Chemical Weapon used in Syria, Western military response likely

[FlameOn]

Well it appears with US credibility on the line they've reacted. With over 356 people dead and 3600 people injured in the recent chemical attack the US is preparing for possible missile strikes and has dispatched 4 warships with ballistic and cruise missiles to the area.
http://www.theverge.com/2013/8/24/46...hemical-attack

Assad SAA is also blocking efforts of the UN weapons inspectors from reaching the affected areas while denying they've ever used chemical weapons during the war.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-...s-move-closer/

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by puckluck2

The thing that worries me is that America is arming these Radical rebels without knowing their true goals.

Wasn't Binladen once a rebel who was assisted by the United States? Assad is a POS (please don't be reading this Syrian intelligence) but who knows what these rebels have in plan. They don't give a crap about the people just as much as Assad.

I fear that the Syrian government would be worse off without Assad and would send the Middle East into chaos. Sometimes you have to pick your poison wisely.

Bin Laden's group wasn't armed or aided by the United States. The local Afghan Mujaheddin was certainly assisted by the Western powers. Bin Laden and his foreign fighters wanted nothing to do with Western help. They were aided by charities based in Pakistan from funds raised in Arab States and especially Saudi Arabia. They got their arms and assistance from Muslim States via Pakistan who once again was playing multiple sides. The American's didn't know anything about Bin Laden during the Afghan War and didn't become aware of him as any kind of Western threat until the 90's(Legacy of Ashes, The history of the CIA by Tim Weiner)

the foreign fighters recruited from various Muslim States saw it as their Muslim duty to expel all foreign powers from Muslim lands

On top of that the Afghan Mujahadeen pretty much strongly disliked the foreign fighters and thought that they were a joke that was way to eager to find martyrdom.

You should read the Osama Bin Laden I know by Peter Bergen and War at the top of the world by Eric Margolis.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by FlameOn

Well it appears with US credibility on the line they've reacted. With over 356 people dead and 3600 people injured in the recent chemical attack the US is preparing for possible missile strikes and has dispatched 4 warships with ballistic and cruise missiles to the area.
http://www.theverge.com/2013/8/24/46...hemical-attack

Assad SAA is also blocking efforts of the UN weapons inspectors from reaching the affected areas while denying they've ever used chemical weapons during the war.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-...s-move-closer/

Strategically I don't see what the end game is with this response. do you establish no fly zones? Take out artillery sites and weapons storage and creation facilities? Do you drop special forces in ?

I doubt the Russians are happy with this and they have fleet units of their own in the area.

This is a bit of fixing the fence after the horses escaped and were eaten by wolves.

[killer_carlson]

One million refugee CHIlDREN now, most under the age of 11.

Awful.

[transplant99]

So, its very apparent now that Assad is responsible for launching these WMD's against his own civilian population.

Would people be opposed to boots on the ground and an invasion into this clusterfata?

"If the Syrian government had nothing to hide and wanted to prove to the world that it had not used chemical weapons in this incident, it would have ceased its attacks on the area and granted immediate access to the UN -- five days ago," the official said Sunday.

"At this juncture, the belated decision by the regime to grant access to the U.N. team is too late to be credible, including because the evidence available has been significantly corrupted as a result of the regime's persistent shelling and other intentional actions over the last five days," the official, who was not authorized to speak publicly, said in a statement.

"Based on the reported number of victims, reported symptoms of those who were killed or injured, witness accounts, and other facts gathered by open sources, the U.S. intelligence community, and international partners, there is very little doubt at this point that a chemical weapon was used by the Syrian regime against civilians in this incident.

[CaptainCrunch]

I think its too late for boots on the ground, and you'd have outside forces fighting both sides. You also have the spectre of Russian reaction to it.

At the very least the Russian's would work to stop logistical support and threaten U.S. Fleet assets in the area if they were that determined.

No resolutions are going to pass as long as China and Russia have a veto in the UN.

