[PassedOut]

U.S. Assessment of Syrian Use of Chemical Weapons

Assuming that this summary reflects the actual intelligence (and I find it hard to believe that it does not), the Assad regime did attack with chemical weapons. And it seems certain that the US and some others will take punitive action.

As it stands, the Assad regime and their foreign allies can be seen to be villains. Over time, that is a losing position to be in. But now it looks like the US and France will join in the villainy, deflecting some of the focus from Assad and the Russians.

If the military response turns out to affect only those responsible for the attack, I'll take another look. But I certainly do not expect that to happen.

[billw55]

 Cyberyeti, on 2013-August-30, 10:51, said:

He can, and he didn't have to even recall parliament and debate it.

But he chose to do so anyway. Perhaps President Obama can learn something from this.

[kenberg]

I suppose I have already made it clear that I have no good ideas here, and I haven't heard any elsewhere either. Lacking clear objectives, a clear plan, and broad support, of course we should stay out. Making matters worse is not a good strategy. But I think the consequences of staying out are also going to be severe. Start with the rebels. If they paid any attention to Obama at all, they have reason to believe that he would intervene if chemicals were used. Oh well, too bad about that. Just who do we think, will find Obama's words something to act on in the future? We are going to do what if Iran continues its nuclear program? Are we? No, probably not. Whatever it is, we probably won't do it

And how about Assad's prestige? Obama said what he would do if Assad used chemicals, Assad told him to bend over and stuff it.

No, we cannot go bomb someone just so that we do not, in Nixon's phrase, look like a pitiful helpless giant. Lacking some seriously good plan, we should walk. But there will be consequences. And of course there will be consequences if Obama goes through with his Wham Bam Thank You Ma'am plan.

[Aberlour10]

 PassedOut, on 2013-August-30, 12:28, said:

U.S. Assessment of Syrian Use of Chemical Weapons

OK this is a long succcession of more or less logical allegations but...

A Slam Dunk? hmmm.....


Where are the evidences for all of it?

Will the public opinion ever see them?

[mycroft]

 billw55, on 2013-August-29, 10:35, said:

Well, let's distinguish what governments really think/know from what they publicize.

The "right" thing to do there, then, is to handle the issue in the same lack of publicity, with the relevant tools. I'm sure almost everyone has met somebody who used to be in the U.S. Armed Forces who can't discuss what they were doing when (or where) there was no public war on - I'm Canadian, and I have. They have the tools. It's just that when they are used...nobody gets the publicity for them.

But if they want to take this public, then they'll just have to find a way to bring up convincing evidence that they can publicize. Especially if they're currently embroiled in several situations related to "things we've told you categorically aren't so...are, routinely, so."

Quote

Regarding the Iraq issue, the USA government probably knew the evidence was weak. But they wanted to invade for other reasons, and this was the angle they used to push it to the public. And they weren't entirely alone in doing so.

I seem to recall a Cable cartoon of the time that expressed the opinion that only "intelligence" that linked ObL to Iraq was welcome in the Oval Office of 2003.

[PassedOut]

 Aberlour10, on 2013-August-30, 13:01, said:

OK this is a long succession of more or less logical allegations but...

Where are the evidences for all of it?

Of course we have not seen the evidence and that makes me very uncomfortable also. Here a full transcript of Kerry's speech: Secretary of State John Kerry’s remarks on Syria on Aug. 30

Early on, Kerry acknowledged the skepticism that we feel:

Quote

Our intelligence community has carefully reviewed and re-reviewed information regarding this attack. And I will tell you it has done so more than mindful of the Iraq experience. We will not repeat that moment. Accordingly, we have taken unprecedented steps to declassify and make facts available to people who can judge for themselves.

But still, in order to protect sources and methods, some of what we know will only be released to members of Congress, the representatives of the American people. That means that some things we do know, we can't talk about publicly.

So what do we really know that we can talk about?

Well, we know that the Assad regime has the largest chemical weapons programs in the entire Middle East. We know that the regime has used those weapons multiple times this year, and has used them on a smaller scale but still it has used them against its own people, including not very far from where last Wednesday’s attack happened.

