Syria: End Game

[Shryke]

Why do you think they will have to? Even if Assad used gas. Sadam did the same 20 years ago and it wasn't the end of the world.

Too much attention on what's going on there and they just generally don't feel like they can just stand back and let the entire country go to shit too badly. Certainly not given their neighbours and the region in general.

They'd just really rather it not go to shit without any direct intervention, but that's seeming less and less likely.

[Sturn]

Wierd. Little discussion whether the proof of WMD in Syria is solid or not even with what happened during the last dance. Are we next going to see an invasion, Obama on an aircraft carrier with a "Yes We Did!" banner, then lots of politicians pointing fingers at who screwed up the intelligence when it turns out there wasn't any sarin?

I think this warranted further support for the syrian rebels up to the scale of the Lybian intervention.

But just wait and watch the conservatives around here and elsewhere to bitch and moan about it.

Actually I was for some sort of invervention long, long ago before the casualties reached multiple 10,000's.

[All-for-Joffrey]

Wierd. Little discussion whether the proof of WMD in Syria is solid or not even with what happened during the last dance. Are we next going to see an invasion, Obama on an aircraft carrier with a "Yes We Did!" banner, then lots of politicians pointing fingers at who screwed up the intelligence when it turns out there wasn't any sarin?

The difference is that Bush, Cheney, Halliburton & Co wanted to invade in Iraq no matter what. and claimed that Iraq absolutely had WMDs, subjecting the claims to no scrutiny despite their complete lack of any credible evidence. The Obama administration clearly does not want to intervene in Syria period, let alone invade it and has acknowledged that the claims may not be "solid." So, instead we have vague talk about red lines when it comes to using chemical weapons which could mean anything.

As such, the claims are most likely being subjected to high scrutiny and not completely fabricated out of nowhere. The Obama administration really doesn't want to intervene, and for good reason, we have no idea if intervention will make matters worse or not.

In short, false equivalency is false.

[Sturn]

The difference is that Bush, Cheney, Halliburton & Co wanted to invade in Iraq no matter what. and claimed that Iraq absolutely had WMDs, subjecting the claims to no scrutiny despite their complete lack of any credible evidence. The Obama administration clearly does not want to intervene in Syria period, let alone invade it and has acknowledged that the claims may not be "solid." So, instead we have vague talk about red lines when it comes to using chemical weapons which could mean anything.

You do know that Sarin, the nerve gas reported as being probably used in Syria, was actually found in Iraq after the invasion? Right?

[Kouran]

Oddly enough I agree with Shryke. The administration in my opinion laid out the "red line" thinking it would stop Assad. The administration forgot something, when your back is against the wall there isn't a downside anymore.

So Assad has used gas, and I would guess a lot more than once. It's now put up or shut up time, and the administration can't back down. They played the red line card so any rolling over now really damages American credibility.

[All-for-Joffrey]

You do know that Sarin, the nerve gas reported as being probably used in Syria, was actually found in Iraq after the invasion? Right?

The claim for invading Iraq was that Iraq had WMDs, it did not. Obviously Saddam Huessein had, and used, chemical weapons, the whole world knew that.

Whether or not Syria has WMDs is irrelevant in this equation. The red line that the Obama has been setting is the use of chemical weapons, that's what under discussion right now if you haven't noticed.

You're comparing apples and oranges here trying to turn this into Obama's Iraq or something (or using potential Syrian intervention to retroactively justify the Iraq invasion?). It's very bizarre.

[Tempra]

The claim for invading Iraq was that Iraq had WMDs, it did not. Obviously Saddam Huessein had, and used, chemical weapons, the whole world knew that.

Do sarin and mustard gas not qualify as WMDs now? Both were found post invasion.

[Horza]

The claim was he had reconstituted his nuke, chem and bio programs. No evidence of that was found.

Back on topic:

This post from Arms Control Wonk is a must-read:

The Standard of Evidence. Now, I happen to think the standard for involving ourselves in this mess ought to be pretty high, particularly since once the gloves are off Assad might start gassing cities. In for a penny, in for a pound. Let me propose a standard of evidence, then we can see where we are.

