# Excellent WaPo blog primer on the Syrian mess **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 1, 2013, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/excellent-wapo-blog-primer-on-the-syrian-mess/667743 "2013-09-01T17:47:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![BigAppleBucky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigapplebucky/32/178_2.png) [@BigAppleBucky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigAppleBucky)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2013, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/excellent-wapo-blog-primer-on-the-syrian-mess/667743/1 "2013-09-01T17:47:04Z")
With this blog post, Max Fisher has written an excellent non-partisan primer on the Syrian quandary for the average American reader. > **[7 basic questions about the war in Syria](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2018/04/12/syria-explained/?utm_term=.4d84ce2856b0)** > > As the United States prepares for another potential strike on the Syrian regime, here is how the world arrived at the current crisis. Explains why Russia and Iran Support Assad, why the civil war got so very much out of hand, why the use of chemical weapons is a big deal, and why the USA is so reluctant to become involved. ---
**Author:** ![deltasigma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e5b9ba/32.png) [@deltasigma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/deltasigma)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2013, 6:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/excellent-wapo-blog-primer-on-the-syrian-mess/667743/2 "2013-09-02T18:49:33Z")
Great article/blog post. I liked these 2 quotes especially. > [@](#): > > The military options are all bad. Shipping arms to rebels, even if it helps them topple Assad, would ultimately empower jihadists and worsen rebel in-fighting, probably leading to lots of chaos and possibly a second civil war (the United States made this mistake during Afghanistan’s early 1990s civil war, which helped the Taliban take power in 1996). Taking out Assad somehow would probably do the same, opening up a dangerous power vacuum. Launching airstrikes or a “no-fly zone” could suck us in, possibly for years, and probably wouldn’t make much difference on the ground. An Iraq-style ground invasion would, in the very best outcome, accelerate the killing, cost a lot of U.S. lives, wildly exacerbate anti-Americanism in a boon to jihadists and nationalist dictators alike, and would require the United States to impose order for years across a country full of people trying to kill each other. Nope. > [@](#): > > **8. Come on, what’s the big deal with chemical weapons? Assad kills 100,000 people with bullets and bombs but we’re freaked out over 1,000 who maybe died from poisonous gas? That seems silly.** > You’re definitely not the only one who thinks the distinction is arbitrary and artificial. But there’s a good case to be made that this is a rare opportunity, at least in theory, for the United States to make the war a little bit less terrible — and to make future wars less terrible. > The whole idea that there are rules of war is a pretty new one: the practice of war is thousands of years old, but the idea that we can regulate war to make it less terrible has been around for less than a century. The institutions that do this are weak and inconsistent; the rules are frail and not very well observed. But one of the world’s few quasi-successes is the “norm” (a fancy way of saying a rule we all agree to follow) against chemical weapons. This norm is frail enough that Syria could drastically weaken it if we ignore Assad’s use of them, but it’s also strong enough that it’s worth protecting. So it’s sort of a low-hanging fruit: firing a few cruise missiles doesn’t cost us much and can maybe help preserve this really hard-won and valuable norm against chemical weapons. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2013, 7:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/excellent-wapo-blog-primer-on-the-syrian-mess/667743/3 "2013-09-02T19:56:11Z")
This was almost a verbatim explanation I just gave someone. Syria is a country of mixed sectarian groups in a border artificially drawn by Europeans a century ago and run by a brutal minority. There is no singular opposition group. Russia objects to interference because Syria is their only external military port. The article left out one important item. If the government falls then the nerve gas falls into the hands of groups who are less stable and more likely to export the weapons to terrorists. Oddly enough, this applies to a lot of countries in that area. ---
**Author:** ![Wesley\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wesley_clark/32/20581_2.png) [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2013, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/excellent-wapo-blog-primer-on-the-syrian-mess/667743/4 "2013-09-02T20:03:51Z")
Good article, thank you. As far as point 8, I don’t really know where I stand. It seems there are certain ‘rules of war’ that the more enlightened nations try to agree on within documents like the geneva convention that include among other things: 1. No theft of national treasures 2. No rape or sexual abuse in conquered territories 3. Allowing conquered territories to engage in self determination rather than making them into vassal states 4. No targeting of children or family members 5. No chemical or biological weapons 6. No unnecessary destruction I don’t understand why chemical weapons are any different. If anything, the opposition to targeting children and family members (which is done in Syria and North Korea, and was done in Iraq under Hussein) is just as big a humanitarian crisis. Yet we do nothing about that. They also left out US credibility in our actions in that article, if we say we aren’t going to allow WMD, then we do then that gives a signal to places like Iran and North Korea that what we say and what we do is not the same thing. This is sad, it is probably just Iraq 2.0. A dictatorship followed by a civil war fought on religious and ethnic lines. ---
