Assad is an England-educated dentist, for crying out loud. The regime he ended up heading by accident is of course disgusting, but I assume it wants to survive. The US made it clear in the past that using chemical weapons would be the casus belli it needs to start dropping bombs.
Arguing with the insanity of your strategic opponents is usually wrong. Their goals may be repellent and their morals disgusting, but they are usually rational actors.
Then I'll flip it back against you. How educated is Obama? How war-weary is the American public? How vetoing are the Russians?
Obama would not make the stupid mistake of
manufacturing lies... for what? Is Syria really that big of a strategic interest for the US? Why isn't Obama talking about moving in ground troops then, to make sure the US can solidify this supposedly massive strategic interest?
It would be massively risky and
stupid for Obama to be lying.
Things don't add up - Assad isn't losing now, his guys may still win using conventional weapons. Using chemical weapons is not necessary now, and using them especially in DAMASCUS, which is about the most accessible and visible place for foreigners in Syria, would be an immensely stupid move.
Asaad isn't losing on a grand scale, but he hasn't been able to knock out the rebel groups in Damascus. How dare the rebels hold off successfully in his own capital city? Perhaps it's time to sent a message. Fight against Asaad, and your family dies a painful death. And nobody, not even the US, will stop him.
Given the past US record of distorting intelligence reports to suit political needs of those in charge, I'd be VERY careful about this. And of course, the intel may simply be wrong.
I would also be careful.
But why not have allowed the UN inspectors into the area immediately? That, imo, is highly suspicious. Then there were the sniper attacks on the inspectors: looks like playing for more time, to me.
So Asaad would have time to shell the area to destroy evidence and let the effects and time pass so that it'd be harder to prove conclusively what happened. But it could also have been because of distrust of UN motives.
I don't know, but let me ask this question.
If the UN inspectors went in (with some delay), and returned saying "We're not 100% sure, but we think the rebels did it" - would the US now be drumming up support for bombing the rebels?
The rebels are an amorphous group. The government is not. The government has the capacity and authority to enact such atrocities on a large scale, and one occurrence would be indicative of the entire government being corrupt. There's a distinct difference.
But if you'd like to force my hand, I would be in support of either eliminating the rebel group responsible for the atrocities, or the chemical sites themselves. Probably both. Anyone who disagrees is likely abhorrent of the idea of siding with the government because of evidence already present of the government's guilt, not necessarily because of a predetermined bias.
Has nobody considered the possibility that rebels are fighting among themselves?
The rebels do not have the means to deliver such chemical attacks.
It's unprecedented, so why would the truth-telling aspect of the US government disseminating information necessarily be preserved in this behavioral change?
Because the US has a lot to lose if it is revealed that this intelligence is pure lies. It doesn't have much to lose if it says "we have intel that it was Asaad", because it can subsequently say "turns out our intel wasn't good enough". Now they've put the hard intel on our table and there are no more "half-lies". Either the intel is legitimate, or it is pure lies.
The political fallout would be massive and not worth it. They've already learned how documents can be leaked to the public through Manning and Snowden.
- This will act as a deterrent against future uses of chemical weapons. Putting in this effort now will lead to nations in the future thinking twice about the use of chem weapons at the possible risk of retaliation from the west
The most important part of this intervention.
- Sends a message to Iran in regards to its Nuclear weapons program, we have red lines and will cross them if you do
Which is an added bonus, but won't impact much.
- Allows for continuation of the Libya policy - Wipe out the defenses of the military and then let the rebels take care of the work. Sure the subsequent country will be a mess, but that's perfectly natural for any country that comes out of decades long dictatorship like Syria will.
Which in my opinion, worked fairly well and turned out with a nicer much lesser evil.
- The removal of an Iranian ally, further strengthening NATO and the EU in the region once Syria's military falls, and providing for added security to US bases in Jordan and European bases in the region. The fall of Assad will lead to a further consolidation of power for Turkey in the region, leading to longer term stability (not in the short run, but long run)
Which I guess is great for NATO but irrelevant for humanity as a whole. (Except for the stability part)
- And ultimately the hopeful spread of internal and an eventually sustainable democracy. Yes Libya, Tunisia, and Egypt are all having their issues but those are organic issues rather than say Afghan elections post US
The important part to note is that it is still very early for these Arab Springs. You don't just transition to democracy in a year and everything's fine and dandy.
No clear objectives. No transitional arrangements following the fall of the present regime. Just anarchy and chaos.
Just sending the missiles themselves ought to be one of the objectives. There has to be a "price tag" on the use of chemical weapons. A price tag so high that nobody ever does it. A price tag that is enforced.
You've factored in the > 10 years of instability, anarchy and chaos into your calculations?
Irrelevant - Because those 10 years of instability would be present in either a case with Foreign involvement or without it
Exactly.
