Print

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

[Dutchling]

The Dutch government seems to be worried we might get dragged into this as well, as we have Patriot missiles in Turkey :/

[Mictlantecuhtli]

In case of a NATO operation, the key player will be Turkey. This conflict literally hits closest to home for them and there is a risk of fighting on or over Turkish soil. On the other hand the government might appreciate some distraction from domestic issues, and it could provide a formal Article 5 justifcation if Turkey could say their border is threatened.

I've been visibly upset anytime Turkish involvement gets brought up because they were the ones who should've been putting a stop to this in the first place. No, Israel will not stop these people, they've shown they only care about letting Arabs kill Arabs if they don't get blamed for it.

Turkey should've been the first ones on Assad's doorstep saying no more. I feel like it helped ruin their credibility standing by and watching all the refugees flood in and do not a goddamn thing about the indiscriminate bombings/shellings 20km across the border.

Last I checked Turkey isn't a big fan of Hezbolla and Iran poking their noses into border conflicts, but hey, guess they replaced their spine with a jellyfish analogue. It's sad to see all their influence be wasted. You'd think Israel/Turkey would have a vested interest in stability, not a raging civil war.

[Sheb]

Yeah, but Turkey got other interests as well. For example, the Syrian Kurds grabbed a big plot of land. If the rebels wins, those Kurds would gain autonomy, it would be an unwelcome precedent for Turkey.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

Good. The Kurds have always deserved their own nation. Turkey helped to shred their credibility with anyone moderate by standing by and allowing the slaughter to occur while welcoming their widows and orphans with open arms. This is likely to have a severe domino effect no matter who takes action in what way.

[LordSlowpoke]

On the topic of Turkey, Leatra is gone and there's no information reaching my ears regarding the happenings there. It may be burning in nuclear fire for all I know at this point.

[palsch]

Been following a few lines on this. Looks like some type of intervention is extremely likely now. A rough outline of both why and the complexities and complications of the situation;

1) Obama said that chemical weapon attacks were a clear "red line" that Assad shouldn't be allowed to cross. Now that chemical weapons were definitely used something needs to be done. American can't really afford to define such clear lines and then let people cross them without any consequences. The most obvious reason here is maintaining a taboo against use of chemical weapons, making them unthinkable tools of war. To not strike now is to risk both American authority and that taboo weakening.

2) Such an intervention will be illegal. That's almost certain. The only internationally legal reasons for intervention are self defence or under a UN Security Council resolution. Even if the UN inspectors return a clear and certain answer that Assad used chemical weapons you aren't going to get a SC resolution past Russia.

3) That said, an argument for legitimacy as opposed to legality can be made. The Kosovo intervention would be an extremely rough framework, possibly combined with the (non-UN SC parts of the) Libyan justification for intervention. Kosovo was a similarly illegal intervention that was generally viewed as a legitimate use of power for humanitarian reasons. Justifying it as a NATO humanitarian action outside the legal framework of the UN could go a long way in the west, while absolutely no legal or moral argument is going to fly in Russia or China regardless of the situation.

4) I mentioned Libya above because the situation is superficially similar, with a civil war where one side is suffering from the other having superior resources. In Libya it was mostly air power, so a no-fly zone was imposed. In Syria it seems more likely that only chemical weapon capacity will be immediately targeted, although whether this is a more or less expansive operation than a no-fly zone is not immediately clear to me. If chemical weapons are potentially deployed in the field then stopping them would essentially mean destroying any units and facilities that may have them. That could be a matter of a few well informed strikes or it could mean hitting hundreds of potential targets.

5) There is no real upside to the US in intervening. As far as American foreign policy is concerned they gain nothing from any outcome. Assad winning would hurt their legitimacy and solidify his position as an American enemy. Assad losing means potentially handing the country to radical groups or continued instability and issues of legitimacy as seen elsewhere in the region. Continued war means, well, continued war, with all the issues that brings. US intervention has only downsides as far as I can see. Except for the two obvious ones; humanitarian and maintaining the chemical weapon taboo. Those are hard things to draw an actual intervention around, especially as any action is obviously also going to sway (or fail to sway) the greater conflict and so mean the US is choosing the eventual outcome, regardless of it being a lose-lose situation.

[Another]

I can positively assure you that if "UN inspectors return a clear and certain answer that Assad used chemical weapons" Russia would vote for intervention in Syria.

That said the sort of evidence as was used for Iraqs WMDs will not fly this time.

[Haspen]

But, what would happen if it turns out that the guys with chem.weapons are the rebels, not Assad's soldiers?

[Mictlantecuhtli]

I can positively assure you that if "UN inspectors return a clear and certain answer that Assad used chemical weapons" Russia would vote for intervention in Syria.

