Why shouldn't the US intervene in Syria?

[Lord Baal]

I see. Never mind...

He's right. Several members of the SS were infiltrated into Poland, dressed in Polish uniforms, then ordered to launch an "attack" on German positions on the border. It is unclear how many people were aware of this; Hitler, certainly, and Himmler gave the orders himself, but those two and Himmler's right-hand man, Heydrich, may very well have been the only people outside the SS members themselves who were aware that the attack had been faked. The SS even provided the corpse of a Polish man in uniform to convince the attacked German troops that they'd been in legitimate danger.

 

[r16]

... specifically blamed for denying the U.S. Army permission to have its own armor units in place in Somalia, units which might have been able to break through to the trapped soldiers earlier in the battle. U.S. political leaders felt it would be bad for the mission's peacekeeping image if tanks were in country.

or Pakistani tanks might have been ready to move out if they had been informed that there would be a mock raid on the Aidid Forces , who seemed to be as much an American asset as Bin Ladin looked like . They afterall had suffered something like 60 casualties before in a single ambush. But tanks are noisy stuff and might anger Aidid guys , right ?

 

[Winston Hughes]

He's right. Several members of the SS were infiltrated into Poland, dressed in Polish uniforms, then ordered to launch an "attack" on German positions on the border. It is unclear how many people were aware of this; Hitler, certainly, and Himmler gave the orders himself, but those two and Himmler's right-hand man, Heydrich, may very well have been the only people outside the SS members themselves who were aware that the attack had been faked. The SS even provided the corpse of a Polish man in uniform to convince the attacked German troops that they'd been in legitimate danger.

How does that contradict the point Glassfan was making?

It was wrong of Germany to invade Poland in 1939. It was right for the Poles to defend themselves.

 

[Mise]

I don't know enough about the military to understand what the consequences of a no-fly zone would be, how difficult it would be, etc so I'm not really equipped to give an informed response on a no-fly zone. But as I understand it, the current intevention is solely and exclusively to enforce the international norm on chemical weapons -- i.e. they should never be used, so if someone uses them, there will be consequences. To that end, the only thing I personally care about is whether Assad used chemical weapons. If he did, then we should strike back at Syria proportionally.

A no-fly zone is a different thing. As I said, I'm not too up on military matters, but you've put the poll in such broad terms that I've answered as best as I could:

Intervention will result in a greater number of deaths (i.e. will not save lives)
The UN is opposed to intervention
The international community is opposed to intervention (e.g. UK backing out)
Intervention will necessitate a long-term commitment in the region
Other areas would be better suited for our interventions.

I honestly haven't given it a lot of thought. My intuitive feel is that, given the current state of play, we shouldn't intervene for any other reason than to enforce the norms against the use of chemical weapons. Essentially, I'm in favour of rules-based international relations; that is, we have rules and if we break those rules then there should be consequences. The UN is part of that; we have ways of resolving conflicts through a rules-based international organisation. If we undermine those rules by acting unilaterally, then this would be worse overall, because a rules-based approach has a greater overall potential for minimising suffering and maximising liberty than unilateral action, even if the individual unilateral action in question reduces suffering and increases liberty more than the UN can in this particular situation.

 

[Lord Baal]

How does that contradict the point Glassfan was making?

Not what I was doing. Elaborating on the emboldened points quoted in Glassfan's post.

 

[Defiant47]

As I said, I'm not too up on military matters, but you've put the poll in such broad terms that I've answered as best as I could

Not to worry; the poll is used as a "crutch" to help us dig in at the root causes and needs of discussion.

Update

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said on Monday Syrian President Bashar al-Assad could avoid a military strike by turning over all his chemical weapons within a week but immediately made clear he was sure that would never happen.

When asked by a reporter whether there was anything al-Assad’s government could do or offer to stop any attack, Kerry said:

“Sure, he could turn over every single bit of his chemical weapons to the international community in the next week - turn it over, all of it without delay and allow the full and total accounting (of it) but he isn’t about to do it and it can’t be done.”

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...ld-prevent-attack-kerry-says/article14184400/

Discussion

If Assad rejects this reasonable proposal, is the US justified in launching air strike attacks on Syria's chemical plants? After all, what possible need would Assad have of his chemical weapons if he's not going to use them? Sure, it sucks that he's being bossed around by the strongest nation on Earth, but this demand seems reasonable, given the allegations, doesn't it?

