The attack on Syria

[stinkubus]

Under the War Powers Act, Trump can send US military forces into combat only under certain circumstances, none applicable here. Thus, I don't expect to see any air strikes. IMHO, missiles are not covered by the WPA, and so Trump could again use them.

Every President since Nixon has claim the WPA is unconstitutional, but only a handful have ignored it (Reagan, Papa Bush, Obama, & I think maybe Clinton in Serbia).

The War Powers Act was passed in 1973. Your list includes half the men who have served in that time.

 

[innonimatu]

the usually well informed about Syria Patrick Cockburn believes that the use of chlorine by the syrian government may have happened in this case. Chlorine is also what the french claim was used. This is one case worth pushing for investigation, let's see if the OPCW can do its job.
Still, it is another case where the timing makes no sense. Reports are that the armed groups there had stuck a deal to leave, and did left, except for one that refused and started fighting among themselves at that time. It seems that after all the hard fighting, and the many hundreds or thousands of deaths were done, all the government had to do was wait a little longer.
It would be nice to have an investigation and then a logical and reliable explanation of what happened, for once!

 

[red_elk]

Eastern Gouta is fully under government control, after 5 years of fighting.
There is one small enclave remaining in Damascus, held partially by rebels, partially by ISIS.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Also, Syrian air defenses show unusually high effectiveness recently, e.g. shutting down one of Israeli fighter planes earlier this year.

I wonder why huh ?
And the US had just announced it was pulling out of Syria a short time ago as well. I suspect that a low level insurgency will continue even when the actual civil war ends.

 

[EnglishEdward]

Am I the only one who fears that an attack will lead to escalation, to potentially very destructive escalation?

No, you are not the only one.

The anti-imperialists criticised the UK and France for partitioning the former Ottoman provinces into protectorate zones after WW1,
but when I look at what has happened for the last five years and is going on now, I become quite nostalgic about such an orderly solution.

 

[luiz]

the usually well informed about Syria Patrick Cockburn believes that the use of chlorine by the syrian government may have happened in this case. Chlorine is also what the french claim was used. This is one case worth pushing for investigation, let's see if the OPCW can do its job.
Still, it is another case where the timing makes no sense. Reports are that the armed groups there had stuck a deal to leave, and did left, except for one that refused and started fighting among themselves at that time. It seems that after all the hard fighting, and the many hundreds or thousands of deaths were done, all the government had to do was wait a little longer.
It would be nice to have an investigation and then a logical and reliable explanation of what happened, for once!

I for one do not doubt for a second that Assad used chemical weapons as is claimed. Nor that he committed countless atrocities in the war - all sides did. What I ask myself is what good bombing Assad will bring the Syrian people. He is a bad man, a tyrant and murderer, just like Saddam and Kadafi. But Lybia should have taught us a lesson by now.

 

[Wastl]

But Lybia should have taught us a lesson by now.

What makes you think that it hasn't?

I often wonder why people assume that the same mistakes got made again and again, that simply isn't the case. The USA invaded Iraq, that didn't end up turning out all so well. In Libya the process changed to just bombing the dictator, and the outcome was once again not all that great. All that led to a different behaviour in regard to Syria. The civil war would have been over a very long time ago if an effort had been made to truly get involved, yet that didn't happen. Everyone thought that "the west" should stay out of it, because nothing good came out of the last attempts to get involved. So that is what happened, which led to an endless slaughter between the government and the rebels, putting both at the brink of annihilation, which made it easy for ISIS to waltz in and take over a lot of ground.

So everyone did indeed learn a lesson from Libya, it's just that the outcome was even worse than the ones before. Whether that means that someone should get involved is another matter, it seems doubtful to do any good. But what it means is that countries did indeed learn a lesson from what happened in Libya, and that it is ridiculous when someone blames "the west" for both Libya and Syria, as you cannot possibly be angry about an intervention turning bad and then follow that up by blaming Syria on the west because they let things escalate there without getting involved.