That said the sort of evidence as was used for Iraqs WMDs will not fly this time.

They determine the chemicals used and in what amount, not who fired them. Inspectors are there to confirm one way or another if such chemicals were used. Assad already gets the presumption of guilt due to shelling the area to nothing over the last week and delaying inspection of freshly launched weapons [the most reliable and quick way to determine what was in use]. If the rebels did commence the attack Syria would've not delayed nor shelled the [now empty] area after the alleged attack occurred.

4) I mentioned Libya above because the situation is superficially similar, with a civil war where one side is suffering from the other having superior resources. In Libya it was mostly air power, so a no-fly zone was imposed. In Syria it seems more likely that only chemical weapon capacity will be immediately targeted, although whether this is a more or less expansive operation than a no-fly zone is not immediately clear to me. If chemical weapons are potentially deployed in the field then stopping them would essentially mean destroying any units and facilities that may have them. That could be a matter of a few well informed strikes or it could mean hitting hundreds of potential targets.

This is what worries me. AFAIK Syria keeps their caches very large and very secure, which would be incredibly easy to disable after striking defences. But, if Assad has already ordered the most powerful types to be dispersed amongst loyalist regiments, or even hidden elsewhere, the proliferation has already begun and cutting the head off the snake will allow them to flow anywhere. I don't need to tell people that there's alot of factions looking to get their hands on such items in that case. The US is going to have one hell of a time dealing with this.

[palsch]

I can positively assure you that if "UN inspectors return a clear and certain answer that Assad used chemical weapons" Russia would vote for intervention in Syria.

That said the sort of evidence as was used for Iraqs WMDs will not fly this time.

I somehow doubt that Russia would accept such a result even if it came in. They have committed to defending Assad far deeper than the US has committed to defending the rebels.

That said what I mean by clear and certain maybe isn't 100% certainty - which is obviously impossible in such reports - but the level of certainty described as such in that type of report. There is always some minor uncertainty that would give Russia enough room to reject the results as unclear.

But, what would happen if it turns out that the guys with chem.weapons are the rebels, not Assad's soldiers?

I actually meant to write about this, because it's an interesting question. I strongly doubt the US would want to intervene, but arguably they should all the same. Using the logic from my first point they ought to identify and strike any rebel chemical weapon stockpiles. That said, the US is unlikely to want to inflict the harm that strikes would cause against the rebels and it's questionable whether more strikes are likely (how many weapons could the rebels have seized?), reducing the humanitarian argument. More likely (IMO) would be attempts to identify rebels and groups who had used or facilitated the use of such weapons and attempts to prosecute them for war crimes. That may be enough to maintain the chemical weapon taboo, assuming the prosecutions were prompt and effective. That is a big assumption though, and would probably mean coordination between various groups to capture and bring to justice senior rebels, an action not without major consequences for the rebellion in itself.

As an aside, I have seen war crime prosecutions mentioned in another article recently; this interview with the rebel cannibal.

Abu Sakkar is in a freshly pressed uniform, jauntily smoking a cigarette in a way that lends a slightly absurd air to the whole performance. He says he's willing to stand trial - but only if President Bashar Assad does too.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

Syrian state media would be cutting their arms off on air if they had any possible evidence of rebels stealing chemical weaponry. Not articles like these: http://rt.com/news/rebel-tunnel-damascus-chemical-940/ Made days after the event, with rudimentary pictures of rusted out mortars [which are likely Russian mortars from their own stockpile, lol, not to mention the literally brand new out-of-the-box gas masks and gloves..] Oh, and don't forget those chargers and battery packs next to the scotch tape.. That's how you make chemical weapons, tape some battery packs onto old mortars and shove chemicals in them. Jesus.

Now I've come across two separate articles sponsored by the Syrian media -- One claims that 'Qatar and Germany' manufacture the chemicals rebels use to make weapons, while another claims it's Saudi Arabia only. It sure smells like they're throwing everything out there to make people think it couldn't have been the benevolent terrorist-fighting regime.

[Owlbread]

I think it's depressing how world governments get so caught up in stuff like chemical weapons. For some reason that became the line in the sand. Why are chemical weapons killing people worse than the Assad regime murdering around 2000 civilians in just 4 months during the violent crackdown against the protestors in 2011? Why wasn't that the line in the sand? You can talk about the pain and suffering felt by the people killed in the gas attack, but that's nothing compared to the butchery that we know for certain was carried out by Assad back then.

Same thing with the heart eating. There's thousands of Syrians getting bombed out of their houses every day by an oppressive government that took its crackdown too far, kids dying and being left homeless/orphans left and right, yet people focus on an FSA captain eating a dead man's heart and therefore everything they've heard about the Syrian government's crimes magically becomes "Western propaganda". It's just idiocy.