We know that the regime was specifically determined to rid the Damascus suburbs of the opposition, and it was frustrated that it hadn’t succeeded in doing so.

We know that for three days before the attack, the Syrian regime’s chemical weapons personnel were on the ground in the area, making preparations.

And we know that the Syrian regime elements were told to prepare for the attack by putting on gas masks and taking precautions associated with chemical weapons.

We know that these were specific instructions.

We know where the rockets were launched from, and at what time. We know where they landed, and when. We know rockets came only from regime-controlled areas and went only to opposition-controlled or contested neighborhoods.

And we know, as does the world, that just 90 minutes later all hell broke loose in the social media. With our own eyes we have seen the thousands of reports from 11 separate sites in the Damascus suburbs. All of them show and report victims with breathing difficulties, people twitching with spasms, coughing, rapid heartbeats, foaming at the mouth, unconsciousness, and death. And we know it was ordinary Syrian citizens who reported all of these horrors.

And just as important, we know what the doctors and the nurses who treated them didn’t report -- not a scratch, not a shrapnel wound, not a cut, not a gunshot sound. We saw rows of dead lined up in burial shrouds, the white linen unstained by a single drop of blood.

Kerry says that they know, and that they have shown the evidence to members of congress. I hope the evidence is also available to the leaders of other nations who might participate in a military response.

But I don't know myself now. Eventually I do expect to know one way or the other, and it will be truly horrifying if this report turns out to be wrong.

Really, though, I'm more concerned about what the US plans to do if the report is correct.

[PassedOut]

 kenberg, on 2013-August-30, 12:47, said:

I suppose I have already made it clear that I have no good ideas here, and I haven't heard any elsewhere either. Lacking clear objectives, a clear plan, and broad support, of course we should stay out. Making matters worse is not a good strategy. But I think the consequences of staying out are also going to be severe. Start with the rebels. If they paid any attention to Obama at all, they have reason to believe that he would intervene if chemicals were used. Oh well, too bad about that. Just who do we think, will find Obama's words something to act on in the future? We are going to do what if Iran continues its nuclear program? Are we? No, probably not. Whatever it is, we probably won't do it

And how about Assad's prestige? Obama said what he would do if Assad used chemicals, Assad told him to bend over and stuff it.

No, we cannot go bomb someone just so that we do not, in Nixon's phrase, look like a pitiful helpless giant. Lacking some seriously good plan, we should walk. But there will be consequences. And of course there will be consequences if Obama goes through with his Wham Bam Thank You Ma'am plan.

Obama is a parent. As parents, we know to be ultra-careful not to make idle threats to our children for (on a much tinier scale) the reasons you've just described. You'd think that this would be a given for international relations.

And now you've reminded me of a painful event when I was a (relatively) new parent. I thought to motivate my eldest son by making something he really wanted to do contingent on a particular achievement. He came very close to achieving it, but fell short. I knew that I should not have set that condition, but had to follow through with it. I learned something well, but the president of the US can call on anyone he wants for advice. He shouldn't be subject to making elementary mistakes.

[kenberg]

 PassedOut, on 2013-August-30, 13:49, said:

Obama is a parent. As parents, we know to be ultra-careful not to make idle threats to our children for (on a much tinier scale) the reasons you've just described. You'd think that this would be a given for international relations.

And now you've reminded me of a painful event when I was a (relatively) new parent. I thought to motivate my eldest son by making something he really wanted to do contingent on a particular achievement. He came very close to achieving it, but fell short. I knew that I should not have set that condition, but had to follow through with it. I learned something well, but the president of the US can call on anyone he wants for advice. He shouldn't be subject to making elementary mistakes.

Let's fantasize. Obama calls a press conference and announces that, having read the report, he now is unconvinced that it really was the Syrian government behind the attack and so we will not be acting. No one, not even those who themselves find the evidence unconvincing, would believe that his announced reasons were his real reasons. He would become a verb: To Obama would be to say something that not a single sould would take seriously.


