US may be alone in attack on Syria

[Grumman]

@QuickSilver

Hussain used chemical weapons on the Kurds and the US invaded Iraq under the pretense of WMD’s (yeah, I know…).

Do you believe the US invaded Iraq over Saddam’s use of WMDs? If you don’t, why should Assad?

[Gyrate]

Sadly it’s the Onion that has set out the issues most succinctly for me: So, What’s It Going to Be?

We’re screwed, Obama’s screwed, the Syrian people are screwed no matter what option we go with. All we’re deciding is which option uses the most lube.

[QuickSilver]

@Alessan

The U.S. invaded Iraq 15 years after the last time it had used chemical weapons, *and *after it no longer had any chemical weapons left. I’m not surprised it wasn’t very successful as deterrence.

@Grumman

Do you believe the US invaded Iraq over Saddam’s use of WMDs? If you don’t, why should Assad?

We’re not debating about whether or not invasion of Iraq was justified wrt WMD’s, or anything else (it wasn’t).

The case I’m attempting to make is that the use of chemical weapons would be a very foolish and unlikely move for Assad for the following reasons:

1. Assad has WMD’s. The US et all have demonstrated that they will use WMD’s as an excuse for invasion.

2. Assad has a bloody civil war on his hands. One he believes he can win. One that is (largely) against an enemy that is also the enemy of the US.

3. US has made strident statements wrt to CW’s but has not involved themselves so far and Assad is aware that the US has no taste for another involved war (Syria not being Libya or Yugoslavia).

4. Using CW’s for Assad is a gamble because he has everything to lose if the US gets involved in his affairs.

5. Using CW’s for the rebels (if they in fact managed to get their hands on some) is much less of a gamble because though US is no friend of the pro-Islamist rebels, Assad is by far the most immediate threat and he is winning. They also know the US has no stomach for ground forces and they can take some shelling if it puts Assad on the back foot.

6. If it was a rogue general that deployed the CW’s, then he may very well forfeit his life but Assad isn’t going to admit that he does not have control of his army or his weapons because that’s an immediate invitation for either a US or Israeli strike/invasion.
   OR,

7. Assad is irrational. Though I don’t believe that he is. Evil, sure. But not completely irrational.

[tagos]

@QuickSilver

We’re not debating about whether or not invasion of Iraq was justified wrt WMD’s, or anything else (it wasn’t).

The case I’m attempting to make is that the use of chemical weapons would be a very foolish and unlikely move for Assad for the following reasons:

1. Assad has WMD’s. The US et all have demonstrated that they will use WMD’s as an excuse for invasion.

Not one person believes the USA is willing or able to mount an invasion so that isn’t a deterrent. What evidence that has been leaked, suggests this was not an authorised action by Assad (the claimed Israel comms intercept between the Defence Minister and the commander of the chemical unit, possibly acting at the behest of Assad’s lunatic brother).

We can make of that that there are reckless elements of the Assad regime that consider the use of these weapons perfectly okay. Are they going to be deterred by bombings? I doubt it - they will probably welcome a few hundred civilian deaths.

Can we hit the weapons themselves? Highly unlikely that we will have any clue where they are (other than in places guaranteed to cause civilian casualties if hit). Can we totally incinerate them if we hit them so as not to cause our own gas attack (a huge Al-Q propaganda gift)? If we can can we do it without incinerating civilians at the same time.

And can we guarantee that if we hit the weapons the regime won’t just detonate more and claim it was a US chemical attack?

I guess the USA feel they have to do something but no good will come of it and I want the UK to have nothing to do with it.

[QuickSilver]

@tagos

Not one person believes the USA is willing or able to mount an invasion so that isn’t a deterrent.

Agreed. I over-stated when I said invasion. I should have said military action (bombing).

@tagos

What evidence that has been leaked, suggests this was not an authorised action by Assad (the claimed Israel comms intercept between the Defence Minister and the commander of the chemical unit, possibly acting at the behest of Assad’s lunatic brother).

I guess I’m behind the news cycle but feel somewhat vindicated in my assumption that this was probably not in Assad’s plan of action due to reasons I already stated.

@tagos

Can we hit the weapons themselves? Highly unlikely that we will have any clue where they are (other than in places guaranteed to cause civilian casualties if hit). Can we totally incinerate them if we hit them so as not to cause our own gas attack (a huge Al-Q propaganda gift)? If we can can we do it without incinerating civilians at the same time.

Agreed. It’s a bad idea for the US to get involved in this manner.

But I don’t think the US intends to bomb CW’s as a target. I suspect they’ll aim to cripple some of Assad’s conventional forces/weapons, if they in fact follow through on the red line threats. I hope they do not because of the reasons you stated. In all the confusion, some CW’s may go off by accident and the US will be blamed anyway.

[Shearer]

And Parliament just voted against the government proposal.

[tagos]

@Shearer

And Parliament just voted against the government proposal.

About a decade too late but better late than never. Cameron better not try playing the slippery eel now.

[tagos]

@QuickSilver

I guess I’m behind the news cycle but feel somewhat vindicated in my assumption that this was probably not in Assad’s plan of action due to reasons I already stated.

It is claimed in UK papers that Israel provided the USA with a recording of a call between the defence minister and the Chem Unit commander trying to find out WTF just happened.

But who knows what is true. Israel’s interests lie with Assad so they may have fabricated it. Or the UK intel people who leaked it to the papers may be playing their own game.

Basically we cannot believe anything and if we cannot believe anything then we cannot go around attacking countries.

Fool me once, shame on me etc etc. I will never, so long as I live, believe anything that the US or UK govts tell me directly or through leaks to tame journalists after Iraq. And nor should anyone else.

Good on the UK parliament for saying ‘No’.

