U.S. Politics - the end of summer edition

[Shryke]

I read today about Syria and found out that it is actually a secular state, it surprises me that the rebels are fundamentalists and USA is actually supporting them? How so? It makes no sense to me.

I can understand none of the middle eastern countries not wanting to be friends with Israel, I know I'd feel the same way too. But joining a war to support people who could easily use Syria to support groups like Al Qaeda is confusing and who the hell knows what interests are running over there right now.

The rebels are not fundamentalists. Some of the rebels are fundamentalists. Some of the rebels are really nasty fucking people. And some of them aren't.

The largest problem is that "the rebels" are an incredibly diverse group of different groups of many stripes. The US (which has been aiding the rebels for awhile now) has been using it's intelligence assets to try and figure out which groups are the ones who's interests best align with US foreign policy and trying to make sure the weapons are getting funnelled to those guys and not the "bad ones".

And Assad himself is a nasty fucking guy.

Seeing it as "secular government" vs "fundamentalist rebels" is a staggering oversimplification of the issue.

[thecryptile]

from reason.com:

As the Obama administration beats the drum for yet another military engagement, here are three reasons we shouldn't go to war with Syria.

1. It's not our fight

U.S. foreign policy - especially military actions - should proceed from clear and compelling national interests. But neither the president nor anyone in his administration has clarified what America's security stake is in Syria's civil war.

Humanitarian interventions are notoriously ineffective in practice. If the president wants to reduce the violence that's already claimed over 100,000 lives, lobbing cruise missiles or putting boots on the ground is no way to accomplish that.

2. Chemical weapons shouldn't be a red line

President Obama has said that chemical weapons are a red line that no country should be allowed to cross. But even assuming such weapons were used by the murderous Assad regime, the case for treating poison gas as qualitatively different than far more deadly conventional weapons is hardly clear.

Why should weapons that have at most killed a tiny fraction of people in a war be a trigger for action?

3. What constitutes victory?

Obama hasn't just failed to articulate a cause for action, he hasn't even bothered to explain what might constitute victory in Syria. The inherent risks are compounded massively by regional and global politics involving Iran, Jordan, Russia, Israel, and European countries.

The U.S. doesn't even have a clear sense of who the Syrian rebels are and what their agenda is.

For god's sake, if the past dozen years have taught us anything about foreign policy, it's that military interventions shouldn't be done in a half-assed fashion, without clear and widely shared goals.

If the Obama administration can't be bothered to articulate why we should fight, who we're helping, and how we would know that we succeeded, it's got no business getting involved in Syria.

[Shryke]

Point 2 is fucking stupid. Although it's still constantly repeated.

It's like people don't remember all those international treaties banning chemical weapons.

The case for treating poison gas or any other chemical weapons as qualitatively different than far more deadly conventional weapons is like a century old now and has been clear for about that long.

[thecryptile]

Point 2 is fucking stupid. Although it's still constantly repeated.

Even you admit that points 1 and 3 are valid? The case for Syrian intervention is weak indeed.

It's like people don't remember all those international treaties banning chemical weapons.

The UN can enforce those treaties, if they are so important. You can lobby your own government to lead the way. I will lobby mine to stay out of it.

[Shryke]

Even you admit that points 1 and 3 are valid? The case for Syrian intervention is weak indeed.

I said nothing of the sort. I merely responded to the most obvious and silly part.

The UN can enforce those treaties, if they are so important. You can lobby your own government to lead the way. I will lobby mine to stay out of it.

Irrelevant to the point. Chemical weapons, since their very inception, have been viewed as distinct from conventional weapons and nothing on that front has changed.

[thecryptile]

I said nothing of the sort. I merely responded to the most obvious and silly part.

Explain how points 1 and 2 are invalid then, O great and all knowing Shryke. Or I will take your silence as an admission that they are in fact valid points and you can't come up with any way to refute them.

I see nothing silly about pointing out that 100,000 deaths are being ignored, while a tiny fraction of that number that might possibly be caused by chemical weapons is being hailed as reason for military intervention.

Because some old farts at the Hague were unnerved by their experiences in WWI? I think that is, well in your terms, "fucking stupid". Dead is dead. It's perfectly acceptable to shoot these people, to blow them up, or to set them on fire, but gas- that is where we draw the line? We better bomb them to prevent them from being gassed?

Irrelevant to the point.

It's very relevant when one is speaking to a Canadian who is so gung-ho for US intervention in Syria.

What are you all up north doing about Assad? Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird said: "Canada believes that a firm and unequivocal response is needed to deter any future use of chemical weapons. We also believe that a clear message on the proliferation and use of such weapons must be sent to rogue regimes around the world." But no promise of military action. Quite the opposite in fact, Prime Minister Steven Harper said: "At the present time the government of Canada has no plans, we have no plans of our own to have a Canadian military mission." If Syrian intervention is so important and necessary, then you should lobby your own government to do something about it, instead of telling Americans what we should do.

Chemical weapons, since their very inception, have been viewed as distinct from conventional weapons and nothing on that front has changed.

US involvement in Syria is a lose-lose situation, and that hasn't changed either.

[Lyanna Stark]

It does make more sense like that doesn't it? Because fair or not my first thought was there's no way the average republican is going to know how to read a GPS like that.

Further, nobody would read a GPS like that unless you are out surveying, since giving someone the lat and long of their position is uninteresting, unless they are trying to pinpoint their position on a map (and that assumes you have a map using Lat and Long, which is not always the case). If you are going to give people directions, you use something relative, like "5 miles north of Town X" for instance.

For LOLs you could also ask which UTM zone you are in, or whether that position is given using the Clarke 1866 ellipsoid or WGS84.

[The Marquis de Leech]

Irrelevant to the point. Chemical weapons, since their very inception, have been viewed as distinct from conventional weapons and nothing on that front has changed.

Chemical weapons are a curious one. There is a century-old stigma associated with them, and when even Nazi Germany abides by the Convention against use of poison gas in warfare, you know there are serious issues. On the other hand, while chemical weapons are incredibly cruel, they are not that effective as a weapon of mass destruction, nowhere near the level of biological or nuclear weaponry. And unlike nuclear weapons, unused in war for 68 years, chemical weapons do appear from time to time in various conflicts: they're not conventional weapons, but they're not the uber red-line that nukes are.

However, with the fog of information, it is entirely possible Assad is not the one behind the chemical weapons (as has been pointed out elsewhere, why would he? He's winning). In which case, extreme caution is highly advisable as far as any intervention goes.

[Shryke]

Chemical weapons are a curious one. There is a century-old stigma associated with them, and when even Nazi Germany abides by the Convention against use of poison gas in warfare, you know there are serious issues. On the other hand, while chemical weapons are incredibly cruel, they are not that effective as a weapon of mass destruction, nowhere near the level of biological or nuclear weaponry. And unlike nuclear weapons, unused in war for 68 years, chemical weapons do appear from time to time in various conflicts: they're not conventional weapons, but they're not the uber red-line that nukes are.

However, with the fog of information, it is entirely possible Assad is not the one behind the chemical weapons (as has been pointed out elsewhere, why would he? He's winning). In which case, extreme caution is highly advisable as far as any intervention goes.

He's not exactly winning though, the weapons were used to clear out a rebel controlled area and there's quite a bit of evidence the government was responsible for their use.

[flinn]

He's not exactly winning though, the weapons were used to clear out a rebel controlled area and there's quite a bit of evidence the government was responsible for their use.

What evidence that the government was responsible?

[Shryke]

What evidence that the government was responsible?

In his statement Kerry gave the most detailed assessment yet of what happened on 21 August. He said Assad's forces had the largest stockpile of chemical weapons in the Middle East and had used them several times this year. The regime wanted to clear problematic Damascus suburbs of opposition forces and had grown "frustrated", he said.

"We know that three days before the attack the Syrian regime's chemical weapons personnel were on the ground in the area making preparations," Kerry said.

He claimed Syrian forces took precautions such as putting on gas masks before the attacks.

"We know that these were specific instructions. We know where the rockets were launched from and at what time; we know where they landed and when. We know rockets came only from regime-controlled areas and went only to opposition-controlled or contested neighbourhoods." Thirty minutes later "all hell broke loose" on social media, Kerry said.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/30/john-kerry-syria-attack-clear-evidence

[Shryke]

Explain how points 1 and 2 are invalid then, O great and all knowing Shryke. Or I will take your silence as an admission that they are in fact valid points and you can't come up with any way to refute them.

You can assume that all you want. You are, I'm sure, well acquainted with being wrong and so it shouldn't be a stretch

It's very relevant when one is speaking to a Canadian who is so gung-ho for US intervention in Syria.

No, it's not, since the point was "chemical weapons are no worse then conventional weapons". A view which it can be easily shown is not at all correct according to international law and the treaties on weapons.

You keep trying to make it about something else. I can only assume because you can't actually defend the point about chemical weapons I was refuting.

[ThinkerX]

"We know that three days before the attack the Syrian regime's chemical weapons personnel were on the ground in the area making preparations," Kerry said.

He claimed Syrian forces took precautions such as putting on gas masks before the attacks.

"We know that these were specific instructions. We know where the rockets were launched from and at what time; we know where they landed and when. We know rockets came only from regime-controlled areas and went only to opposition-controlled or contested neighbourhoods." Thirty minutes later "all hell broke loose" on social media, Kerry said.

But again...especially in light of the recent NSA revelations, and Neo-con style cold warriors all through the intelligence apparatus, just how much faith are we supposed to put in claims like this. Especially in light of the whole motivation issue.

To me, this declaration reads a *LOT* like the ones Bush II's flunkies were making prior to the Iraq invasion.

The other thing is, at this point, not even US airstrikes can salvage Obama's reputation.

And finally, with the *possible* exception of the Kurds, there are no 'good guys' from the US POV anywhere to be seen in this morass. If the US wants to actually help the people in the region, start with the ones that don't actively hate the US (Kurds). This area has seen nonstop wars, revolts, coups, riots, and massacres for *MILLENIA* and has *NEVER* had anything even close to a democratic regime. The basic concept is lacking.

[Altherion]

And finally, with the *possible* exception of the Kurds, there are no 'good guys' from the US POV anywhere to be seen in this morass. If the US wants to actually help the people in the region, start with the ones that don't actively hate the US (Kurds).

We can't do that. The one and only NATO state in this area is Turkey and they are not interested in strengthening the Kurds for obvious reasons.

[thecryptile]

You can assume that all you want. You are, I'm sure, well acquainted with being wrong and so it shouldn't be a stretch

You can't think of one reason that either point is invalid. Not even a token defense. You are, I'm sure, well acquainted with talking out of your ass.

No, it's not, since the point was "chemical weapons are no worse then conventional weapons". A view which it can be easily shown is not at all correct according to international law and the treaties on weapons.

If the International Community wants said laws enforced so badly, it should grow a pair, get a decent army and stop depending on us Americans to do its dirty work. I'm all for Canada taking the lead on that front. Since you don't want your own country involved, it is hypocritical for you to call on mine to take action.

I couldn't care less about International Law.

You keep trying to make it about something else. I can only assume because you can't actually defend the point about chemical weapons I was refuting.

I made my point. Dead is dead. Gas is no worse than bullets, bombs or napalm- I don't care what some long dead political hacks thought over 100 years ago. FYI, the Hague Convention bans the use of shotgun shells loaded with lead shot in war (1899 section IV,3), so international treaties aren't as important as you seem to think.

[Shryke]

You can't think of one reason that either point is invalid. Not even a token defense. You are, I'm sure, well acquainted with talking out of your ass.

I can think of several actually, but I only really felt like responding to the 2nd point which I've seen many places despite it's obvious stupidity.

FYI, stopping the spread and use of chemical weapons/helping stop the Syrian Civil War are both obviously in the US's national interest and since Obama has yet to state what he's even considering doing, articulating a "victory condition" is not yet expected, not even touching on whether it's even useful.

Put please, do continue to attempt to avoid dealing with the contents of the article you posted and whine about me instead. It's cute.

I couldn't care less about International Law.

Then you will have a great deal of difficulty understanding the current situation.

No matter how you whinge on about it, chemical weapons have been considered worse then conventional ones for a long time now. And still are today, despite your baseless comments about "long dead political hacks".

[TerraPrime]

For LOLs you could also ask which UTM zone you are in, or whether that position is given using the Clarke 1866 ellipsoid or WGS84.

That must be cartographer/geologist humor :-p

[The Marquis de Leech]

I couldn't care less about International Law.

Courts disagree with you. Customary international law has the status of Federal Common Law in the US, and various international treaties (contrary to popular belief) do get respected.

I made my point. Dead is dead. Gas is no worse than bullets, bombs or napalm- I don't care what some long dead political hacks thought over 100 years ago. FYI, the Hague Convention bans the use of shotgun shells loaded with lead shot in war (1899 section IV,3), so international treaties aren't as important as you seem to think.

Gas *is* worse than bullets and bombs. It's just not as bad as nukes. Chemical weapons are Not A Done Thing in international conflict, and while I don't think their usage justifies intervention in this case, it certainly justifies further investigation and if Assad turns out to be behind it, serious sanctions against his regime.

[ants]

But again...especially in light of the recent NSA revelations, and Neo-con style cold warriors all through the intelligence apparatus, just how much faith are we supposed to put in claims like this. Especially in light of the whole motivation issue.

To me, this declaration reads a *LOT* like the ones Bush II's flunkies were making prior to the Iraq invasion.

The other thing is, at this point, not even US airstrikes can salvage Obama's reputation.

And finally, with the *possible* exception of the Kurds, there are no 'good guys' from the US POV anywhere to be seen in this morass. If the US wants to actually help the people in the region, start with the ones that don't actively hate the US (Kurds). This area has seen nonstop wars, revolts, coups, riots, and massacres for *MILLENIA* and has *NEVER* had anything even close to a democratic regime. The basic concept is lacking.

On the first bit - well it depends. A huge difference between Iraq and Syria is that there is a lot more UN information. With Iraq, the UN was pretty much saying all the weapons were gone, Saddam had lost his ability to create them. That's obviously not what they're saying now with respect to Syria. Then there is the fact we pretty much know from the social media storm that chemical weapons were used. Again, very different from Iraq. And its pretty clear they were used in opposition areas.

So really the only point you're relying on the administration about is that they came from government controlled areas, and the instructions re the masks. As far as I can tell, those are the only bits without other proof. So a much more compelling story than what Bush was pedalling. But, you are still reliant on the administration for the proof/evidence that Assad's regime was to blame. Given you and I don't have spies/sattelites over there, short of the UN coming out and confirming it you will struggle to have alternative evidence. So the question is - do you believe the administration on that point? And that is probably a personal call. But to compare the story to the Bush fabrications is I think being unfair. Even if they're lying, they're still doing it a lot less blatantly than Bush did.

On the other bits, well from what I understand the US pretty much stuffed up by not getting involved early, so I don't think this is really now impacting Obama's reputation further. The main reason there aren't any friendly rebels is the west didn't supply them with guns, while the Saudi's et al did supply the fundamentalists. So everyone in rebel areas gave their support to the funded rebels. Now there isn't anyone the west wants to support. Thats the take I've gotten from the UK media.

[thecryptile]

FYI, stopping the spread and use of chemical weapons/helping stop the Syrian Civil War are both obviously in the US's national interest and since Obama has yet to state what he's even considering doing, articulating a "victory condition" is not yet expected, not even touching on whether it's even useful.

"Stopping the Syrian Civil War" is a very vague goal. Say it ends with an Assad victory, the US will be hurt by that- Assad will hold a grudge. If the rebels win, even that doesn't necessarily benefit the US. If an extremist anti-American faction takes over, there is no gain.

American intervention will lead to civilian deaths, which will fuel anti-American sentiment among some Middle Easterners. "The Americans kill children! They kill innocents!"

And what has all the gold and blood spent in Iraq and Afghanistan bought us? The Iraqi and Afghan governments are not particularly pro-American. There is no reason to think that Syrian intervention will turn out any better.

Courts disagree with you.

They often do. IANAL. That was a personal sentiment, not a legal opinion.

Gas *is* worse than bullets and bombs. It's just not as bad as nukes. Chemical weapons are Not A Done Thing in international conflict, and while I don't think their usage justifies intervention in this case, it certainly justifies further investigation and if Assad turns out to be behind it, serious sanctions against his regime.

Getting past my personal feelings, I recognize that chemical weapons are bad, and no nation approves of their use- even nations like the US that stockpile vast chemical arsenals of their own disapprove. But I don't see the need for US military action here. Sanctions, sure.