Syria Gas Attack- What Now?

[RetPara]

What I remember is that it was sprayed from aircraft during the day. In the Kurd's instance there was no medical/rescue people except other Kurds from surrounding areas. This attack happened in 1988. The medical team that went in there did arrive till 1993/94 time frame. Their report was not circulated very widely in the US.

 

[Marauder06]

I really wish I could like this post most that once.

Well said Sir. I see you are paying attention in those IR classes.

It was all that NCO supervision I had on the first day of class

 

[Diamondback 2/2]

@Marauder06 I don't disagree with your logic or your POV, especially regarding our economic standing. My problem with Syria is that we're allowing Russian & Iranian support to the Assad government, that has always been anti-American. Regardless who (rebels or government troops) is using the chemical weapons there, I do believe its a situation that we should attempt to shape and influence. Especially where these chem-wpns are coming from and where they may end up.

I don't think Russia or Iran will posture if the UN or an alliance of countries take out (as in air strikes) the Assad regime. But I may be very wrong.

On the other side of this, the Syrian people. How are we supposed to win over ME populations when we have the power to help them and continue to fail in doing so.

I don't think Iraq was a mistake or a war we should not have been involved in. I think we made some major fuck ups and prolonged the occupation, especially by disbandment of the government services, etc. I also think we promised unicorns shitting rainbows, when we should have STFU and focused on empowering the Iraqis, but that's a moot point now.

The overall issue I am having is here we are watching a country be influenced by two countries we don't want influencing the ME, and chemical weapons are being used, yet we sit on our ass and say it not our problem. I guess we will get involved once one of those chemical weapons finds its way into one of our cities....of course at that point it will be way too fucking late.

 

[SpongeBob*24]

We are broke because the Liberals won't kick out illegals and are more corrupt then the mafia.
They want to tax the rich and let the freeloaders continue to...well...live for free.....:wall:

Did Iraq and Afghanistan add to this debt? Yes, but we could climb out if we had a strong plan.
Neither war would have been more then a year 2 tops if we had generals who weren't punks and we weren't bombarded with the Liberal Media plugin constantly feeding the public with lies.
However we don't have a strong plan.
We have some blackmail called a sequester where people agreed to disagree and our ALLIES were forced to give up their HOLY grail....aka the Military.
I am still wondering what the Liberals had to give up.....

Back to what SOWT said, is this attack an act of fiction or the real deal, I don't know!....

However.....I think we should go in and show both sides who owns the lunch room.
That's right syria give us your lunch money....we want some chocolate milk.

It isn't a matter of world POLICE, its a matter of keeping that crap out of our Borders.....

 

[Salt USMC]

Thank you, Spongebob, for taking a well-reasoned and earnest discussion of issues and turning it into the comments section on a FoxNews.com article

 

[SpongeBob*24]

Thank you, Spongebob, for taking a well-reasoned and earnest discussion of issues and turning it into the comments section on a FoxNews.com article

Your welcome......

 

[Marauder06]

@Marauder06 I don't disagree with your logic or your POV, especially regarding our economic standing. My problem with Syria is that we're allowing Russian & Iranian support to the Assad government, that has always been anti-American. Regardless who (rebels or government troops) is using the chemical weapons there, I do believe its a situation that we should attempt to shape and influence. Especially where these chem-wpns are coming from and where they may end up.

I don't think Russia or Iran will posture if the UN or an alliance of countries take out (as in air strikes) the Assad regime. But I may be very wrong.

On the other side of this, the Syrian people. How are we supposed to win over ME populations when we have the power to help them and continue to fail in doing so.

I don't think Iraq was a mistake or a war we should not have been involved in. I think we made some major fuck ups and prolonged the occupation, especially by disbandment of the government services, etc. I also think we promised unicorns shitting rainbows, when we should have STFU and focused on empowering the Iraqis, but that's a moot point now.