The time to do anything was months ago when the chemical weapons were still in their armories.

It wouldn't surprise me if all of the sub units have chemical weapons in their arsenal.

The only other thing you could do is send in air strikes against artillery sites. but since a lot of these weapons can be fired from mobile missile and artillery and mortar units, it would be impossible to stop all of them.

I wouldn't be surprised if Russia and Iran had sent chemical weapons into Syria.

The place is a mess, at this point you might have to let this thing play out at a huge human cost and go in and clean up the bodies.

[FlameOn]

At this point the only way you'd have any sort of legitimacy in intervening in the conflict is through the UN. With China and Russia strongly vetoing any action, nothing will get done there.

>60% of Americans themselves would strongly oppose any boots on the ground intervention into the conflict so more than likely nothing will get done and the US is going to appear even weaker from a foreign policy perspective.
Link

[Mike F]

Boots on the ground to what end?

From what I've gathered from experts, you have Assad and his Alawite minority which has been suppressing other groups for decades, vs a mainly Sunni insurgency backed in large part by what most countries consider terrorist groups.

Obviously Assad is way in the wrong using chemical weapons and targeting civilians, but experts also agree that if/when the Sunni insurgency wins, the first thing they'll do is start an ethnic cleansing of the entire Alawite population, whether part of the gov't or not.

So the int'l community is in the position of having to help install a new ruling class in Syria that will commit its own atrocities, or to step in and try to run the country a la Iraq, with the same results to follow.

As hard as it is to watch civilians targeted and killed, I don't think the western world has any place stepping in. The Arab League has to start figuring out its own business.

[NBC]

Breaking News: SKY News is reporting that UN Weapons Inspectors in Syria have been fired upon by snipers. The actual statement is: "Weapons inspectors investigating an alleged chemical attack in the city of Damascus have been shot by snipers, the UN has said."

Shot and shot at are very different.

Just when you do not think it can get any more convoluted in Syria, you have something like this.

"http://news.sky.com/story/1133285/syria-weapons-inspectors-shot-by-snipers

Update: "Weapons inspectors investigating an alleged chemical attack in Damascus have been shot at by snipers, the UN has said. The alleged shooting came after the team's hotel in the city was rocked by at least two mortar bombs."

[DFO]

The rest of the world just needs to stay out. It's like groundhog day - every country in the middle east has these sectarian/religious issues simmering away. It all goes back to WW1 doesn't it? The region wasn't allowed to carve itself up along those sectarian lines but rather had these borders imposed.

[mikey_the_redneck]

Well if the "US intellegence community" and "international partners" say its true, ...then it must be true!

Assad is not targeting civilians with wmd's folks. It is completely illogical. There is no popular resistance to Assad. Does anyone care to suggest why Assad would bomb civilians with chemical weapons while under the international microscope? What does Assad gain by killing children? There is no need for it. It would be a major strategic faux pas. Remember a year ago Obama said Syria using wmd's was a "red line" not to be crossed? Thats how you know its fake. The Al-Qaeda rebels are trying to frame up the regime hoping to take advantage of western military help to seize power....just like in Libya.

These blatant lies are even worse than the claims of Iraqi soldiers dumping babies out of incubators in Kuwait. Total garbage propaganda.

The real problem is that the foreign mercenaries are getting whooped by Assads army, and they absolutely need more direct western assistance.

Interestingly, Henry Kissinger said last week that a balkanized "failed state" is the ideal outcome for Syria.

By the way, the rebels are not just going to eliminate alawite muslims, but also jews, christians and anyone who does not want to convert to Islam or leave the country.

[jofillips]

mikey, read more news - you're clearly misinformed about the world.
I didn't know that Al-Qaeda controlled Libya or that you have such good contacts within the Assad regime.

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by jofillips

mikey, read more news - you're clearly misinformed about the world.
I didn't know that Al-Qaeda controlled Libya or that you have such good contacts within the Assad regime.