First, the allegation of chemical weapons use needs to be specific to a time and place. We need a date, time location and (ideally) the identity of the Syrian unit in question. What we want to be sure of is that an actually military attack occurred that resulted in victims.

Second, once we have an attack, we need victims of that attack. These victims, who can credibly be placed on the receiving end of the attack, will provide blood or urine samples that show sarin use. There is a lot of public research, thanks to the Tokyo subway attack, on how to determine if someone has been exposed to sarin if you are interested. CDC and OPCW also have nice little primers.

We have to be certain that any sarin exposure resulted from an attack. Having set a red line for US involvement to deter Assad, we’ve also created an incentive for certain groups to tell stories that might result in more US assistance. As I have noted before, these groups don’t appear particularly scrupulous when it comes to the truth. So, I’d be very, very careful about leaping to conclusions.

The evidence itself. There are two useful sources describing the evidence. First, the Obama Administration sent Congress a letter that lays out the details. Second, Geoff Dyer and James Blitz have some excellent reporting in the Financial Times that helps explain the letter. Hagel has now also released a statement, but it doesn’t add much.

Here are the two key sentences from the letter:

This assessment is based in part on physiological samples…. [However] the chain of custody is not clear, so we cannot confirm how the exposure occurred and under what conditions.

In other words, we have samples showing someone was exposed, but we can’t prove when, where or how.

[Kouran]

Do sarin and mustard gas not qualify as WMDs now? Both were found post invasion.

While this is true they were not in a weaponized state to my knowledge.

[All-for-Joffrey]

Do sarin and mustard gas not qualify as WMDs now? Both were found post invasion.

I had to recheck the standard definition of WMDs, I was genuinely unaware that sarin and mustard gases qualified, my mistake

At any rate, as per the CIA:

Another addendum also noted that military forces in Iraq may continue to find small numbers of degraded chemical weapons — most likely misplaced or improperly destroyed before the 1991 Gulf War.

So there was still old, sub-optimal chemical weapons from the 80s that got into insurgent hands. Big whoop, that hardly serves as proof that Iraq had WMDs at the time of invasion. The CIA itself says otherwise. Really, I thought this whole debate was dead and settled years ago. It's amazing how people keep wanting to believe it's true.

[Shryke]

I had to recheck the standard definition of WMDs, I was genuinely unaware that sarin and mustard gases qualified, my mistake

At any rate, as per the CIA:

So there was still old, sub-optimal chemical weapons from the 80s that got into insurgent hands. Big whoop, that hardly serves as proof that Iraq had WMDs at the time of invasion. The CIA itself says otherwise. Really, I thought this whole debate was dead and settled years ago. It's amazing how people keep wanting to believe it's true.

Nah, that would involve too many people admitting they were completely had by a super-obvious con.

[Horza]

Experts queuing up with buckets of icy water:

But experts say the reports should be met with some skepticism because of the small amount of sarin that was found, the lack of widespread deaths and injuries, and inconclusive U.S. intelligence assessments.

The intelligence findings cited in a letter from the White House to Capitol Hill on Thursday were of “low or moderate” confidence, said a U.S. intelligence official who requested anonymity in order to discuss the classified reports.

Another person familiar with the issue, who asked not to be further identified because of its sensitivity, said that only a minuscule trace of a “byproduct”– a toxic residue left behind after use of a nerve agent, and which he did not identify – had been found in a soil sample.

“They found trace amounts of a byproduct in soil, but there are also fertilizers that give out the same byproduct,” the person said. “It’s far from conclusive.”

[...]

Richard Guthrie, formerly project leader of the Chemical and Biological Warfare Project of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, said the number of those affected appears low. He said, for example, the Tokyo underground attacks in 1995 that involved a small amount of sarin resulted in 13 deaths and more than 1,000 wounded.

“Any kind of a large-scale attack would have left a lot of dead, and a lot more showing symptoms,” Guthrie said.

Even if there was certain sarin contamination, he said the apparent small effect would raise questions about whether it might have been the result of a mistake, a rebel attack somehow damaging a Syrian chemical weapon in transit, or as happened on several occasions in the Iran-Iraq war, a single poorly labeled artillery shell being used accidentally.

