not even that-- just that I called "chain of custody" ahead of time.
But yeah, it is also one of those rare neat little events where I'm pretty much on the president's side and you're not.
Quote from: derspiess on April 30, 2013, 11:00:09 AM
Not even that-- just that I called "chain of custody" ahead of time.
It was in the story that Jimmy posted just before.
But I'll take your word you didn't see it there and give you credit for indepedent discovery. You can be the Alfred Russel Wallace of Syrian skepticism.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 30, 2013, 11:06:49 AM
It was in the story that Jimmy posted just before.
Damn. I don't read Tim's articles for the most part. We dealt with chain of custody a lot when I worked for a DNA lab, so that's why it came to mind.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 30, 2013, 11:06:49 AM
Quote from: derspiess on April 30, 2013, 11:00:09 AM
Not even that-- just that I called "chain of custody" ahead of time.
It was in the story that Jimmy posted just before.
But I'll take your word you didn't see it there and give you credit for indepedent discovery. You can be the Alfred Russel Wallace of Syrian skepticism.
Be careful with that Wallace reference. Wallace is in an old tradition of scientists having a couple of good ideas and then spending the rest of their careers on nonsense like Pauling with his silly idea that Vitamin C cured cancer, Newton focused on alchemy, Einstein on Crust slippage Wallace spent most of his career after gaining fame and non-fortune studying spiritualism alongside the likes of Arthur Conan Doyle.
Then again, this might be the best analogy to Timmay yet.
Quote from: derspiess on April 30, 2013, 11:00:09 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on April 30, 2013, 10:52:00 AM
Quote from: derspiess on April 30, 2013, 10:44:00 AM
You gotta admit, I scored a rare point there. GIVE ME MY DUE
You keep assuming I am 100% for Obama, when in fact it is closer to 93.4% ;)
Not even that-- just that I called "chain of custody" ahead of time.
But yeah, it is also one of those rare neat little events where I'm pretty much on the president's side and you're not.
Again, my prediction is that the US would find a way of not getting involved in any significant way even if it could be proved beyond any reasonable doubt.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 30, 2013, 10:37:02 AM
Well, he's got a point: we don't know if it's been pro-Assad forces or rebels. We can suspect, but we can't confirm just yet.
Or whether it's Assad, or a local commander. The latter's actually more worrying but doesn't necessarily lead to a big intervention.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on April 30, 2013, 10:37:02 AM
Well, he's got a point: we don't know if it's been pro-Assad forces or rebels. We can suspect, but we can't confirm just yet.
What's the Bayesian prior on Assad vs. rebels?
One has a known existing stockpile of such weapons, and known means and instrumentalities of employing them. The others do not.
Apparently, the Jews just bombed stuff in Syria related to possible chemical weapons launch facilities.
Hmmm.
Zee plot thickens.
QuoteIsraeli warplanes launched airstrikes against targets inside Syria on Friday, U.S. officials told NBC News.
It's believed the primary target was a shipment of weapons headed for Hezbollah in Lebanon, they said. A senior U.S. official said the airstrikes were believed to be related to delivery systems for chemical weapons.
An Israeli spokesman in Washington said that Israel would not comment specifically on the reports but said that "Israel is determined to prevent the transfer of chemical weapons or other game-changing weaponry by the Syrian regime to terrorists, especially to Hezbollah in Lebanon."
White House officials referred all questions to the Israelis.
This would be the second time this year Israel conducted airstrikes inside Syria. In January, Israeli fighter jets attacked a convoy of sophisticated anti-aircraft missiles believed on their way to Hezbollah.
Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon publicly acknowledged the January airstrike inside Syria in a joint press conference with Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel in Tel Aviv on April 22. Ya'alon said any Syrian delivery of sophisticated weapons to rogue elements like Hezbollah would be a "red line" for Israel and "when they crossed this red line, we operated. We acted."
Are those ridiculous UN peacekeepers still in Lebanon?
Looks like the UN is coming to the view that it is the rebels who are gassing people....
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/05/syria-sarin_n_3220502.html
Maybe we should bomb both sides. :hmm:
Quote from: Kleves on May 06, 2013, 11:55:43 PM
Maybe we should bomb both sides. :hmm:
Throw in the UN and I'm in.
Quote from: Tonitrus on May 06, 2013, 10:00:31 PM
Looks like the UN is coming to the view that it is the rebels who are gassing people....
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/05/syria-sarin_n_3220502.html
But all the smart people here say that's unpossible.
Quote from: katmai on May 07, 2013, 12:56:06 AM
Quote from: derspiess on May 07, 2013, 12:17:03 AM
Quote from: Kleves on May 06, 2013, 11:55:43 PM
Maybe we should bomb both sides. :hmm:
Throw in the UN and I'm in.
Why do you hate New York?
New Yorkers.
But that's beside the point. We'd only have to take out two buildings-- not even on sovereign US soil.
I don't think so mr. born south of mason-Dixon line.
Quote from: derspiess on May 07, 2013, 01:39:45 AM
But that's beside the point. We'd only have to take out two buildings-- not even on sovereign US soil.
Wouldn't think you'd be one to want to attract the attention of the black helicopters, piloted by abortionists.
Wait, is Spicy a carpetbagger like Cal? :o
Quote from: Tonitrus on May 06, 2013, 10:00:31 PM
Looks like the UN is coming to the view that it is the rebels who are gassing people....
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/05/syria-sarin_n_3220502.html
No, Carla Del Ponte (she of despised by everyone in the Balkans fame) is of this view, which is very, very different. :lol:
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 07, 2013, 06:33:09 AM
Wait, is Spicy a carpetbagger like Cal? :o
He's a West Virginian born living in Ohio.
Quote from: katmai on May 07, 2013, 10:29:04 AM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on May 07, 2013, 06:33:09 AM
Wait, is Spicy a carpetbagger like Cal? :o
He's a West Virginian born living in Ohio.
