Chemical Weapon used in Syria, Western military response likely

[puckluck2]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

Who?

Jordan, Egypt are two off the top of my head. Not sure about Turkey.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by puckluck2

Jordan, Egypt are two off the top of my head. Not sure about Turkey.

Turkey and Israel are generally friendly countries. There was that mishap a few years ago when Israel used force against the ship of protesters from Turkey, but Israel issued an official apology to Turkey this year and relations have normalized again.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by undercoverbrother

So what has Israel done in all this to cause it to have missiles launched against it?

There were reports of an Israeli air strike against a hardened weapons bunker as there were reports of Syrian weapons and missile equipment ending up in the hands of Hezbollah who have been supporting the Syrian government.

The mid eastern countries know that threats of retaliation against Israel or actual retaliation against Israel , puts the Western nations and Israel in a tough spot. Israel will have no choice but to retaliate in a massive manner. This will draw attention away from Syria, and make Israel even more of a bad guy in the Region if they for example strike into Syria or Iran.

Israel is in the no win scenario in this conflict if Iran or any of the other nations play out on their threats.

The biggest thing that this whole mess has done is drawn attention away from the Israel vs Iran's nuclear weapons program, and the thoughts of Israel launching a pre-emptive strike.

I doubt that anyone is going to actually strike at Israel at this point, it just opens you up to a massive air missile strike.

I doubt that anyone would launch chemical weapons at Israel because they share the same view as the States. An attack by WMD no matter what the type leads to a nuclear retaliation. The Western World sees Chemical, biological and Nuclear as the same weapon.

[dustyanddaflames]

So for someone who doesn't really follow the world news that closely - how do people on this board feel things are going to play out? I've been trying to catch up the best I can, as this has sparked my interest, however I am still way behind the curve here.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by puckluck2

Jordan, Egypt are two off the top of my head. Not sure about Turkey.

Egypt is iffy, or at least it was when the Muslim Brotherhood took power, however there are some major military treaties between Egypt and Israel. With the new government in place, relations are still not normalized, but they are a bit improved.

Turkey does a lot of work with Israel under the table in terms of shared intelligence etc. Jordan is a pretty moderate state when it comes to Israel.

Iran is a big threat and the Hezbollah crazies in Lebanon are a big threat.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by dustyanddaflames

So for someone who doesn't really follow the world news that closely - how do people on this board feel things are going to play out? I've been trying to catch up the best I can, as this has sparked my interest, however I am still way behind the curve here.

Me personally. I believe next to nothing will happen because there will never be a resolution in the UN.

Nato might take this on themselves, but I don't have faith in Obama's ability to show foreign policy strength in this case. The American's might lob a couple of cruise missiles from a distance and call it a day.

This is really up to the Arab States to decide what they want to do.

I personally think that Asaad feels pretty secure and he'll keep slaughtering civillians as a object lesson to every civilian in his country. He's got a shield made out of Bear and Dragon.

The French are a wild card, they've started to get a little rowdy over the last few years.

[Ozy_Flame]

Any UN action that sanctions military intervention should be led by the Arab League, and supported by Western powers, hopefully with some further supporting cast from Eastern countries. I would be hesitant to do anything in Syria without a majority consensus from regional powers on this, because the U.S. should not tackle this withou Arab allies. However, I do think a chemical weapons attack against civilians will propel Turkey and Israel into forefront roles in this conflict, especially if Syria, Iran and Hezbollah start to point fingers at them for even the slightest of diplomatic discrepancies.

[NBC]

Originally Posted by worth

Just a question: why is using chemical weapons that kills hundreds or thousands of people more reprehensible or deserve military intervention, while the slaughter of tens of thousands through conventional means does not deserve intervention?

The end result is the same, so why does it matter what the delivery system was?

Is it because of the treaties surrounding such acts, or the ease of killing?