He is totally cooked. The article I posted earlier from the Post had military folks, some on the record, openly discussing his intentions in the most disparaging of terms. Basically they seem to see him as not graspiong the consequences of his intended actions. I have no serious experience to bring to this, but I tend to agree.

As to parenting, I never much worried about a little inconsistency. A presidency is different.

I hope that this works out better than I think it will.

[mike777]

I guess the question is the world does nothing or almost nothing with this example.The world will do nothing or almost nothing with Iran and the bomb. My guess is the world says NO do nothing or almost nothing.

5 million and counting dead in the Congo, the world does not know or care that much.

When asked should we send our young sons and daughters to fight and they may die, the world says NO. Let them use Gas, let them have the Abomb. If they can use Gas to kill thousands, why send our young to stop others from having the bomb. Of course this is really all about Iran and the bomb and of how Iran had a part in this gas attack. OR NOT

At this point many say nobody put gas or the bomb in my backyard so no...do nothing or something close to nothing.

WWII was very famous for this, see history and it is called the good war.
USA only went to Afghanistan after thousands killed in our backyard.

[Antrax]

I've always thought the solution was to not pretend like you can force democracy on someone. If the US' stated policy were "we're going to randomly punish bullies to discourage people from being bullies" then you could argue it's not their place, but as far as the American nation goes, they'd have no illusions as to the purpose of the US foreign policy. Once you claim you can make things better, you're trapped since you really can't. If I were Obama I'd just say "oh, chemical weapons, eh?" then bomb the hell out of all his palaces from the air and leave. Or probably better just lend some air force to the rebels and hit strategic targets, not prestigious ones, because you can only destroy the palaces once. Just take a toll with minimum risk to US soldiers from each side that does something you think is bad. Then you know when it ends, you don't risk too many forces and you don't pretend to be right in a situation where there's no way to do the right thing.

[mike777]

 Antrax, on 2013-August-30, 22:48, said:

I've always thought the solution was to not pretend like you can force democracy on someone. If the US' stated policy were "we're going to randomly punish bullies to discourage people from being bullies" then you could argue it's not their place, but as far as the American nation goes, they'd have no illusions as to the purpose of the US foreign policy. Once you claim you can make things better, you're trapped since you really can't. If I were Obama I'd just say "oh, chemical weapons, eh?" then bomb the hell out of all his palaces from the air and leave. Or probably better just lend some air force to the rebels and hit strategic targets, not prestigious ones, because you can only destroy the palaces once. Just take a toll with minimum risk to US soldiers from each side that does something you think is bad. Then you know when it ends, you don't risk too many forces and you don't pretend to be right in a situation where there's no way to do the right thing.

Good points, it does seem easier to turn away and do nothing or almost nothing. Clearly it is better to sit and do nothing and blame usa later. Clearly it is better for usa congress to do nothing and later blame.....

Being a leader means you act or do not act on imperfect information....

OTOH if you prefer to wait ok until you know the right thing ok...but waiting may be wrong. Millions die while you wait to decide.

In War the worst thing you can do is be late, yes worse than being early.

[Antrax]

Hey, I have a lot more on the line than most posters in this thread. Mostly because we're lazy so we never bothered collecting our gas masks and now there are huge lines.

[mike777]

 Antrax, on 2013-August-30, 23:14, said:

Hey, I have a lot more on the line than most posters in this thread. Mostly because we're lazy so we never bothered collecting our gas masks and now there are huge lines.

Yes I read this and wonder why long lines...

1) Assume everyone has one for 40 years
2) assume everyone makes one if you don't have one why long lines?
3) none, I repeat none of this is a surprise...
4) In some sense it sort of hints at the phony war of ww11 where everyone was shocked at a real war.
5) the usa is easy to fall into the whole phony war stuff and do nothing unless you have loved ones involved.

[Scarabin]

 Antrax, on 2013-August-30, 23:14, said:

Hey, I have a lot more on the line than most posters in this thread. Mostly because we're lazy so we never bothered collecting our gas masks and now there are huge lines.

