Use of Chemical Weapons in Syria

[Defiant47]

How about "I did not join the military to sit on my ass while innocents are slaughtered, just because there's uncertainty and neither side is good". Should we instead be happy that evil Al Qaeda and evil Asaad regime are killing each other, and just count up the civilian chemical-attack deaths as "unfortunate collateral damage"? I think not. Besides, the entire point of the strike is to deter all leaders ever to not use chemical weapons, not to fight for Al Qaeda. Intentions matter too.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

True, I am not an isolationist.

I am not glad any side is killing each other.

This is 1984 -- "I thought we were at war with Al Qaeda?" "No, you are mistaken, we have always been at war with the Ba'ath Party."

Send doctors. Send nurses. Send food and clothes for the victims of both sides if you REALLY want to help.

Sent via mobile.

 

[Defiant47]

Send doctors. Send nurses. Send food and clothes for the victims of both sides if you REALLY want to help.

My worry is that it will not stop the violence or bloodshed. It's like addressing the symptoms, but not the cause. You're there to heal them, but many will still die regardless, and it would help a whole lot more if they weren't dying in the first place.

This is why I am of the opinion that sometimes, bombs help people more than food and medicines every could

 

[ReindeerThistle]

In the cases of: USSR v. Nazi Germany; China/ PLA v. KMT yes. But that was not for us to decide.

The war is being perpetuated by outside forces. Withdraw the aid to the Al Qaeda Takfiri rebels. Pull the US and Russian ships out and see how long this lasts.

Remember, in 1980, Salvadoran rebels were winning because Carter cut aid to a murderous government regime whose psid agents raped and killed four Maryknoll nuns and a Cathlolic lay worker. The US Ambassador to El Salvador - who was formerly Ambassador to Cambodia - did not want to see two countries he was ambassador to fall to communism, authorized the aid and the rebels were crushed.

You will save more lives.

Sent via mobile.

 

[Thorgalaeg]

So, US Ambassadors have more power than US presidents?

 

[ReindeerThistle]

So, US Ambassadors have more power than US presidents?

He got permission from the White House.

Sent via mobile.

 

[Formaldehyde]

How about "I did not join the military to sit on my ass while innocents are slaughtered, just because there's uncertainty and neither side is good". Should we instead be happy that evil Al Qaeda and evil Asaad regime are killing each other, and just count up the civilian chemical-attack deaths as "unfortunate collateral damage"? I think not. Besides, the entire point of the strike is to deter all leaders ever to not use chemical weapons, not to fight for Al Qaeda. Intentions matter too.

The problem is that the US and other governments haven't been consistent in this supposed policy in the least. This is even true in the current situation where it appears the rebels have used sarin as well.

Syria isn't even a signatory of the Chemical Weapons Convention along with Egypt, and Israel has yet to ratify it. The US still has 31,500 tons of chemical weapons and doesn't intend to destroy them all until 2023. Even Japan still has stockpiles they haven't destroyed yet, and Russia has only destroyed half its inventory so far. This is despite the convention enacted in 1993 clearly stating that no extensions were permitted past 2012.

 

[Defiant47]

If anyone is interested in a Chamber-level discussion, check out my poll here: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=508653

 

[DinoDoc]

How about "I did not join the military to sit on my ass while innocents are slaughtered, just because there's uncertainty and neither side is good". Should we instead be happy that evil Al Qaeda and evil Asaad regime are killing each other, and just count up the civilian chemical-attack deaths as "unfortunate collateral damage"? I think not. Besides, the entire point of the strike is to deter all leaders ever to not use chemical weapons, not to fight for Al Qaeda. Intentions matter too.

Intentions are what they use to pave the road to Hell. What is the US national security in intervening in foreign conflict in order to support Al Qaeda? I don't give two pence about the lives of Syrian civilians and they aren't worth putting Americans at risk to protect simply because Obama was stupid enough to ad lib his red line comment thinking Assad wouldn't do it.

 

[Defiant47]

The problem is that the US and other governments haven't been consistent in this supposed policy in the least. This is even true in the current situation where it appears the rebels have used sarin as well.

Syria isn't even a signatory of the Chemical Weapons Convention along with Egypt, and Israel has yet to ratify it. The US still has 31,500 tons of chemical weapons and doesn't intend to destroy them all until 2023. Even Japan still has stockpiles they haven't destroyed yet, and Russia has only destroyed half its inventory so far. This is despite the convention enacted in 1993 clearly stating that no extensions were permitted past 2012.