More like Kentucky.
Quote from: katmai on May 07, 2013, 01:41:16 AM
I don't think so mr. born south of mason-Dixon line.
Line doesn't extend that far :contract:
Quote from: Warspite on May 07, 2013, 10:23:37 AM
No, Carla Del Ponte (she of despised by everyone in the Balkans fame) is of this view, which is very, very different. :lol:
Please elaborate. Who is this chick, and why does everyone in the Balkans fame hate her?
Quote from: Warspite on May 07, 2013, 10:23:37 AM
Quote from: Tonitrus on May 06, 2013, 10:00:31 PM
Looks like the UN is coming to the view that it is the rebels who are gassing people....
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/05/syria-sarin_n_3220502.html
No, Carla Del Ponte (she of despised by everyone in the Balkans fame) is of this view, which is very, very different. :lol:
Don't the people of the Balkans hate pretty much everyone except their respective mythical heroic tribal chieftans?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 07, 2013, 06:41:25 PM
Quote from: Warspite on May 07, 2013, 10:23:37 AM
No, Carla Del Ponte (she of despised by everyone in the Balkans fame) is of this view, which is very, very different. :lol:
Please elaborate. Who is this chick, and why does everyone in the Balkans fame hate her?
She is the Prosecutor for the UN tribunal on the former yugoslavia. The Serbs hate her because she prosecutes Serbian war criminals. The Croats hate her because she prosecutes Croat war criminals. The Bosniaks hate her because she Prosecutes Bosniak war criminals. The people of Srebrenica would love her, but they are dead.
Quote from: Viking on May 08, 2013, 12:08:28 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 07, 2013, 06:41:25 PM
Quote from: Warspite on May 07, 2013, 10:23:37 AM
No, Carla Del Ponte (she of despised by everyone in the Balkans fame) is of this view, which is very, very different. :lol:
Please elaborate. Who is this chick, and why does everyone in the Balkans fame hate her?
She is the Prosecutor for the UN tribunal on the former yugoslavia. The Serbs hate her because she prosecutes Serbian war criminals. The Croats hate her because she prosecutes Croat war criminals. The Bosniaks hate her because she Prosecutes Bosniak war criminals. The people of Srebrenica would love her, but they are dead.
Not quite.
She is disliked across the region because she is seen as a self-promoting attention whore, who put her own interests above those of the Tribunal.
For instance, her own prosecutor for the Milosevic trial had a huge falling out with her because of her insistence, against his counsel, of trying to nail the big indictments against Milosevic rather than more modest ones that could actually, you know, be proven.
She's also known for cultivating a culture of systematic breaches of good legal practice within the ICTY, as well as running the place like a politician. Her own staff criticised her for pursuing a balance of ethnic prosecutions, rather than basing the case load on available evidence and the actual weight of crimes.
So no one's really surprised to see her coming out with this sort of statement on a very delicate crisis issue in Syria.
Quote from: Warspite on May 08, 2013, 04:25:05 AM
Quote from: Viking on May 08, 2013, 12:08:28 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 07, 2013, 06:41:25 PM
Quote from: Warspite on May 07, 2013, 10:23:37 AM
No, Carla Del Ponte (she of despised by everyone in the Balkans fame) is of this view, which is very, very different. :lol:
Please elaborate. Who is this chick, and why does everyone in the Balkans fame hate her?
She is the Prosecutor for the UN tribunal on the former yugoslavia. The Serbs hate her because she prosecutes Serbian war criminals. The Croats hate her because she prosecutes Croat war criminals. The Bosniaks hate her because she Prosecutes Bosniak war criminals. The people of Srebrenica would love her, but they are dead.
Not quite.
She is disliked across the region because she is seen as a self-promoting attention whore, who put her own interests above those of the Tribunal.
For instance, her own prosecutor for the Milosevic trial had a huge falling out with her because of her insistence, against his counsel, of trying to nail the big indictments against Milosevic rather than more modest ones that could actually, you know, be proven.
She's also known for cultivating a culture of systematic breaches of good legal practice within the ICTY, as well as running the place like a politician. Her own staff criticised her for pursuing a balance of ethnic prosecutions, rather than basing the case load on available evidence and the actual weight of crimes.
So no one's really surprised to see her coming out with this sort of statement on a very delicate crisis issue in Syria.
Q.E.D.
Quote from: Viking on May 08, 2013, 05:45:42 AM
Quote from: Warspite on May 08, 2013, 04:25:05 AM
Quote from: Viking on May 08, 2013, 12:08:28 AM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on May 07, 2013, 06:41:25 PM
Quote from: Warspite on May 07, 2013, 10:23:37 AM
No, Carla Del Ponte (she of despised by everyone in the Balkans fame) is of this view, which is very, very different. :lol:
Please elaborate. Who is this chick, and why does everyone in the Balkans fame hate her?
She is the Prosecutor for the UN tribunal on the former yugoslavia. The Serbs hate her because she prosecutes Serbian war criminals. The Croats hate her because she prosecutes Croat war criminals. The Bosniaks hate her because she Prosecutes Bosniak war criminals. The people of Srebrenica would love her, but they are dead.
Not quite.
She is disliked across the region because she is seen as a self-promoting attention whore, who put her own interests above those of the Tribunal.
For instance, her own prosecutor for the Milosevic trial had a huge falling out with her because of her insistence, against his counsel, of trying to nail the big indictments against Milosevic rather than more modest ones that could actually, you know, be proven.
She's also known for cultivating a culture of systematic breaches of good legal practice within the ICTY, as well as running the place like a politician. Her own staff criticised her for pursuing a balance of ethnic prosecutions, rather than basing the case load on available evidence and the actual weight of crimes.
So no one's really surprised to see her coming out with this sort of statement on a very delicate crisis issue in Syria.
Q.E.D.
Your point was not "She is hated because she ballsed up the Milosevic prosecution and screwed up other cases that were victims' chance for closure". She is most definitely not popular with the survivors of Srebrenica.
