US moves naval group closer to Syria

[Poison Tree]

a dying Assad using them against Israel/Turkey/NATO.

Why would he do that to NATO member states or Turkey?
If we'd carried out surgical strikes on his soil then maybe but if he is losing power he is far more likely to use indiscriminate weaponry on his domestic opposition.

NATO countries have already smuggled weapons and equipment to Syrian rebels and have apparently trained some of them in camps in Turkey. There seems to be renewed talk about a no fly zone or strikes against Assad's air-force or its infrastructure, either of which would practically necessitate the use AA systems NATO shifted to Turkey and/or French and British forces (French and British officials having been more boisterous that Obama in calling international action). Assad (or his generals, or who ever actually has hands on chemicals at the hypothetical end)--if he think he's actually about to loose--may just decide to throw whatever he's got at whatever impact target is close without needing any clear advantage to be gained. If he thinks he's loosing a genocidal war, why wouldn't he target opposition refuge camps in Turkey--would likely kill far more of the "enemy race" then attacking a bombed out shell of a town--? If it looks like a tortuous death is the only outcome (a point we are far from currently), I don't think there will be a lot of rational long term risk-reward thinking going on.

On the other hand, I fully expect Iran/Hezbollah to shoot their bolt in Syria because of its importance as a supplies path between them. If Iran's nuclear program is coming to a confrontation (Israeli/US strike) they may decide to throw whatever they've got (possibly even chemical) in range against Israeli/US bases, knowing that a defeat in Syria will seriously hamper their ability to respond later.

Now those are just possibilities (which we are not near to, either), but some of the one that have to be on the minds of people contemplating action against Syria.

[Jmpty]

I expect it would turn out much like Libya. A few targeted airstrikes and it would be about over. Iran talks a lot of smack, but they have nothing to back it up.

[hillbillyatheist]

my guess is we lob a couple missiles at the government if that.

then they get pissed. thats it. nobody wants a ground war, even Obama. they really don't even want to do the missile thing but feel pressured. LOL

What would that achieve?
"Everyone is killing each other so let's fire explosive ordinance at them, that'll stop them killing each other!"
If they're dead they can't kill eachother, perfect solution.

fuck if I know. I'm with you. I'm just saying what the US government might do. go ask them.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

I think there may have been for some time plans to plant seeds of sectarianism to completely split Suni and Sheite to weaken the Sheites. Maybe it's some odd wish of the house of Saud who, if not mistaken are Suni, but I could be wrong. In any event it's divide and conquer and make the opposition irrelevant.

[Colanth]

Consider our history in the Middle East.  The rebels are violently anti-American, so of course that's the side we're going to back.  Then bitch like crazy after they've taken over the country (with our help) and, ungrateful wretches that they are, they turn on us.

Why should we change a winning strategy?

Oh! Er ...

[Shiranu]

100,000+ deaths and several chemical attacks later, we are just now getting offended over chemical weapons being used. There have been suspected chemical attacks going back months now and we didn't say anything so the fact that we are just now talking about intervention... it just seems about a year late.

If we were going to get involved, we should have done it along time ago. And the only reason we care about Syria is because of its strategic importance, not the fact that civilians are being slaughtered; otherwise we would be discussing Bahrain, Sudan and Myanmar amongst others. If we get involved, I don't like doing it under the guise of humanitarianism because that sure as fuck isn't something we care about.

----

On the topic of chemical weapons, a interesting (and wholely unsurprising) article on America's use of nerve gas through Iraq.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2 ... assed_iran

In 1988, during the waning days of Iraq's war with Iran, the United States learned through satellite imagery that Iran was about to gain a major strategic advantage by exploiting a hole in Iraqi defenses. U.S. intelligence officials conveyed the location of the Iranian troops to Iraq, fully aware that Hussein's military would attack with chemical weapons, including sarin, a lethal nerve agent.

The intelligence included imagery and maps about Iranian troop movements, as well as the locations of Iranian logistics facilities and details about Iranian air defenses. The Iraqis used mustard gas and sarin prior to four major offensives in early 1988 that relied on U.S. satellite imagery, maps, and other intelligence. These attacks helped to tilt the war in Iraq's favor and bring Iran to the negotiating table, and they ensured that the Reagan administration's long-standing policy of securing an Iraqi victory would succeed. But they were also the last in a series of chemical strikes stretching back several years that the Reagan administration knew about and didn't disclose.

[josephpalazzo]

I personally think since its basically a muslim terrorist group vs a dictatorship that we should just let them fight it out.

I think most americans feel that way. whether the government  will stay out of it is another matter. I'm not sure what we gain by getting mixed up with that shit.

You might want to invoke Goodwin's law and say I lose on this argument, but I will nevertheless point out that Hitler used those same arguments: the world didn't do anything when the Turks massacred the Armenians, why would they do anything if we massacre all those annoying Jews. The problem here, IF Syria is using gas to kill its own people AND the world does nothing, then every country run by a dictator will feel empowered to gas any undesirable segment of its population.

