I've read all the links posted in this thread, and unless I'm missing something here, isn't it actually in the US interests for the Syrian civil war to continue? I mean, sounds like the government side is just full of assholes, and the rebel side is just full of terrorist cells. So why not let them keep killing each other? They're basically doing our "job" for us, and we get to keep our hands clean.
Agreed. South Africa has its own little despot right across the northern border (the one who just got "voted" into power for a 9th consecutive term) - S.A. largely ignores him because they don't want to go in and try to "fix" that fucked up country, since the economy is largely dog shit and Bob still has a few million followers. There needs to be a greater groundswell of independence from oil, that's the only way to get away from the many nutjobs who inhabit the Middle East. Sadly, the oil companies will fight tooth-and-nail for things to stay as they are and they have bought enough politicians for things to not change. As regards Syria specifically, there is really nothing the U.S. can do there that, in my opinion, that would have a positive long-term outcome. They can invade or bomb or whatever and set up schools or whatever else it is they do in these countries (like Iraq and Afghanistan) and have the resulting cost of war bleed the already staggering-post-2008 economy, or they can stay out of it and hope that Assad stays in power and kills all the "terrorists". Neither outcome is pleasant. As someone else said, the thought patterns in the Middle East are not congruent with the rest of the world. Maybe we all just need to learn to stay the fuck away from these countries.
The issue is that chemical weapons don't decide who they target and once released they can't be controlled. Not saying other weapons like bombs/missles are good for civilians either (especially since civilian deaths don't seem to be such a big deal in the sandy countries), but it's a lot easier to have an 'oh ... oops!' with chemical weapons.
Civil wars are not generally in the habit of ending cleanly with no long term consequences. Given the messy, interconnected nature of the region and now the chemical weapon quagmire on top of that, we would be beyond foolish to sit on our hands and hope for the best. We should have done something about a year and a half ago before shit got completely out of control, but no one wanted to step up and stick their neck out, so here we are. I just hope that Congress and Obama don't half-measure this to death and end up making it worse. Clean, quick, and without mercy- Assad's gotta go eventually too. Even Hitler knew not to use chemical weapons in battle. (Let's please skip the inevitable jokes or rebuttals about the Holocaust and all that- Germany did not use chemical weapons on the battlefield during WW2, that's all I'm saying here.)
So your answer is to punish Assad in exactly the same manner he is dealing with the internal rebel terrorist cells? Yeah right. Perhaps the way he is handling his shit is the expedient/only way, and we just don't fucking get it. See Afghanistan & Iraq.
Yeah, all those children that had in their internal organs turned to soup from sarin gas must have had it coming.
Collateral damage. Not unlike all those poor little kids in Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Dresden. Tactically, the willingness to take the fight to someone’s home with absolute prejudice it is a very effective means to get your enemy to pull their head in and keep it in. And as distasteful as we may find it, the bunkers full of tactical nukes you yanks have squirreled away are not designed to cherry pick military targets, the threat is implicit. "Mess with us hard enough and we can kill your whole fucking city" Edit: My point was fuzzy
Just to point out something: Since it was announced we were pulling out of Afghanistan, there has been a push to intercede in four countries: 1) Iran (the nuclear weapon thing) 2) North Korea (the nuclear weapon thing) 3) Egypt (because we want to promote democracy, even if that means backing a military coup that removed a democratically elected leader) 4) Syria (because of chemical weapons use in a civil war) The ban on chemical weapons comes from WWI, and not because of civilians. Troops were attacked with mustard gas by both sides and it was considered too inhumane. Also note, chemical weapons were used by Saddam Hussein against Iran and the Kurds (in the 80's) - we did nothing. Chemical weapons were also used by the Soviets in Afghanistan (also in the 80's) - we did nothing. I would caution those of you whom think we need to intercede to remember the following: 1) This is a civil war that has gone on for 2 years. Approximately 100,000 people are already dead. If it was going to escalate into a regional conflict on its own, it would have already happened. 2) There are no real good guys on either side. 3) You can not use airstrikes alone to change regimes. Eventually, you will have to put boots on the ground. That's just military 101. (Remember the 'no-fly zone' we enforced over Iraq and Libya? Yeah, no regime change until people on the ground - rebels with US aid in one case, and US troops in the other - actually got on the ground and did the dirty work). 4) If surrounding Arab countries are so worried (2 years into it) that the conflict will escalate to harm them - let them deal with it. They don't want to get involved for a reason. A very good reason. 5) The US does not have a right to infringe on the sovereignty of another nation without an act of war. There has been no act of war against the US by Syria. 6) There has been no concrete plan by any proponent of how the 'surgical strike' will actually do what it is supposed to do. Military intervention does not work well if we don't actually know what success looks like. Just see Iraq, Afghanistan, Bosnia, et. al. For those of you whom think the Military Industrial Complex is one of those things from the 50s, 60's and 70's, but no longer in play, you are sorely mistaken. With the ending of two wars (that both lasted longer than any other war in American history) - you are seeing calls for the reduction in the defense budget. The Defense budget accounts for the second largest spending item in the budget - second only to Social Security. There is a lot of money to be made off of war, and if we're not at war, well, we just don't spend as much. Nor can it be justified. It is imperative to the bottom line of certain quarters of this country that we be at war.