The overall issue I am having is here we are watching a country be influenced by two countries we don't want influencing the ME, and chemical weapons are being used, yet we sit on our ass and say it not our problem. I guess we will get involved once one of those chemical weapons finds its way into one of our cities....of course at that point it will be way too fucking late.

I'm not sure what will happen if we help topple the Assad regime. But based on what I see right now, whatever takes over will be far less stable, and far less in our national interests, than what is currently in place.

I think the war in Iraq was a TERRIBLE idea. It was the wrong enemy, at the wrong place, at exactly the wrong time. I think everything about that war was wrong, from the theoretical underpinnings that drove what we expected the results would be, to the amount of effort that would need to be expended, to the "intelligence" that supported preventive war. It was a bad idea, all around. It still would have been a bad idea, even if it would have worked. But I think anyone who closely studied history, even going back as far as the Peloponnesian War, would have predicted that Iraq was a complete over-reach for the US.

There were other countries that deserved our "attention" a whole lot more than Iraq did. In some ways, Iraq under Saddam Hussein would have been a stabilizing force in the region- or at least it would have been more stable than it has been for the last ten years. With all that effort we put into Iraq, we took our eye off the ball in Afghanistan, and instead of having Iran bracketed on the east with a (relatively) stable and (kind-of) pro-Western Afghanistan, and unfriendly-to-the-US-but-really,really hate the Persians" Iraq on their west, we have a completely lost cause in Afghanistan and a more-pro-Iranian-by-the-minute Iraq.

As far as winning over the people of the ME, I don't think it's possible. The worldview of so much of the populations of those countries is so diametrically opposed to what we do, I think any attempt to use force to implement change is destined for utter failure. I can think of two real-world, right-now examples of that, and I think you can too since I know you served in at least one of them.

Some people aren't ready for democracy, and some people only understand raw physical force. Some people don't understand the truth of that last statement.

We have tried for decades to win over the people of the Middle East. They are not win-able, at least not in a way in which we keep our current value system. We have poured billions upon billions into the region... and we have very little to show for it.

We are broke because the Liberals won't kick out illegals and are more corrupt then the mafia.
They want to tax the rich and let the freeloaders continue to...well...live for free.....:wall:

Did Iraq and Afghanistan add to this debt? Yes, but we could climb out if we had a strong plan.
Neither war would have been more then a year 2 tops if we had generals who weren't punks and we weren't bombarded with the Liberal Media plugin constantly feeding the public with lies.
However we don't have a strong plan.
We have some blackmail called a sequester where people agreed to disagree and our ALLIES were forced to give up their HOLY grail....aka the Military.
I am still wondering what the Liberals had to give up.....

Back to what SOWT said, is this attack an act of fiction or the real deal, I don't know!....

However.....I think we should go in and show both sides who owns the lunch room.
That's right syria give us your lunch money....we want some chocolate milk.

It isn't a matter of world POLICE, its a matter of keeping that crap out of our Borders.....

There are plenty of things I blame Liberals for, but the war in Iraq was not one of them. IMO it was the NeoConservatives, with their misplaced faith in the Democratic Peace Theory, that was most responsible for leading us down that road.

 

[Diamondback 2/2]

@Marauder06 I'm conflicted with your post, as I agree and disagree with much of it. But to keep with the threads intention I'm ganna limit my response to Syria and leave the Iraq war for another thread.

If Assad regime stays in power, we supposedly have already supplied weapons to the rebels. Where will that regime sit after this "civil war"?

Russian influence, if they start to take the lead in the ME how will we maintain our interest without getting into another cold war.

Iranian influence, if we allow Iran to grow their influence over more of the ME. How will combat the arms race that will inevitably follow (Iran pushes on to nuclear weapons) so what happens with the Suadi's, etc.

If we full stop in the ME in our support, influence and democratic pushes. Who will fill the void and how will it affect us in the future, especially regarding future terrorism?