Thanks for timely reminder that this is reality, with real people at risk, and not just a childish dare. Way I see it America's integrity is on the line. Maybe you cannot just walk away but equally you cannot keep repeating the same deliberate mistakes and pleading faulty intelligence. If you want to retain any trust you must eventually recognize intelligence is faulty and lies are lies.

The telephone intercepts could be convincing and, since the cat's already out of the bag, why not release the full transcript?

[mike777]

 Scarabin, on 2013-August-30, 23:35, said:

Thanks for timely reminder that this is reality, with real people at risk, and not just a childish dare. Way I see it America's integrity is on the line. Maybe you cannot just walk away but equally you cannot keep repeating the same deliberate mistakes and pleading faulty intelligence. If you want to retain any trust you must eventually recognize intelligence is faulty and lies are lies.

The telephone intercepts could be convincing and, since the cat's already out of the bag, why not release the full transcript?

a hundred reasons to not do this really.......come on....

If you need one real world reason see Pakistan doctor in jail..

People will die, die horrible deaths.
People will stop talking

my guess is most posters could care less about America's integrity.....oh well.

again if you don't want to go to war with Iran if they get the bomb...ok.......

My guess is no one wants too and that is the message.

[Trinidad]

 kenberg, on 2013-August-30, 15:20, said:

As to parenting, I never much worried about a little inconsistency. A presidency is different.

Konrad Adenauer (former German Chancelor) didn't seem to agree with you (He once said: "Who says that I need to be consistent?".)

Rik

[mike777]

 Trinidad, on 2013-August-31, 01:46, said:

Konrad Adenauer (former German Chancelor) didn't seem to agree with you (He once said: "Who says that I need to be consistent?".)

Rik

sorry but you don't seem to know history..in fact he was willing for west Germany to be Abomb death to stop ussr

Germans willing to die ...very brave.
The whole point was to stop massive USSR tank attack.

You miss the entire post.

I fully grant today.....stop chemical attack..no stop Iran getting the bomb....well we see....

[blackshoe]

 mike777, on 2013-August-30, 23:11, said:

Being a leader means you act or do not act on imperfect information....

Barack Obama is not, never was, and never will be a leader.

[hrothgar]

Personally, I'm very torn on Syria.

I don't see much good coming from a small scale military intervention.
Lobbing in a few cruise missiles isn't going to do much good other than killing a few people and exposing the limits of power.

At the same time, I also believe that using gas weapons against civilian populations breaks civilized norms.
This sort of thing shouldn't be allowed to stand.

Its not necessarily the US's job to "fix" this type of problem. However, Obama did set certain expectations with his (stupid) comments about "crossing the red line". I didn't much like this statement when he made it. Right now, it looks to be a clear mistake because its tying our hands.

I don't pretend to know the right answer on this one. However, here's a couple quick observations about what I'd like to see.

First: This is a war of choice, not one of necessity. The decision to intervene in Syria should not be made by Obama in isolation, but rather determined by congress.

Second: If we go in, we should go in hard. I'm not talking boots on the ground. However, I don't think that a few cruise missiles are going to do anything. In order to make a meanfuling statement, we're going to want to inflict significant damage on the Syria military which means suppressing their air defenses, destroying their air force, and killing every major unit that doesn't scatter / disperse. If we aren't willing to take this step, we shouldn't get involved.

Third: I think that it would be a mistake to intervene unilaterally. I don't care about the British, the French, or even the UN. However, if we can't get active participation from either the Arab league or Saudi Arabia we shouldn't take action.

I suspect that the end result of this is an argument against intervention. However, I wouldn't be disappointed to see Obama pursue this course of action and then call things off if step one or three fail.

[hrothgar]

 mike777, on 2013-August-31, 02:06, said:

sorry but you don't seem to know history..in fact he was willing for west Germany to be Abomb death to stop ussr

Germans willing to die ...very brave.
The whole point was to stop massive USSR tank attack.

Mike, I suspect that you'd be every bit as brave if you were living in an occupied country with limited control over your foreign policy...