 

[Lord Baal]

This assumes that Assad is even in a position to give up those weapons. It also assumes that the US would believe Assad if he told them he'd relinquished all his chemical weapons. Based on the Iraq War, what reason does Assad have to trust the US?

 

[Defiant47]

This assumes that Assad is even in a position to give up those weapons. It also assumes that the US would believe Assad if he told them he'd relinquished all his chemical weapons.

Presumably this could be achieved through an external party, such as the UN. (Read: The US would be in the wrong to rescind if Assad accepted the offer, but demanded that it be achieved through third-party UN inspectors and experts for decommissioning)

Based on the Iraq War, what reason does Assad have to trust the US?

It's the other way around. In Iraq, the US didn't trust Iraq and the UN's competency. The issue at hand here is what reason does the US have to trust Assad and the UN's competency. At this point, I'd say it's pretty likely that the US doesn't want to go into this war.

As for your actual question, I'd say Assad has nothing to lose. And actually a lot to gain. He'd gain a lot of international support against a military intervention, which he presumably doesn't want. Hard for the US to make a case for invading in that situation.

 

[Lord Baal]

Assad potentially has a great deal to lose, actually. Those chemical stockpiles are part of what has kept him relatively safe from Israel for the past few decades. Aside from the obvious military benefits of such weapons, allowing inspectors into his country may be taken as a sign of weakness by members of his own regime, prompting them to either join the rebellion or foment a coup. Prestige matters in politics; Krushchev was toppled in no small part due to the stigma of his failure to achieve any notable Cold War victories, despite also managing to avoid any defeats. It is difficult, given the current intelligence situation in Syria, to ascertain whether letting the UN look at his stockpiles is less of a risk to him than turning down the offer, or more of a risk.

You have a depressingly-positive view of American intelligence. The US has proven many times in the past that their intelligence networks are often hopelessly ideologically-biased; whether that is the intelligence agency's fault or merely reinterpretation by their political superiors is probably dependent on the situation. But it is widely accepted by now that the US blatantly lied about intelligence on Saddam's WMDs, largely because they claimed to have proof of their existence when no such proof existed. There have been other intelligence disasters, notably the complete failure to predict the Iranian Revolution.

You cannot prove a negative - as you and I have both just stated in another thread - which means that no amount of claims by Assad or the UN would be conclusive without the US checking themselves, and the only way they know how to do that is to bomb the crap out of a country that has not lifted a finger against them.

 

[Glassfan]

Obama's Successful Foreign Failure

It is entirely understandable that Barack Obama's way of dealing with Syria in recent weeks should have elicited responses ranging from puzzlement to disgust. Even members of his own party are despairingly echoing in private the public denunciations of him as "incompetent," "bungling," "feckless," "amateurish" and "in over his head" coming from his political opponents on the right.

For how else to characterize a president who declares war against what he calls a great evil demanding immediate extirpation and in the next breath announces that he will postpone taking action for at least 10 days—and then goes off to play golf before embarking on a trip to another part of the world? As if this were not enough, he also assures the perpetrator of that great evil that the military action he will eventually take will last a very short time and will do hardly any damage. Unless, that is, he fails to get the unnecessary permission he has sought from Congress, in which case (according to an indiscreet member of his own staff) he might not take any military action after all.

Summing up the net effect of all this, as astute a foreign observer as Conrad Black can flatly say that, "Not since the disintegration of the Soviet Union in 1991, and before that the fall of France in 1940, has there been so swift an erosion of the world influence of a Great Power as we are witnessing with the United States."


I don't know if I would go as far as this, but President Obama's actions and statements recently in this matter are difficult to fathom. It's as if he deliberately chose to pursue a strategy so as to appear to want to take action against a terrible atrocity but is being held back by others. He has in fact put virtually insurmountable obsticles in his own path. Either extremely stupid or extremely clever.

 

[Defiant47]

so as to appear to want to take action against a terrible atrocity but is being held back by others

Isn't this the truth?

 

[classical_hero]

I just don't see why we should be helping the rebels.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/ML_SYRIA?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-09-08-05-37-13

Meanwhile, Belgian writer Pierre Piccinin who was freed Sunday after four months of captivity in Syria said upon his return to Europe that he and his fellow captive, Italian journalist Domenico Quirico, were certain that the Assad regime was not responsible for the Aug. 21 chemical attack.