Actually that's exactly what tactical nukes are designed for. And your comparison of the use of nukes during WWII vs chemical weapons in Syria is oversimplified by just a whisker, but I agree with the underlying sentiment that its not our fight and it doesn't need to be.
No. My answer is to cleanly, quickly, and without mercy, ensure that Assad cannot use his chemical weapons on the people of Syria again. Take out launch sites, launchers, transport equipment, military command posts, etc. Bombing the actual storage facilities may be required if it looks like the weapons are about to walk off, but for the time being those sites should be monitored but left unmolested- bombing a safe may destroy the contents inside, or it may just blow open the safe and let anyone who walks by get inside. Assad's time will come soon enough. His replacement, or survival, is not the the critical issue at this moment.
Great strategy, I'm sure it worked well in Red Alert. In real life though shit doesn't work like that.
What exactly about chemical weapons make them the straw the broke the camel's back? He's massacred thousands beforehand with a smile on his face. Liking being gassed is worse than being set on fire? I feel like I'm going nuts on how nobody went apeshit about it until this point. It's unbelievably idiotic. The chemical weapons shit is a catalyst to intervene, which nobody should be doing in the first place. This is another example of an asshole that will be defeated and replaced by more assholes. You can't bring democracy to a group people that are under the false illusion they are in a cosmic holy war beyond human control, and you never will.
You may not be able to put it more simply, but that doesn't make it correct. During this discussion and all others involving Middle East conflicts in the past, I always hear that it's about oil. What does that mean exactly? Does it mean, that the US needs / wants oil from this region, and we're willing to fight in order to keep it flowing into the US? Or, does it mean, whoever controls the oil will be in power, and we need to make sure the "good guys" are in power? I am actually asking what people mean when they say "it's about oil." In 2012, the countries the US imported oil from, in thousand barrels according to this: Canada: 881,383 Saudi Arabia: 496,285 Mexico: 355,960 Venezuela: 331,697 Iraq: 173,317 Nigeria: 148,353 Colombia: 146,860 Kuwait: 112,172 Angola: 80,945 Brazil: 68,388 Ecuador: 63,814 Algeria: 43,891 Russia: 37,109 In 2010, it looked like this: Canada: 719,175 Mexico: 420,567 Saudi Arabia: 394,967 Nigeria: 358,924 Venezuela: 332,926 Iraq: 151,619 Angola: 139,736 Colombia: 123,525 Algeria: 119,579 Russia: 98,122 Brazil: 92,905 Ecuador: 76,484 Kuwait: 71,275 In 2000, it looked like this: Saudi Arabia: 557,569 Canada: 493,256 Mexico: 480,469 Venezuela: 447,736 Nigeria: 320,137 Iraq: 226,804 Colombia: 116,311 Norway: 110,653 Angola: 107,820 UK: 106,332 Kuwait: 96,367 Gabon: 52,237 Ecuador: 45,685 In the year 2000, before the events of Sept 11, 2001 which some say lead to the US invading Iraq so we could get their oil, we imported 226,804 thousand barrels. In 2012, since we now should have access to whatever oil we're willing to pay for, we imported 173,317 thousand barrels. George Bush was criticized for doing favors for oil buddies and the Obama administration has clearly stated they don't want to explore ANWR or other domestic oil production for environmental concerns. I'm not picking a political side - my point is that George Bush and Obama clearly have different political views, so would they have the same interests here? Would the Obama administration really rather get in a conflict (fighting, people dying) in Syria for oil, instead of a conflict (aruging, mean discussions) in the US for our own oil? Imho, supporting Israel has less to do with Jews, Jews in power, or all the Jewy Jew media controlling everything, and more to do with supporting an ally in an area of constant conflict. I think it has to do with keeping a strategic access point of geography, and not just "the Jews." We built runways on atolls in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, for crying out loud, and fought violently for little islands because of their strategic importance. That mentality still permeates a lot of what is considered when protecting the citizens of the US is involved.