Worth, the issue for the international community is one of legitimacy. If it is proven that the Assad regime was responsible for deploying chemical munitions in the Damascus suburbs and there is no international response, then, as Julian Robinson states, "Failure to act against the perpetrators... if the reports are true, could be tantamount to condoning it, even legitimizing such chemical warfare for the future." Chemical weapons are the least technologically sophisticated of the "Big 3" types of unconventional weapons Nuclear, Biological and Chemical. Many states have possessed significant chemical R&D programs, CW delivery systems and stockpiles of munitions from the UK to Belgium to South Africa to the USSR and North Korea, as well as many others. While it has become more difficult to procure chemical precursors and other material necessary for an active CW program, thanks to the Australia Group and the OPCW, etc, these barriers did little to prevent the Russians from developing a new aerosol version of 3-methylfentanyl which they used to bring the Moscow Theatre Siege to conclusion in 2002. States outside the international community like Syria and North Korea are not subject to UN inspections that are set out in the respective disarmament treaties and therefore are provided with some more latitude in which to research and potentially develop unconventional munitions like what we are seeing currently in Syria.

Syria has not signed or ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention though they are a party to the 1925 Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare, which prohibits "asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and of all analogous liquids, materials or devices" and "bacteriological methods of warfare". This in direct violation of the protocol, which was the original piece of international legislation that led to the eventual creation of the CWC and its implementing agency the OPCW.

The potential for these Syrian allegations, if proven to be true, to undermine the work the international community has done through the OPCW is significant and simply put, cannot be allowed to happen. Twenty-five years ago, the perpetrators of the Anfal campaign in north Iraq were never held to account for their crimes. Hopefully this will not be the case in Syria, though it remains to be seen exactly what the international response will be.

Originally Posted by puckluck2

Because chemical weapons would be disastrous for this planet. Sure, people die by bullets and bombs every day but imagine having 2 nations flinging missiles filled with chemicals in them.

The amount of innocent people who'd die would be unheard of.

Puck, we have seen the effects of nations fighting with chemical munitions numerous times in the Twentieth century, beginning in 1915 with the failed German chlorine gas attack at Bolimov on the Eastern Front and most recently during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq War, where both sides engaged in CW deployment against enemy troops, positions and cities. While horrific for many reasons, the numbers of fatalities across the decades of chemical warfare is relatively low when compared to conventional munitions. Chemical weapons can be contained within a particular area or theatre of operations and there are methods of decontaminating that are quite effective. Biological weapons on the other hand are an entirely different kettle of fish and may be more likely to what you are referring.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

Any UN action that sanctions military intervention should be led by the Arab League, and supported by Western powers, hopefully with some further supporting cast from Eastern countries. I would be hesitant to do anything in Syria without a majority consensus from regional powers on this, because the U.S. should not tackle this withou Arab allies. However, I do think a chemical weapons attack against civilians will propel Turkey and Israel into forefront roles in this conflict, especially if Syria, Iran and Hezbollah start to point fingers at them for even the slightest of diplomatic discrepancies.

The assumption that this is every going to be a UN action, it can never be a UN action as long as the security council is structured in the way it is. Any resolutions that effects Syria will not get passed unless Russia and China either vote for it or abstain from the vote, and that won't happen at all.

If there is any action that's going to happen its either going to be a Nato led operation, or a Arab League operation, or a combination of in contravention of the UN.

Ultimately if something were to happen, my preference would be the Arab League providing the fire power with the Western nations providing support. IE deploy the Mount Whitney Command and Control ship. Proved armaments and maintenance facilities to Arab League fighters and bombers.

Under the whole argument (which I don't buy) that ignoring the UN is tantamount to breaking international law. This operation will have to break international law if its going to happen.

I listened to the head honcho making his speech that we have to give diplomacy and peace a chance. Part of me thought "You had your chance, you got used by Asaad when you had that peace summit there, ffs people are dying by the hundreds of thousands while you meet in committees."

The UN to me is entirely useless when it comes to situations like this.

But I don't want to see Canada getting stuck in this tar baby right now where we get shot at by all 6 sides in this thing.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by CofR

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23864124

The UK going to the UN looks like a way to back out military action. Russia and China will both veto any action. This way the UK/US can say they made all efforts to promote an attack, but then blame Russia/China for nothing actually being done.

