Possible Western military response to Syrian chemical weapons use

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

We have far more pressing matters to attend to at home.

False dichotomy.

[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.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

We have far more pressing matters to attend to at home.

I'd say thousands of people being killed and millions of refugees are pretty pressing. On the other hand, it's not clear our involvement is going to do any good at all.  The policy is shaping up to be is so far afield from adhering to the Weinberger/Powell doctrine - even to the extent of having a realistic intention of winning anything through the use of military force beyond saving face / feeling good about ourselves - I'm afraid this will end up being Gulf of Tonkin without the Resolution.

[Oakvale]

We have far more pressing matters to attend to at home.

[Lief 🗽]

...you know, unless it's too inconvenient or expensive. then maybe again.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Yes, you can make arguments against intervention. The "more pressing matters at home" one is not a valid one. It's simply a false dichotomy anyway. It's not like a few days of air strikes on Syria or even a full scale Libya campaign are going to make it impossible to implement Obamacare.

[Eraserhead]

Yes, you can make arguments against intervention. The "more pressing matters at home" one is not a valid one. It's simply a false dichotomy anyway. It's not like a few days of air strikes on Syria or even a full scale Libya campaign are going to make it impossible to implement Obamacare.

Do you support this meaningless cock-waving in the form of airstrikes?

[Eraserhead]

...you know, unless it's too inconvenient or expensive. then maybe again.

Do you support a full ground invasion of Syria then? Three days worth of airstrikes won't change anything.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

...you know, unless it's too inconvenient or expensive. then maybe again.

Do you support a full ground invasion of Syria then? Three days worth of airstrikes won't change anything.

Whatever Obama says.

[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?

[TNF]

...you know, unless it's too inconvenient or expensive. then maybe again.

Do you support a full ground invasion of Syria then? Three days worth of airstrikes won't change anything.

You're implying that Lief has any idea. He's just down with bombing Syria because Obama is for it. If Bush or McCain or Romney were president right now, he'd be with the "people who care more about deficits than dead civilians" as he likes to put it.

[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.

[Lief 🗽]

...you know, unless it's too inconvenient or expensive. then maybe again.

Do you support a full ground invasion of Syria then? Three days worth of airstrikes won't change anything.

Hopefully it's a lot more than three days of airstrikes. A full ground invasion would be  counter-productive, but we should have been helping the rebels more overtly with air support a long time ago.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

...you know, unless it's too inconvenient or expensive. then maybe again.

Do you support a full ground invasion of Syria then? Three days worth of airstrikes won't change anything.

Hopefully it's a lot more than three days of airstrikes. A full ground invasion would be  counter-productive, but we should have been helping the rebels more overtly with air support a long time ago.

The only problem with that, my friend, is I think we have two sets of bad guys, and the poor civilians in the middle of it.  

[Lief 🗽]

The only problem with that, my friend, is I think we have two sets of bad guys, and the poor civilians in the middle of it. 

Probably to an extent. But even if this is the case, then bombing Assad's chemical weapons capability is still a good thing. And hopefully we can find a way to support moderate and democratic elements in the rebel forces over the Al-Qaeda supported elements.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

It seems pretty clear that any military action that the US (or the international community at-large) takes toward Syria will be entirely about upholding the taboo against using chemical weapons.


Assuming it's done right, that seems like an meritorious goal to me, but I'm not sure why both supporters and detractors are casting this as if it were some kind of humanitarian intervention when the real goal is maintaining international norms. Almost no one is talking about getting entangled in a real attempt to end the carnage in Syria; this is just about signalling that people ought to stick to killing each other with bombs and bullets.

I just don't see how we can do this without there being at least some collateral damage involved.  Bombing Syria, for whatever reason, isn't going to make full-out war with them any less likely no matter who's authorizing it.  As for the intended goal, I haven't heard Obama or anyone in his administration say if the bombing is for humanitarian purposes or not, but many on CNN have speculated that such a bombing would be for those reasons.  I... don't have much reliable information on that, unfortunately.

Should there be consequences?  Yes, probably.  But the implications need to be considered, as well.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

The only problem with that, my friend, is I think we have two sets of bad guys, and the poor civilians in the middle of it. 

Probably to an extent. But even if this is the case, then bombing Assad's chemical weapons capability is still a good thing. And hopefully we can find a way to support moderate and democratic elements in the rebel forces over the Al-Qaeda supported elements.

Yes, tricky, but good.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Something must be done, this is something, therefore we must do it.

[Silent Hunter]

UK Parliament will have to vote twice before any British commitment.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Syria Intervention: Candidate Obama Wouldn't Have Skipped Congress, But President Obama Will

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[AkSaber]

We have far more pressing matters to attend to at home.

But empire-building comes first.

[Hatman 🍁]

We have far more pressing matters to attend to at home.

So, Americans are more important than Syrians?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

It's a false dichotomy anyway.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

We have far more pressing matters to attend to at home.

So, Americans are more important than Syrians?

Are Syrians more important than Americans? Because people a couple of towns away from me are being killed every night in a gang war. Maybe we could fix that situation before we clean up Syria's mess.

[Hatman 🍁]

Last time I checked, the Cripps aren't bombing villages with chemical weapons. Not to say gangs in America aren't a problem, but problems in the US are nowhere near other parts of the world.