[hillbillyatheist]

Two question for you, what is the difference between him using gas to kill a few hundred people or regular bombs to kill hundreds of thousands?

Second. the Jews are not our enemies. From what I understand the rebels are. Why should we risk our lives and our soldiers for hezbollah and shit?

[josephpalazzo]

Two question for you, what is the difference between him using gas to kill a few hundred people or regular bombs to kill hundreds of thousands?

Second. the Jews are not our enemies. From what I understand the rebels are. Why should we risk our lives and our soldiers for hezbollah and shit?

(1) The argument that was used to ban warfare by poisonous gas might be old and subtle but still valid: guns can be used strictly speaking to kill the enemy (in those days, they wore uniforms), while a gas will kill indiscriminately men, women and children.

(2) yes, there is a problem, and why the US is hesistant in getting involved. But still the US with other countries cannot be silent, and must send a message that the use of poisonous gas will bring harsh retaliation. For instance, all airport could be bombed and disabled, and any aircraft from the regime to be shot down, and then impose a no-fly zone over the whole country. If the regime continues to use poisonous gas, then more punishment must follow through.

[hillbillyatheist]

Two question for you, what is the difference between him using gas to kill a few hundred people or regular bombs to kill hundreds of thousands?

Second. the Jews are not our enemies. From what I understand the rebels are. Why should we risk our lives and our soldiers for hezbollah and shit?

(1) The argument that was used to ban warfare by poisonous gas might be old and subtle but still valid: guns can be used strictly speaking to kill the enemy (in those days, they wore uniforms), while a gas will kill indiscriminately men, women and children.

with guns I see your point but what of bombs? has syria up to this point only killed rebel soldiers? from I know hundreds of thousands have died on both sides and not just soldiers. suddenly a few die by gas instead of fire.....and we need to knee deep in that shit. LOL what?!

(2) yes, there is a problem, and why the US is hesistant in getting involved. But still the US with other countries cannot be silent, and must send a message that the use of poisonous gas will bring harsh retaliation. For instance, all airport could be bombed and disabled, and any aircraft from the regime to be shot down, and then impose a no-fly zone over the whole country. If the regime continues to use poisonous gas, then more punishment must follow through.

thats probably what they'll do. if we just lob a few missiles at them, and don't actually get into a war, then I don't really care either way. I still think the US government is being a hypocrite. especially when they helped saddam hussein when he gassed iranians.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2 ... assed_iran

[billhilly]

yes, there is a problem, and why the US is hesistant in getting involved. But still the US with other countries cannot be silent, and must send a message that the use of poisonous gas will bring harsh retaliation. For instance, all airport could be bombed and disabled, and any aircraft from the regime to be shot down, and then impose a no-fly zone over the whole country. If the regime continues to use poisonous gas, then more punishment must follow through.

Sending "messages" with bombs hasn't worked out so well in the past and that's with the assumption that we know for sure who all has used gas.  Bomb airports or shoot down planes and they'll have pics of dead civilians lined up on Al Jazeera.  "Punishing" foreign governments doesn't have a good track record.  Why do some keep thinking it'll work next time?  

At some point, we really need to just fuckin stop with the world police shit.

[josephpalazzo]

(1) The argument that was used to ban warfare by poisonous gas might be old and subtle but still valid: guns can be used strictly speaking to kill the enemy (in those days, they wore uniforms), while a gas will kill indiscriminately men, women and children.

with guns I see your point but what of bombs? has syria up to this point only killed rebel soldiers? from I know hundreds of thousands have died on both sides and not just soldiers. suddenly a few die by gas instead of fire.....and we need to knee deep in that shit. LOL what?!

As I've mentioned, in those days, the enemy wore uniforms ( more specifically, WW1 when poisonous gas was used widely). Today, that is often not the case. Of course, nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki doesn't help the US moral stand.  Nevertheless, doing nothing is a worse evil as dozens of dictators will see this non-intervention as a green light for their use of the gas on those undesirable in their country.

(2) yes, there is a problem, and why the US is hesistant in getting involved. But still the US with other countries cannot be silent, and must send a message that the use of poisonous gas will bring harsh retaliation. For instance, all airport could be bombed and disabled, and any aircraft from the regime to be shot down, and then impose a no-fly zone over the whole country. If the regime continues to use poisonous gas, then more punishment must follow through.

thats probably what they'll do. if we just lob a few missiles at them, and don't actually get into a war, then I don't really care either way. I still think the US government is being a hypocrite. especially when they helped saddam hussein when he gassed iranians.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2 ... assed_iran

Yes, we do have a few stains in our closet, but it doesn't mean we should stand silent and paralyzed when the situation can lead to greater disaster.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Air strikes on Syria are infeasible as they have a fairly complex air defence system provided by the Russians.