 

[r16]

great for the Mankind but a disaster for tactical surprise and the lot , that . BSS declares it coming , apparently immediately answered by the Russian Ambrassador to Lebanon that Western airbases and ships will be attacked and BSS starts talking of brotherhood and how cool it will be with Disarmament , supposedly within 40 minutes . Now the 6th Fleet will be off Gibraltar when our turn comes but it did indeed stop the American attack ....

and of course it couldn't be Russians , with the Ambrassador making it clear , so it was an Algerian plane that went down . 257 or so deaths . Naturally the "West" will explain it with the "stroke" that befell Halife Haftar . ı thought Libyan chemical stockpiles were out by 1998 ?

 

[luiz]

What makes you think that it hasn't?

I often wonder why people assume that the same mistakes got made again and again, that simply isn't the case. The USA invaded Iraq, that didn't end up turning out all so well. In Libya the process changed to just bombing the dictator, and the outcome was once again not all that great. All that led to a different behaviour in regard to Syria. The civil war would have been over a very long time ago if an effort had been made to truly get involved, yet that didn't happen. Everyone thought that "the west" should stay out of it, because nothing good came out of the last attempts to get involved. So that is what happened, which led to an endless slaughter between the government and the rebels, putting both at the brink of annihilation, which made it easy for ISIS to waltz in and take over a lot of ground.

So everyone did indeed learn a lesson from Libya, it's just that the outcome was even worse than the ones before. Whether that means that someone should get involved is another matter, it seems doubtful to do any good. But what it means is that countries did indeed learn a lesson from what happened in Libya, and that it is ridiculous when someone blames "the west" for both Libya and Syria, as you cannot possibly be angry about an intervention turning bad and then follow that up by blaming Syria on the west because they let things escalate there without getting involved.

Eh, except that the West did intervene in Syria, just less directly. It supplied ample funding and weapons to rebels, including rebels with deep links to Islamic terrorists. Western weapons ended up at the hands of Isis more than once. Not to mention the interventions of Qatar and Turkey, which have funded the rebels to the tune of billions of dollars.

There was no "hands off" approach in Syria, just no boots on the ground.

 

[Akka]

What I don't understand is what Trump plans to achieve with this hypothetical strike. Let's say Syria used chemical weapons. This is bad. Assad and his thugs are bad men. But what will bombing them achieve? Which opposition group will gain from this, if any? Or will it just prolong and embitter an already too long and too bitter conflict? I don't see a win scenario here.

Today, it's less about Syria itself (the game is pretty much over) and more about credibility of the West. Authoritarian regimes always tend to see democracies as soft and lacking in spine (typical popular dictator play on the "I'm a tough guy able to guide with a firm hand" by opposition over the supposedly indecisive and corrupt parliaments). The West already made a joke of itself by letting Assad trample over the "red line" in 2013, and the more it does that, the more it let everyone think that it's all bark and no bite. Reacting would maybe not change anything long term in Syria, but not doing so would show both that there is no retaliation for using chemical weapons (which is a pretty grim precedent) and makes the West appears weak, unwilling/unable to follow up its promises/threats (which is perhaps irrelevant in a schoolyard, but is quite more sensitive in the bigger world-politics-schoolyard).

In fact, I wonder just how much of this chemical attack isn't a deliberate provocation to see how far the West can be pushed. Putin has built his entire international politics on how far he can roll back the West, and Iran has lots to gain to see how it can wriggles before getting a reaction. Assad certainly has military reasons to use chemical weapons (terror strike to make insurgent cave in) but it's not like there isn't some deeper game going. The ferocity of the diplomatic response ("stop before WAR begins !") really lends credence that it's above all a staring contest between Russia and the West where the stakes are more international prestige and loss of face (with very real consequences down the road).

If the West doesn't follow its guarantees, anyway, I predict a LOT more to pay in the following years. Loss of credibility is never free, especially with rising authoritarian regimes eager to take back the world stage.