Yeah I'm misinformed.

And people who didn't believe the 2003 Iraqi wmd claims? They were also misinformed. Hey, did they find those Iraqi wmd's yet? Thank god they didn't menace the world with them...

Al-Qaeda affiliated groups and their leaders (Al-Nusra, LIFG) were among the Libyan "rebels" as well. You can check out that thread for more information. Hell, some of their weapons and fighters got shipped into Turkey/Jordan for the Syrian invasion.

[CaptainCrunch]

Can you tell me what possible end the Rebels have in bombing out Children and framing the government. They don't want any part of boots on the ground by Western nations or Arab states that are not only going to topple Asaad and impose their own government that might be equally unfriendly to elements of the rebel groups.

You could argue that it will just make more people flood to the Rebels due to a frame up. But its a step that wasn't needed because of the heavy handedness of the government anyways in terms of killing their own civilians.

You fail to understand how the leaders of these Middle Eastern States operate. They believe strongly in maximum punitive measures to cow the rebeling elements and they make it clear that if you side with the Rebels your going to pay the price.

Asaad really doesn't give two craps about the International community because he has two incredibly powerful patrons in his corner that will tie up any international response and a third in Iran that will tie up any Arab response. So International condemnation means little to him, and he's proven that time and time again.

On top of that, Asaad has a fairly massive chemical inventory. Please tell me where the Rebels are getting Sarin gas and VX gas? Also where are they getting specialized troops that you need to both deploy the weapons and operate safely in those environments?

There would be one of two ways.

1) They're stealing them from the Syrian army, If that was true don't you think that Asaad would be all over that screaming from the roof tops that he was innocent and the weapons were stolen and because control of chemical weapons is precise be able to show what stocks were stolen?

2) Your old standby of the Western powers are importing them. Well the big Western gun used to be the united States, but they've disposed of well over 90% of their chemical stockpiles under their treaty obligations. France and Great Britain have also destroyed the majority of their chemical stockpiles as well.

The major players in Chemical weapons are the Russians who still retain a significant arsenal and still continue to develop them. China who still retains a significant arsenal, Iran has held on to a lot of their stuff as well as some other Arab states, and Syria that has four production facilities and a fairly large arsenal especially of Sarin. So if your going to put in a Western Powers gave the Rebels chemicals, I want proof, and not Alex Jones or Infowars level of proof. I want actual proof that's not speculation.

Your theory makes no sense, the Rebels are already getting recruits they don't need chemical attacks since Asaad has been pretty efficient at both winning the battles but leveraging punative attacks to punish sympathizers. The Rebels don't want Western powers on the ground because they can't control who would govern. Asaad doesn't care about International scrutiny as long as he's got two members of the UN security council with Veto's on his size who one of them already has a fairly sizable naval precence in the Region. He also has one of the most dangerous Arab powers in his corner in Iran.

Your theory makes little sense to me.

If this was a crime drama. Asaad has motive, he has means and he certainly has opportunity.

Sometimes things are as they are not matter how un-exciting it is to a conspiracy theorist.

[NBC]

This is why Iraq was always a good case study for the current problems in Syria. Saddam Hussein did many things that defied western "logic" such as invading Kuwait six months prior to acquiring a serviceable nuclear device. How much sense did that make? How would a serviceable nuclear device changed the game in 1991 from the perspective of the international community?

This is the exactly the point that Capt. makes - these Middle East dictators do not make decisions based upon any western model. They clearly are not Rational Actors, nor do they rule via committees or organisations. Saddam ruled with an iron first and was involved in every strategic decision the regime made. Regime decisions were expected to be carried out immediately and without opposition. Logic and pragmatism played no part in regime decision-making. I would find it hard to believe that President Assad conducts regime business any differently.