A valid point.

Intentions are what they use to pave the road to Hell. What is the US national security in intervening in foreign conflict in order to support Al Qaeda? I don't give two pence about the lives of Syrian civilians and they aren't worth putting Americans at risk to protect simply because Obama was stupid enough to ad lib his red line comment thinking Assad wouldn't do it.

Intentions are also what pave the road to heaven. And not all rebel fighters are Al-Qaeda supporters. I would expect a minority at best.

 

[Rashiminos]

Intentions are also what pave the road to heaven. And not all rebel fighters are Al-Qaeda supporters. I would expect a minority at best.

JC liked to talk about fruits.

 

[red_elk]

Russia is reportedly sending 2 missile cruisers (including Black Sea fleet flagship), anti-sub vessel and landing ship with marines detachment.
In addition to frigate and several landing ships which are already there.

 

[BirraImperial]

Stay out of Syria... seriously. Assad might be a murderer, brutal dictator, but he is the lesser evil in this conflict. Creating another Al-Qaeda training ground -which would surely happen if the current regime falls- is not on the best interest of the West. Gassing your own capital city makes no sense at all, even after being warned by Obama that the US would intervene if chemical weapons were used. I'm willing to bet that this is a plot by the rebels to turn the tide of this war in their favor.

 

[Commodore]

I have heard multiple people make the argument that we shouldn't intervene because we have nothing to gain, or because we have no business being there, or because we don't want to waste taxpayer money on missiles or risk American lives. If any of these are a deal-breaker on its own for segments of the population, then my satire fully applies to that segment.

Okay, we will follow that logic for a bit and see where it takes us.

Let's assume the anti-interventionist crowd doesn't want to intervene because the US has nothing to gain. Why is that necessarily a wrong viewpoint to have? Why is the US expected to be completely selfless and sacrifice for the good of the world with no reward at the end of the tunnel? Why are we looked down on for advancing our own interests, yet it is seen as perfectly acceptable for every other nation to act in a similar manner?

Is it because we are powerful and the rest of the world is not? If so, why does being powerful suddenly make us responsible for protecting the entire world? Why does being powerful mean that we are no longer supposed to advance our own agenda?

 

[Defiant47]

Okay, we will follow that logic for a bit and see where it takes us.

Let's assume the anti-interventionist crowd doesn't want to intervene because the US has nothing to gain. Why is that necessarily a wrong viewpoint to have? Why is the US expected to be completely selfless and sacrifice for the good of the world with no reward at the end of the tunnel? Why are we looked down on for advancing our own interests, yet it is seen as perfectly acceptable for every other nation to act in a similar manner?

Is it because we are powerful and the rest of the world is not? If so, why does being powerful suddenly make us responsible for protecting the entire world? Why does being powerful mean that we are no longer supposed to advance our own agenda?

Rather than address your specific concerns, I'd rather keep pounding on the strawman I just built.

The issue is that these same people use "oil rhetoric" to demonstrate that America's wars are wrong. Many of the same people who argue "we have no business in Syria" also argue that the Iraq war was all about oil, and because of that it was wrong. This is somewhat contradictory. If the reason for us not to invade Syria is because we have nothing to gain, then we should be happy with what happened in the Iraq war - it helped keep the prices of oil down on an overall basis, by ensuring the continued "oiling of our machine". We save a few dollars every now and then at the pump, which add up, and could be the difference between a decent TV and a truly awesome one.

In addition, it is abhorrent to want to go to war only if there's a strategic or economic interest. Perhaps we don't have a moral obligation to intervene for humanitarian reasons... but we certainly should not intervene for purely selfish reasons.

So I've handily shot through and burned the crap out of the strawman I put together. But I worry that this is how some people might actually think. Perhaps not explicitly, but it seems like many are opposed in this way, without having considered where that train of logic takes them.

So to you, and to them, I say: At least agree with me that it would be a good thing morally to intervene in such a humanitarian way*. Before I address the issue of a moral imperative. Let's address that later. So let's say that America shouldn't be expected to be the moral beacon of the world, policing where it needs to, and intervening for humanitarian reasons. But if it does anyways, it's a good thing, yes?

* - Assuming the intervention will actually save more lives at the end of the day/in the long run.

 

[Defiant47]

Update

MOSCOW, September 4 (RIA Novosti) – When US Secretary of State John Kerry said during a debate in Congress that there was no al-Qaida in Syria, he was lying, Russian President Vladimir Putin said Wednesday.

Al-Qaida is one of the main forces supporting the Syrian opposition, Putin said in televised comments at a meeting of Russia’s presidential human rights council.

“I watched the debates in Congress. A congressman asks Mr. Kerry: ‘Is al-Qaida there?’ He says: ‘No, we are telling you responsibly that they are not,’” Putin said.

The Syrian rebels’ “main combat unit is the so-called Al-Nusra, an al-Qaida unit. They [the US] are aware of that. … He [Kerry] lied. And he knows that he lied. This is sad,” Putin said.

The president added that it was beyond the authority of the US Congress to sanction a military strike on Syria.

“What are they sanctioning? They’re sanctioning aggression, because anything outside the UN Security Council framework is aggression, except for self-defense. But, as we know, Syria is not attacking the US, so this isn’t about defense,” Putin said. “This is inadmissible in principle.”

Putin pointed out that the United States expected that the Syrian rebels would defeat the pro-government troops and US military intervention on the ground would not be needed. But, he said, the Syrian government just a short time ago appeared likely to win the war.

“Why do they [the US] say that not a single US soldier will appear in Syria? Because they think this is unnecessary, that those militants will cope on their own. What they need is support by means and equipment they don’t have – planes, missile equipment. This should be given to them. Well, they’ll get it, right now,” he said.

The Russian president also questioned the reliability of US evidence of the Syrian regime’s alleged involvement in conducting a chemical weapons attack late last month that killed civilians. Putin said it was absurd to assume that the Syrian government would have decided to use such weapons at a point when it was about to defeat its opponents.

The United States has said it is confident that an August 21 chemical weapons attack in the Damascus suburbs was carried out by the government of Syrian President Bashar Assad, and US President Barack Obama is lobbying US lawmakers to support punitive military action against Syrian state targets in response.

http://en.ria.ru/russia/20130904/18...-Said-Theres-No-Al-Qaida-in-Syria--Putin.html

Discussion

I thought there were Al-Qaeda in Syrian rebel groups, but I never really investigated the source of the claims at the time. Seems a pretty blanket statement by Kerry to say there are none. Somehow I doubt that, and this is slowly starting to taste sour in my mouth.

Not that I trust whatever Putin says... but I'll have to see evidence why the US believes there are no Al-Qaeda in rebel ranks. (Yes, I know, evidence of a negative not possible, but at least something to that effect)

 

[ReindeerThistle]

FYI: Democracy Now! Reported this morning that the US announced 50 "CIA trained rebels" entered Syria from Jordan.

Sent via mobile.

 

[BSmith1068]

I think that ultimately this is a simple issue.

Do you feel that the use of chemical weapons is acceptable in this day and age?

If not, then what should be the repercussions for someone who uses them?

All of the other issues like prevalence of Al Qaida, a net saving of lives, etc. are just side shows. Answer those two questions and you get to what our response should be.

I personally think there is absolutely no question that chemical weapons were used. I also think it is quite a stretch to believe that the rebels used them on themselves. Occam’s Razor would clearly favor the use of these weapons by the Government, and indeed all of the evidence points in this direction. I have seen nothing credible that would support the notion of the rebels using these weapons.

To me it is clear that Assad has used chemical weapons on his own people.

So what should we do about it?

We can either do nothing, or we can do something.

Doing nothing would be the worst outcome. It would provide tacit approval of Assad’s actions. It would embarrass our standing as a nation and reduce our credibility even further than it has already been degraded. It would mean the word of the President of the United States is worthless. It would certainly not stop the continued use of these weapons by Assad in Syria. And most likely it would embolden other despotic leaders that may be inclined to use their own weapons of mass destruction in their time of need.

Doing nothing is not an option.

So we have to do something.

But what is that something?

Whatever it is it needs to punish Assad and make him feel pain. It needs to be big enough that other regimes will think twice about using weapons of mass destruction in the future, lest something similar happens to them. It needs to be decisive. It needs to be quick. It needs to be targeted.

It doesn’t need to be sustained. It doesn’t need to pick favorites. It doesn’t need to save lives. These are all just side issues.

So I ask everyone here. Let’s stop talking about the side issues and start talking about what needs to be done.

If you were in charge, what would you do?

 

[Borachio]

If the US intervenes in Syria and manages to weaken the Assad regime (which is credible), but doesn't manage to totally eliminate Assad's chemical capability (also credible), doesn't the intervention make Assad's future use of chemical weapons more and not less likely?

