Syria intervention even less popular than Congress

[rhoenix]

Well it does fall into a fine spectrum of fellow claimants as Ron Paul, Vladimir Putin, and Pat Buchanan. But shit, that's why there are people on the ground to sort this shit out.

Exactly.

[Josh]

Nothing's popped anywhere else yet, so I'm leaning toward bullshit on that one. If the Saudis are shipping nerve agent to the rebels it'd be such a mega-bombshell that everybody would be climbing all over it.

[rhoenix]

Nothing's popped anywhere else yet, so I'm leaning toward bullshit on that one. If the Saudis are shipping nerve to the rebels it'd be such a mega-bombshell that everybody would be climbing all over it.

I'm inclined to agree at this point, considering that was the only source I found for it all day today.

So yeah - claims of the rebels being surreptitiously armed with evil chemical weapons from their Saudi benefactors... not panning out here.

[frigidmagi]

Saudi Arabia is not known to have a stockpile of gas. Egypt is believed to have stockpiles of chemical weapons, as is Sudan but frankly... Wouldn't Occam's Razor suggest that the most likely origin of the gas is Syria. A nation known to have stockpiles and with reasons to deploy it? Not just having stockpiles, Syria has the most advanced chemical weapons programs in the middle east.

That said, I don't blame anyone who would think it possible. The rebels may have captured chemical weapons from the Syrian Army and frankly a bunch of Jihadist or militamen trying to figure out how to use chemical accidents? Accidents like this are frankly about what you could expect.

Additionally I wish to address this:

But until and unless the UN authorizes a strike by the USA and others, it would not be a legitimate use of power, because it is effectively declaring unilateral war on another country, even for a single strike. You can argue that something must be done, and I'd agree with you, even on a moral level - but to me, it sets a dangerous precedent. The existence of the UN was to resolve matters such as this, and the United States charging in with the mindset of "damn the boss, I know what I'm doing is right" without the authority to do so not only illegitimizes the UN, but sets the precedent that the country with the current most powerful military on Earth can act as its own international authority.

Let me make this clear. You are free to believe whatever you wish and I will defend your right to do so. That said, I completely and utterly disagree with such sentiments that we must go hat in hand to the UN and ask "Mother may I," before we act militarily. That basically declares that the US may only take what actions Moscow and Beijing agree with! I will not accept giving nations directly opposed to our interest such an extensive VETO on our actions! Especially since they do not act the same way. Did Russia go to the UN for authorization in it's actions in Georgia? Is the People's Republic going to ask kindly and politely in the matter of Taiwan or it's island disputes? For God sake's Rheonix the only reason the UN acted to prevent the conquest of South Korea by North Korea was because the USSR wasn't there to Veto the resolution (they had boycotted in a huff because the RoC was given the Chinese seat instead of the PRC) if they had been and the US had acted the way you say they should, there would be one Korea right now... UNDER KIM JONG UN! The guy who executes his rivals via motor fire! Does that sound like a better world to you?

You know who have the rightful power to decide whether the US should commit acts of war upon other nations? The US Congress. An organization who at least according to the Constitution we chose and we should at least believe is mostly more beholden to the American people and their interests then those of foreign nations states!

Finally, the UN was not set up to prevent any military actions or wars. It has done absolutely nothing in regards to bloodbaths in the Balkans or Sudan just to give two modern examples. If it was built to stop these, it should be regarded as an utter failure and laughing stock and perhaps even disbanded. The UN exists to prevent the Great Powers of the world from having another world war and to ensure there is at least 1 neutral zone in all the planet where everyone can at least talk to one another and communicate. The UN has no power expect that which it's Great Power members all agree they do. It has no ability to hamper or constrain a Great Power given that all the modern ones are on the Security Council and can Veto anything they care to.

Speaking of the US Congress, President Obama has declared he will seek their authorization before acting. I think it will be interesting to see what wins out. The GOP kneejerk to oppose the President on anything and everything (I bet 20$ says Paul Rand speaks against this) or the GOP kneejerk to blow things up. Honestly I give it 65/35 against, the GOP will see this as a golden chance to make President Obama look weak (nevermind this may be a ploy to give Old Barry an excuse to back down, he can blame it all on those mean Republicans next time McCain starts ranting). Although for my part I must say going to Congress makes me think better of him, even if it is just a cynical political ploy.

[rhoenix]

Well Frigid, this is now the second time you've rebutted some assertions of mine on something of a political nature, and the second time I feel completely unable to effectively argue against a single one of your points. Your points about the UN especially corrected a few misunderstandings I had about the entity itself and its purpose, which neatly holes subsequent arguments I could make on that topic. So, I say with sincerity - well played.

Havoc and I were discussing this a bit last night, before I made my 5am reply. In all honesty, after some self-reflection today after that hilarity of a "news" article I found and its subsequent fallout, I realized that all my arguments stem from an emotional argument, which is not one that can be effectively used to debate with in matters such as this topic - I get that war is necessary, I'm just tired of it.

