I’m surprised that no one has made a thread on this yet, so I’ll give it a try.
So there is evidence mounting that Assad has used chemical weapons. An action that Obama said previously would cross a “Red Line” and be a “game changer”. For Obama is saying that we need to make sure that this information is correct. which might be his not wanting to jump the WMD gun like Bush, or a play for time.
But assuming that the evidence shows that Chemical weapons were in fact used by the Assad regime what can/should we (either the US or the free world) do about it. On the one hand, crossing such a clear line needs to be answered in some way in order for the international ban on the use of chemical weapons to be taken seriously. On the other hand there aren’t a lot of good options for intervening that don’t risk putting the remaining chemical weapons at risk of being seized by less than reliable operators.
As a secondary debate what will the political fallout of any action Obama takes or fails to take. Of course whatever he decides to do the Republicans will be strongly against it, but how will it play out within his party and in the country at large?
Normally at this point the OP presents his side on the debate but frankly I haven’t a clue and am just glad I’m not president, so I’ll leave it to others to carry the debate forward.
Seriously, if they use Chemical weapons, it should be just a regional issue, the US doesn’t need to do anything other than condemn and issue sanctions against the Assad regime, or just provide more aid to the non Islamist rebels.
I think that there hasn’t been a thread on this because Obama et al are still collecting the data and so there isn’t anything really solid yet. That’s my WAG anyway.
As for the questions in the OP:
I think that if it turns out to be true (sure looks like it was, on a limited scale at least), then Obama will turn up the screws on sanctions…possibly an entire embargo enforced by the Navy (except humanitarian type aid). I don’t see the US getting directly involved in the conflict militarily at this point, even if the Syrian’s did use WMD on their own people.
Depends on what he does and how it plays out. His line in Libya was a pretty good one, in that it had a fairly good outcome (from the US perspective), and didn’t hurt him politically. If we turn up the screws with more sanctions or an embargo I’d say that will play well, and I can’t imagine the Republicans could make much hay out of that. If we go off on another military adventure, it will depend on how we do it and how it plays out. Could be another Libya…or could be another Iraq/Afghanistan.
There are more than two sides, though. There are certain factions we wouldn’t mind seeing come into power. We simply don’t want Assad OR the rebels who support AQ or totalitarian theocratic principals to win. It’s not really our choice, however, if we don’t get involved…what will happen will happen.
So Obama beats his chest and spouts rhetoric about “red lines” and “game changers” and then, when the bluff is called, quietly folds. No wonder no one in the world takes him seriously in foreign policy matters.
Not a lot we can do about that, but I think that more sanctions and an embargo would definitely turn up the screws. Perhaps Assad and Syria’s out of country funds could be frozen as well? I don’t know what all pressures could be applied, I just don’t think that US military force would be a good thing at this stage.
Oh horseshit. For one thing, the administration is still gathering details at this point. Nothing definitive has been presented yet. The last thing we’d need is a president who wants to go off half cocked and put us into another foreign adventure.
A real leader either does not spout rhetoric that he doesn’t intend to follow up on, or if he says something is a “red line” and a “game changer”, and that red line is crossed, he acts on it.
How do you, Terr, know that Assad’s regime has used chemical weapons against Syrians?
That is the ‘red line’, is it not?
Do you have intelligence that you would like to share with the rest of us on this matter?
My questions are, assuming for the moment that that it is demonstrated beyond doubt Assad has used chemical weapons, what should the US do, and what do you all think the US will do (and are they the same thing?)
My own impression, for what it is worth, is that the US will do very little, as there is next to no political appetite for getting involved in what looks to be a likely long-term and exhausting committment in Syria - and any active steps taken by the US are likely to involve getting drawn in to further involvement. The real “red line” and “game changer” is if Syria uses the stuff on Turkey or Israel.
Moreover, I am not convinced that the US should get actively involved. US and allies’ intervention in Lybia was well-done, but the Lybian situation was muchj simpler for the US etc. to influence through airpower.
The problem, assuming I’m correct in this, is that not getting involved after announcing that the use of chemical weapons was a “red line” is damaging to the US’s foreign relations.
[QUOTE=Malthus]
My questions are, assuming for the moment that that it is demonstrated beyond doubt Assad has used chemical weapons, what should the US do, and what do you all think the US will do (and are they the same thing?)
[/QUOTE]
I think the US SHOULD basically do what we’ve been doing, just up the pressure. Basically the same things we do about Iran and North Korea. What we WILL do, however, it’s hard to say. Politically, I don’t see a lot of traction for full on US military intervention…certainly I don’t support that. But, we have other options, including limited military options such as the use of air power and missile strikes/drones. Especially if Turkey were on board with limited military strikes, since that opens up a lot more potential tools with the air force, but even limited to what we can do from US bases and the Navy we’d have options. IF we did anything, that would be the route I see us taking.
We actually could do similar things as what we did in Libya, if that’s the route we chose to take. I’m not sure that’s what we should do, but it’s certainly a possibility if Obama et al want to use it.
It certainly is true that the US has to get all its factual ducks in a row, and would be wise to get buy-in from its allies.
So far, though, the proposals on the table amount to preparing to lift the arms embargo and suppy the rebels - sometime in the next few weeks.
Seems to me that this is something they have been mulling over for a while in any event, chemical weapons or no chemical weapons, and not exactly a forceful action - sounds like they have ruled out a Lybian-style no-fly zone, and ‘boots on the ground’ is not being contemplated.
Not that I’m being critical mind - just that this reaction may not be perceived as a serious and credible reaction to ‘crossing a red line’.
I don’t think there’s any faction that we can support that has a realistic chance of maintaining control over the country. There may be some point where we can offer support to someone, but right now it’s too risky. If we pick the wrong faction we will make the situation worse. I guess we could speed up the process by taking out Assad’s fighting capability and letting someone else take over sooner.