[Itse]

Just recently listened to a lecture on biochemical warfare. Basicly, generally not worth it for anyone, and mostly hated because of the gut reaction people have to the weapons, not really for any rational reason or fear.

I have to admit I'm rather sceptical of Assad using chemical weapons. It kind of just fits the narrative too nicely. War propaganda is an age old game and the English and the US have always been great at it. Heck, people still generally think Napoleon was short.

"False flag" operations are far from tinfoil hat stuff. It doesn't take a genious to come up with it or make it work. Some studies have made educated guesses that numerous certain terrorist cells operating before the Russian revolution might have effectively been run by the Czar police justifying cracking down on them, and actually had more undercover operatives than genuine revolutionaries.

Btw, if you followed Russian or Chinese news on stories like these, they generally similarly claim the moral high ground and to be on the side of the civilians, not very different from the way the US and it's allies do.

As to Russia and China being somehow bad guys here, I'll just like to remind of another basic point; there is nothing that Assad can offer to the Russians and the Chinese that another regime running that same country could not, if the western powers agreed.

It's just powergames, and a lot of the time the superpowers are really just picking the side that opposes the side that the other superpower is backing for no actual reason than to keep their powergames going.

[Itse]

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opi...479399319.html

If these proposed strikes were about Syrian lives, and not a proxy war to destabilise the "Shia axis" of Iran, Syria and Hezbollah, the West wouldn't snub Assad's allies - Russia, China and Iran - by proposing to bypass the UN. Nor would it blatantly discredit the currently working weapons inspectors whom Russia used its pressure to persuade Assad to allow into Syria in the first place.

If the US were remotely serious about a morally correct international response to the alleged use of chemical weapons it would, as the former British government security advisor, Admiral Lord West, suggested on Wednesday, share any evidence it claims to possess with Russia and China. Antagonising Russia also makes it much harder to coordinate the humanitarian effort desperately needed not just in the refugee camps in neighbouring countries, but within Syria itself.

If the goal were to help the Syrian people, how could this diplomatically rude unilateralism count as a sensible move?

Most of all, it should be clear that the strikes are about saving face, not saving lives, because of the warnings of disastrous consequences.

That's one of those funny things.

If you really have evidence to prove your point, why would you not share it?

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Itse

If you really have evidence to prove your point, why would you not share it?

Sometimes evidence can be a pointer to how the evidence is collected. So raw data has to be transformed to keep your sources safe, or decisions have to made without benefit of the original data altogether.

Obviously this makes it easy to manipulate what you do have to support what you want it to support. Which is how fiascos like the 2nd invasion of Iraq get started. However, it's pretty well an insoluble problem because if you don't hide how you get your data to a certain extent, it becomes trivial to insert disinformation and you end up making decisions on what your enemies want you to believe is true.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Itse

Just recently listened to a lecture on biochemical warfare. Basicly, generally not worth it for anyone, and mostly hated because of the gut reaction people have to the weapons, not really for any rational reason or fear.

I have to admit I'm rather sceptical of Assad using chemical weapons. It kind of just fits the narrative too nicely. War propaganda is an age old game and the English and the US have always been great at it. Heck, people still generally think Napoleon was short.

"False flag" operations are far from tinfoil hat stuff. It doesn't take a genious to come up with it or make it work. Some studies have made educated guesses that numerous certain terrorist cells operating before the Russian revolution might have effectively been run by the Czar police justifying cracking down on them, and actually had more undercover operatives than genuine revolutionaries.

Btw, if you followed Russian or Chinese news on stories like these, they generally similarly claim the moral high ground and to be on the side of the civilians, not very different from the way the US and it's allies do.

As to Russia and China being somehow bad guys here, I'll just like to remind of another basic point; there is nothing that Assad can offer to the Russians and the Chinese that another regime running that same country could not, if the western powers agreed.

It's just powergames, and a lot of the time the superpowers are really just picking the side that opposes the side that the other superpower is backing for no actual reason than to keep their powergames going.

