Syria

[blandy]

Peter, is it your view that the Assad's regime has not used chemical weapons and the attack on 21/8 was a false flag or rebel inspired incident?  Or are you just opposed to UK jumping in militarily to dish out some punitive punishment? 

I'm not the one to whom the Q is addressed, but to me there doesn't look to have been conclusive proof shown to either us or anyone else. The burden before launching US or UK or French bombing (even were that the right response) would be on that to be proven.

 

Do you think it is proven, AWOL, as opposed to the more likely of a number of possibilities (which is how it seems to me)?

[Meath_Villan]

Kerry put a good case forward there on sky news .....it feels its a case of if we don't bomb the **** out of these lads then iran etc will run riot 

[peterms]

Peter, is it your view that the Assad's regime has not used chemical weapons and the attack on 21/8 was a false flag or rebel inspired incident?  Or are you just opposed to UK jumping in militarily to dish out some punitive punishment?

I'm really not sure.  I believe both sides have CWs and would be happy to use them, but I suppose Assad's will be far greater quantity, with more sophisticated delivery, better dispersal and so on.

 

If 21/8 was really a simultaneous delivery across a very wide area of a large quantity of sophisticated, stable gas with dispersal agents, that would look like Assad.  This is why the UN inspection matters, despite their remit excluding "who done it".  There's also some interesting stuff being done by "Brown Moses", examining in some detail the spent rockets and matching them against known armaments, delivery mechanisms etc.

 

I'm struck by the desperate efforts of the US and UK to rush into military aggression before the UN has reported, including the use of downright lies (the evidence will be gone after 2-4 days), and this makes me wonder if they are playing the same old game again, committing to force before evidence surfaces showing that the stated case for using force was faked, so that when evidence comes forward, it's too late.

 

I'm also very mindful that there are very powerful forces which are both lobbying for a US attack, and also supplying the opposition with all sorts of weapons.  The role of Prince Bandar is coming under scrutiny, as it should, and Israel has previous for faking "intercepted communications".  Obama having stupidly come out with this "red line" guff has given the opposition and their powerful backers an immensely strong incentive to create a CW incident which would give the US a pretext for the intervention they have long wanted to make in any event.  At the same time, it gives Assad a clear picture of the one gamechanger which he would be mad to risk.  In respect of motivation and the balance of risk and reward, I would say the very strong likelihood is a false flag attack.

 

So if I had to put money on it, I'd go with the false flag, but if independent evidence emerges which shows that Assad had done it, I could be persuaded.  But I don't think anything which the US, Israel, Saudi and their lapdogs come up with would have the slightest shred of credibility, without independent verification.

 

I also don't accept for one moment that it falls to the US and whichever tame pet they can persuade to go along with them, to punish the use of CWs.  It was sickening tonight to hear Nancy Pelosi whine on about the red line being not something which Obama laid down, but which "humanity did, decades ago".  If that is so, madam, then you need to perform a citizen's arrest on Obama, Bush and many others, and drag them to the Hague.

 

So yes, I am absolutely opposed to us jumping in to dish out punishment, and to do so as the useful idiot providing political cover to the world's greatest aggressor is just sick.

 

But all that stuff about CWs is entirely beside the point, as we know.  It's not about that, and never has been.

[bickster]

Kerry put a good case forward there on sky news .....it feels its a case of if we don't bomb the **** out of these lads then iran etc will run riot

This is the Iran that have just ELECTED a much more moderate leader and have been making many conciliatory noises ever since, even going as far as to condemn the use of CW in Syria only the other day. The US (and the media) have of course been largely ignoring that since the euphoria of his election.

[Meath_Villan]

just saying what came across with kerry ....think his words were if we let assad away with the chem weapons then iran will push and push on what they can do.

 

Hes probably right tho Iran can make all the noises they want they have to start acting on them 

[bickster]

just saying what came across with kerry ....think his words were if we let assad away with the chem weapons then iran will push and push on what they can do.