Del Ponte is Swiss, if memory serves. :swiss:
:(
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/04/18748937-france-is-certain-sarin-gas-was-used-in-syria-un-condemns-brutality-of-conflict?lite
QuoteFrance is 'certain' sarin gas was used in Syria; UN condemns 'brutality' of conflict
By John Newland, Staff Writer, NBC News
France said on Tuesday it was "certain" that the nerve agent sarin had been used in Syria, underlining a United Nations report that said the civil war had reached "new levels of cruelty and brutality."
Tests carried out on samples showed the gas had been used "several times in Syria in limited areas," Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius said in a statement, according to Reuters.
The results of the tests have been handed to the UN, Fabius added - although details of the French claims were not immediately available. It was not clear which side had supposedly used the chemical weapon.
It came hours after a UN report said investigators had "reasonable grounds" to believe that limited amounts of chemical weapons had been used in Syria in a conflict where brutality was now a tactic of war.
The report asked nations to "counter the escalation of the conflict" by not providing weaponry "given the clear risk that the arms will be used to commit serious violations of international human rights or humanitarian law."
It said the supply of more arms to either side would only worsen a conflict that has hit "new levels of cruelty and brutality."
When asked about France's announcement, U.S. State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said she had seen the reports and added that the U.S. is "seeking more information."
"So, for the time being, I would refer you all to the French government," Psaki said.
She also said there were no final conclusions to report regarding the alleged use of chemical weapons in Syria, but she added that the U.S. still believes that the opposition doesn't have the "ability to use chemical weapons."
"We remain firm in our belief that if there were use, that the use would be coming from the regime," Psaki said. "We don't have any reason to believe -- there's no new information on that [it] is coming from the opposition. But again, we're still focused on seeing this process through, gathering facts, working with our allies. And I don't have any new updates for you on that."
Russian President Vladimir Putin defended his plan to supply missiles to Syria's government, saying the scheduled sale of highly advanced Russian anti-aircraft missiles to the Assad regime would fall under "transparent and internationally recognized contracts."
Despite the deal, Putin said any attempt to intervene militarily in Syria would be "doomed to fail" and echoed the UN call for restricting arms sales – but only to rebel forces trying to overthrow Assad.
"Any attempts to influence the situation by force through direct military action is doomed to fail and would unavoidably bring about large humanitarian casualties," he said.
The UN commission report said "war crimes and crimes against humanity have become a daily reality in Syria," citing the suspected use of chemical weapons, thermobaric bombs, sieges and massacres.
"The desperation of the parties to the conflict has resulted in new levels of cruelty and brutality, bolstered by an increase in the availability of weapons. Increased arm transfers hurt the prospect of a political settlement to the conflict, fuel the multiplication of armed actors at the national and regional levels and have devastating consequences for civilians," it added.
The report called for peace talks and war crimes tribunals, saying that the global community had been "silent on the issue of accountability."
"The documented violations are consistent and widespread, evidence of a concerted policy implemented by the leaders of Syria's military and government," it said.
Giving the most detailed accounts to date from an official international body, the report documents four suspected chemical weapons attacks in March and April, as well as 17 possible massacres between Jan. 15 and May 15.
It came down more harshly on Assad's troops than on the rebel factions, though it said both sides had committed war crimes, a judgment it also made in February.
"Government forces and affiliated militia have committed murder, torture, rape, forcible displacement, enforced disappearance and other inhumane acts," the report said.
It reported the "systematic" use of "summary execution."
Rebel forces, the report added, have been guilty of execution, torture, hostage-taking and pillaging, though it concluded that war crimes committed by the opposition had not reached the "intensity and scale of those committed by government forces" and their allies, which include Hezbollah and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.
A spokesman for the Free Syrian Army, which leads the increasingly varied groups of rebel forces, reacted angrily to the report, citing what he perceived as an emphasis on words over actions.
"The last two years we saw nothing from the UN or human rights groups, with all the crimes committed by the regime against civilians," the FSA's Abu Muhanad said, adding: "We are frustrated. ... How long will we keep demanding help and no one is doing anything?"
The Syrian National Coalition, an international group supporting the rebel fighters, said it had looked at the report "with interest."
"The coalition would like to express its condemnation of all types of ... breaches of laws and international conventions, no matter the side that commits it," a spokesman for the group said. "On the other hand, there is no way to compare between people who throw tons of bombs on an unarmed population, killing children and women in order to eliminate the people's revolution, and those who use light or medium weapons to protect the people."
An estimated 4.3 million Syrians have been displaced by the war, and 1.6 million have fled the country, the UN report said, adding that another 6.8 million have been trapped by fighting.
Vuk Jeremić, the Serbian president of the UN General Assembly, told the group last month that at least 80,000 people had died during the two-year war, most of them civilians.
Yeah, what is france going to do about it?
Obama is waiting for all the facts to come in.
Quote from: 11B4V on June 04, 2013, 07:13:05 PM
Obama is waiting for all the facts to come in.
The cheese eating surrender monkeys said so, what more proof do you need?
Read bits of the UN report. Regardless of chemical weapons it's clear both sides are committing war crimes every day. It's pretty awful :(
Quote from: Viking on June 04, 2013, 07:14:07 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on June 04, 2013, 07:13:05 PM
Obama is waiting for all the facts to come in.
The cheese eating surrender monkeys said so, what more proof do you need?
You answered you're on question.
Quote from: Viking on June 04, 2013, 07:12:06 PM
Yeah, what is france going to do about it?
If nothing more the UK and France will start arming the rebels soon, that much is clear, and mad.
Wait, when did thermobaric weapons become banned?
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 04, 2013, 07:22:10 PM
Quote from: Viking on June 04, 2013, 07:12:06 PM
Yeah, what is france going to do about it?
If nothing more the UK and France will start arming the rebels soon, that much is clear, and mad.
