Possible Western military response to Syrian chemical weapons use

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Already a new thread?

There you go if so...

So it seems this time it's the good one. I'd be cautious though since everything has been so disappointing from the beginning in Syria...

Fabius said it can't remain unanswered.
Le Drian, the French Ministry of Defense is in the Gulf.
The Charles de Gaulle, the French aircraft carrier is on the way to Syria.

According to Olivier Ravanello, maybe the only worthy journalist remaining on itélé, the French diplomacy would have told them that something could happen before Monday.

Hollande gonna make a speech in the coming hours.

It has to be confirmed but it's just been told on itélé that Russia would have already said they wouldn't retaliate if some strikes were made in Syria (which would confirm that Russia really only always is what it shows, some pure...

...gonflette (bubbled muscles).

I hardly imagine Russia engaging into retaliations, at least military ones.

Turkey said it didn't care of UN veto, and would open some of its air bases.

So, so far we would have:

France
UK
Turkey
US

So far the most likely would seem something more or less like Libya, the US using tomahawks to destroy some military facilities and French and UK planes in the air to disable facilities too but also maybe striking offensive moving troops, eventually a total NFZ, but this seems less sure. NATO would once again be the logistic base (sight...).

In any case, if there effectively is a coalition, the mission will have to be clearly and loudly defined, and hopefully the official opposition will also be clearly associated to this and will also finally speak with a clear and united voice. Still something more or less like Lybia then.

The earlier this conflict will be sorted out, the better it will be for the whole region, we really don't need a black flag in the Mediterranean sea, and so far that's what we were helping by doing nothing on the long term.

My biggest worry for that whole region remains always the same for a while now, that totally screwed up piece of land decades after decades, Iraq. At all levels, sociologically, economically, politically, religiously, and yeah, notably through depleted uranium, and phosphore in Fallujah, on the health and ecological level. It has the potential to turn in something worse than it's never been in the coming years, and having Syria as a permanent training ground thanks to an ever going civil war was really not helping. Helping the Syrian cause would make that less young Syrians would join the black flags and have war as only perspective for the future. Offering them the perspective of a true solid help not depending on the black or green flag with a sword would make that only true international Jihadists would remain once the regime is moved, that is a few thousands of people, and Iraq and the whole region around really doesn't need more than that to know a deeper destabilization.

All of this being said, one more time, it's Syria, so it still have the potential to be once again freaking disappointing, from all parts.

In any case, still according to Olivier Ravanello, nothing would begin as long as UN observers are there, but hey, UN just said it suspended its mission there for safety reasons.

If something actually happens I wonder who would dare openly make the 1st step...

Barack Obama for the 1st time daring openly opening something?
The UK stopping to be the ever followers of either French or Americans??
Or, once again, France...

Well France has an historical responsiblity in having set this kinda Alawit regime in Syria, and  notably in the building of its military culture, it would have a kind of historical legitimacy/responsibility, outside of the fact that it also happens in an area where it is, at a lot of levels, directly concerned, the hottest spot on Earth nowadays, the beautiful Mediterranean Sea.

Hopefully this association of languages will be stopped to be associated to something shameful the soonest possible...

Additional information, Italy says it'd do nothing without a UN resolution.

Hollande would speak in less than one hour, an 'action speech' is announced...

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Few other related informations:

Dubai stock exchange drops by 7%
Kuwait by 6%

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

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?'. Maybe something less intensive than Lybia, but I'd be surprised there doesn't remain a kind of permanent protective presence. In that sense, like in Lybia, the tomahawks would only be used during a few days yes.

The main taboo was UN veto, if that is broken everything is possible.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Obama appears to have no desire to make a long term commitment.

Just like in Lybia, they didn't even want to go in Lybia, but thankfully, the new flag of Freedom...

...was here (ok, I should tone down, Frane has been as pitiful as others in Syria even if, since the intervention in Lybia it took almost all Western initiatives in Arab revolutions and African conflicts, we can still save the honor in Syria though, or what's left of it...)

Obama seems to be interested in nothing but hidden drone strikes, will he dare make a 1st step on that one??

Still nothing official so far, Hollande speech:

'Damas' massacre can't be unanswered'
'has to be punished'
'the International Right has to evolve'
'we have to help rebels to defend themselves'

A special Defense council will be held tomorrow in Elysée.

Not other precisions so far about those statements that took place in an over long planed speech about the whole French foreign policy...

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

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.

No offcial announcement so far here still, but if France seems to be for once since 2011 less active than Anglos, it seems totally definite that France will participate.