 

Hes probably right tho Iran can make all the noises they want they have to start acting on them

That's my point, the US seems to keep ignoring any sign that Iran is willing to change approach. What can Iran do if it gets ignored?

[Xann]

The US is great at making a mess, but piss poor at dealing with the aftermath.

[Meath_Villan]

to be fair assad was seen as a reformist .....not working out to well 

[peterms]

just saying what came across with kerry ....think his words were if we let assad away with the chem weapons then iran will push and push on what they can do.

 

Hes probably right tho Iran can make all the noises they want they have to start acting on them 

 

The "we" in that sentence should mean the international community, the UN.  That is the only body which should lead on pressurising Syria and others to step back from chemical weapons.

 

It should not mean the US, self-appointed world policeman enforcing what it wishes on all other countries, in defiance of international law.

 

And the point about Iran is again about the interests of Israel, which doesn't want another strong state in the region.  It would rather enrol the playground bully to crush those it fears, than learn to live with them.

[Meath_Villan]

How can the UN act when russia will veto anything the US try to do and visa versa ....The UN is still a dated organisation that cant do a hell of a lot until its almost to late 

 

Im not backing the US but the arab league or whatever they are and the UN Stagnant and toothless  

[peterms]

How can the UN act when russia will veto anything the US try to do and visa versa ....The UN is still a dated organisation that cant do a hell of a lot until its almost to late 

 

Im not backing the US but the arab league or whatever they are and the UN Stagnant and toothless  

 

What the US is trying to do is engineer an outcome which is totally in their interests, and entirely against the interests of other players.  It is wholly unsurprising that Russia vetoes it, and it is wholly disingenuous of the western media and politicians to feign surprise and dismay.

 

Any sensible way forward must involve Iran, recognise that other world powers aren't going to roll over and give the US total control over the whole middle east, and look for a negotiated solution.  The US, accustomed to getting its way for large parts of the last few decades, prefers a "winner takes all" approach, but only if it thinks it will be the winner.

 

We and others should put what weight we have behind the demand for a reduction in violence leading to a ceasefire, with a negotiated solution.  That will be very hard to do, and possibly unacceptable to some participants like al-Qaeda, much as the negotiated peace in the north of Ireland was unacceptable to some elements of the armed factions.

 

The alternative of the US trying to impose its will by raining down cruise missiles on a shattered country, is surely unacceptable to anyone.  That will only prolong and deepen the utter misery and savagery of the situation.  But the philosophy of the US has long been "It became necessary to destroy the town to save it".  A nation founded on genocide, unwilling to change its ways.

[peterms]

I see our secret undercover work in Syria is well under way.

 

[Meath_Villan]

The arab league had their chance to do something and its failed .....the un tried via kofi annan it failed .....whats to stop Iran absolutely turning the tables and acting as peace maker .....what a turn up that would be  

[Chindie]

The UN is easily shown to be toothless by any state that chooses to ignore it.

[peterms]

The Washington Post says that this is a photo of Senator McCain playing poker on his phone during a debate which will lead to the murder of many thousands more people.

 

[Ghost]

[bickster]

.....whats to stop Iran absolutely turning the tables and acting as peace maker .....what a turn up that would be

You think Israel, Saudi Arabia and the US would just let that happen?

[Awol]

Do you think it is proven, AWOL, as opposed to the more likely of a number of possibilities (which is how it seems to me)?

 

 

In reply to you and the good by post by Peter below yours, I don't know either and haven't seen a public presentation of the evidence the US and ourselves claim to have. Kerry standing at a podium and saying "we know this" simply doesn't cut the mustard post 2003. Maybe that presentation has happened and I missed it, or maybe they are waiting for the UN inspectors report to put it all out together, I don't know. Without the evidence I don't see how military action can be on the table as an option, but once out I don't think there is another country I'd trust to give the "independent verification" of that evidence as Peter is suggesting - not withstanding the fact western intelligence agencies are not going to open up their sourcing and analysis to foreign countries. So it becomes an individual judgement of whether, on balance, it is compelling. It ain't there yet.