Is it mad to arm the rebels in general or is it mad to arm the present rebels because the secular liberal rebels have all died in the avant guard of the rebellion.
My armchair-quarterback analysis that it is too late for Syria to go any but one of two ways:
- An even more antagonistic Assad-run, Hezbollah terrorist state.
- A rabid Islamic/Al-Qaeda terrorist state.
Quote from: Viking on June 04, 2013, 07:26:46 PM
Is it mad to arm the rebels in general or is it mad to arm the present rebels because the secular liberal rebels have all died in the avant guard of the rebellion.
I've never been sold on the 'secular liberal rebels'. Even if there were any they'd all be shouting Salafi slogans because the people with money are the Saudis and Qataris. It's mad to arm the rebels at all.
When there's no good options, there's no good foreseeable outcome it's sometimes best to wait. I think arming the rebels would be an example of 'something-must-be-done!'-ism :bleeding:
In my view sometimes it's best to do nothing. I think this is one of them.
I'd possibly change if there was widespread use of chemical weapons or if neighbouring countries were beginning to be really dragged in, especially Israel.
There aren't any secular liberal rebels, they are all dead or have "converted" for filthy saudi and qatari lucre.
As a general rule, when all options, including doing nothing, are bad. Does one go with the least of the evils available or does one wash ones hands of moral culpability by doing nothing?
Quote from: Viking on June 04, 2013, 07:45:15 PM
As a general rule, when all options, including doing nothing, are bad. Does one go with the least of the evils available or does one wash ones hands of moral culpability by doing nothing?
Sometimes you should be Gladstone, sometimes you should be Salisbury. This is a case of the latter. 'Moral culpability' ( :yucky:) should have a generally small part of decisions like this.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 04, 2013, 07:50:30 PM
Quote from: Viking on June 04, 2013, 07:45:15 PM
As a general rule, when all options, including doing nothing, are bad. Does one go with the least of the evils available or does one wash ones hands of moral culpability by doing nothing?
Sometimes you should be Gladstone, sometimes you should be Salisbury. This is a case of the latter. 'Moral culpability' ( :yucky:) should have a generally small part of decisions like this.
So, in this case, what is this "something" you want to do then? And why should "it weren't me guv'" be a reason for not acting?
Quote from: Viking on June 04, 2013, 07:56:19 PM
So, in this case, what is this "something" you want to do then? And why should "it weren't me guv'" be a reason for not acting?
We shouldn't do anything, beyond putting pressure on the Russians and keeping a beady eye on Hezbollah. If situations change then acting could be justified.
It's our blood and treasure. I think there should be a compelling reason to act, in my view, there isn't. I thought and still more or less think the same on Libya though I think that was more justified.
Let Iran and Russia destroy Syria fighting through their proxies?
Quote from: Viking on June 04, 2013, 08:02:22 PM
Let Iran and Russia destroy Syria fighting through their proxies?
Not just Iran and Russia: Turkey, Saudi and Qatar are joining in. But, short of a very good reason to intervene, then I think that's the best choice for us.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 04, 2013, 08:06:45 PM
Quote from: Viking on June 04, 2013, 08:02:22 PM
Let Iran and Russia destroy Syria fighting through their proxies?
Not just Iran and Russia: Turkey, Saudi and Qatar are joining in. But, short of a very good reason to intervene, then I think that's the best choice for us.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1.trekearth.com%2Fphotos%2F34171%2F1991.09.21.de.ba.dachau4.jpg&hash=66e4734d2ef423cf0f267b17f72d570e0ea3b9f1)
Can't see the picture.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 04, 2013, 08:12:57 PM
Can't see the picture.
It's the Dachau Denkmal, a slab at the Dachau KZ with the words "Never Again" written in French, English, German and Russian.
It's not like we're affected if Syria devolves into a dozen warring potentates.
Quote from: Neil on June 04, 2013, 08:19:41 PM
It's not like we're affected if Syria devolves into a dozen warring potentates.
We will be blamed no matter what happens.
Quote from: Viking on June 04, 2013, 08:19:28 PM
It's the Dachau Denkmal, a slab at the Dachau KZ with the words "Never Again" written in French, English, German and Russian.
Okay. So the compelling reason is hyperbole? I mean unless you're saying that but for Western non-intervention in the Spanish Civil War, WW2 and the Holocaust wouldn't happen.
This is a civil war, which are almost always worse than any other kind of war and that's awful. However given where we are in the West, especially financially, and given the sides involved I don't think there's a strong reason for us to intervene in any way. I think that's the least bad option and the need to 'do something!' is one of the worst compulsions in politics, because it normally means 'do anything' rather than actually working out what's in your interests.
I would add stopping genocide would, in my view, be a strong enough reason to intervene. But a bloody, messy civil war isn't a genocide.
QuoteWe will be blamed no matter what happens.
Who cares? I mean seriously this is the worst sort of reason to do anything serious.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 04, 2013, 08:27:44 PM
I would add stopping genocide would, in my view, be a strong enough reason to intervene. But a bloody, messy civil war isn't a genocide.
And really, there's going to be wholesale slaughter of defeated ethnic groups no matter who wins.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 04, 2013, 08:27:44 PM
Quote from: Viking on June 04, 2013, 08:19:28 PM
It's the Dachau Denkmal, a slab at the Dachau KZ with the words "Never Again" written in French, English, German and Russian.
Okay. So the compelling reason is hyperbole? I mean unless you're saying that but for Western non-intervention in the Spanish Civil War, WW2 and the Holocaust wouldn't happen.
This is a civil war, which are almost always worse than any other kind of war and that's awful. However given where we are in the West, especially financially, and given the sides involved I don't think there's a strong reason for us to intervene in any way. I think that's the least bad option and the need to 'do something!' is one of the worst compulsions in politics, because it normally means 'do anything' rather than actually working out what's in your interests.
I would add stopping genocide would, in my view, be a strong enough reason to intervene. But a bloody, messy civil war isn't a genocide.