 

[Marauder06]

OK, let's set Iraq aside for a second, although I tend to believe that the past is a primary indicator of the future, and that we cannot divorce ourselves from relevant history when we consider current events.

I think it is highly likely that without major US involvement, the war ends with Assad still in power. And frankly, I don't have a problem with that. I think the best option for the US is for Assad to survive, but to be severely weakened. If he goes, the most likely outcome is a Syria that's either factionalized with no central control, or a Syria overtaken by Islamists, who are already better organized, better armed, and have more of the population behind them than pro-Western factions. "Stable but weak" Syria is much better for the US, IMO, than "unstable and run by Islamists" Syria.

I want to make it clear that I don't think we should do "nothing" in Syria, I just don't think we should do "everything," which is what our country tends to want to do every time we see a problem in the world. I think we have national interests in Syria; we don't want the weapons that are there to be used against Americans or our allies, and we don't want the country to become a failed state, because AQ or some other group will use that country, and its resources, to affect American interests. We don't do a lot of trade with Syria but we do some, and we want to make sure their civil war doesn't spill over into other nations that we care about in the region more than it already has.

So I think most people agree the US should do "something" in Syria. The question is what that "something" is. I think an indirect, covert, economy of force mission is much, much better than overt kinetic ops. Even if an external military effort is required at some point, I don't think the US should lead it. Turkey is a NATO member, has a competent military, and oh yeah shares a border with Syria. Why aren't they massing troops and getting ready to go in on the ground? Why aren't they scrambling jets to enforce a no-fly zone, or to establish sanctuary areas inside Syria? Well, I don't know for sure why. It may be because the US advised them not to. Or it might be because Turkey has a much more realist view of the situation, and knows that large-scale kinetic ops run the risk of dragging them into a quagmire and bringing them into conflict with other powerful nations with which they prefer not to tangle.

Now, at this point, we have to bring Iraq back in, because the parallels between Iraq and Syria are too great to ignore. Syria and Iraq are/were run by ruthless secular Baath party dictators who had no love for the US. But we knew who they were, and although they frequently did things we didn't like, we understood them and were able to deal with them on some level because they felt they had something to lose. After Saddam fell, the country fell apart because the people were too fractured and there wasn't something strong enough to hold them all together. Islamists moved in, and what was a relatively stable country, and certainly an effective counterbalance to Iran, suddenly wasn't anymore.

The same thing would, IME, happen in Syria. The Syrians as a country aren't ready for Western-style democracy. Even if they had free and fair elections today, they would likely end up with the Syrian version of Palestinian Hamas, which would probably be worse for the US than if Assad stayed in power. Assad tried early on in his reign to institute some limited Western-style reforms when he took power, and ultimately his people appreciated it so much they rebelled against him.

So yes, let's do "something" in Syria, but let's approach the problem with a firm understanding of the situation and from the "what's in it for us?" mentality. We don't need any more wide-eyed naivety driving us to yet another conflict our country doesn't have the will to let us win. Limited, covert operations in Syria? I'm all for it. I hope it's going on already; I think we have a collection of copper-faced EFPs we picked up in Iraq, that I would LOVE to be "given" back to their original owners. But not full-on, overt, kinetic ops. We've been down that road before, and I think we all know how it ends.

 

[goon175]

another conflict our country doesn't have the will to let us win.

And there is the throat punch. Regardless of if it is right or wrong to go in, I don't think our country has the palette for anything outside of a Grenada/Panama-type timeline.

 

[surgicalcric]

And there is the throat punch. Regardless of if it is right or wrong to go in, I don't think our country has the palette for anything outside of a Grenada/Panama-type timeline.

Exactly!!! And without the support of the nation for our men to do what needs to be done it is wrong IMNSHO to put more men into harms way. I would rather arm both sides and let them kill each other. As long as they are fighting among themselves they dont have the time to plan attacks here.

 

[surgicalcric]

If Assad regime stays in power, we supposedly have already supplied weapons to the rebels. Where will that regime sit after this "civil war"?