Meaning, oil companies have a lot of say in foreign policy. Iran exports a lot of oil to China. Iran is backing Assad. China, therefore, has to back Assad because Iran is. If Iran said, due to China supporting the insurgents, 'Hey China, get your oil elsewhere' China would immediately begin courting the other countries on the list you provided. In doing so, it will drive prices up in America, which in turn, puts pressure on elected officials. There is a delicate balance between elected officials serving their masters (the very wealthy) and getting re-elected (higher gas prices - that has a lot to do with reelection, strangely enough). You will notice in every Presidential election, gas prices are front and center. Presidents don't actually have a lot to do with it, but the perception is that they do, therefore, they need to try to keep the prices down for Americans (while keeping it very profitable for the wealthy, whom pay for their campaigns). A delicate balance. Think of it this way, if America did not need as much oil, or God forbid, was actually oil independent, our Mideast policy would look very, very different.
Well, I'm not sure I agree with that - I mean, Gingrich tried to make that issue one of his top, and he lost miserably to Romney. I don't think any voters thought electing Obama would result in lower gas prices than electing Romney, but Obama won pretty handily. Must've been other issues that were front and center. I agree it's a delicate balance, but the US has the ability to ramp up production within our states and territories to levels that would easily make us independent (at least combined with Canada & Mexico) AND have enough to support China getting it where ever they like. Maybe even from the US. If that were really the driver, and it's so obvious, politicians and the media should be shouting from the rooftops: hey, people, do you want a pipeline through the heartland and some oil rigs in Alaska and the Gulf; or, do you want to spend money and send troops to the Middle East? That narrative of options is not out there in the general public. The oldest civilizations there are are in the Middle East. It can't be to our advantage in terms of any economics (not just oil) or safety, to just let them fight it out.
All due respect, but take oil out of the equation. Picture a world where the US cares fuck all for Middle Eastern oil. It's not hard to do, because that world exists. Substitute 'Africa' for 'The Middle East' and you have a reasonable facsimile. The Middle East has absolutely nothing we want other than oil. How often do we get involved in African politics? Like, almost never, and whenever we have, it's been a political and economic disaster. Here's why. If we don't care what goes on in the Middle East, we don't install dictators, we don't influence elections, we essentially follow one policy: keep Israel intact. Which is not hard to do. Most Middle Eastern militaries are shit. No one fucks with Israel, or we come down like a hammer, because we don't care about oil (remember my opening thesis). It gets easy, it gets straight. While you are correct, Middle Eastern civilizations have been around for a long time. They are living on the memories of high school. No advancements, no real contributions to the world (other than oil), and a desire to be religiously correct. That's what they bring to the table, and that's all they bring. Other than acts of war. They are essentially useless in the modern world, BUT FOR OIL. Take that away, and you've taken away their ammo. But of course, we won't do that, because there's oil. It is the trump card, it is the Alpha, it is the Omega. Agree, disagree, but this is factual, not opinion.
It depends on which chemical we are talking about, but yeah, many of them do are absolutely horrific ways to die. Plus many chemicals can remain active for days after their initial use. And most are dependent on the weather, so you might be trying to hit an enemy airbase, for example, but because of the wind you just killed everyone in the town next to the base instead. So yeah, there is actually a reason chemical weapons are viewed that way. That said, any civil war is an internal issue in my eyes, if Assad is deserves to be punished that is for the people of Syria to decide. If not enough people are pissed that the Syrian government used chemical weapons that they actually do something about it it sure as fuck isn't or responsibility. If the war starts spilling into other countries that's a regional issue. If it becomes such a terrible humanitarian crisis that intervention from outside the region is needed, there are plenty of other countries that can, including the other 4 permanent members of the security council who either try to veto anything America does or wait for America to take the lead. The problem isn't Islam, the problem is the people in that region are stupid enough to believe in Islam and the clerics who are sending them to their deaths. If it wasn't religion those people would be controlled similarly in another way.
Chemical weapons are random deliverers of death. They don't work like bombs, or bullets, or anything else in conventional warfare. Their use, post WWI, is essentially a sign that whoever unleashed them has deviated from a set of norms that everyone else on the planet follows. That includes Hitler, Stalin, and Mao- people who otherwise gave zero fucks about who or how they killed. When those norms are violated in a serious manner the international community must act. These days, that means the US plus whoever we can get from NATO/ Arab League/ ASEAN/ etc. Often there is no action (Rwanda), slow action (the Balkans), or idiotic action (Afghanistan). This does not excuse us from the next go-round, but it certainly explains the reticence to get involved here. At any rate, The Economist says what I'm trying to say better, and with a handy chart too. Check it out. <a class="postlink" href="http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21584397-how-whole-class-weaponry-came-be-seen-indecent-shadow-ypres" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/ ... adow-ypres</a>
Welp, the house of representatives supports a strike, so there is step 1. They said that it appears as though the UN and NATO both won't act on this so it's basically up to us. Ignoring really good advice seems to be the first stage in getting in over our heads.