[BrokenBriton]

Interesting addendum:

But - in an unexpected turn of events -** MPs also rejected the government’s motion in support of military action in Syria if it was supported by evidence from United Nations weapons inspectors**, who are investigating claims President Bashar al-Assad’s regime had used chemical weapons against civilians.

Syria crisis: Cameron loses Commons vote on Syria action

I bet Disco Dave wasn’t expecting that.

[Pjen]

Incredible. Democracy works. Will Congress be recalled?

The UK is out of any action against Syria.

[Qin_Shi_Huangdi]

And a personal but widely shared 5. We don’t care. Put a dome over the Middle East for 5 years then shoot the one guy still standing, bloodied rock in hand. We’re sick of the whole thing. They’re going to try and kill each other over differing versions of Sky Fairies the first moment their local dicatator’s grip loosens anyway. Let them. There’s nothing we can do but make it worse.

Most of the logic here is no different from saying that blacks are naturally stupid or inferior and thus its a waste of time to try to make them equal since they’ll just end up shooting each other or robbing white people.

[QUOTE]

@Pjen

It all depends on what is meant by ‘successful’. I note that Bosnia, Libya and Kosovo are now totally problem free after our intervention.

People are not being slaughtered or ethnically cleansed anymore. I’d say that’s a bit of an improvement.

I wonder why we let millions die in Rwanda and get offended by a couple of hundred deaths in Syria.

Which is why I believe the US should have intervened in Rwanda (and Darfur too and at least put more diplomatic effort into restoring peace in the Congo as well)

@tagos

Quite. Not sure we can stand any more ‘successes’ like Libya.

There’s more to foreign policy that blowing the cork off the bottle with a few cruise missiles and letting the genies fight it out.

Who said Libya would be perfect after intervention? But we only intervened once a civil war had broke out and even if Gaddafi had crushed the rebels at this point the infrastructure would still be in disarray so soon after the rebellion.

Also this thread title is inaccurate (and a probable attempt at denouncing “American cowboy unilateralism”) considering the US has been pretty reluctant about even arming rebels and has to a large extent been pushed by our NATO allies especially the French and the Turks.

[Shearer]

The last time a UK PM was defeated on a war motion was in 1782, when MPs voted to stop fighting American war of independence. He resigned two days later…

[lisiate]

@Gyrate

Sadly it’s the Onion that has set out the issues most succinctly for me: So, What’s It Going to Be?

We’re screwed, Obama’s screwed, the Syrian people are screwed no matter what option we go with. All we’re deciding is which option uses the most lube.

Damn that’s a brilliant article.

Here’s The Guardian’sas it happened blog of the Commons vote. As an aside I had no idea Robin Cookehad this engraved on his tombstone:

“I may not have succeeded in halting the war, but I did secure the right of Parliament to decide on war.”

So no UK (unless Cameron goes all dictatorial on us).

[UltraVires]

Not to hijack, but I thought in a parliamentary system the government laid down the law. If it loses a vote, it’s time for teeth gnashing, weeping, and votes of no-confidence and new elections. How did it not happen here without Tory MP’s being assigned to the toilet clean-up committee?

[Terr]

@jtgain

Not to hijack, but I thought in a parliamentary system the government laid down the law. If it loses a vote, it’s time for teeth gnashing, weeping, and votes of no-confidence and new elections. How did it not happen here without Tory MP’s being assigned to the toilet clean-up committee?

Depends on the vote. Some votes can be recognized as no-confidence votes. Some may not be. It is not a given that when the government loses a vote on some matter in the Parliament then it is automatically a no-confidence vote.

Although I would think this vote was pretty important and it was stupid for Cameron to miscalculate it so badly that he called for the vote and lost.

[UltraVires]

@Terr

Although I would think this vote was pretty important and it was stupid for Cameron to miscalculate it so badly that he called for the vote and lost.

He can’t twist 7 arms? Maybe put in a clause that the UK won’t do it unless they limit involvement to no ground troops, 6 months, etc.

[Terr]

@jtgain

He can’t twist 7 arms? Maybe put in a clause that the UK won’t do it unless they limit involvement to no ground troops, 6 months, etc.

Losing the vote shows weakness and has a momentum of its own. In parliamentary politics you don’t call votes that you may lose, calling that vote was a huge miscalculation, and miscalculations like that indicate huge lack of leadership, especially when you get defeated by your own party.

It is a bit different in US Congressional politics. There losing votes are often held, to make a point, to saddle opponents with expressing a certain view etc. Much less so in parliaments.

[Rune]

@Terr

Losing the vote shows weakness and has a momentum of its own. In parliamentary politics you don’t call votes that you may lose, calling that vote was a huge miscalculation, and miscalculations like that indicate huge lack of leadership, especially when you get defeated by your own party.

It is a bit different in US Congressional politics. There losing votes are often held, to make a point, to saddle opponents with expressing a certain view etc. Much less so in parliaments.

Maybe he did it to show to show internationally that he hasn’t backed down, that he really wants to be in on an attack on Syria, but that his hands are tied? Perhaps he has even had second thoughts and is secretly relieved.

[Rune]

Incidentally, Denmark also had a vote. We’ll send planes, men, tanks, submarines, dragon-prowed longships filled with beserkers, whatever. And if you don’t ask we’ll send our Foreign Minister to lobby you to be included in your war. The government is still sulking because they didn’t have time to get properly in on the Mali thing.

[BrokenBriton]

@lisiate

So no UK (unless Cameron goes all dictatorial on us).

Robin Cooke was wrong. Any PM may use the Royal Perogative, although having lost this vote he obv. can’t use that as someone would call a vote of no confidence in him. On Syria at least, he’s stuck with Parliament now.