If you are debating intervention in Syria ...

[Borachio]

@Winner Um. No, is the most likely answer to your question, I think.

Assad is a pariah anyway, as far as the US is concerned.

But the inspectors are only ever going to come up with the conclusion: it looks highly likely that chemical weapon so and so was used here. Nothing more. If that.

@Commodore Yes, that's all possible. I was just presenting how things struck me at the time.

Once we start digging away at this, though, with theories involving double, triple bluffs we'll never reach the truth. Not that I think we will anyway.

 

[Rashiminos]

If the US was really the world police you'd frakking know it.

That's classified.

 

[W|M]

Has nobody considered the possibility that rebels are fighting among themselves?

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Has nobody considered the possibility that rebels are fighting among themselves?

I don't think they are doing that at an appreciable scale at the moment. They will turn on each other after Assad falls.

 

[kramerfan86]

Has nobody considered the possibility that rebels are fighting among themselves?

I dont know how wide spread it is but I know I just read a story yesterday about how the Kurdish rebels essentially are at war with the radicals more than they are Assad at this point. I guarantee if Assad magically fell tomorrow this civil war keeps trucking.

 

[Commodore]

Has nobody considered the possibility that rebels are fighting among themselves?

Of course they are fighting among themselves, which is why they are not to be supported. The more I find out about these rebels, the more I start to think Assad's victory in the civil war would be the best thing for the world.

 

[DemonicAppleGuY]

Of course they are fighting among themselves, which is why they are not to be supported. The more I find out about these rebels, the more I start to think Assad's victory in the civil war would be the best thing for the world.

If you define the "World" as Russia and Iran, sure.

If you define the "World" as everyone, there are no good options.

 

[Rashiminos]

It is just so much hypocritical propaganda. The atrocities of our "friends" are excused on a regular basis. But the atrocities of our "enemies" are used as an excuse to kill even more innocent people under the guise of "collateral damage".

Maybe the hypocrisy stems from the perspective that the US is on some sort of humanitarian mission.

It's like all the dreadlocked youths shouting "gestapo" at the police every time they get what they deserve for doing something illegal. In other words, a groundless hyperbole they should be ashamed of.

Maybe we should make being a youth illegal so we can deservedly shame them every time.

 

[Commodore]

If you define the "World" as Russia and Iran, sure.

If you define the "World" as everyone, there are no good options.

That's why I said "best thing" and not "good thing". The implication being that Assad's victory, while not a good outcome, is a better outcome than a rebel victory.

 

[Winner]

Maybe we should make being a youth illegal so we can deservedly shame them every time.

No, but personally I'd ban dreadlocks straight away.

 

[Rashiminos]

I already looked at the evidence myself. The only risk here is that it is a massive conspiracy by the US and all lies. Something I seriously doubt when they've declassified the information in an unprecedented manner.

It's unprecedented, so why would the truth-telling aspect of the US government disseminating information necessarily be preserved in this behavioral change?

No, but personally I'd ban dreadlocks straight away.

That would explain the finding of hyperbole.

 

[Borachio]

Maybe the hypocrisy stems from the perspective that the US is on some sort of humanitarian mission.

What other motive might the US have for intervening in Syria?

 

[Gucumatz]

The fact that it is partially humanitarian is a bonus, but wouldn't be enough to get involved

IMO

- 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

- Sends a message to Iran in regards to its Nuclear weapons program, we have red lines and will cross them if you do

- 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.

- 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)

- 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

 

[Borachio]

I can follow the logic of that.

But what a high risk strategy to undertake!

No clear objectives. No transitional arrangements following the fall of the present regime. Just anarchy and chaos.

Yeah, why not?

Is there nothing better on offer?

 

[DemonicAppleGuY]

What other motive might the US have for intervening in Syria?

Not losing credibility. Although that is tied to the humanitarianism of the situation.

 

[Borachio]

Hmm. That's a very risky way of maintaining credibility, imo.

"We're going to do this. We know it's probably not the right thing to do. But we've said there's a red line not to be crossed. You've crossed the red line, so now we must act."

Talk about talking yourself into a corner.

 

[Gucumatz]

I can follow the logic of that.

But what a high risk strategy to undertake!

No clear objectives. No transitional arrangements following the fall of the present regime. Just anarchy and chaos.

Yeah, why not?

Is there nothing better on offer?

Its amusing to see how anarchists get so squeamish when presented with opportunities for actual anarchy. Not directed at you Borachio... this just made me think of some conversations I have had with people IRL about Syria who consider themselves anarchists

Either way, yes there are no clear objectives and that can be a problem with a country as large as Syria. But there is a difference between an occupation without objections vs. a military campaign and then letting things fall into place organically by the internal players of Syria. There is no reason we should have internal objectives to build Syria - Syria can handle that on its own. What it can't do without outside intervention, is determine a winner of the conflict

 

[Borachio]

Hasn't Syria previously managed to win its civil wars without outside intervention?

 

[Gucumatz]

Yes. But again, there is a difference between ongoing civil wars and shortenining a civil war. Of course the war would stop eventually. But with intervention you could cut that time down by say 80% (Just a random #, a real estimate would be probably closer to 90-99%). And add to that it serves American, European, and Turkish interests - why not do it if the cost analysis shows we can do it effectively (And we can)?


IE if the war draws on for say... 40 years - it would conclude naturally on its own sure, but Syria will never progress economically, internationally, and remain a mess for everyone during those 40 years.

Say we intervene and reduce the conflict down to say 4 months with the rebels taking over strongholds etc. Syria would have 39 years and 8 months to grow organically under peace that it wouldn't able to do if it was at war

 

[Borachio]

I'm not sure it does serve European or Turkish interests. And the only interest the US has is its credibility, as far as I can see.