So far the most likely for us is plane strikes, from either Abu Dabi, Djibouti, Creete, or homeland.

It really looks like it could turn like in Lybia for the beginning at least.

The US mainly acting during a few days through tomahawks, and French planes completing the strikes. Not sure if the UK would involve its planes here.

Hollande insisted on the notion of civilian protection in his speech yesterday, pointing out the UN rules set in 2005 about that, that could be the piece legality to be used to justify it in the UN.

Hey, I just heard it's the UK alone that would write and defend the UN resolution.

The UK taking a geopolotical initiative?! Weeew...

I heard it would condemn the chemical attack and propose to take actions to defend civilian, nothing more precise.

The notion of 'civilian protection' is really the most important to me, it's also been the one used for Lybia, the biggest step to do was to break the veto.

If they break a veto here in the name of civilian protection, then Western countries will have no more grounds to hide behind something to deliver a permanent protection on the longer run, regardless the kind of protection it can be.

France had already promised to help the opposition to defend themselves in November, and since then it was pitifully hidding behind the EU embargo on weapons, that veto is being left since the 1st of August. There are less and less things to hide ourselves from doing something...

I really hardly imagine that it's 3 days of strikes and 'good bye! and good luck! see you when you're free! someday maybe...'...

Hollande receives the chief of official opposition tomorrow, the more it is associated to operations the more it could mean we will stay with them on the long term in one way or an other, French rethoric has always been the strongest about that, whatever the US decides, France didn't wait them to have a deep engagement in Lybia with the official opposition on the ground there.

To be fair though, the 1st one to have spoken about red line about chemical weapons several months ago has been Obama, and it needed this to happen to create a kind of 'worthy murder' and 'unworthy murder' standard, in order to make an action possible. I wonder how History books will judge that, has there already been such cases of blatant shameful hypocrisy?

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

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

Oh yeah, that'd be the best way to have dozens of Israeli planes bombing Syria in less than 24 hours, which is for sure Iran and Syria desire.

We sort of are dude. We have been since at least until the 1990s, arguably before that.

Fixed. Kosovo. Then you became the burglar of the world, sort of, dude, not that you were super clean before, but in the 2000s you didn't even bother being hypocrite anymore...

Hmm, outside of WW2 and 1990s Balkanic wars, I don't really see how the US can pretend of the status of 'policeman of the world'. Having the means to be so doesn't mean that you are, and the method that the 'policeman' used haven't always been super clear to say the least.

For example who is policing one of the most dangerous area in the world, Western Indian Ocean, for years now? A European fleet. .

Pax Americana? Well, lol.



Contradictive ambiance so far today.

Obama who seems to be far colder that his chanting Defense Secretary on Tuesday.

Hollande who also seems to be less hot than on Tuesday. Though he said that violences have to be stopped after his meeting with the leader of Syrian opposition.

Only Cameron (eww again) seems to be the most ahead here.



If Syrians are abandonned here, again, that's still more shame for us, still more darkness for them, and still more ground for the black flags.



Official informations:

The French frigate Chevalier-Paul is heading toward Syria, it's exactly what had happened before the operation in Lybia, by sending a frigate to defend a large piece of land and a carrier against planes, the French army says it was a planned exercise though.

UK sent 6 planes to Cyprus. They say it's only a precaution.



Listening to Cameron speech right now in the assembly, he really is the one who has the strongest words so far. Kudos to UK if they bring something here.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

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?

Did the UK get at all involved in Indochina?

France was alone in Indochine.

The US were alone in Vietnam.

All is said in that great scene of the dinner with the French in Apocalypse now.

Ah and, Hollande said that no matter what the UK did, France is still in, people speak about some strikes before Wednesday.

I don't remind how it happened within UK for Lybia, I was too focused on France, the Parliament did vote it? By a large margin if so?

It's crazy how 'the policeman of the world' screwed so many things with that 'Mission Accomplished', screwed things for Iraq, Middle East, Western countries (kudos Tony, Syrians can thank you I guess...), the only advantage would have really been to make France looking saner than others...

So, so far we would have:

France
UK
Turkey
US

In case something actually begins before the UN establishes the use of chemical weapons, I guess UK would join later.

Those who refuse the military intervention:

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

Yesterday there was noise in the Egyptian papers about Egypt shuting Suez Canal to US war ships, 'lol' if so...

What a broad list. Maybe others that I didn't note.

So, what's the plan exactly to get rid of Assad and make sure the next regime will be stable and democratic?