 

[DinoDoc]

Doing nothing would be the worst outcome. ... It would embarrass our standing as a nation and reduce our credibility even further than it has already been degraded. It would mean the word of the President of the United States is worthless.

Is going to war in order to allow the President to save face over his stupid and ill conceived ad lib a wise use of American power? Especially in a conflict where we otherwise have no appreciable interest.

Edit:

The credibility crisis can’t be solved with Tomahawk missiles

The Obama administration has stumbled from one credibility crisis to the next on Syria, and now wants Congress to rescue Barack Obama from himself. Obama declares that the stated policy of the United States toward Syria is regime change, then dithers on how to effect it. Obama draws a red line, and then does nothing at all to prepare for the possibility that Bashar al-Assad might call his bluff.

This credibility crisis goes beyond Syria, however, and extends to the whole Arab Spring, for which Obama seemed all too pleased to take credit not terribly long ago. He demanded Hosni Mubarak’s ouster and quick elections in Egypt, which turned a stable American ally into a barely-contained disaster, and then has vacillated ever since on how to handle the crisis. Obama then led a NATO intervention in Libya while claiming not to want regime change, but ended up decapitating the Qaddafi regime anyway. That replaced a brutal dictatorship that was still cooperating with the West on counter-terrorism into a failed state that has allowed for a rapid expansion of radical Islamist terror networks through the whole region.

Now Obama wants to apply the Libya model to Syria, but cannot articulate a single American interest in launching a war. Syria has not attacked American interests or allies, nor is likely to do so. The most effective elements of the opposition in Syria are comprised of the very terrorist networks that we are presently fighting ourselves. Obama even backed away from his own red line, claiming that “the world” set it in its opposition to chemical weapons, but as I note in my column for The Fiscal Times today, there is no global “red line” for military intervention as Obama claims:

The idea that the “world” has set a red line requiring military intervention after the use of chemical weapons is rather strange, and has no historical precedent. Chemical weapons have had a number of deployments since the 1925 Geneva Protocol (affirmed unanimously by the UN General Assembly in 1966) that first banned their use without any such response.

Iraq used chemical weapons in two 1987 attacks during their eight-year war against Iran without any outside intervention. Libya used chemical weapons against Chad in the same year, again with no outside intervention. Most infamously, Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons as a means of genocide against the Kurds in Halabja in 1988, killing more than 5,000 non-combatants, without any international military response (although it was one of the many justifications used by the US and UN in 1991 for Operation Desert Storm and in 2003’s second invasion of Iraq). One can certainly argue that all of these incidents called for American or global intervention, but not that the world laid down a red line for armed response to their use.

There are no global “red lines” for military intervention in this case, even with the United Nations, which is balking at military strikes in Syria. That wouldn’t matter if vital national security issues were at stake in Syria, but they’re not, and the Obama administration isn’t even bothering to pretend there are. The only substantial argument is the danger to American credibility for not following through on a red-line threat, and that danger is not insubstantial. However, that’s not really the danger to American credibility, which is why missile strikes won’t solve the problem:

Finally, we come to the argument that Obama’s red line requires us to salvage his credibility, or risk rogue nations like Iran assuming that the US is nothing but a paper tiger. This is really the only argument that makes any sense at all; there is little doubt that damage to our credibility, especially in that region, is dangerous and could cost lives. However, that argument requires us to conduct acts of war literally for the sake of conducting acts of war, while announcing that we don’t intend to actually change the conditions in Syria as a result.

That’s not an argument that will restore American credibility, especially since our stated policy toward Syria is that of regime change. If we lob bombs into Damascus and claim that we aren’t trying to change the regime, not only will no one take that seriously, Assad’s potential survival would compound the problem that Obama seeks to cure through military action now.

The root of Obama’s credibility problem cannot be solved by cruise missiles. Obama offered a boast a year ago with his red-line statement, and then clearly did nothing in the following year to set the stage for an international response to Assad for crossing it. As this week has proven, Obama didn’t even bother to engage Congress until it became clear that voters overwhelmingly oppose his rush to military action. Isolated on the international stage and under political fire at home, Obama now won’t even claim ownership of his own red line.

The likeliest outcome of sustained American strikes on Assad’s regime is that the field will tilt to the benefit of the radical Islamists on the ground in Syria, just as it has in Libya. That is the bottom line, and that is why Congress should refuse to authorize a war against Syria.

As for our credibility issues, those will be with us as long as President Obama remains in office. The 22nd Amendment already provides the resolution to that problem, and voters will have to take responsibility for restoring American credibility and foreign-policy wisdom in November 2016.