[palsch]

I think it's depressing how world governments get so caught up in stuff like chemical weapons. For some reason that became the line in the sand. Why are chemical weapons killing people worse than the Assad regime murdering around 2000 civilians in just 4 months during the violent crackdown against the protestors in 2011? Why wasn't that the line in the sand? You can talk about the pain and suffering felt by the people killed in the gas attack, but that's nothing compared to the butchery that we know for certain was carried out by Assad back then.

As I said, it's about maintaining the taboo. It's similar to nuclear weapons. It's not that you can't kill thousands with other weapons, it's that these actual WMDs can kill thousands more quickly and efficiently, with (in many cases) greater humanitarian threats than conventional weapons. Making it so their use is universally condemned and carries with it massive repercussions makes people think twice before using them to achieve genocidal goals. It may mean that a genocide takes months or years to conduct rather than hours or days.

Now if nothing happens in that extra time to stop the genocide then it doesn't strictly matter if they use chemical weapons, helicopter gunships or machetes. But that's a whole different issue that the global community is arguably far less equipped to deal with, especially after Iraq.

[SalmonGod]

The whole thing about taboo on chemicals weapons seems absurd to me after nobody influential said anything about Israel's use of white phosphorus... though I'm probably not as informed as I should be on that point.

[misko27]

I think it's depressing how world governments get so caught up in stuff like chemical weapons. For some reason that became the line in the sand. Why are chemical weapons killing people worse than the Assad regime murdering around 2000 civilians in just 4 months during the violent crackdown against the protestors in 2011? Why wasn't that the line in the sand? You can talk about the pain and suffering felt by the people killed in the gas attack, but that's nothing compared to the butchery that we know for certain was carried out by Assad back then.

Same thing with the heart eating. There's thousands of Syrians getting bombed out of their houses every day by an oppressive government that took its crackdown too far, kids dying and being left homeless/orphans left and right, yet people focus on an FSA captain eating a dead man's heart and therefore everything they've heard about the Syrian government's crimes magically becomes "Western propaganda". It's just idiocy.

Well, I'll explain it like this: At the end of the Second World War, the Allied forces had enough small arms ammunition to kill every single human being alive, or at least could purchase the remaining amount without much hassle. And this caused no one consternation, rightly, due to the fact that it would be long, costly, and surely someone one stop it before long. WMDs solved this.


Chemical Weapons are fast, relatively easy to stockpile and use, and indiscriminate. They're much like mines, which have also seen a extensive push to eliminate. They're large-scale, destructive, easily used, and have effects that last a long time. Also, while it's one impossible thing to try to remove guns, it's a entirely different animal to attempt to prevent Chemical weapons, which haven't seen much use and have a rather specific requirement for materials and storage. Also, unlike regular fighting, in which someone can have a claim to legitimacy, Chemical weapons immediately throw out any hint of any decency.


Simply put, it's a pointlessly violent weapon that is relatively easy to track down and eliminate use of, with little political middle ground for people to hide in. You can justify, as Assad has done, murdering civilians as only killing some terrorists, and still have your backers back you, using Chemical weapons is a statement that you simply don't care. A gun is accurate, you can use it to kill terrorists and only terrorists, but Chemical is a guarentee, which even Russia can't justify.

The whole thing about taboo on chemicals weapons seems absurd to me after nobody influential said anything about Israel's use of white phosphorus... though I'm probably not as informed as I should be on that point.

I confess ignorance.

I actually meant to write about this, because it's an interesting question. I strongly doubt the US would want to intervene, but arguably they should all the same. Using the logic from my first point they ought to identify and strike any rebel chemical weapon stockpiles. That said, the US is unlikely to want to inflict the harm that strikes would cause against the rebels and it's questionable whether more strikes are likely (how many weapons could the rebels have seized?), reducing the humanitarian argument. More likely (IMO) would be attempts to identify rebels and groups who had used or facilitated the use of such weapons and attempts to prosecute them for war crimes. That may be enough to maintain the chemical weapon taboo, assuming the prosecutions were prompt and effective. That is a big assumption though, and would probably mean coordination between various groups to capture and bring to justice senior rebels, an action not without major consequences for the rebellion in itself.

As an aside, I have seen war crime prosecutions mentioned in another article recently; this interview with the rebel cannibal.

Abu Sakkar is in a freshly pressed uniform, jauntily smoking a cigarette in a way that lends a slightly absurd air to the whole performance. He says he's willing to stand trial - but only if President Bashar Assad does too.

Thing is, striking chemical weapon stockpiles is only slightly less dangerous then attacking a nuclear fuel facility. The potential for spillage and contamination is great, and the potential for wannabe terrorists to steal some even greater.