 

[r16]

at the last reporting America had two thousand troops of its own in Syria , 20 or more "bases" built over time and they are actually patrolling places in full uniform and the lot , not a "discrete" operation that's kept out of limelight . The West has opted for military defeat of the Syrian Regime that might have led to the deaths of thousands of Christians , in case Muslims do not rate as human . The West has been "defeated" , because its proxies are all talk but little action . Even Kurds are running when confronted , despite the thousands that got it lately in Afrin , because America needs to keep all its proxies in the game and mind you , the life of a Kurd is like more valuable for us Turks , when contrasted to their glorious seperatist leadership . A game of brinkmanship , vague threats , the whole lot and the West stops when Russia says it will fight back .

edit: and uh , it's not even two days and turns out it was New Turkey that stopped WW III .

 

[Verbose]

Today, it's less about Syria itself (the game is pretty much over) and more about credibility of the West. Authoritarian regimes always tend to see democracies as soft and lacking in spine (typical popular dictator play on the "I'm a tough guy able to guide with a firm hand" by opposition over the supposedly indecisive and corrupt parliaments). The West already made a joke of itself by letting Assad trample over the "red line" in 2013, and the more it does that, the more it let everyone think that it's all bark and no bite. Reacting would maybe not change anything long term in Syria, but not doing so would show both that there is no retaliation for using chemical weapons (which is a pretty grim precedent) and makes the West appears weak, unwilling/unable to follow up its promises/threats (which is perhaps irrelevant in a schoolyard, but is quite more sensitive in the bigger world-politics-schoolyard).

In fact, I wonder just how much of this chemical attack isn't a deliberate provocation to see how far the West can be pushed. Putin has built his entire international politics on how far he can roll back the West, and Iran has lots to gain to see how it can wriggles before getting a reaction. Assad certainly has military reasons to use chemical weapons (terror strike to make insurgent cave in) but it's not like there isn't some deeper game going. The ferocity of the diplomatic response ("stop before WAR begins !") really lends credence that it's above all a staring contest between Russia and the West where the stakes are more international prestige and loss of face (with very real consequences down the road).

If the West doesn't follow its guarantees, anyway, I predict a LOT more to pay in the following years. Loss of credibility is never free, especially with rising authoritarian regimes eager to take back the world stage.

I agree with this.

The really disheartening bit is still that it is eerily similar to the build up to other wars in history. (Syria, some eerie parallels to Spain in the 1930's...)

But the risk is considerable that the gambit really is to push back the US + European post-war gambit of democracy, trade and multilateral deal-making on the basis on a system of agreed upon rules.

On the assumption that Europe is "spent" and the US "degenerate" etc. the assumption can always be that they're too craven and spineless to ever confront such a process.

Syria is the lesser stake in all that. The real question comes when and how democracy and rule-based international politics might be actively defended, including military means?

Presumably "never" according to its detractors. In which case there should be no risk, since the US + EU etc. are just running an elaborate con, and all it will take is to call the bluff and they will fold.

The danger comes if it turns out that is an incorrect assessment, and democracy, rule of law, multilateral rule-making etc. actually has some fight left in them.

Unfortunately we might be approaching a time when this will actually be put to the test.

 

[Verbose]

at the last reporting America had two thousand troops of its own in Syria , 20 or more "bases" built over time and they are actually patrolling places in full uniform and the lot , not a "discrete" operation that's kept out of limelight . The West has opted for military defeat of the Syrian Regime that might have led to the deaths of thousands of Christians , in case Muslims do not rate as human . The West has been "defeated" , because its proxies are all talk but little action . Even Kurds are running when confronted , despite the thousands that got it lately in Afrin , because America needs to keep all its proxies in the game and mind you , the life of a Kurd is like more valuable for us Turks , when contrasted to their glorious seperatist leadership . A game of brinkmanship , vague threats , the whole lot and the West stops when Russia says it will fight back .

edit: and uh , it's not even two days and turns out it was New Turkey that stopped WW III .