QuoteWe will be blamed no matter what happens.
Who cares? I mean seriously this is the worst sort of reason to do anything serious.
The same basic logic does apply when evil is abroad, and evil is abroad in syria. It can barely get much worse and we will be blamed for what happens regardless. We might as well make sure that the winners feel they have to pander at least a few of our needs rather than actively oppose us.
It wasn't the genocide angle I was referring to but rather the promise of never again. A mass murder is happening in Syria and there will be a repeat of Hama on a larger scale if the Assadites win and the Alawites, Christians and other minorities will be massacred if the Bin Ladinites win. I'd much rather that any group less evil than those two wins, or at least holds a balance of power.
Quote from: Neil on June 04, 2013, 08:34:37 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 04, 2013, 08:27:44 PM
I would add stopping genocide would, in my view, be a strong enough reason to intervene. But a bloody, messy civil war isn't a genocide.
And really, there's going to be wholesale slaughter of defeated ethnic groups no matter who wins.
Not necessarily. That is precisely what we managed to prevent in Iraq and Afghanistan.
We didnt stop it in Rwanda or in Bosnia for example. So what it says on that monument is a farce to make us feel good.
Quote from: Viking on June 04, 2013, 08:36:46 PM
The same basic logic does apply when evil is abroad, and evil is abroad in syria. It can barely get much worse and we will be blamed for what happens regardless. We might as well make sure that the winners feel they have to pander at least a few of our needs rather than actively oppose us.
It wasn't the genocide angle I was referring to but rather the promise of never again. A mass murder is happening in Syria and there will be a repeat of Hama on a larger scale if the Assadites win and the Alawites, Christians and other minorities will be massacred if the Bin Ladinites win. I'd much rather that any group less evil than those two wins, or at least holds a balance of power.
And we want to be a party to that why?
Quote from: Viking on June 04, 2013, 08:37:22 PM
Not necessarily. That is precisely what we managed to prevent in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I'm sure the girls and women of Afghanistan are thankful for delaying the inevitable for them.
Quote from: Viking on June 04, 2013, 08:37:22 PM
Quote from: Neil on June 04, 2013, 08:34:37 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 04, 2013, 08:27:44 PM
I would add stopping genocide would, in my view, be a strong enough reason to intervene. But a bloody, messy civil war isn't a genocide.
And really, there's going to be wholesale slaughter of defeated ethnic groups no matter who wins.
Not necessarily. That is precisely what we managed to prevent in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Nobody's going to be occupying Syria.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 04, 2013, 08:42:15 PM
Quote from: Viking on June 04, 2013, 08:37:22 PM
Not necessarily. That is precisely what we managed to prevent in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I'm sure the girls and women of Afghanistan are thankful for delaying the inevitable for them.
We should just invade countries and take all their women, and leave the men.
No blood for harems?
Quote from: Viking on June 04, 2013, 08:36:46 PMThe same basic logic does apply when evil is abroad, and evil is abroad in syria. It can barely get much worse and we will be blamed for what happens regardless. We might as well make sure that the winners feel they have to pander at least a few of our needs rather than actively oppose us.
You lost me at 'evil'.
But I think there needs to be a reason to intervene. This boils down to 'might as well'.
QuoteIt wasn't the genocide angle I was referring to but rather the promise of never again. A mass murder is happening in Syria and there will be a repeat of Hama on a larger scale if the Assadites win and the Alawites, Christians and other minorities will be massacred if the Bin Ladinites win. I'd much rather that any group less evil than those two wins, or at least holds a balance of power.
In all honesty the sides of this war make me less keen to intervene, but even if there was a side we would support I'm not sure we should intervene. There'd still need to be a very good reason to do so, especially given our financial situation. But when you find this Quiet American-ish 'third force' and they can come up with some reasons why we should intervene then maybe we should.
But at the minute you want to intervene, just because, and on behalf of a group that don't actually exist.
Edit: Incidentally I hope Obama has the sense to avoid being bounced into action by the UK and France on this. Libya was enough.
Quote from: Viking on June 04, 2013, 08:37:22 PM
Not necessarily. That is precisely what we managed to prevent in Iraq and Afghanistan.
There wasn't genocide in Iraq but there was a lot of ethnic cleansing while we were there.
And I oppose arming the rebels. I can't think of a reason good enough to justify invading Syria :blink:
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 04, 2013, 08:45:20 PM
Quote from: Viking on June 04, 2013, 08:37:22 PM
Not necessarily. That is precisely what we managed to prevent in Iraq and Afghanistan.
There wasn't genocide in Iraq but there was a lot of ethnic cleansing while we were there.
And I oppose arming the rebels. I can't think of a reason good enough to justify invading Syria :blink:
I'd trade the lives of the 4,000 odd Americans for what ever we did in Iraq anytime.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 04, 2013, 08:27:44 PM
This is a civil war, which are almost always worse than any other kind of war and that's awful.
Once again America stands superior to the rest of the world :smugface:
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 04, 2013, 07:36:42 PM
I've never been sold on the 'secular liberal rebels'. Even if there were any they'd all be shouting Salafi slogans because the people with money are the Saudis and Qataris.
There's a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Of course if we don't support and leave the field entirely to the Salafi powers, the rebels will tilt in that direction. That's not an argument for staying out. That's an argument for intervening big if we actually care about helping shape opinion.
Can opinion be shaped much either way, though?
Quote from: derspiess on June 05, 2013, 10:23:04 AM
Can opinion be shaped much either way, though?
Yes, this worked for the fascists and communists in spain. It worked for the kurds in iraq as well.
The very act of making somebody dependent on us will shape their opinion.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 05, 2013, 10:15:37 AMOf course if we don't support and leave the field entirely to the Salafi powers, the rebels will tilt in that direction. That's not an argument for staying out. That's an argument for intervening big if we actually care about helping shape opinion.