"It's not the government of Bashar al-Assad that used the sarin gas or another combat gas ... we are sure about it following a conversation that we overheard," Piccinin said in an interview with Belgian broadcaster RTL.

Piccinin's claim stands in stark contrast to declassified intelligence reports from France and the U.S., which put the blame for the deadly attack on Assad's regime. Piccinin, who largely avoids looking into the camera during the interview, did not provide further proof for his claim. Instead, he said he and Quirico would publish their information later, "at an appropriate time."

Piccinin says he was captured on his eighth trip to Syria, describing himself as a vigorous supporter of the Syrian rebels' quest to oust Assad and introduce democracy. That, he told RTL, makes it all the more difficult for him to say that it wasn't Assad behind the al-Ghouta attack.

The claim could not be independently verified, and Quirico was quoted later Monday in La Stampa saying there is no way to know the truth behind it.

"It's folly to say I know that it wasn't Assad who used the gas," he was quoted saying on the website.

 

[Defiant47]

Assad potentially has a great deal to lose, actually. Those chemical stockpiles are part of what has kept him relatively safe from Israel for the past few decades.

I can see where you're coming from, but it feels like Assad has much more to lose by not complying.

It seems like all this political talk might be subtle ploys to achieve a desired outcome, one which does not include war: "Syria 'welcomes' Russian plan to turn in its chemical weapons"

Aside from the obvious military benefits of such weapons, allowing inspectors into his country may be taken as a sign of weakness by members of his own regime, prompting them to either join the rebellion or foment a coup. Prestige matters in politics; Krushchev was toppled in no small part due to the stigma of his failure to achieve any notable Cold War victories, despite also managing to avoid any defeats. It is difficult, given the current intelligence situation in Syria, to ascertain whether letting the UN look at his stockpiles is less of a risk to him than turning down the offer, or more of a risk.

That's why it's Russia who's making the suggestion. He doesn't lose face by adhering to a close ally. If it was just Obama, then I agree. But it seems Obama and Putin are talking "between the lines" here. I love it, we see it happening in real time. I especially love the prospect of avoiding a war altogether.

 

[Lord Baal]

I thought you were pro-intervention?

I made that post before knowing about Putin's offer. It is far more reasonable for Assad to agree to a deal with Putin than with the US, even if they are both offering him the same deal, yes. It will still be interesting to see if the US accepts Assad at his word, or if they attempt to manufacture another excuse for intervention. That will let us know for sure what the US's real motives are in this.

Another possibility, raised by ReindeerThistle in another thread, is that the US's goal is simply to stall until elements are in place to affect a regime change. I do not agree with this interpretation, as I very much doubt the US could keep this hidden from everyone except one particular hard-line communist on a video games forum on the internet. It is possible though.

 

[ReindeerThistle]

I thought you were pro-intervention?

I made that post before knowing about Putin's offer. It is far more reasonable for Assad to agree to a deal with Putin than with the US, even if they are both offering him the same deal, yes. It will still be interesting to see if the US accepts Assad at his word, or if they attempt to manufacture another excuse for intervention. That will let us know for sure what the US's real motives are in this.

Another possibility, raised by ReindeerThistle in another thread, is that the US's goal is simply to stall until elements are in place to affect a regime change.

I agree with you on the first point, and since Kerry claims it was an."off-the-cuff" remark, Russia - those masters of opportunism - jumped right on it.

I was only putting the regime change thing out there because we saw a similar situation in Iraq 2002/ 2003 and a similar build-up.

See (2003) Target: Iraq; What the News Media Didn't Tell You by Norman Solomon and Reese Erlich which details the US plan for invading Iraq. I know, Sean Penn is cited. But it is still a good read.

Having an unfriendly Iraq and Iran puts the US' position, if I may say "between Iraq and a hard place." Most of the Gulf oil goes out through the Straits of Hormuz and half if that is Iran, who could choke off the straits, causing all kinds of problems. The US has been trying to muck up Iran for 34 years, without success. So, the back-up plan is Syria. They COULD move a pipeline througj a friendly Syria or immasculate Iran by cutting off Syria.

I do not agree with this interpretation, as I very much doubt the US could keep this hidden from everyone except one particular hard-line communist on a video games forum on the internet. It is possible though.