Adequately covered by M06 so no need to rehash the same POV.

Russian influence, if they start to take the lead in the ME how will we maintain our interest without getting into another cold war.

Russian influence over the ME is what it is. Our influence in the ME, notwithstanding being in open conflict, is pretty much limited to nations such as Qatar, Bahrain, UAE, and Lebanon sometimes. Basically countries who have had western influence for many years - British and French mostly and who like women and money. Getting involved in the Syrian conflict isnt going to tip the number of muslims who like us significantly, remember their news sources arent exactly fair or balanced.

Iranian influence, if we allow Iran to grow their influence over more of the ME. How will combat the arms race that will inevitably follow (Iran pushes on to nuclear weapons) so what happens with the Suadi's, etc.

The influence Iran has is what it was before the conflict. They have been helping all the shit head terrorists from the sidelines for many years. The US being there wont change that - I give you the Republican Guard's meddling in Iraq and Astan as examples of their efforts in the midst of our presence. Iran will continue to push for nuclear arms despite our wishes for them not to or the UN Security Council's weak policies and resolutions against such.

I dont believe Saudis actions can be tied to our actions in the Syrian issue. SA is skeptical of Iran's intentions and even though SA is a [behind closed doors] sponsor of terrorist activities the Persians brand of support for such activities is quite radical to the point of making the Saudi King nervous. IMO the King will turn a blind eye to actions aimed at stopping/stalling Persia's pursuit of nuclear arms even if its Israel.

If we full stop in the ME in our support, influence and democratic pushes. Who will fill the void and how will it affect us in the future, especially regarding future terrorism?

There are plenty of players who could fill the void but hypothetically I am not sure it will be just one nation state. That said, we wont be coming to a full stop. We just wont be choosing sides in a shithead vs shithead fight, one I am all for watching from the sidelines while the Agency arms both sides IOT eleminate as many of them as possible without us having to see US soldiers come home in flag draped coffins.

As for the democratic process, it isn't a one size fits all form of governing - there are people's who need to be ruled by the iron fist of a dictator or warlords as some people aren't ready for the responsibility of democracy. We would do well as a nation to stop pushing it on people.

Future terrorism; before we start contemplating the who's and from where's it would be a far more useful debate to concern ourselves with closing off our borders thus controlling their ability to walk unfettered into our country. That said, we will continue to hunt down the leaders and play whack-a-mole as required. The problem is as soon as we kill a "leader" there is another stepping into the void. And until we are serious about dealing with it we will continue the game of F3 as they continue to exploit our weaknesses as a nation to deal with a geo-political system of ideals founded in "The Religion of Peace." We are too soft...

 

[AWP]

Russia and Syria have a long track record of working with each other. We aren't going to roll in there and supplant their influence. Russia's designs on the region go back to the Great Game to at least as far as the Persian Gulf. Any attempts to replace Russian influence will take decades. As horrible as it may sound, I think we're better off with a weakened, pro-Russian Assad than the other possibilities. I don't like it, I think it sucks, but as we here in America justify who we vote for in each election: the lesser of two evils.

 

[Diamondback 2/2]

Good points made by all, I'm still a bit conflicted with the idea of not getting involved but do understand the idea of pitching both sides against each other.

As for what happened or is still happening in Iraq, I guess I have a different view of it. So I'll start another thread about Iraq a little later. I would like to further debate Iraq, as my understanding may be a little narrow or off track from others.

As for this thread, I'm pushed outside of my knowledge level and will need to do some.more research before re-engaging the topic. I appreciate all the responses to my posts and questions.

 

[surgicalcric]

Good points made by all, I'm still a bit conflicted with the idea of not getting involved ...

What are you conflicted about?

 

[Brill]

And there is the throat punch. Regardless of if it is right or wrong to go in, I don't think our country has the palette for anything outside of a Grenada/Panama-type timeline.