It's not an argument for staying out, I'm just dubious about the idea that this started as a 'secular liberal' uprising and they got killed first. If there were ever any significant 'secular liberal' elements within the rebels I imagine they've been radicalised by conflict and by the need to get Saudi and Qatari arms.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 04, 2013, 10:48:24 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 04, 2013, 08:27:44 PM
This is a civil war, which are almost always worse than any other kind of war and that's awful.
Once again America stands superior to the rest of the world :smugface:
:blink:
Quote from: Viking on June 05, 2013, 10:33:06 AM
Yes, this worked for the fascists and communists in spain. It worked for the kurds in iraq as well.
The very act of making somebody dependent on us will shape their opinion.
It worked to a very limited degree for the communists because Republican officers quickly learned they wouldn't get promoted or receive supplies for their units if they didn't join the party. The West would not have the same levers in Syria.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 05, 2013, 10:48:55 AM
Quote from: Viking on June 05, 2013, 10:33:06 AM
Yes, this worked for the fascists and communists in spain. It worked for the kurds in iraq as well.
The very act of making somebody dependent on us will shape their opinion.
It worked to a very limited degree for the communists because Republican officers quickly learned they wouldn't get promoted or receive supplies for their units if they didn't join the party. The West would not have the same levers in Syria.
Of course we could. We would just have to be willing to stop the supply of arms if they don't behave. If anything we would prevent the process going the wrong way in favour of the salafists.
Quote from: Viking on June 05, 2013, 10:54:09 AM
Of course we could. We would just have to be willing to stop the supply of arms if they don't behave. If anything we would prevent the process going the wrong way in favour of the salafists.
And they would stroke their beards, shout Allahu ackbar, and laugh in our faces while brandishing their Saudi supplied weapons.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 05, 2013, 11:01:36 AM
Quote from: Viking on June 05, 2013, 10:54:09 AM
Of course we could. We would just have to be willing to stop the supply of arms if they don't behave. If anything we would prevent the process going the wrong way in favour of the salafists.
And they would stroke their beards, shout Allahu ackbar, and laugh in our faces while brandishing their Saudi supplied weapons.
Our weapons are cooler, deadlier, bigger and require a regular supply of parts and maintenance.
Plus, if anything we can run drones for information and hellfires.
Quote from: Viking on June 05, 2013, 10:54:09 AM
Of course we could. We would just have to be willing to stop the supply of arms if they don't behave. If anything we would prevent the process going the wrong way in favour of the salafists.
Every group in Syria is committing war crimes on a daily basis. Our guys would just stop?
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 05, 2013, 10:44:43 AM
I'm just dubious about the idea that this started as a 'secular liberal' uprising and they got killed first. If there were ever any significant 'secular liberal' elements within the rebels I imagine they've been radicalised by conflict and by the need to get Saudi and Qatari arms.
There's a decent amount of space between "secular liberal" and "radical salafi"
Where one falls within that space matters.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 05, 2013, 10:15:37 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 04, 2013, 07:36:42 PM
I've never been sold on the 'secular liberal rebels'. Even if there were any they'd all be shouting Salafi slogans because the people with money are the Saudis and Qataris.
There's a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Of course if we don't support and leave the field entirely to the Salafi powers, the rebels will tilt in that direction. That's not an argument for staying out. That's an argument for intervening big if we actually care about helping shape opinion.
We should just go in and fire all the Ba'athists. That'll work.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 05, 2013, 11:07:49 AM
Quote from: Viking on June 05, 2013, 10:54:09 AM
Of course we could. We would just have to be willing to stop the supply of arms if they don't behave. If anything we would prevent the process going the wrong way in favour of the salafists.
Every group in Syria is committing war crimes on a daily basis. Our guys would just stop?
Yes. Advanced light infantry weapons can constitute a good motivation for stopping. Support for the Iraqi Kurds has done wonders for moderating their behaviour. Not only have the Permerga's behaved in a manner near the standard set by the IDF and the Turkish Army but this support has also changed their political system from one based on powerful feudal clans to a semi-functioning democracy.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 05, 2013, 11:40:19 AMThere's a decent amount of space between "secular liberal" and "radical salafi"
Where one falls within that space matters.
Absolutely but the radicalisation that's happened isn't because we failed to intervene early enough.
It happens in all civil wars because of the nature of them and because of who's supplying the arms. I don't agree with the version of events that states there was a pure, noble group of revolutionaries that we could've supported at the start and had we done so things would've turned out differently.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 05, 2013, 11:45:03 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 05, 2013, 10:15:37 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 04, 2013, 07:36:42 PM
I've never been sold on the 'secular liberal rebels'. Even if there were any they'd all be shouting Salafi slogans because the people with money are the Saudis and Qataris.
There's a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Of course if we don't support and leave the field entirely to the Salafi powers, the rebels will tilt in that direction. That's not an argument for staying out. That's an argument for intervening big if we actually care about helping shape opinion.
We should just go in and fire all the Ba'athists. That'll work.
We're talking about funding and arming factions in an existing civil war, not invading and taking down a government with no real active resistance.
Quote from: Viking on June 05, 2013, 11:53:26 AM
Yes. Advanced light infantry weapons can constitute a good motivation for stopping. Support for the Iraqi Kurds has done wonders for moderating their behaviour. Not only have the Permerga's behaved in a manner near the standard set by the IDF and the Turkish Army but this support has also changed their political system from one based on powerful feudal clans to a semi-functioning democracy.
I think the Iraqi Kurds were already disposed to act that way, which was why it was the right thing to support them however we could.
Old news.
The OP.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 05, 2013, 10:45:55 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 04, 2013, 10:48:24 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 04, 2013, 08:27:44 PM
This is a civil war, which are almost always worse than any other kind of war and that's awful.
Once again America stands superior to the rest of the world :smugface:
:blink:
After all these years, are you really surprised by the silly things Tim says?
