Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[Helgoland]

Could have been him testing how far he can go. It's pretty likely gas was used on a smaller scale several times before; now he wanted to know if he could take the next step.

Looks like he can.

What'll be his next thing to try out?

[misko27]

I've heard the terrifying possibility that he thinks he can ride out US response and then continue with impunity. That'll really provoke the Administration.

Could have been him testing how far he can go. It's pretty likely gas was used on a smaller scale several times before; now he wanted to know if he could take the next step.

Looks like he can.

What'll be his next thing to try out?

Well, he would know he could do a really big one once, and he has a lot of gas where that came from... Even if a Government militia did it without permission, letting it pass relatively easily would empower him anyway. Which would possibly provoke a tougher response, but at a serious cost.

[FearfulJesuit]

I'm going to get flak for this, I think, but when you're looking at a humanitarian crisis but can't afford to invade, the international community needs to swoop in, launch a coup and/or take out the dictator and inner cabal, and then leave (with aid to the least bad faction that arises in the aftermath). It was probably what we should have done in Iraq in the first Gulf War and possibly what we should do in Syria.

[Strife26]

But the international community hasn't been willing to do that since . . . Korea? And that was a special Russia takes a holiday type affair.

[Sheb]

Yeah, large parts of the international community (aka, Russia, Iran and China) don't want to depose Assad at all.

I can get behind. It's too late to depose Assad and prevent a sectarian bloodbath, but it's not too late to make an example that no matter the consequences, chemical weapons are bad.

[Helgoland]

Letting Assad stay in power is literally the worst thing that could happen - even turning the whole country into a radioactive desert would be preferrable. If Assad stays, we send a message to all other despots around the globe that slaughtering your population is a good way to stay in power. Such a decision would in the long run result in milllions of deaths.

My favorite plan: Remove Assad, recognize the FSA and its affiliates as the legitimate representants of the Syrian people, and get them to negotiate with the bureaucratic and political remains of the regime, to get the state working again in as short a time as possible (see post-WWII Germany and the Nazi bureaucrats) and obtain some level of support or at least toleration by Russia and China.
Then give them massive support to quell all resistance by whatever means necessary. The result will be ugly, but the end result is the best we can hope for and the path is no more slippery with blood than the other possible ones.

[Sheb]

The problem is that the FSA has been sidelined in the recent past by the jihadists. They do not represent the Syrian people, and do not even represent most of the rebels fighters.

If they're to have some measure of authority, they'd need to be significantly beefed up. That would the the "Croatian army" option outlined in that study I've linked before. Probably the only one with a chance of success, but one with the heaviest cost, with only a full scale invasion by the West being more expensive.

[Helgoland]

Probably the only one with a chance of success

I don't see what else needs to be said. Western troops would antagonize the locals, Jihadists are a no-no, Assad must leave - the last bits of secular or semi-secular resistance (which we failed to support when they actually were the main rebel force) are our only hope for winning the peace.

[Sheb]

Well, you could say the possible cost are not worth the slim chance of success.

[Helgoland]

If we (the west) had done something in the initial stages of the conflict, the costs would have been much lower. We need to make right what we did wrong; we have an obligation to the Syrian people. Cost should really be a factor of lesser importance.

And there's a slim chance of even greater success: Once Assad is gone, Russia, China and Iran will suddenly have an interest in stabilizing the new government and keeping the Islamists from power. Thus there's be a much reducced chance of a proxy war.

[10ebbor10]

Problem is, if we take out the Syrian regime, we remove their common enemy. The different groups will turn onto each other. Probably also revenge attacks against Assad supporters.

What follows is an even bloodier civil war, and probably the formation of a few new terrorist movements.  Think about the poison gas, where will that go.

And there's a slim chance of even greater success: Once Assad is gone, Russia, China and Iran will suddenly have an interest in stabilizing the new government and keeping the Islamists from power. Thus there's be a much reduced chance of a proxy war.

There's no unified rebel front. Split goes much further than islamist versus the rest. Pretty good change a proxywar does crop up, or the formation of a new despotic state.

[Helgoland]

Sure, it'll be a last man standing scenario - but China and Russia have a big interest in selecting that person quickly once Assad is gone, meaning they won't start a proxy war just to spite the West. Recognizing the FSA et cetera as legitimate government would just serve the purpose of legitimizing support in the form of weapons and funds; once there's a free-for-all in post-Assad Syria, we should see to it that neither Jihadists nor Iranian puppets nor any other kind of crazy group emerges victorious: Beefing up a moderately nationalist movement that won't harm the minorities too much should accomplish that goal.

[GlyphGryph]

Letting Assad stay in power is literally the worst thing that could happen - even turning the whole country into a radioactive desert would be preferrable. If Assad stays, we send a message to all other despots around the globe that slaughtering your population is a good way to stay in power. Such a decision would in the long run result in milllions of deaths.

We've sent that message already. We can not unsend it. All we can do is modify it to "It's okay to slaughter your population to put down rebellion so long as you don't use gas - at this point, we have no standing to say it's not okay at all, because we've spent so long saying we don't care if he does.

And deposing him will CONTINUE to send a message that the US will take unilateral action to curb stomp whoever they don't like, against the wishes of the international community, whenever they want. Which, is far as I'm concerned, is a message we don't want to keep sending at all.

My suggestion?

Let France handle it. Renounce our position as world police, stop trying to argue we are responsible for every terrible thing that happens in the world (and as a result ending up responsible for every terrible thing that happens in the world, because let's be honest we REALLY SUCK AT INTERVENING). We keep arguing this is an international tragedy - well, that's the perfect excuse to let someone else handle it, because the international community is large an frankly, we have lost all credibility for being able to successfully lead a war again a foreign nation, and have a pretty bad reputation for trying anyway and making things worse. It is obvious, pointedly obvious, that "making things worse" is the most likely outcome of our involvement at any level, because we've already fucked up all our chances of making things better.

We can't undo our mistakes, but we can let someone else make the mistakes from here on out.

[10ebbor10]

France won't handle anything. Their president is a spineless politician elected only because he promised to be different from the previous one. The moment the US backs out, they will too.

But you could try to follow the same strategy as the rest of the Eurocountries. Wait for the bureaucracy to handle it, and write sternly worded letters against China/ Russia.

To late now though, the war rhetoric has already started.

[GlyphGryph]

I think it's bad for the US and the World for us to be expected to fix every problem that comes along and to right every wrong. Especially considering how bad we are at it, and how we've already missed all the actual good opportunities to right this particular wrong and let it get to a point where it is unlikely we can accomplish anything of value.