Assad uses chemical weapons. Now what?

[Latro]

@Rune

Well if there is a “red line” and the rebels used chemical weapons does that mean the US should intevene on behalf of Assad? In any the case is still open, but it looks increasingly to have been a Kuwaiti Incubator moment.

That would put the US on the side of Hezbollah and, of course, Iran.

Now that *would *be funny.
Chances of that happening would be …?

Because, when the smoke and mirrors are revealed , it becomes rather obvious that the U.S. are not ‘the Good Guys’.

[Alessan]

So what is behind the smoke and mirrors? Please tell us.

[Latro]

@Alessan

So what is behind the smoke and mirrors? Please tell us.

Why do I get the idea that you have a suspiscion about what I might think could possibly hide behind the smoke and mirrors?

[Alessan]

Honestly, I barely have the energy to care.

[Ibn_Warraq]

@Latro

That would put the US on the side of Hezbollah and, of course, Iran.

Now that *would *be funny.
Chances of that happening would be …?

Because, when the smoke and mirrors are revealed , it becomes rather obvious that the U.S. are not ‘the Good Guys’.

So, who do you think is behind “the smoke and mirrors”?

And no, before you ask me the question you asked Allessan, I have no idea who you think it is.

I’m curious because the Middle East is always awash in conspiracy theories.

[Rune]

@Ibn_Warraq

So, who do you think is behind “the smoke and mirrors”?

And no, before you ask me the question you asked Allessan, I have no idea who you think it is.

I’m curious because the Middle East is always awash in conspiracy theories.

I don’t trust the reports that either side have used chemical weapons, but if it turns out that it is correct that some rebel factions have used them, then a good guess would be that they were used with the intention to put the blame on the regime for in this way to goad the USA into action.

[Der_Trihs]

@Rune

U.N. has testimony that Syrian rebels used sarin gas: investigator

UN commission downplays claim Syria rebels used sarin

[adaher]

If we’re going to intervene, we should just get on with it. Delay just costs lives. Either we do this or we don’t.

[CJJ]

Andrew Sullivan has a good post up today on this. I like his conclusion:

Syria is very much like Iraq. A dictator leaving a vacuum in a half-liberated country? Check. A sectarian war we cannot understand let alone direct? Check. A Sunni insurgency increasingly allied with Jihadist elements? Check. Nebulous accusations and counter-accusations about WMDs, without hard proof of much at all? Check. A conflict swayed by interference across the region – from the Sunni monarchies to the Shi’a powers? Check.

You can argue that this could have somehow been prevented. I doubt it. You could also argue that the United States has an interest in an outcome that is neither Assad nor the al Nusra brigades. But no one can explain to me how to get from here to there. This is their regional war, not ours’. And our only reliable ally in the region seems perfectly capable of protecting itself and its own interests, without even informing us in advance.

Please, Mr President: just say no. You were elected to end this kind of hubristic, short-sighted, if well-intentioned military intervention. We did not elect you over McCain in 2008 merely to watch you follow that unreconstructed neocon’s advice, which is always to intervene first and figure out what to do once we have.

[adaher]

Well, if we follow the Libya model, we decide that the only truly unacceptable outcome is Assad’s continuance in power. Then we make sure the rebels win and let them sort it out afterwards.

But first we have to ask ourselves, is Assad remaining in power after killing so many an acceptable outcome? If it is, fine, we do nothing. If it isnt’, then we should have helped the rebels out yesterday.

[BrainGlutton]

Turkish PM Erdogan is in Washington to meet with Obama, and, I just saw on CNN, Obama has announced he and Erdogan are in agreement that Syria’s Assad “has to go”.

[Terr]

@adaher

Well, if we follow the Libya model, we decide that the only truly unacceptable outcome is Assad’s continuance in power. Then we make sure the rebels win and let them sort it out afterwards.

Does there have to be only one “truly unacceptable” outcome?

[adaher]

Assad uses chemical weapons. Now what? Now the world sees that our President bluffs. Iran and North Korea have taken note.

[scabpicker]

@adaher

Assad uses chemical weapons. Now what? Now the world sees that our President bluffs. Iran and North Korea have taken note.

Give him a hand, ladies and gentlemen, adaher, he’ll be here all week. Tip your bartender!

Seriously, it’s not the same problem as Iran and NK, and what would you have done differently?

[Terr]

@scabpicker

Seriously, it’s not the same problem as Iran and NK, and what would you have done differently?

adaher probably would not have bloviated about “red lines” and “game changers” to the press.

[adaher]

If it was me, I’d figure out whether intervening was in our interests or not, or if there was a humanitarian argument for doing it, and I would have done it or not done it.

Two things I wouldn’t do would be:

1. Make empty threats
2. Dilly-dallying until there is a humanitarian crisis and then dilly-dally some more before finally intervening.

[Rune]

@BrainGlutton

Turkish PM Erdogan is in Washington to meet with Obama, and, I just saw on CNN, Obama has announced he and Erdogan are in agreement that Syria’s Assad “has to go”.

Erdogan doesn’t give a damn about Assad being a ruthless dictator. A few years ago they were best friends. He’s only interested in hindering the Kurds in establishing yet another de-facto independent Kurdish nation. If Turkey wants to gets its hands dirty they’re quite capable of doing it alone without dragging the West into it as well.

On the one hand there is Assad and his murderous dogs, and on the other there is the mad rebel forces commander eating the heart of the corpse of slain government soldiers while crying for the slaughter of all Alawites, while his men respond with cries of God is Great. Neither side is worth support, but it should come as no surprise that the Alawites and Christians and other minorities are siding with Assad, when this appears to be their future should the rebels win.

The only scenario wherein the West should participate in an intervention in Syria is one where Turkey and other nations of the region are ready to field the 200,000 or more troops necessary to stabilize the country, take on the Islamist rebels and ensure the protection of minorities in a post-war situation.

[scabpicker]

@Terr

adaher probably would not have bloviated about “red lines” and “game changers” to the press.

So, he’d do less than the current president?

@adaher

If it was me, I’d figure out whether intervening was in our interests or not, or if there was a humanitarian argument for doing it, and I would have done it or not done it.

Two things I wouldn’t do would be:

1. Make empty threats
2. Dilly-dallying until there is a humanitarian crisis and then dilly-dally some more before finally intervening.

Because that’s mostly a list of things he wouldn’t do. There’s certainly no concrete alternate course outlined.

As has been pretty much hashed out in the Syria threads, there’s no clear course of action that has an outcome benefiting our interests. Sometimes you bluff when you’re in that position. He at least bluffed when the cost to us is minimal. I seriously doubt that Iran or NK are using this as an example of how their situations will be handled, because our interests have been placed directly at stake in one situation, and the interests of a close ally are at stake in the other. Syria is involved in a civil war, and we don’t have good relations with either side. They aren’t the same situations at all.

[BrainGlutton]

@Rune

Erdogan doesn’t give a damn about Assad being a ruthless dictator. A few years ago they were best friends. He’s only interested in hindering the Kurds in establishing yet another de-facto independent Kurdish nation.

But, that is more likely to happen if Assad falls. The Kurds in northeastern Syria could break away in the chaos, which would only give Turkish Kurds ideas.

[BrainGlutton]

@adaher

Well, if we follow the Libya model, we decide that the only truly unacceptable outcome is Assad’s continuance in power. Then we make sure the rebels win and let them sort it out afterwards.

In Libya, that does seem to have worked out much better than any other course of action conceivably might have. But, Libya is ethnically and religiously homogenous compared to Syria; the lessons might not apply.