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 05, 2013, 11:56:56 AM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 05, 2013, 11:40:19 AMThere's a decent amount of space between "secular liberal" and "radical salafi"
Where one falls within that space matters.
Absolutely but the radicalisation that's happened isn't because we failed to intervene early enough.
It happens in all civil wars because of the nature of them and because of who's supplying the arms. I don't agree with the version of events that states there was a pure, noble group of revolutionaries that we could've supported at the start and had we done so things would've turned out differently.
If the aim of your intervention is to force a political settlement, you need to arm a large and coherent rebel faction that is politically credible (ideally the dominant faction, but you take what you get), which depends on the local context and not what is desired in foreign national capitals.
I just can't see who that group is in Syria.
Quote from: Warspite on June 05, 2013, 12:34:52 PM
I just can't see who that group is in Syria.
I dont either but what are the alternatives?
Either Assad prevails and we get a more brutal, radicalized version of the hinge point of the Iran-Hizbollah axis. No thanks.
Or the rebels prevail which -- without any Western paritipation - will almost certainly mean a Salafi-dominated coalition.
Or chaos will prevail and we will have a new Afghanistan in the Levant.
All the alternatives are so bad that even a low probability shot of something not completely awful looks attractive.
Quote from: derspiess on June 05, 2013, 12:30:19 PM
Quote from: Viking on June 05, 2013, 11:53:26 AM
Yes. Advanced light infantry weapons can constitute a good motivation for stopping. Support for the Iraqi Kurds has done wonders for moderating their behaviour. Not only have the Permerga's behaved in a manner near the standard set by the IDF and the Turkish Army but this support has also changed their political system from one based on powerful feudal clans to a semi-functioning democracy.
I think the Iraqi Kurds were already disposed to act that way, which was why it was the right thing to support them however we could.
I think the Syrians Kurds, the Druze, Christians and Alawites (once they dump Assad and reconcile themselves to ultimate sunni rule like the kurds in iraq have to ultimate shiite rule) will be disposed to act this way as well. Make them understand that as long as they act within specific defined and clear parameters (both letter and spirit) the west will guarantee them the weapons they need to keep themselves safe.
Quote from: Neil on June 05, 2013, 12:34:23 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 05, 2013, 10:45:55 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 04, 2013, 10:48:24 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 04, 2013, 08:27:44 PM
This is a civil war, which are almost always worse than any other kind of war and that's awful.
Once again America stands superior to the rest of the world :smugface:
:blink:
After all these years, are you really surprised by the silly things Tim says?
Timmay was making a joke. You guys have been wooshed. ;)
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 05, 2013, 12:38:57 PM
Quote from: Warspite on June 05, 2013, 12:34:52 PM
I just can't see who that group is in Syria.
I dont either but what are the alternatives?
Either Assad prevails and we get a more brutal, radicalized version of the hinge point of the Iran-Hizbollah axis. No thanks.
Or the rebels prevail which -- without any Western paritipation - will almost certainly mean a Salafi-dominated coalition.
Or chaos will prevail and we will have a new Afghanistan in the Levant.
All the alternatives are so bad that even a low probability shot of something not completely awful looks attractive.
I think one of those scenarios occurs whether we give our own arms to the rebels or not.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 05, 2013, 12:38:57 PM
Quote from: Warspite on June 05, 2013, 12:34:52 PM
I just can't see who that group is in Syria.
I dont either but what are the alternatives?
Either Assad prevails and we get a more brutal, radicalized version of the hinge point of the Iran-Hizbollah axis. No thanks.
Or the rebels prevail which -- without any Western paritipation - will almost certainly mean a Salafi-dominated coalition.
Or chaos will prevail and we will have a new Afghanistan in the Levant.
All the alternatives are so bad that even a low probability shot of something not completely awful looks attractive.
Indeed, it's a shit sandwich with less bread and more filling.
I'm in favour of careful arming of rebels, but including copious amounts of assistance for civil administration and basic utilities in liberated areas, with a view to creating a stalemate. Then you can start to force the factions to the negotiating table to hammer out some kind of compromise peace.
I think the real mistake was the insistence that Assad had to go before any transition deal: the sort of absolute demand we didn't even demand at Dayton. This may have been to encourage the Alawites to ditch their leader but it clearly did not work: they have closed ranks around him. And when you turn a civil war into one of absolute regime survival, it's harder to the point of impossibility to end without total victory. I think we should have been more pragmatic about Assad having some sort of role in transition before being eased out some other way. Yes he's a bastard, but how many lives should we sacrifice for the sake of nailing one bastard?
Now that's fine if you're willing and able to ensure a rebel victory, but the other mistake "we" made (Western governments) was severely underestimating the resilience of the regime.
one of the questions of course is to what extent this is just a civil war, given that this thing also has a very big religous aspect. It can now be placed within the context of the millenium-old fight between sunni and shia.
In any case I don't think there's any advantage for the west to arm anyone now. unless we also kill every last fanatic present, without remorse
Quote from: Malthus on June 05, 2013, 12:43:26 PM
Quote from: Neil on June 05, 2013, 12:34:23 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 05, 2013, 10:45:55 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 04, 2013, 10:48:24 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 04, 2013, 08:27:44 PM
This is a civil war, which are almost always worse than any other kind of war and that's awful.
Once again America stands superior to the rest of the world :smugface:
:blink:
After all these years, are you really surprised by the silly things Tim says?
Timmay was making a joke. You guys have been wooshed. ;)
I think it's a reasonable statement. The American Civil War was very genteel by civil war standards.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 05, 2013, 12:38:57 PM
Or the rebels prevail which -- without any Western paritipation - will almost certainly mean a Salafi-dominated coalition.
Let's examine a few cases:
- Tunisia. No intervention. Salafi-dominated coalition.
- Lybia. Air strikes + support to a credible rebel group. Salafi-dominated coalition.