Russia and China are bad guys, because they've been funding the regime for years, continue to supply Assad with weapons, and blocked all efforts at intervention early on to come to a diplomatic solution. Your analogy about Assad being the only option is false. Assad could have called for an election early on, or at the very least introduced measures towards democratic reform, prior to Syria being overun with external miliatias.

As for the US's involvement, the US seems like a very apprehensive partner in all of this. From what I see, the US is being dragged into this. As for the US bypassing the UN/Russia, firstly I see no evidence of the US hiding information. Secondly, the reason to bypass the UN, would be because Russia is almost certainly going to block any action. It look much worse to be denied by the UN and then go ahead, than it does to just go ahead without the UN.

You're assetion that the US is not talking to Russia is also false. The US has been quite active in discussion with Russia. They've met with Russia many times on this issue.

I really don't know what you mean be "false flag" either. A rebel group may have commited a false flag operation. If you're insinuating the US did, that's pretty outrageous. Being forced into another middle eastern war is certainly not on Obama's list of top things to accomplish. The idea that he would then kill hundreds of civilians to accomplish that goal is just unfounded.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by jammies

Sometimes evidence can be a pointer to how the evidence is collected. So raw data has to be transformed to keep your sources safe, or decisions have to made without benefit of the original data altogether.

Obviously this makes it easy to manipulate what you do have to support what you want it to support. Which is how fiascos like the 2nd invasion of Iraq get started. However, it's pretty well an insoluble problem because if you don't hide how you get your data to a certain extent, it becomes trivial to insert disinformation and you end up making decisions on what your enemies want you to believe is true.

I think that is about right.

The only evidence that would appease Russia and China would also have include details on how the evidence was collected in order to be believable. The U.S., for obvious reasons, does not want to give that information to their major rivals (of whom they are likely also monitoring in a similar regard).

I don't claim to know what is really happening, but sharing evidence is not that easy in a situation like this.

[puckluck2]

Wait, wasn't it already said that the proof was a phone call which was traced between Assad and the chemical weapons unit? Pretty sure I read that so the idea of them not wanting to give up how they got their proof makes no sense.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by puckluck2

Wait, wasn't it already said that the proof was a phone call which was traced between Assad and the chemical weapons unit? Pretty sure I read that so the idea of them not wanting to give up how they got their proof makes no sense.

And knowing that, do you think Assad is going to give any further sensitive orders over telephone? He's certainly now going to have his security services trying to figure out how the US intercepted that call, and possibly close that leak. It's not like local calls are bounced off satellites, so it looks like somehow the Syrian military phone network has been compromised.

Or, maybe someone in the loop taped the call, sent it on, and the US only wants Syria to *think* the network has been compromised. And they want other players in the region to also worry about their own networks, thus spending valuable resources on looking for a non-existent threat.

However, that kind of Machiavellian ploy is more like something the Russians might do, whereas the Americans are probably just thinking that everyone already knows they monitor all kinds of electronic traffic, so this is the kind of hard data point they can afford to give up to further their narrative. But that doesn't mean they are going to go into detail on how all their intel is collected.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by puckluck2

Wait, wasn't it already said that the proof was a phone call which was traced between Assad and the chemical weapons unit? Pretty sure I read that so the idea of them not wanting to give up how they got their proof makes no sense.

that's what I heard as well.

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/po...used_nerve_gas

I go back to the argument of motive, means and opportunity.

Motive - While it sounds illogical, I don't think you can apply the rational leader tag as we understanding leaders to a lot of the middle eastern regimes, especially the ones that have to be considered dictatorial. these guys are bought up in a system of total power, and maintaining total power. They are not students of modern day sociology.

Even if Asaad is winning this battle. The idea is future prevention of up rising and destroying the more radical rebel elements and stuffing their ability to easily recruit. He has pretty much demonstrated that he can kill thousands without lifting a finger and there is literally no place to hide from chemical weapons unless your well trained and equipped. Are you going to be willing to rebel if your whole town or neighborhood or family can be snuffed out like a injured dog?