Russia always wanted to keep Assad more than anyone in the west wanted him gone.

It doesn't really prove anything beyond that.

More importantly, it also solves nothing.

 

[r16]

11 everybody said he was gone already . Iran tested the waters , cautiously

12 a year after it began , started supporting Damascus . Saudis and their kind panicked or something . Likewise , a huge disappointment with the shooting down of a now dead Turkish Air Force Phantom , which was not answered by NATO in terms of Article 5

13 Redline crossed , but spineless jerk Obama could not either dare framing New Turkey , which was hilariously funny , nor you know bombing Syria

14 stuff , stuff , stuff

15 Russia like finally comes , Su-24 gets shot down but still no Article 5

16 stuff , stuff , stuff

17 stuff , stuff , stuff

long , stupid , pointless but it kinda shows Russia merely filled the vacuum and surprisingly got good mileage out of it . This has to be stopped , but like nobody likes getting shot back . The only thing that stopped the immediate "destruction" of Syria is that Russian "determination" to attack American ships and Cyprus . Which hurts America , now that Israelis were like bombing Syrian Regime with impunity . The solution lies in America giving up the ghost and making the Saudis and their ilk stop financing the so called rebellion . Which is not a solution , but like who cares ?

 

[red_elk]

I don't think it was a planned provocation on either side. America may decide that attacking Syria is not worth the risk and it will be sensible decision, but at this point it would be hard to do it without losing face.
But Putin obviously wouldn't want to drag the country into a big war over Syria, so if America decides to bomb it, Russia will also look pale.
It's a dangerous game, don't think anybody would willingly start it.

 

[Zkribbler]

...shooting down of a now dead Turkish Air Force Phantom , which was not answered by NATO in terms of Article 5

Nor by Turkey.

13 Redline crossed , but spineless jerk Obama could not either dare framing New Turkey , which was hilariously funny , nor you know bombing Syria

Instead, Obama (a) gets Syria to finally admit they have chemical weapons, and
(b) convinces Syria to turn over all chemical weapons, precursors, and documentation to the US.

US wins while neither suffering nor inflicting any casualties.

 

[red_elk]

Instead, Obama (a) gets Syria to finally admit they have chemical weapons, and
(b) convinces Syria to turn over all chemical weapons, precursors, and documentation to the US.

US wins while neither suffering nor inflicting any casualties.

It worked last time, why not repeat it?
Trump can convince Assad to turn over all chemical weapons again and Assad can agree. It's a win-win situation.

 

[red_elk]

Russian MoD releases evidence that the attack was staged:

The Russian Defense Ministry has presented what it says is proof that the reported chemical weapons attack in Syria was staged. It also accused the British government of pressuring the perpetrators to speed up the “provocation.”
During a briefing on Friday, the ministry showed interviews with two people, who, it said, are medical professionals working in the only hospital operating in Douma, a town near the Syrian capital, Damascus.
In the interviews released to the media, the two men reported how footage was shot of people dousing each other with water and treating children, which was claimed to show the aftermath of the April 7 chemical weapons attack. The patients shown in the video suffered from smoke poisoning and the water was poured on them by their relatives after a false claim that chemical weapons were used, the ministry said.

“Please, notice. These people do not hide their names. These are not some faceless claims on the social media by anonymous activists. They took part in taking that footage,” said ministry spokesman Major-General Igor Konashenkov.

https://www.rt.com/news/424047-russian-mod-syria-statement

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Russian MoD releases evidence that the attack was staged:

https://www.rt.com/news/424047-russian-mod-syria-statement

If only anyone outside of Russia considered the Russian MoD to be credible.

 

[red_elk]

For people "outside of Russia", there are special standards of credibility.
When the evidence presented by anti-Assad rebels who directly profit from USA bombing Syrian government forces, are taken for granted.