- Irak: Intervention in 2003 with no ongoing conflict. Civil war with US-British&allied troops caught in the middle. Future still undecided, terrorist attack frequent. But no Salafi-dominated coalition.
- Afghanistan: Intervention in 2001 at the end of an ongoing conflict between the Talebans and the Northern Alliance. Future still undecided, terrorist attack frequent. No Salafi-dominated coalition, but millions of years away from a western liberal democracy.
I am still unsure what would be the outcome of an intervention. Arming the rebels didn't prevent the salafi from reaching power in Lybia. Not doing anything got us the same results in Tunisia.
The best course of action would be a coordinated effort of UN & NATO will full US, UK and France support from intelligence networks and counter-surge operations and it needs to last for a decade, unlike Afghanistan where most resources packed&left for Iraq. I am unsure any of the major countries would agree for such a long term action. Heck, I'm not sure any country would agree to send soldiers to Syria knowing they'll be there for 10 years. And even if they would, there is nothing that prevents a government change a pull-out of the troops&resources.
EDIT:
ah well, Derspiess and other made the case before me.
Quote from: Warspite on June 05, 2013, 12:48:23 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 05, 2013, 12:38:57 PM
Quote from: Warspite on June 05, 2013, 12:34:52 PM
I just can't see who that group is in Syria.
I dont either but what are the alternatives?
Either Assad prevails and we get a more brutal, radicalized version of the hinge point of the Iran-Hizbollah axis. No thanks.
Or the rebels prevail which -- without any Western paritipation - will almost certainly mean a Salafi-dominated coalition.
Or chaos will prevail and we will have a new Afghanistan in the Levant.
All the alternatives are so bad that even a low probability shot of something not completely awful looks attractive.
Indeed, it's a shit sandwich with less bread and more filling.
I'm in favour of careful arming of rebels, but including copious amounts of assistance for civil administration and basic utilities in liberated areas, with a view to creating a stalemate. Then you can start to force the factions to the negotiating table to hammer out some kind of compromise peace.
I think the real mistake was the insistence that Assad had to go before any transition deal: the sort of absolute demand we didn't even demand at Dayton. This may have been to encourage the Alawites to ditch their leader but it clearly did not work: they have closed ranks around him. And when you turn a civil war into one of absolute regime survival, it's harder to the point of impossibility to end without total victory. I think we should have been more pragmatic about Assad having some sort of role in transition before being eased out some other way. Yes he's a bastard, but how many lives should we sacrifice for the sake of nailing one bastard?
Now that's fine if you're willing and able to ensure a rebel victory, but the other mistake "we" made (Western governments) was severely underestimating the resilience of the regime.
Yes you've outlined the situation nicely.
And I'd agree there is no good, ideal or even moderately ok external solution.
The strength of the ruling elite/faction and the government makes it a entirely different ball game to Libya, where the clown dictator and his forces only put up any sort of relative resistance because of near ineptitude of the opposition.
There is also:
- We help rebels, rebels win, they kinda like us (we're too late for "really like us"...and "us" meaning The West)
- We don't help rebels, rebels win, they hate everyone but Qatar/Saudi Arabia.
- We don't help rebels, Assad wins, Syria hates everyone on the planet except Iran/Russia.
Plus the wild card outcome:
- We help rebels, rebels win, declare Jihad on The West because no one is ever really grateful.
- We help rebels, Assad still manages to win, annexes France.
Even before this started the Syrian government didn't like anybody other than Iran and Russia, so not much lost there.
I always had the impression they got a fair amount of sympathy from the Euros against Israel.
Quote from: Tonitrus on June 05, 2013, 05:20:23 PM
Plus the wild card outcome:
- We help rebels, rebels win, declare Jihad on The West because no one is ever really grateful.
-
Please, these are muslims.
They thank their moongod for whatever help they get, wheather it comes from the West or not.
Quote from: Siege on June 05, 2013, 08:22:21 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on June 05, 2013, 05:20:23 PM
Plus the wild card outcome:
- We help rebels, rebels win, declare Jihad on The West because no one is ever really grateful.
-
Please, these are muslims.
They thank their moongod for whatever help they get, wheather it comes from the West or not.
Siegy, do you want to go to Syria?
Quote from: Tonitrus on June 05, 2013, 05:20:23 PM
Plus the wild card outcome:
- We help rebels, rebels win, declare Jihad on The West because no one is ever really grateful.
Don't know why you're calling this a wild card. That's how it played in Afghanistan.
Quote from: Viking on June 05, 2013, 08:36:52 PM
Quote from: Siege on June 05, 2013, 08:22:21 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on June 05, 2013, 05:20:23 PM
Plus the wild card outcome:
- We help rebels, rebels win, declare Jihad on The West because no one is ever really grateful.
-
Please, these are muslims.
They thank their moongod for whatever help they get, wheather it comes from the West or not.
Siegy, do you want to go to Syria?
Right now?
Fuck no. I just came back from 9 grueling months in Afghanistan.
In about a year, fuck yeah. I'll go and kill some moonslims for uncle sam.
There is a lot of bad people left in the world that need killing.
They are really bad, they don't compromise, and the only reason they have not massacred everybody in the west is because they lack the power to do so.
I don't think the Muslim thing is relevant. Middle Easterners of all stripes seem pretty disloyal.
Religion of peas.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LIkuJBER6o
Lecture from the US war college about the options and nature of the US response to the war in Syria by Larry Goodson. About 1 hour in length.
A BBC camera crew got into Qusayr after it fell to the army and at the end of the film it showed a sizeable number, perhaps 2-3 platoons worth of Hizbollah infantry marching along side the road. Off-camera they confirmed who there were, what as noticeable as compared to Syrian army soldiers ignoring their cleaner turn out, was they appeared better equipped with modern body armour and helmets.
The independent has some interesting reporting from inside Lebanon, according to Fisk's source in Baalbek around 2,000 Hizbollah left for Syria. Of whom at least 110 have died in the last 10 days alone.