Former head of the Iraq Survey Group Charles Duelfer told me that the biggest problem that the ISG faced when they went into Iraq in 2003 was that they presumed that the regime worked in a logical, pragmatic way and that strategic decisions would have been made in in a similar fashion. As a result, they were never really able to fully understand how the regime worked and why certain decisions were made - ones that made little to no sense when viewed through a western lens. I can see the same problems occurring in Syria much the same as they did in Iraq and it is going to cause a problem for those who are involved in trying to unravel this convoluted web of propaganda, misinformation and storytelling.

The point to this long-winded tirade of mine is that to try and apply reason or logic to decisions that are made in this part of the world is pointless. No one could possibly ascertain why the regime - or the rebels for that matter - would want to deploy chemical weapons against a civilian population. What and how we think on these sorts of topics doesn't get us any closer to understanding the reasons why a tyrant like Assad or Saddam Hussein took the decisions that they did.

[NuclearPizzaMan]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

Yeah I'm misinformed.

And people who didn't believe the 2003 Iraqi wmd claims? They were also misinformed. Hey, did they find those Iraqi wmd's yet? Thank god they didn't menace the world with them...

Al-Qaeda affiliated groups and their leaders (Al-Nusra, LIFG) were among the Libyan "rebels" as well. You can check out that thread for more information. Hell, some of their weapons and fighters got shipped into Turkey/Jordan for the Syrian invasion.

You have a one-dimensional mind.

[Bill Bumface]

These threads love nothing more than delivering the phrase "boots on the ground" over and over.

It seems there is no possible happy ending for Syria, and I think anyone has any bright ideas for stopping the murder of innocent bystanders that is happening every day.

You hope they can just carve the area up and divide it between all the interested parties, but even then you are not going to have success unless millions uproot and leave their homes.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

These threads love nothing more than delivering the phrase "boots on the ground" over and over.

It seems there is no possible happy ending for Syria, and I think anyone has any bright ideas for stopping the murder of innocent bystanders that is happening every day.

You hope they can just carve the area up and divide it between all the interested parties, but even then you are not going to have success unless millions uproot and leave their homes.

No your right. Right now, more then in any other situation that we've seen recently with the Arab Spring movements that happened and the unhappiness in Egypt and other nations, the Syrian situation represents the perfect storm of the problems with the UN in its current structure. International diplomacy falling back to cold war levels. A fairly brutal dictator with advanced weapons in hand and the willingness to use them and a severely imperfect rebel uprising.

Its a mess that can't be straightened out and represents the perfect Winnie the Pooh tar baby for anyone that dares get involved.

It would be nice to see something like a split of the country, but that's never going to happen. Both sides are basically going to brutalize each other either until the Rebel Groups and most of the sympathizing populace are wiped out, or Asaad is hung by his boots on main street. My over fear is we're going to see a dissolution of a bunch of Arab states into Anarchy with Iran gathering the power that falls into their laps.

Most nations that had uprising looked to the Iranian example on how to handle it, and that's with systematic brutality with god supposedly on your side giving you divine right to rule by any means necessary

[Knut]

It is so damn messy that the best thing to do may be to provide support to countries that are dealing with the worsening refugee crisis. You can maybe rebuild some faith in the west and be able to avoid worsening tensions by going in.

Eg. financial aid to countries like Jordan, Turkey and even Iraq that will be seeing the brunt of people crossing the borders.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Hesla

It is so damn messy that the best thing to do may be to provide support to countries that are dealing with the worsening refugee crisis. You can maybe rebuild some faith in the west and be able to avoid worsening tensions by going in.

Eg. financial aid to countries like Jordan, Turkey and even Iraq that will be seeing the brunt of people crossing the borders.

That's what the current US position is. The US was going to provide weapons, but that was blocked by congress:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...96713N20130708

The USA has given about 1 billion dollars in humanitarian aid to refugees:

http://www.voanews.com/content/us-to...s/1725613.html

That includes things like food, hygiene kits, etc..