Considering that the sort of 'military response' being more than considered will certainly not remove the Assad regime and will not stop them engaging in further massacres, could somebody perhaps explain what the point of it will be?

Feel free to answer both questions at once.

At once?

I'd say you both are sounding so Americans...

(please stop to comfort me in the idea that there is only one Anglo paradigm, and that that one has been seized by a kind of annoying US mentality...)

More seriously though and to try to answer the 2nd question, I might focus too much on that case but to me it seems it could begin more or less like Lybia.

That is 2-3 days of strikes on military facilities and different kinds of logistics through which Assad can commit massacres on civilians. The most logical would be that it is focused chemical weapons logistics, who knows, might only be limited to that, which would also raise one question: striking chemical weapons?? oho, it can raise some kinds of problems... Israel did it a few months ago apparently though.

That's the minimum that I'd see as possible personally.

And later, we'll see...

The difference with Lybia is that all was clear since the beginning, so the 2-3 days of strikes was the US cruise missiles destroying logistics in order to establish a NFZ and French and UK planes striking to defend cities and to destroy some targets in cooperation with rebel forces on the ground. Later France has been the only ones to have allegedly sent weapons, and later engaged its helicopters till the fights calm down, wich happened with, yeah, the fall of the regime.

I keep making the coparison because it seems the operational scheme could be more or less the same, the difference would be the targets, and the kind of commitment we decide on the long term.

And to be fair, I'm not sure both Hollande, Obama, and whoever would be in, and their advisors actually have a clue right now about what they exactly gonna do...

Beyond the duty of protection one can have toward one who asks for it, one of France major angle in this conflict has been to at least make that one part can't massacre the other one, as long as one part can take the advantage by force, a political solution isn't possible. Which also was one of the French justifications to deliver defensive weapons.

In short, try to neutralize the murdering machine 1st, and then you see.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

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.

Well, it would take as many precisions as there are countries, more or less.

In short though, in this list only Canada doesn't condemn a military action, it just doesn't join the operations yes.

And apparently the US now say that Australia and the Arab League would be supporting some 'limited strikes'.

It would take 3 lists:

Those who do:

France
Turkey
US

Those who support:

Canada
Australia
Arab League
Maybe others that I didn't notice

Those who oppose:

What's left of the preceding list, those added by other posters, and maybe others

Ah and, how come did I forget it...

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

...there is something on France2 right now about...Lafayette.

To be fair the UK were involved then, but, well...

(I don't know whether this was planned on TV before or if it's a 'conjonctural thing'...)

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Well, yeah, we kept a 'good guy status' here, both from our point of view and from the external point of view.

And this is not only a matter of Iraq or of Cold War.

If you don't try to get the fact that France always saw itself as a kind of unique power, independant from anybody (and overall from anything that can look like Anglophone!).

And, overall since the post WW2 ironically, which is based on Gaullisme, which is in short:

'There are the US, there are the Soviets, and...there is France!'

Actually.

And for anybody who fairly look at the Arab and Middle-East policies of France since the post WW2 it's pretty obvious.

The Anglo world never aired that anger from Chirac against some guys of Israeli authorities in Jerusalem? A few days later you had the Chirac t-shirts popping all over eastern Jerusalem close to Arafat ones.

And if the spontaneous trend here use to be more pro-Arab than pro-Israeli, it's more subtle than that.

For example, who did built the Israeli nukes in Neguev...??  

France!

Want more?

Who have been the 1st ones to initiate Iran to nuclear technologies (from a civilian point of view, and under the Shah, but still)...??

France again!

And who later gave shelter to Khomeiny?

...!!

lol

And actually, I find that the position of this country regarding Arab-Mid-East world uses to be the most balanced in West for a while now, even under Sarkozy whiche here used to be bad painted as 'BIG BAD EVIL ZIONNIST!!', or something like that.

Regarding Syria and the formal colonial status, yeah, I had spoken about it earlier. France has a historical responsibility in the building of this regime. It's apparently France who organized the 'Alawisme' of the regime and which participated to build their military culture, and this to avoid the persecussion of a minority...

(kudos for the achievement if so, maybe one day people will learn that reading a society mainly through the ethnicity glasses leads to...poor consequences to say the least)

That being said, in the region, the spot to which France remained quite tied at a lot of levels, is by far Lebanon.

Tied economically, the large Lebanese disapora works all over the Francophone world (a world in which you can find the 'Franco paradigme' that I tried to describe earlier all over, as opposed to the 'Anglo paradigme', there could be books to develop on those 2...), some buisnessmen which can also be used as a connexion between France and the rest of the Arab world.