 

Where I differ from you and Peter is the belief that this is more likely to be a false flag job. I think it happened and given the volume of casualties over a large area I think there is a very high probability that Assad's forces did it, and although not necessarily ordered by him personally that is moot point once kids start croaking from nerve agent poisoning.

 

To be honest I'm completely torn in that I don't want the UK involved but as a member of the permanent five we do have a responsibility to prevent and deter the use of chemical weapons. International treaties like that which prohibit their use are only meaningful if they are enforced, but does the fact this treaty pre-dates the UN, and the fact Russia and China would never endorse action that could set a precedent against their own potential future domestic behaviour (or retrospective sanction in Russia's case for Chechnya), mean that they as P-5 members should be allowed to veto a response?  I don't think it does, necessarily.

 

Why? The key values underpinning liberal democracy only prevail through the potential threat of force to uphold them, or as Frederick the Great said: "Diplomacy without weapons is like music without instruments". The values we hold to be non-negotiable (like not offing people with poison gas) are not the default setting of humanity as history shows, and maintaining their supremacy over dictatorship sometimes requires force and sacrifice. So I think in principle and based on the production of sufficient evidence, there is a case for intervention. 

 

The question of why should the US, UK and/or France step up to this and shoulder responsibility is a fairly simple one in my view, leadership.The reason the vote in Parliament mattered internationally is because love us loathe us, what the UK says and does matters. Large parts of the world are yet to catch up to our post imperial, 'woe is us' self perception and similar is true of our garlic chomping neighbours. The US is looked at as a very strong, petulant and flailing child in many parts of the world (particularly where I live) but the same is not true of the UK, which rightly or wrongly is considered to be more fair and moral in its judgement. No one asks "what are the Germans, or the Japanese, or the Brazilians doing about this?" But they do look to Britain. So that, for me, answers the question of 'why us'?

 

However the use of force without clear political goals is totally irresponsible, and what about the law of unintended consequences?  A few Tomahawks and Storm Shadows slamming into C2 assets as a punitive response seems pointless, and if intervention is called for (regardless of its trigger) then it should be geared to bring about a decisive result. What if after a bombardment Assad uses CW again? Another wave of bombs? Then another? Once force is used then you have to be in it to win it or you step back and look even more impotent having used force and failed to make a difference. Are we, the US or any other allies prepared to own the problem? 

 

Let's say the answer to that is yes and the goal is to remove Assad, replacing him with a secular democratic regime of some type. We know that the diverse opposition contains some well organised and vicious jihadi groups who want a Taliban style regime for the country. The FSA (mainly defectors from the regular army) won't wear that and do want a democratic state, so even if Assad goes you'll have another civil war grinding on and on, supported on the beardy side by Saudi and Qatari money and with the Iranians looking to destabilise whoever gets the upper hand. In to that mix we'd have to pour direct and massive support for the democrats in the FSA and probably reconcile them with the bulk of the army they are currently fighting in order to crush the militants and create the ground for an inclusive not sectarian society post regime removal/overthrow.

 

On the doing nothing option there is a danger (if not already reached) that Syria becomes a huge version of Lebanon in the 80's with Shia, Sunni, Christian and Druze all fighting each other and the place becoming a living hell.  It could be argued that with 4 million internally displaced and 2 million refugees in the near abroad (and at a rate that is increasing rapidly) Syria already is hell with the worst refugee crisis since WW2.  Does that in itself provide a moral imperative to act and if not, what level would have to be reached before it did? Is there even a point at which human becomes unacceptable and prompts action to try and address the root of the problem?

 

Obviously this reply covers far more ground than your question addressed but I don't think any of it can be looked at in isolation to get a satisfactory response. All I know is that I don't have the answers and I'm glad its not my decision to make.

 

Arab Spring, eh?  Not turning out too well for anyone.

[Awol]

Or, there is always this view to fall back on:

 

[coda]

The Washington Post says that this is a photo of Senator McCain playing poker on his phone during a debate which will lead to the murder of many thousands more people.

 

 

That's terrible. An iPhone.