**Author:** ![levdrakon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/49beb7/32.png) [@levdrakon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/levdrakon)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2013, 9:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/excellent-wapo-blog-primer-on-the-syrian-mess/667743/5 "2013-09-02T21:03:17Z")
1. says missile strikes should be punishment for using chemicals, and they aren’t supposed to change the course of the war. Yet, McCain says he won’t support military strikes unless it is intended to change the course of the war. Hm. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2013, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/excellent-wapo-blog-primer-on-the-syrian-mess/667743/6 "2013-09-03T00:02:06Z")
The WAPO explainer is indeed recommended. > [@Wesley\_Clark](#): > > As far as point 8, I don’t really know where I stand. It seems there are certain ‘rules of war’ that the more enlightened nations try to agree on within documents like the geneva convention that include among other things: > > 1. No theft of national treasures > 2. No rape or sexual abuse in conquered territories > 3. Allowing conquered territories to engage in self determination rather than making them into vassal states > 4. No targeting of children or family members > 5. No chemical or biological weapons > 6. No unnecessary destruction > > I don’t understand why chemical weapons are any different. Chem, bio and nukes are different because there is an existing taboo against them which is in the interest of the US to maintain. It’s not that chem weapons are biggest atrocity (though they are pretty bad). It’s that we’ve maintained a taboo on them reasonably well since WWI (with exceptions) and humanitarians and militaries would prefer for them to be off the table. This norm is worth fighting to maintain. > [@](#): > > They also left out US credibility in our actions in that article, if we say we aren’t going to allow WMD, then we do then that gives a signal to places like Iran and North Korea that what we say and what we do is not the same thing. I am highly dubious about the credibility argument though. Here’s a link to a much shorter set of observations on Syria from [Josh Marshall](http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2013/09/1_dont_make_threats_or.php?ref=fpblg). I’ll quote number 4: 4. Whether the US attacks Damascus or does not attack Damascus won’t have much effect on whether the US can in the future, under whatever circumstances, threaten or use force wherever else it wants to, to buttress or enforce whatever other international norm it chooses to. The entire concept of ‘unitary credibility’ is flawed to its core. Treating international relations as a pissing contest is a deeply flawed strategy which is prone to produce quagmires. This sort of thinking needs to be curbed. ---
**Author:** ![newcomer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/e5b9ba/32.png) [@newcomer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/newcomer)\ **Post date:** [September 3, 2013, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/excellent-wapo-blog-primer-on-the-syrian-mess/667743/7 "2013-09-03T00:31:18Z")
> [@](#): > > The one political option, which the Obama administration has been pushing for, would be for the Assad regime and the rebels to strike a peace deal. and > [@](#): > > They would be meant to punish Assad for (allegedly) using chemical weapons and to deter him, or any future military leader in any future war, from using them again. I’d like a cite for these two. ---
**Author:** ![deltasigma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e5b9ba/32.png) [@deltasigma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/deltasigma)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2013, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/excellent-wapo-blog-primer-on-the-syrian-mess/667743/8 "2013-09-04T04:14:54Z")
According to this [article](http://www.businessinsider.com/the-us-strategy-in-syria-2013-9) the US does actually have a long term plan for Syria - who’d have thunk it? > [@](#): > > **The U.S. plan: Degrade Assad, bolster opposition, curb jihadists** > > Last week Pentagon officials [told The Wall Street Journal](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324906304579039330444836914.html) that the planned attack would “deter and degrade” President Bashar al-Assad’s security forces. The key would be hitting various Damascus headquarters as well as some of the regime’s six operable airports. > > These airports are the “regime’s nervous system,” defected Air Force Colonel Hassan Hamada [told Der Spiegel](http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/situation-in-syria-deteriorates-as-west-looks-for-answers-a-919733-2.html). > > [Last week we detailed here](http://www.businessinsider.com/how-a-us-strike-on-syria-could-do-good-2013-8#ixzz2dpxmA6eA) how doing so could curb Assad’s relentless [bombing of civilians](http://www.businessinsider.com/assad-is-killing-his-own-people-2013-4), the flow of supplies from Iran and Russia, and the resupplying of Syrian troops in various areas. > > The less obvious, and more long-term, part of the plan involves providing vetted parts of the opposition with [advanced weaponry](http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/09/02/obama-to-arm-syrian-rebels.html), training them with Western advisors, and curbing the funding for jihadist groups. > > The U.S. [hasn’t yet](http://www.businessinsider.com/In%20June,%20the%20White%20House%20authorized%20the%20Central%20Intelligence%20Agency%20to%20help%20arm%20moderate%20fighters%20battling%20the%20Assad%20regime,) armed moderate fighters, but Saudi Arabia has. > . > . > . > Furthermore, [The New York Times reports](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/04/us/politics/obama-administration-presses-case-on-syria.html?ref=global-home) that Obama told senators “the first 50-man cell of fighters, who have been trained by the C.I.A., was beginning to sneak into Syria.” ---
**Author:** ![FoieGrasIsEvil](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foiegrasisevil/32/16638_2.png) [@FoieGrasIsEvil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FoieGrasIsEvil)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2013, 4:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/excellent-wapo-blog-primer-on-the-syrian-mess/667743/9 "2013-09-04T04:34:17Z")
How in the fuck are we even distinguishing between “legit” rebel forces and “Al-Qadea terrorist” ones? I have very little faith in whitebread USA to make such a distinction. So in other words, funnel arms to the “non-Al-Qadea” rebels, suppress the “pro-Al-Qaeda” rebels, and smack Assad on the nose JUST enough to deter him from using chemical weapons again without ousting him from power? Jesus. There really are no good options here. ---
**Author:** ![FoieGrasIsEvil](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foiegrasisevil/32/16638_2.png) [@FoieGrasIsEvil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FoieGrasIsEvil)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2013, 4:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/excellent-wapo-blog-primer-on-the-syrian-mess/667743/10 "2013-09-04T04:41:22Z")
In other words: do nothing. Ignore the whole “red line” stupidity by Obama. Make it clear we support nobody in this civil war but IF Assad uses them again we will strike without warning and with impunity. That seems to be the best course of action to me. Lessons learned aka the Iraq War (and/or the “enemy of my enemy is my friend”): while Saddam Hussein and his sons were bastards and murderous and raping thugs, removing them from power created a huge power vacuum that Iran was only too eager to fill. Even the threat of Saddam having non-existent WMD’s was enough to keep Iran in check. But no, we had to remove that natural buffer. Now we have what we have. It’s not going to get better. Quit meddling with these fucks and take a stance that represents our best interests! People argue that a stable Middle East is in the best interests of the world writ large because of the energy situation WRT oil. I’d argue that it would be MORE stable without so much foreign interference, and even if it wasn’t, it couldn’t be much worse than what we have already. Let these fucks fight it out amongst themselves if we must. Don’t take a side. Deal with whomever is left with any means necessary after it’s over. ---
**Author:** ![deltasigma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e5b9ba/32.png) [@deltasigma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/deltasigma)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2013, 4:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/excellent-wapo-blog-primer-on-the-syrian-mess/667743/11 "2013-09-04T04:44:56Z")
It does seem extraordinary that vetting of the type described should be possible. And even if it is, I often get the feeling that alliances are fluid enough that it might be of limited value down the road. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2013, 5:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/excellent-wapo-blog-primer-on-the-syrian-mess/667743/12 "2013-09-04T05:12:31Z")
> [@FoieGrasIsEvil](#): > > In other words: do nothing. Ignore the whole “red line” stupidity by Obama. Make it clear we support nobody in this civil war but IF Assad uses them again we will strike without warning and with impunity. That seems to be the best course of action to me. > > Lessons learned aka the Iraq War (and/or the “enemy of my enemy is my friend”): while Saddam Hussein and his sons were bastards and murderous and raping thugs, removing them from power created a huge power vacuum that Iran was only too eager to fill. Even the threat of Saddam having non-existent WMD’s was enough to keep Iran in check. > > But no, we had to remove that natural buffer. Now we have what we have. It’s not going to get better. Quit meddling with these fucks and take a stance that represents our best interests! People argue that a stable Middle East is in the best interests of the world writ large because of the energy situation WRT oil. > > I’d argue that it would be MORE stable without so much foreign interference, and even if it wasn’t, it couldn’t be much worse than what we have already. Let these fucks fight it out amongst themselves if we must. Don’t take a side. Deal with whomever is left with any means necessary after it’s over. Who are “these fucks” and why exactly is Iran “worse” than Hussein. For rather obvious reasons, I’m not a fan of the Mullahs, but they’ve never been nearly as brutal, oppressive of aggressive as the Al-Tikriti crime family or the Assad crime family. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2013, 5:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/excellent-wapo-blog-primer-on-the-syrian-mess/667743/13 "2013-09-04T05:52:55Z")
Read it. Well written, reflects reality, and its conclusions are largely, IMO, correct. He does make a (weak) case for US lobbing a few symbolic missiles over. I think symbolic gestures are useless, unless backed up by a robust potential military response if not heeded, and no one, either in ME or here, expects such a thing from Obama and US. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2013, 5:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/excellent-wapo-blog-primer-on-the-syrian-mess/667743/14 "2013-09-04T05:53:58Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > Who are “these fucks” and why exactly is Iran “worse” than Hussein. > > For rather obvious reasons, I’m not a fan of the Mullahs, but they’ve never been nearly as brutal, oppressive of aggressive as the Al-Tikriti crime family or the Assad crime family. How do you think it will play out when they revolt in Iran? Spirited debate at the polls, streets painted red, or something else? ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2013, 5:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/excellent-wapo-blog-primer-on-the-syrian-mess/667743/15 "2013-09-04T05:58:18Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > Read it. Well written, reflects reality, and its conclusions are largely, IMO, correct. He does make a (weak) case for US lobbing a few symbolic missiles over. I think symbolic gestures are useless, unless backed up by a robust potential military response if not heeded, and no one, either in ME or here, expects such a thing from Obama and US. Well the problem with it is Syria doesn’t really matter. The symbolism of looking strong is not aimed at Syria, it’s aimed at Iran because of previous red lines drawn over their nuclear weapons program. ---
**Author:** ![Terr](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/839c29/32.png) [@Terr](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terr)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2013, 6:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/excellent-wapo-blog-primer-on-the-syrian-mess/667743/16 "2013-09-04T06:08:04Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > Well the problem with it is Syria doesn’t really matter. The symbolism of looking strong is not aimed at Syria, it’s aimed at Iran because of previous red lines drawn over their nuclear weapons program. I know that’s how this action is being sold in Congress, and I can see how Israelis would think that US is not serious about preventing Iran nuclear weapons (US really isn’t), but current Syria and Iran are two COMPLETELY different animals, so I don’t think lobbing a few missiles at Syria would convince anyone of US being in any way serious about Iran nuclear prevention. It _would_ be a pretty good indication that US wants to be _seen_ that way. But everyone that counts (that is, Iranians and Israelis) can see through it. The current situation just reminds me of that “iceberg, Goldberg, what’s the difference” joke. ---
**Author:** ![deltasigma](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e5b9ba/32.png) [@deltasigma](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/deltasigma)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2013, 6:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/excellent-wapo-blog-primer-on-the-syrian-mess/667743/17 "2013-09-04T06:16:48Z")
If the US \*does do \*something in Syria, Iran might not take us \*more \*seriously, but if we don’t, I think it’s likely they’ll take us \*less \*seriously. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2013, 6:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/excellent-wapo-blog-primer-on-the-syrian-mess/667743/18 "2013-09-04T06:28:17Z")
> [@FoieGrasIsEvil](#): > > In other words: do nothing. Ignore the whole “red line” stupidity by Obama. Make it clear we support nobody in this civil war but IF Assad uses them again we will strike without warning and with impunity. That seems to be the best course of action to me. You crossed our red line, so…I’m going to draw another line, in front of your current position. Do the same thing you’ve already done, and boy will we be mad! ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2013, 6:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/excellent-wapo-blog-primer-on-the-syrian-mess/667743/19 "2013-09-04T06:55:49Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > How do you think it will play out when they revolt in Iran? Spirited debate at the polls, streets painted red, or something else? Well, there’ve been two revolts in Iran in my lifetime. One was unfortunately crushed while the other succeeded in ways I’d have preferred it didn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [September 4, 2013, 8:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/excellent-wapo-blog-primer-on-the-syrian-mess/667743/20 "2013-09-04T08:00:04Z")
> [@Terr](#): > > I know that’s how this action is being sold in Congress, and I can see how Israelis would think that US is not serious about preventing Iran nuclear weapons (US really isn’t), but current Syria and Iran are two COMPLETELY different animals, so I don’t think lobbing a few missiles at Syria would convince anyone of US being in any way serious about Iran nuclear prevention. It _would_ be a pretty good indication that US wants to be _seen_ that way. But everyone that counts (that is, Iranians and Israelis) can see through it. > > The current situation just reminds me of that “iceberg, Goldberg, what’s the difference” joke. At the time of the Iraqi war (part deux) Saddam had the 3rd largest standing army. It’s defeat was measured in hours. President Obama probably shouldn’t have drawn a red line in the sand but he did. Something is going to happen and it’s got to look impressive. The alternative is for Congress to kick the can to the UN knowing they won’t do squat. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/excellent-wapo-blog-primer-on-the-syrian-mess/667743.md?page=2)