Possible Western military response to Syrian chemical weapons use

[Mr. Morden]

I figured it would make sense to start a thread on this, separate from the one about the Syrian Civil War, since this is kind of a separate thing from the battle between the pro- and anti-Assad forces (though obviously interrelated).

In response to Assad's use of chemical weapons in the civil war, it looks like the US (perhaps with other allies like the UK and France) will most likely launch some kind of limited military attack on Assad's forces.  Limited in duration to a few days.  Not big enough to tip the balance of power decisively toward the rebels.  Just enough to "punish" him for using chemical weapons, and deter him from doing it again:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/kerry-obama-determined-to-hold-syria-accountable-for-using-chemical-weapons/2013/08/26/599450c2-0e70-11e3-8cdd-bcdc09410972_story.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

CNN's story suggests that it might even just be limited to cruise missile strikes from ships in the Mediterranean, rather than bombing from the air.....so as to avoid the possibility of planes being shot down:

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/08/26/politics/obama-syria-options/

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Mr. Morden]

In response to Assad's use of chemical weapons in the civil war, it looks like the US (perhaps with other allies like the UK and France) will most likely launch some kind of limited military attack on Assad's forces.  Limited in duration to a few days.  Not big enough to tip the balance of power decisively toward the rebels.  Just enough to "punish" him for using chemical weapons, and deter him from doing it again:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/kerry-obama-determined-to-hold-syria-accountable-for-using-chemical-weapons/2013/08/26/599450c2-0e70-11e3-8cdd-bcdc09410972_story.html

You never know, once again it seems that in Syria all the worst things are possible, but I hardly imagine a military action being engaged just for a few strikes and then 'it's ok guys you can continue to murder, but only bullets, ok?'

I imagine that that's exactly what's going to happen.  Obama appears to have no desire to make a long term commitment.  The idea is to do something symbolic, so that people won't be able to say that he stood by and did nothing after a chemical weapons attack.  If it's possible to hurt the Assad regime just enough so as to deter them from using chemical weapons again, and sparking another attack, great.  But we'll have to wait and see as to whether that works.

[Mr. Morden]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/27/us-syria-crisis-obama-intelligence-idUSBRE97Q0S820130827

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Mr. Morden]

The Arab League refuses to back any military action against Syria:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/28/world/middleeast/arab-league-rejects-attack-against-syria.html?_r=0

[Mr. Morden]

The Telegraph says that the UK will join in any US military strike on Assad's forces:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/10269591/Western-attack-to-punish-Syria-likely-to-begin-with-barrage-of-more-than-100-missiles-in-48-hour-blitz.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Note the bolded part as well, that the US has already reached agreement with allies in the region and the Syrian opposition on the scope of the attack.

It's not yet clear if other allies will participate as well, beyond just giving moral support.  Hollande said that France is prepared to "take action" against Syria, but we haven't yet heard what kind of "action" that would involve on France's part.

[Mr. Morden]

Apparently, the reason why Obama wants to do this quickly is because the fear is that Assad is preparing to use chemical weapons again....this time in Aleppo:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323324904579040534058013394.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Mr. Morden]

Obama may hold off on the strike until next week, in deference to Cameron, though this does create the somewhat awkward circumstance of potentially launching the attack when Obama is traveling overseas:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/28/strike-assad-regime-british

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Mr. Morden]

Both Iran and Syria threaten retaliation against Israel if the US attacks Syria:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324463604579040421592941820.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Mr. Morden]

Should be noted that while we have that quote from the Iranian general, neither Khamenei nor Rouhani has issued any kind of similar threat against Israel over the Syria situation (yet).  I'd take it with a grain of salt until one of them says something along those lines as well.

[Mr. Morden]

Yes, UK is out.  Have there been any other US military actions in the past century in which France participated, but the UK didn't?

Also, if Obama was going to wait until next week to order the attack in deference to Cameron, I guess that's no longer a consideration.  So does that mean the attack will begin within the next 24 hours?

[Mr. Morden]

Those who refuse the military intervention:

Arab League
Canada
Italy (if no UN)
UK (waiting)
Germany
Egypt
Venezuela
Russia
China

Are those countries that say a military strike is a bad idea and that they oppose the US or anyone else doing it, or do you just mean that they themselves won't provide military assets for any operation?  Because if a military strike is launched, I suspect there may be quite a few Western countries (like Australia, for example) who don't get involved directly, but either say they support the US's actions or stay neutral and don't comment on it.

[Mr. Morden]

This just gets weirder and weirder (see Obama's press conference).

This is indeed pretty weird.  I can't remember any circumstance in which a president asked for congressional authorization for a military attack designed to last about three days, presumed to involve only missiles launched from sea, with no aircraft or ground forces involved.  Is there any precedent for this?

[Mr. Morden]

It is not weird at all.

It's weird that Obama is asking for Congress to vote on authorization before launching what is being advertised as a limited military strike that will last only a few days.  Like I said, I can't remember the last time a president asked Congress for approval on such a limited mission.

[Mr. Morden]

FWIW, six countries provided troops for the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 (this making it sextilateral). It's two confirmed for this at the moment.

Of course the proposed military action here is launching cruise missiles from ships in the Med to hit targets within Syria.  How many NATO or allied countries even have that capability?

[Mr. Morden]

Actually, it looks like it might involve more than just missiles launched from ships in the Med:

http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Report-US-strike-on-Syria-to-be-significantly-larger-than-expected-325389

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Mr. Morden]

Of course the proposed military action here is launching cruise missiles from ships in the Med to hit targets within Syria.  How many NATO or allied countries even have that capability?

The UK and the US, but France can launch missiles from aircraft outside its airspace.

Exactly.  Six countries provided troops for the US invasion of Iraq, because every country with a military has troops, so it's not like there was some fundamental limitation on who could participate.  But in the case of Syria, the military action in question is something that most allies of the US lack the technical ability to participate in, which is why it's only the US, UK, and France who were ever even considering it.