Well, 50 "CIA trained rebels" crossing into Syria from Jordan was no secret. I don't have an inside track on the US government, I just know that this is their playbook. Witness their 53-year war with Cuba and their attempts in Venezuela. Check out the NED and USAID websites some time.

I don't think this is some evil conspiracy, it is just the way the US does business.

I happen to disagree with it.
Sent via mobile.

 

[Lord Baal]

I have read that book. There are better sources out there, though I have none to hand right now. The US did a really piss-poor job of making Iraq friendly, since it is abut half-an-inch away from becoming a full-fledged Iranian puppet-state now. The parallels between Syria and Iraq are many, but the analogy is nowhere near perfect. There wasn't a full-scale civil war in Iraq in 2003, for one thing (the Kurdish imbroglio was nowhere near the level of the current Syrian disaster).

 

[r16]

It is entirely understandable that Barack Obama's way of dealing with Syria in recent weeks should have elicited responses ranging from puzzlement to disgust. Even members of his own party are despairingly echoing in private the public denunciations of him as "incompetent," "bungling," "feckless," "amateurish" and "in over his head" coming from his political opponents on the right.

For how else to characterize a president who declares war against what he calls a great evil demanding immediate extirpation and in the next breath announces that he will postpone taking action for at least 10 days—and then goes off to play golf before embarking on a trip to another part of the world? As if this were not enough, he also assures the perpetrator of that great evil that the military action he will eventually take will last a very short time and will do hardly any damage. Unless, that is, he fails to get the unnecessary permission he has sought from Congress, in which case (according to an indiscreet member of his own staff) he might not take any military action after all."

I don't know if I would go as far as this, but President Obama's actions and statements recently in this matter are difficult to fathom. It's as if he deliberately chose to pursue a strategy so as to appear to want to take action against a terrible atrocity but is being held back by others. He has in fact put virtually insurmountable obsticles in his own path. Either extremely stupid or extremely clever.

ı know ranting on and on can be really bothering , but the thing is the timetable is not right . The entire Middle East is to crash down and we -for starters- are to be unable to take a step out of the way . And as proclaimed in many times , there will be other culprits found .

 

[Mise]

Obama's Successful Foreign Failure

It is entirely understandable that Barack Obama's way of dealing with Syria in recent weeks should have elicited responses ranging from puzzlement to disgust. Even members of his own party are despairingly echoing in private the public denunciations of him as "incompetent," "bungling," "feckless," "amateurish" and "in over his head" coming from his political opponents on the right.

For how else to characterize a president who declares war against what he calls a great evil demanding immediate extirpation and in the next breath announces that he will postpone taking action for at least 10 days—and then goes off to play golf before embarking on a trip to another part of the world? As if this were not enough, he also assures the perpetrator of that great evil that the military action he will eventually take will last a very short time and will do hardly any damage. Unless, that is, he fails to get the unnecessary permission he has sought from Congress, in which case (according to an indiscreet member of his own staff) he might not take any military action after all.

Summing up the net effect of all this, as astute a foreign observer as Conrad Black can flatly say that, "Not since the disintegration of the Soviet Union in 1991, and before that the fall of France in 1940, has there been so swift an erosion of the world influence of a Great Power as we are witnessing with the United States."


I don't know if I would go as far as this, but President Obama's actions and statements recently in this matter are difficult to fathom. It's as if he deliberately chose to pursue a strategy so as to appear to want to take action against a terrible atrocity but is being held back by others. He has in fact put virtually insurmountable obsticles in his own path. Either extremely stupid or extremely clever.

Man, that was a really awful article...

 

[Glassfan]

It's as if he deliberately chose to pursue a strategy so as to appear to want to take action against a terrible atrocity but is being held back by others.

Isn't this the truth?

It appears so.

President Clinton sent salvos of cruise missiles against Iraq and Serbia in the 1990s on his own authority as Commander in Chief. He didn't stop to ask nicely. He didn't allow others to veto his actions.

 

[Traitorfish]

How does that contradict the point Glassfan was making?

Almost all modern powers conceive of themselves as the defending party, so Glassfan's logic only functions if we assume to begin with the legitimacy of one case over the other. It's incapable of acting as an independent basis for judgement, only as the summary of one party's justifying narrative.