Tied politically, especially under Chirac who oppenly was a big friend of the Hariri family, and the assassination of the father in 2005 was a big thing here.

Tied culturally, lots of exchange of populations, especially in the sense Lebanon-France, and the French culture is present all over the free Beyrouth (aka not the south), and 'Le Petit Journal' a trendy French late show which is sometimes fancy to watch seems to be part of Beyrouth's students program. The youngs seem to speak a kind of mix of Arab French and English over there.

That's the big connexion between France and the Arab world.

The second one being Maghreb-Sahara.

There goes Lybia, since it's been evoked there too.

Well, yeah, Italy didn't have the same care for its former colonies than France had, and since France had put its flag all over the area of which Lybia was greatly dependent, then no surprise the French influence was big in Lybia too, and most of Gaddafi military and diplomatic moves have been made towards some former French colonies in which France kept a big strategic role, the biggest case being Tchad.

It wasn't mainly a matter of oil for Lybia, it's mainly Italy that depended on Lybian oil (so it wasn't totally careless of its former colonies...), the big contracts in Lybia used to be for weapons...

And yet we're slowly walking toward Afrique, and the Françafrique which has also been evoked here...

It might be the most 'amusing' (very relatively) part of the story of the post WW2 era.

France uses to be seen and to see itself as the biggest anti-American neo-imperialism, with all the bright blahblahblha that can go with it.

The anti-American stuff (geopolitically and culturally to a lesser extent) is true, but while the Americans spent decades to screw Mid-east for the sake of their own interests, we did the exact same thing in our little empire!

All the nasty neo-imperiaslim things that the US did (playing with guerillas, bombing such or such, installing such or such guy in power, sometimes sending our troops when it didn't turn the way we wanted and so forth...), we did it too!

It's just that the US did that in a place on which everybody was focused, while nobody cared of our own little African Mid-East (who cares about Africans and their very bloody unimportant wars anyways?). Our Middle-East was Southern Guinean Gulf mainly, Equatorian Guinea, Popular Republic of Congo, Gabon was the fantastic trio for our oil mainly, but each time we could take something in Africa, we indeed did anywhere.

And who had built this 'paradigme' again?

De Gaulle indeed!

All of this was theorized, again for France independence from the 'Cold War' stuff.

There I come to the last thing that has been evoked here, 'France is not hawkish'.

I tried to demonstrate here that you can give a lol at this.

Outside of all what I've already cited here, you can add the fact that France has apparently built the 3rd military industry in the world (that's at least how it was the last time I heard about it), and that while everybody was, lol, as always, mainly focused on US neo-imperialism, France was also signing big weapon contracts all over the world, any Arab power, Iran, Israel, Pakistan, Africa, and so forth. And that made the great politico-financiary scandals of our republic...

That being said, and it was something I was chanting a few months ago on this forum, we are not the US.

We belong to Europe.

And here there is more and more an actual self-criticism about geopolitical imperialism, even in France, even if you can continue to find our companies all over Africa, even if a geopolitcal act is never uninterested (which is why we need an actual police force for this world...), the more it goes, the less there is ground for the dirty hidden practices. Beyond an intellectual evolution that I would find actual here, and that wouldn't be that present in the US (Iraq was only 10 years ago, and Obama seems to enjoy drone strikes wherever it pleases...), you can at the very least count on the far bigger transparency that exists in our societies.

And thus what one can qualifies 'hawkish' (which I would inherently take as pejorative), I would tend to qualify it of rather, well, 'responsible', at worst you can find it pretentious, but...you think you can bother a French about calling him pretentious?? Who f**king cares! We're pretentious enough to think we should have this kind of pretention.

I love what a former guy from French secret services answered in a very good documentary on our foreign services since WW2.

He was asked about the fact that the French were the 1st ones to go to Afghanistan to arm Afghanis against Soviets (^^)...

Journalist:

...but, everybody thought it was only the Americans who did it...?!...you have been very discrete!

The guy had a laaarge smile, and he answered:

...we are always more discrete than Americans...

...

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

...read everything?

...want more?

Here is:


And that are actually all of those topics that are debated right now in the country since we have the feeling to have been totally trapped by Obama...

'France is a unique power, its voice shouldn't depend on what the US do!'

'France has its world to say on how the world goes!'

'Hollande is irresponsible, he tied us to the US! What a shame for us!'

You only have the far-right and the far-left to contest any foreign intervention here, any military intervention uses to be rather consensual in the classical political class, everybody behind the Président, just a few side criticisms here and there. But Obama managed to mess all of this with his totally irresponsible moves, and now that's upside down here.

He manged to make Libération (the big leftie paper) and Le Figaro (the big rightie paper) agree!

Both saying 'Obama traps Hollande'.

What will happen in the coming days could be...'interesting/amusing'.

If ever the US don't go (and so far seems totally possible the Congress votes 'no'), then we will have to 'face our face'.

We are on a quite positive record here so far.

The refusal of Iraq.

The operation in Lybia.

The operation in Côte d'Ivoire.

The operation in Mali.

All of those is seen as France successes. Lybia being more and more relativized due to Jihadists messing in the Sahara, but Mali came as a kind of total apotheosis, at all levels, militarily, politically, culturally.

So, all of this bubbled still more our natural inclination for being, so French.

But since Obama totally irresponsible, both strategically and politcially, danse, everything looks so fragile here.

We look totally prisonners of American Republicans, and be sure that for a French feeling prisonner of Americans is...painful. So imagine how it is to be prisonner of Republicans...

That Syria stuff is really forcing everybody to face hiself.

If ever the US don't go, either we look totally pitiful.

Or we look great and try to find a way to still do something.

We have everything to lead a striking campaign alone. We have the boats, the planes, the bases, the right weapons, the intelligence to know what to strike, everything in total independence, due to this long tradition about which I developped here, but apparently according to yesterday's meeting between the PM and the representants of the Parliament:

'France is determined to do something, but only within a coalition'

According to journalists who are close to the administration, they don't want to look like a power that does a unilateral, alone and without the UN, war against an other country.

And what was the breakfast this morning?

Assad directly threatening France!

It's a double-edged sword, either it 'strengthen the national unity' for strikes, or it feels like 'ok, enough now, we really have nothing to gain there'.

About 65% oppose a military intervention here in polls.

Frankly, Obama behavior doesn't help, and puts everybody in danger, at all levels.

And if ever nothing is done:

What a slap for American credibility...
What a slap for French idea of themselves...
And overall what a slap we would put in the face of Syrians, a false hope is worse than no promise at all...
And welcome to the back flags, which is the only help that Syrians receive for a while now...

I can't wait to see the faces of our guys here if we do nothing due to Americans...

Might be Hollande harshest moments right now, everything is said in pictures realeased by both administrations:

Official pic from Elysée 'Hollande phoning to Obama'

Official pic from White House 'Obama phoning the Congress'

Oh dear it's painful...

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

France is a great country, and has always been committed to the protection of human rights and international law.

The Algerians would beg to differ.

Yeah.

And you could add other stuffs of the end of colonialism, or the 'Ouvéa cave' in Nouvelle-Calédonie.

It's never unpleasant to hear it, but I tried to demonstrate it's not necessarily always so obvious...

That being said, I tend to genuinely believe there's been an evolution here, and that we, along with other European countries would be more and more responsible when it comes to international interventions.

So is it possible France could go it alone if our Congress declines to support a strike?

That's actually the huge question of the moment here.

To be fair, if the US don't go, I'd tend to believe that Hollande would also call for a vote in the Parliament. And then, the most obvious scenario would be that Socialistes don't vote for it. It would be the best way to 'save our face' and to dilute the responsibility of such an eventual withdrawal, Hollande could always say 'ah well, I respect the decision of the Parliament' (but everybody would knew it'd be a total slap).

Because yeah, on the other hand, Hollande kept some very tough words against Assad when he received the German president on Tuesday evening, just like if the strikes were just a question of time, plus you can add that this German president was here to commemorate the biggest civilian massacre made by Nazis in France, in Oradour-sur-Glane (642 civilians, men, women, children, the whole village, coldly massacred by a SS company on the 10th of June 1944), and that, after De Gaulle will have been kept like a kind of Pompei...



...and you can guess that in our context it takes a 'particular resonnance'.

All of this makes that I more and more I hardly imagine how Hollande could withdraw. It would really look totally pitiful...

It's Syria, always have the potentiality to be so freaking disappointing...

That being said, in his last determined statements, Hollande announced that he tries to make European and Arab coalition, so you never know...

In any case, right now, Putin is just playing basket-ball with Obama's head with his last statements this morning, and enjoying his role of perfect troll of a new fake cold war, the US better don't play fool if they are still interested in keeping the very bit of credibility they still eventually have...