“Even that would seem to fall short of a red line,” Guthrie said.

[snake]

I feel it's the opposite. They really don't want to go in but feel they will eventually have to. They are latching on to any reason to say "No, it's not time yet" while desperately hoping the situation becomes something more than a hot mess.

I think they're always willing and wanting to drop bombs. It's just the politicians need public support before they go ahead. GWB had enormous support for Iraq and Afghanistan but the clusterfucks they turned into has soured the public on any heavy involvement elsewhere. So I think if they push this WMD use angle then they're doing so trying to make the public more sympathetic to "intervention".

[Horza]

We know what a US government bent on war with a Middle East dictatorship looks and sounds like. This isn't it.

[snake]

We know what a US government with a lot of support for foreign wars looks like. The neocons wanted Iran after Iraq but when support soured they dropped all talk of that. I think the US government would be already involved if the public had the stomach for it.

[All-for-Joffrey]

The neocons wanted Iran after Iraq but when support soured they dropped all talk of that.

They're still beating the drums against Iran. If you haven't noticed, they're continuously piling on more and more sanctions and continue to ratchet up the rhetoric, even during semi-productive nuclear talks.

I think the US government would be already involved if the public had the stomach for it.

A lot of the US public is criticizing the government precisely for not doing enough to address the Syria situation.

The US, like any rationale actor, doesn't just arbitrarily toss bombs at random countries for the sake of it. The necessary special interests have to be there. In the case of the Syria war, there are really no compelling reasons that would make the government want to be involved.

[Shryke]

We know what a US government with a lot of support for foreign wars looks like. The neocons wanted Iran after Iraq but when support soured they dropped all talk of that. I think the US government would be already involved if the public had the stomach for it.

Yeah, no. The Obama admin went into Lybia easy enough. That's what it looks like when they WANT to do something. This administration wants no part of an Iranian conflict and would really, really like to avoid a Syrian one.

You can tell because the GOP certainly wants in on Iran and the Obama Admin is all "fuck no".

[thecryptile]

1. Nothing,the US is too war-weary to embark on such a project even if we could afford it, which we cant.

2. N/A

3. This will embolden all of America's enemies, N. Korea as well as Jihadists- look for more Terror plots in N. America as well as more Sabre rattling rhetoric from the Kim regime.

4. Air-strikes on suspected chemical weapons depots and possibly on Assad regime forces. Israelis can't afford to bury their heads in the sand with such a threat looming on the horizon.

5. Not much. Russia and China have their own problems, with Chechen and Uigher Jihadists. Also China is wrapped up in the dispute with Japan over the Senkaku Islands.

I agree with the President's stance so far on Syria. Arming Rebel groups here has the potential to bite us just like it did Afghanistan in the 1980s.

[snake]

Yeah, no. The Obama admin went into Lybia easy enough. That's what it looks like when they WANT to do something. This administration wants no part of an Iranian conflict and would really, really like to avoid a Syrian one.

You can tell because the GOP certainly wants in on Iran and the Obama Admin is all "fuck no".

Ah no. They hung back and let the France and the UK take the lead. It was France that pushed for intervention there.

And no President from any party will go into Iran without huge public support. No matter how much rhetoric they spew forth.

They're still beating the drums against Iran. If you haven't noticed, they're continuously piling on more and more sanctions and continue to ratchet up the rhetoric, even during semi-productive nuclear talks.

A lot of the US public is criticizing the government precisely for not doing enough to address the Syria situation.

The US, like any rationale actor, doesn't just arbitrarily toss bombs at random countries for the sake of it. The necessary special interests have to be there. In the case of the Syria war, there are really no compelling reasons that would make the government want to be involved.

It's just rhetoric. Keeping the crazies happy.

And Syria is a big interest for the US with regards to Iran and Hezbollah. Syria goes into the hands of a friendly regime and it puts a lot of pressure on Iran.

[Shryke]

Ok Snake, yeah. Obama totally secretly wants to do it, he's just speaking against it and the party speaking for it because he's devious like that. :rolleyes: