Middle East/North Africa 12 - Armageddon Anyone?

[ThinkerX]

To start things off, old news from the fringe:

http://warisacrime.org/node/19200

Claim is, way back in 2001, the US had a plan to invade seven ME countries in five years.

"This is a memo that describes how we're going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran."

Some of the names on that list look real familiar, for some reason.

Seem to be running a few years behind schedule, though. At this rate we won't get around to destabilizing Iran until the end of the decade! Sheesh...

Good thing this source is totally lacking in credibility.

[Free Northman]

Is there a smiley icon for crazytalk?

[Horza]

I have a question that will make me sound like a conspiracy theorist:

where does the knowledge that chemical weapons were used come from?

Basically: people on the ground, plus any medical evidence. People on the ground say all kinds of shit in wartime, sometimes even things they believe. You corroborate their reports and any other intelligence sources. The FSA has made multiple claims of chemical weapons usage over the past two years, of varying credibility, so it isn't like the US and others take their word for it uncritically.

If you want some informed-layman geekery over claims, videos etc, here's a place to start.

If it was the one way to make sure the US got involved, then what was the motivation for its deployment?

A senior commander making a bad call? A shell mix-up? To call Obama's bluff? Trying to wring more support out of Russia and Iran?

Way too early to know.

[sToNED_CAT]

I have a question that will make me sound like a conspiracy theorist:

where does the knowledge that chemical weapons were used come from?

If it was the one way to make sure the US got involved, then what was the motivation for its deployment?

That question doesn't make you sound like conspiracy theorist, it makes you sound like reasonable person. Like I said before, why in God's name would Assad use gas now when his situation is much better, than year ago? And why relatively small scale attack, that solves absolutely nothing, except getting western powers involved? And why gas Damascus of all places?

[Phaing]

That question doesn't make you sound like conspiracy theorist, it makes you sound like reasonable person. Like I said before, why in God's name would Assad use gas now when his situation is much better, than year ago? And why relatively small scale attack, that solves absolutely nothing, except getting western powers involved? And why gas Damascus of all places?

Two words; False Flag.

Al Queda had pulled stunts like this before, just not with Gas.

Hell, did the UN team even tell us what kind of Gas they think the detected?

[Free Northman]

I think it is clear that gas was used. The question is who used it.

But given Obama's obvious reluctance to get involved here, I doubt America would do so unless they were utterly convinced that it was indeed Asad behind the attack.

[sToNED_CAT]

A senior commander making a bad call? A shell mix-up? To call Obama's bluff? Trying to wring more support out of Russia and Iran?

I don't think senior commanders have that kind of authority. Assad has other problems than calling Obama's bluff - namely to win a war. And how does gassing civilians wring more support out of Russia and Iran?

[sToNED_CAT]

But given Obama's obvious reluctance to get involved here, I doubt America would do so unless they were utterly convinced that it was indeed Asad behind the attack.

Given Obama's involvement in Libya and his previous rhetoric on Syria, I don't think he's reluctant at all. It's just that intervention is so massively unpopular (9% supporting intervention) so that he needs to find good excuse.

And BTW it is absurd that he's not even talking about obtaining support in congress. Say what you want about Bush, but he got approval for his action in Iraq. Obama simply decided to attack Libya on his own.

[Free Northman]

Given Obama's involvement in Libya and his previous rhetoric on Syria, I don't think he's reluctant at all. It's just that intervention is so massively unpopular (9% supporting intervention) so that he needs to find good excuse.

And BTW it is absurd that he's not even talking about obtaining support in congress. Say what you want about Bush, but he got approval for his action in Iraq. Obama simply decided to attack Libya on his own.

I'm no Obama fan, but what does he stand to gain from attacking Syria? If it is so unpopular, what is his motivation?

[Horza]

I don't think senior commanders have that kind of authority. Assad has other problems than calling Obama's bluff - namely to win a war. And how does gassing civilians wring more support out of Russia and Iran?

Are you an expert on the Syrian defence forces? No? Then your guess about their operational chain of command for chemical weapons use is as good as mine.

As to the rest: if the US's response is a few days of bombardment the regime can handle that as a price of using sarin from time to time, especially if it means Russia and Iran up their weapons and material deliveries.

I don't think it's a particularly great rationale for chemical weapons use, personally I'd suspect accident or misadventure but then I'm not living in these guys' world.

[Phaing]

And BTW it is absurd that he's not even talking about obtaining support in congress. Say what you want about Bush, but he got approval for his action in Iraq. Obama simply decided to attack Libya on his own.

The media was highly critical of Bush, and not about Obama unless you look at Fox.

The Parliament in the UK has been called back from vacation to vote on this issue.... but our Congress, where are they?

"Meh, go ahead, whatever."

[sToNED_CAT]

I'm no Obama fan, but what does he stand to gain from attacking Syria? If it is so unpopular, what is his motivation?

That's the question, because frankly US ME politics doesn't make much sense now.

Probably some idiotic long term middle east political vision that involves replacement of dictators by more democratic regimes. Who cares that Islamic fundamentalists who support AQ would become much stronger, right?

Are you an expert on the Syrian defence forces? No? Then your guess about their operational chain of command for chemical weapons use is as good as mine.

No, I'm not an expert, I'm just thinking logically. If use of chemical weapons can bring western intervention, then (if I'm Assad) I'll better be pretty sure, that I'm the only one who can approve such attack. Assad is not crazy or stupid, I don't think he leaves such important decisions to his generals, no matter how much he trusts them.

[Horza]

No, I'm not an expert, I'm just thinking logically. If use of chemical weapons can bring western intervention, then (if I'm Assad) I'll better be pretty sure, that I'm the only one who can approve such attack. Assad is not crazy or stupid, I don't think he leaves such important decisions to his generals, no matter how much he trusts them.

I agree that broadly it is desirable on the regime's part to keep chemical weapons use under strict control, but whether that extends to Assad himself authorising each usage is unclear.

Firstly, there have been cases of probable regime nerve agent use prior to this (hence the UN investigation team being there in the first place), so it isn't clear that the regime has a strict 'no nerve agents no how' policy.

Secondly, it may be unworkable to have Bashar as the sole signature if (as is likely) he is constantly being moved around as a precaution against assassination attempts and (also likely) communications within the regime are less than perfect. As a consequence this authority may well be shared with members of the inner circle and delegated to senior commanders for tactical use.

Again, I don't think it's terribly likely that the August 21st incident was a case of tactical or strategic use, but it's not at all impossible.

[Altherion]

I'm no Obama fan, but what does he stand to gain from attacking Syria? If it is so unpopular, what is his motivation?

That is an interesting question. I asked it in the US politics thread and there is no obvious answer. It really is that unpopular: if chemical weapons were used, the percentage supporting intervention goes from 9% to 25% -- a substantial increase, but still very low. There's no authorization from the UN so an attack risks some sort of reprisal from Russia or Iran (e.g. they can step up arms delivery). There's also no authorization from Congress and given that Syria does not pose an urgent threat, an armed intervention is probably illegal (not that anyone can do anything about it).

So why intervene? Maybe there's a deal with Turkey or Saudi Arabia or one of the other Middle Eastern countries? Or maybe having given that speech about the "red line", Obama now feels he has to follow through on it so as not to appear weak? In either case, it's not obvious what the intervention will accomplish or even what the goals are.

[Galactus]

If use of chemical weapons can bring western intervention, then (if I'm Assad) I'll better be pretty sure, that I'm the only one who can approve such attack. Assad is not crazy or stupid, I don't think he leaves such important decisions to his generals, no matter how much he trusts them.

ipb.global.registerReputation( 'rep_post_4892161', { domLikeStripId: 'like_post_4892161', app: 'forums', type: 'pid', typeid: '4892161' }, parseInt('') );

That assumes Assad has that level of control, and it's not up to whatever general happens to be in control of the area where the chems are.

So why intervene? Maybe there's a deal with Turkey or Saudi Arabia or one of the other Middle Eastern countries? Or maybe having given that speech about the "red line", Obama now feels he has to follow through on it so as not to appear weak? In either case, it's not obvious what the intervention will accomplish or even what the goals are.

The second, almost definitely. He was hoping to keep the syrians from doing anything foolish, and now he's more or less forced to back up his threat.

[sToNED_CAT]

That assumes Assad has that level of control, and it's not up to whatever general happens to be in control of the area where the chems

Of course I believe he has that kind of control. He's a member of family dynasty, that has been ruling Syria for decades. Do you believe they remained in power without complete control of such important matters?

But OK let's assume that some general ordered it. Does it mean Syrian generals are stupid fools who want American intervention? Not to mention questionable military value of such assault. What was achieved again? They just decided to randomly gas suburbs of Damascus to get some rebels? Why not attack some city controlled by rebels?

Or was it done to terrorise general population? If so it's not working very well, if people are not even sure whether an attack was committed or not. Saddam did not hide his gas attack on Kurds, he did it publicly to scare them to surrender. But it's hard to terrorise opposition with attacks like these Syria, that are so limited and there's so much confusion, that people 20 miles away don't even know if there was an attack or not.

[Galactus]

Of course I believe he has that kind of control. He's a member of family dynasty, that has been ruling Syria for decades. Do you believe they remained in power without complete control of such important matters?

That was before the entire country went up in flames and a third of the army defected.

[dalThor]

That is plausible to me considering the Neocon mindset that dominated hawkish US foreign policy during that entire era.

I have a question that will make me sound like a conspiracy theorist:

where does the knowledge that chemical weapons were used come from?

If it was the one way to make sure the US got involved, then what was the motivation for its deployment?

I think the last question is entirely reasonable. It seems to me the entity which 'benefits' the most from the use of chemical weapons would be the resistance. If you really want to go all tin-foil hat, one could speculate that they got a hold of some actual Assad military chemical agent and did it themselves to draw the western countries in.

I really wish Obama hadn't pulled his pecker out for measurement with the 'Red Line' statement. Now he's damned if he intervenes and damned if he doesn't. I saw the MSNBC story that attacks could happen as early as Thursday on a Greek site. My thought was, here we go again. (The no-fly zone over Iraq was in place for around a decade prior to Gulf War II, to what avail?)

[WinterKing]

UK proposes resolution about intervention on Syria:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-23864124

[Horza]

(The no-fly zone over Iraq was in place for around a decade prior to Gulf War II, to what avail?)

Iraqi Kurds might have something to say about what it availed.