Means - We know that Syria has both the weapons in terms of VX and Sarin, as well as choking agents like mustard gas in fairly large quantities. We also know that he has the means to deliver them via aircraft, long tube artillary, rockets and even mortars. We know that there was a call placed to one of the specialized weapons units in his army which points to the weapons being released and deployed. I have a issue with the idea that he didn't know, because like the American Nuclear arsenal, the controls on these weapons are incredibly tight. If this officer had fired them on his own or without Asaad's approval, he would have been quickly held up as the fall guy, and then he would have been shot and his family punished. If the Rebels had stolen chemical weapons, Asaad would have gone in front of the world press. Pointed out his weapons control, produced a list of exactly what was taken, and destroyed international support for the Rebels.

The argument that the rebels did it is shaky at best. While it would probably weaken the Syrian military if the Western or Arab states impossed a no fly zone, or put feet on the ground, or probably did specialized strikes on chemical weapons factory's and storage units and unlimbered missile and artillary strikes. The likely hood is that either the Western powers would want to keep Asaad in power as a sop against the radical members of the rebellion. Or they would install a friendly government until elections could be called. Again this harms the end game of the rebel groups.

Besides those weapons are probably in the field and it would be incredibly tough to track them all down since Syria has a ton of Russian supplied mobile artillery pieces.

Opportunity - There's no doubt that Asaad is having a decent war now, he's winning. In effect he's also pushed the rebels into pretty much defined areas of hiding including villages, and sections of town. Now that he has them where he wants them. He can easily kill them in a highly efficient manner with the push of the botton. He doesn't have to weaken his troop strength with drawn out city block battles. He can also use what can be classed as the ultimate terror weapon to intimidate and deny the rebel group its future members.

So the question is. Why haven't the American's disclosed their full evidence. America values its intelligence gathering above anything else. By disclosing the evidence it might give up methods and possible sources which will not only let America's enemies find a way to protect their information. But would allow Syria to create intelligence counter measures.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by Hesla

Updates:

UN says chemical weapons were used.

@MahirZeynalov: UN Syria envoy Brahimi says chemical weapons were used in Syria, killing hundreds but Security Council decision needed for military action.

Israel preparing.

@MahirZeynalov: Israel is deploying all of its missile defences (Iron Dome, Patriot & Arrow II) as a precaution against possible Syrian retaliatory attacks.

Turkey points missiles toward Syria

@influxTR: For whom the bell tolls RT @todayszamancom: Turkey rotates missiles towards Syria http://t.co/fzJmVqR2hj http://t.co/GFUQ4loC6g

Didn't the head weapons inspector say yesterday that it would take a month for them to definitively say if chemical weapons were used? and that he was recommending that they wait before taking action, lest we end up with Iraq WMD part 2.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Rathji

Didn't the head weapons inspector say yesterday that it would take a month for them to definitively say if chemical weapons were used? and that he was recommending that they wait before taking action, lest we end up with Iraq WMD part 2.

Yeah, to me though it was typical UN Felbercarb. At this point there's no question that Syria has chemical weapons. We just had a large lump of people killed, and the potential for these weapons to be used again.

If you had some kind of stable peace in Syria then great fab wait a month. But because its not stable then lives are at risk.

I'm not necessarily a proponent of going in or Western power interference, but the UN has strange ideas of how responses should be happening, and that time has every meaning here.

Its just like the head of UN saying that they need more time for diplomacy. Diplomacy didn't work back then. And it isn't going to work now because the UN has been basically used and laughed at by Asaad and the Russians and the Chinese because they don't take decisive action in the name of peace.

What they should have done is dropped a special forces team into the site with the equipment and camera they needed to get every sample as quickly as possible.

They shouldn't have accepted Asaad's delaying tactics where they made the inspectors wait while tanks rolled into that town and secured it until the gas residue broke down and every piece of physical evidence was cleaned up.

Its like letting the mafia control a crime scene and access to it after a murder.

The UN doesn't work, there's no sense of urgency, the security council is always under lockdown due to the Veto law, and it just doesn't work.