Long range missiles are the only way to go.

But as both sides appear to be pretty shit (the secular voice has long since been drowned out), who would we target, and why? And what would it achieve?

The reason why Syria is such a powder keg is the notion of it becoming a proxy war (arguably it already is). The Chinese and the Russians aren't simply going to sit still whilst their lapdog Assad is removed aided by western missile strikes.

Neither do I think the west will like it when rebel commanders devout to the cause of extreme Islamic ideologies install themselves in power and begin doing much worse things to their population than chemical weapon attacks (although that might also be very much a viable option for them).

[josephpalazzo]

Air strikes on Syria are infeasible as they have a fairly complex air defence system provided by the Russians.

It's no match for the US. Heck, the Israelis could take it down in less than 24 hrs.

The reason why Syria is such a powder keg is the notion of it becoming a proxy war (arguably it already is). The Chinese and the Russians aren't simply going to sit still whilst their lapdog Assad is removed aided by western missile strikes.  

It is a proxy war, but not what you think. It's Saoudi Arabia (Sunnis) Vs Iran (Shiites). The Russians are only interested as long as they can sell their weapons to one side. Presently, to Assad, but any other regime favorable to them would be acceptable. As to the Chinese, as long a the US is entangled in some conflict, they are quite happy.

Neither do I think the west will like it when rebel commanders devout to the cause of extreme Islamic ideologies install themselves in power and begin doing much worse things to their population than chemical weapon attacks (although that might also be very much a viable option for them).

It depends which ideology wins. I believe this conflict will be as long as any other conflict in the ME -- very, very long. And the Israelis don't mind if Syria becomes another failed state.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Air strikes on Syria are infeasible as they have a fairly complex air defence system provided by the Russians.

It's no match for the US. Heck, the Israelis could take it down in less than 24 hrs.

If the US and Europe are finding it hard to stomach the prospect of getting involved in another conflict in the ME, they'll find it doubly hard to stomach the loss of various aircraft in bombing sorties on as of yet undefined and un-identified targets. Also, what would the estimated costs be of installing a no-fly zones, especially ones manned by very few (if any) states outside the US, UK, and the French, and not mandated by the UN (Russia and China would veto)? I guess that would be the ultimate aim of using aircraft over long range missiles.

It's not going to happen. And it's not just about superior firepower in this case. The conflict in Syria is not black and white. As I said, there's no defined target. Assad isn't the only 'bad guy' just like the rebels aren't the 'good' guys. There are no concrete targets.

It seems clear that Assad has used chemical weapons against his own people, but that's just the tip of the iceberg of attoricites committed by both sides. The chemical weapons have caused far, far fewer deaths than just carpet shelling by government forces and indiscriminate murder committed by various sections of the (disorganised and disunited) rebel forces. Seems odd that when chemical weapons are used it's an outrage, but everything else just gets a stearnly worded speech from a foreign secretary.

The reason why Syria is such a powder keg is the notion of it becoming a proxy war (arguably it already is). The Chinese and the Russians aren't simply going to sit still whilst their lapdog Assad is removed aided by western missile strikes.  

It is a proxy war, but not what you think. It's Saoudi Arabia (Sunnis) Vs Iran (Shiites). The Russians are only interested as long as they can sell their weapons to one side. Presently, to Assad, but any other regime favorable to them would be acceptable. As to the Chinese, as long a the US is entangled in some conflict, they are quite happy.

But neither the Russians nor the Chinese are the friends of the extremists that are fighting against Assad currently.

Many of the international fighters that have flocked to Syria are also involved in the Chechen struggle, and whilst true the Chinese will happily buy land and resources for anyone willing to sell (Easten African states refer to the communist government as the ca-Ching dynasty, the governmental structures in place under Assad facilitated the flow of credit and resources a lot better than anything that would be installed the chaos that will undoubtedly ensue after the Alawites have been deposed.

Also, we can't forget that both the Russians and the Chinese have invested considerable resources into Syria and Assad. Relatively speaking, Iran and the al Sauds are small players outside of their local demographics.

Neither do I think the west will like it when rebel commanders devout to the cause of extreme Islamic ideologies install themselves in power and begin doing much worse things to their population than chemical weapon attacks (although that might also be very much a viable option for them).

It depends which ideology wins. I believe this conflict will be as long as any other conflict in the ME -- very, very long. And the Israelis don't mind if Syria becomes another failed state.

But at least Assad wasn't firing chemical weapons at the Israelis. We're talking about people who look up to those who eat the hearts of the people they kill and want to kill every Jew in their local vicinity. I know you meant ideologies in a name only sense, but their MOs, and their ultimate wants are actually very similar and one would be hard pressed to find any discernible difference.

The cause for secularism in Syria was strong until the conflict began to get entrenched and the tactics by both sides became steadily more extreme.

That it will be a long conflict is further evidence that we should steer well clear. There will be no winners in this, only losers.