So don't put the shit on the news for politics sake! Send guys who will take care of things and let them live in their black world of shadow wars. The US could learn a lesson from the IRGC-QF.

Covert action is a viable tool in the foreign policy arms room.

 

[surgicalcric]

Covert action is a viable tool in the foreign policy arms room.

Not in the US it isnt; politicians cant take credit for that stuff and as such they arent interested in effect based solutions only affect based ones.

 

[Diamondback 2/2]

What are you conflicted about?

1) Feeding both sides weapons and hope they kill each other.

2) Assad remaining in power is a good thing.

3) Not attaining positive control of the Chemical weapons.

4) Another unstable country in the ME.

5) The follow on affects of all of the above.

Again I am tracking on the view points you guys are giving. A lot of it makes sense and I'm inclined to agree with some of it. However, I am conflicted with the above and I am trying to understand how it becomes a good thing for the region and the USA moving into the future.

That's why I would like to do some more research on the population, history and economics of Syria, before continuing the debate or possibly reversing my opinions/stance on Syria.

 

[JHD]

I don't know if the potential outcomes are good things for anyone, but what is the "less bad" outcome for the US? Both sides of this fight are anti-US.

I have zero military background, but it seems to me e only good outcome IF the US gets involved is to go in like we mean it and totally dominate and run the show our way. And i don't think that will happen as the politics involved wont allow the military to do what they need to do.

But the ME has been in conflict for centuries. The only thing they seem to understand is brute force, and the only thing that brings stability is a totalitarian regime. Anything less, and it seems there will still be conflict.

I don't see us changing their minds at all with any approach we take. And if we are not in it to win it, we should stay out.

 

[Marauder06]

1) Feeding both sides weapons and hope they kill each other.

2) Assad remaining in power is a good thing.

3) Not attaining positive control of the Chemical weapons.

4) Another unstable country in the ME.

5) The follow on affects of all of the above.

Again I am tracking on the view points you guys are giving. A lot of it makes sense and I'm inclined to agree with some of it. However, I am conflicted with the above and I am trying to understand how it becomes a good thing for the region and the USA moving into the future.

That's why I would like to do some more research on the population, history and economics of Syria, before continuing the debate or possibly reversing my opinions/stance on Syria.

It is totally legitimate for you to feel conflicted. People are people wherever they happen to live, and it sucks to seem the innocent suffer. People with our (Western) values, value human life and freedom.

It's kind of like the drowning child argument; if we see a kind drowning, we have an ethical responsibility to save him, even if it means we get our own clothes a little wet and muddy. Right?

Except that this analogy has fatal flaws when it's applied to the international system. It is NOT my responsibility to save anyone, when it means risking my own life, or neglecting the safety of my own children who are swimming elsewhere. And how many times do I have to jump in and save that same kid, anyway? Where are his parents, or the other parents from his neighborhood? And the "little wet and muddy" bit is a complete fallacy. It's physically perilous anytime you go in to save anyone, anywhere. Even if you're successful, people will be ungrateful, will still hate you, and will try to exploit your attempts at helping them, to make money for themselves. Like... I don't know... the people who are trying to sue the UN because they think peacekeepers triggered a cholera outbreak. That's cool Haiti; sue away, good luck with getting rebuilt the next time a natural disaster hits your corrupt, backwards country...

We have to be careful where we expend our resources. Our country is in a shambles economically and heavily divided politically. Our military is overstretched. There is a lot of fragility in our system, and another time/treasure/talent consuming expedition could damage us even further. Our national policy towards Syria and every other hotspot in the world should be one of realism, not idealism. I'm personally much more concerned with Egypt than I am Syria, simply because of the geography. I'm concerned that we have "red lined" ourselves into something we don't really want to do in Syria.

But anyway, it's OK to be conflicted. We should never be so callous as to simply accept human suffering, but we need to have priorities. It is a far greater crime to neglect our own people and cause them long term suffering, than it is to neglect the immediate suffering of others.