That's pretty much what lies behind all my amusing attempts at debating in this thread - and it seems silly in retrospect for myself, as a civilian who has never volunteered for any branch of the armed forces or fought in any war personally to feel this way, but my reluctance to agree with the idea stems completely from just feeling sick of having yet another war.

And yet, as I type those words out, I have to grant that war is sometimes necessary, and that my understanding of the situations, people, and events in question are certainly not more than a layman's. It could very well be my cynicism toward such that drives every single one of the arguments I've advanced, and as such, it would be dishonest for me to continue without at least acknowledging that.

With all that said Frigid, you have pointed out that President Obama made his case for such a strike, and has now sent it over to Congress for approval. At this point, I'm going to wait and see.

[Josh]

There's nothing wrong with being wary of getting into a war. It should be our default state of reasoning- you can't take it back when the shit starts to fly.

I still question the rationale behind this and honestly feel that if the president hadn't made a firm red line statement on the matter we wouldn't be doing it. I'm especially not happy with the fact that what appears to be on the table is a half-ass bombardment that'll bounce some rocks and maybe kill some regime flunkies and civilians, which isn't going to make much of an impression on anybody not directly related to the dead and wounded. It's a return to the nineties and Clinton bullshit, except without the wag the dog aspect.

[B4UTRUST]

If we get into this with Syria, so be it. It will be what it will be. But the bombing will come at a cost that is not political or militaristic. As awesome as our military technology is, as accurate as our bombs and munitions can be, they are not 100% guaranteed to hit their target or work as intended. Frigid, I'm sure, could probably tell you this far better than I could from a boots on ground perspective and having had to deal with artillery strikes and bombing runs. We are good. We are very good at military shit. There is no question about that whatsoever. But not every bomb will hit its target and not every one will explode as intended. A portion, however small, will miss or not detonate. This portion of misfires can result in deaths of civilians and damage to personal property not involved in the conflict. It can also result in unexploded munitions left laying around for someone to accidentally detonate later or that fall into the hands of our targets to be used against us or others or worst of all, end up with some poor kid unknowingly playing with a live explosive.

If we bomb Syria, we bomb Syria. But there will probably be a cost that is not militaristic or political involved.

[Josh]

Yeah, that is one aspect that gets me about the whole 'protecting civilians' aspect, because in a situation like this you're going to inevitably end up killing civilians in order to save civilians. An article I read a while back pointed out that even when you have top-flight guys like in the Bin Laden raid, you still ended up with around 1/5 of your people shot not being targets. (The daughter, in this case, and the wife is arguable.) Even when you have some of the best in the business, shit's going to happen.

That's not to say that the Bin Laden raid wasn't a necessary thing, but this shit always has a price attached to it. David Drake said it once- “The use of force is always an answer to problems...[It] isn't an attractive answer, though.”

My honest opinion in the end is that our interventions should by and large stick with either situations where we have a defined interest involved (Korea being the example that came up earlier in the thread) or in situations where we know that intervention will probably have a decisive result. There's no way we could plausibly conduct a decisive intervention in Syria to 'protect the civilians' that wouldn't inevitably lead to us killing civilians. Now if one could make a plausible case that we would be doing a greater good in terms of saving a greater number than we'd be killing, that'd be another situation altogether. However given the fucking abysmal state of this civil war, that case can't really be made.

[frigidmagi]

Some additional news:

France believes Syrian government behind the chemical attack

France says the chemical attack near Damascus last month "could not have been ordered and carried out by anyone but the Syrian government".

A report presented to parliament by Prime Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault says the assault on 21 August involved the "massive use of chemical agents".

It concludes that at least 281 deaths can be attributed to the attack.

France and the US are pushing for punitive military action, which the UK parliament rejected last week.

Continue reading the main story
Analysis

image of Jeremy Bowen
Jeremy Bowen
BBC Middle East editor, Damascus
I think people I've spoken to within the Syrian regime quite like being eyeball-to-eyeball with the US. I think they believe President Obama is bent on attacking Syria, in fact that's what they say quite openly.

So while they describe the US decision to refer it to a vote in Congress as wisdom, they say it should also go back to the UN and that any action would be illegal if it didn't get UN authorisation.

Since the Russians have said very openly in the Security Council that they wouldn't vote to authorise anything like this, and President Obama has said he's very comfortable going ahead without a Security Council resolution, that means in a sense, in the eyes of the Syrian regime, the battle lines are now drawn, and they are trying to get themselves ready for whatever happens.

Damascus ponders looming US attack
In pictures: Tension in Syria
Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has again denied carrying out a chemical attack, telling the French newspaper Le Figaro it would have been "illogical".

He also warned that foreign military action could ignite the "powder keg" of the wider region.

Vote pressure
The chemical attack took place in the Ghouta, an agricultural belt around the capital, Damascus.

The US put the death toll at 1,429, including 426 children and has blamed the Syrian government, based on its intelligence.

On Monday Mr Ayrault made public France's nine-page report into the incident, drawn up by military and foreign intelligence services.

It says Syria's arsenal of chemical weapons is "massive and diverse", comprising "several hundred tons" of the nerve agent sarin and "dozens of tons" of the most toxic known agent, VX.

The Syrian army had already used chemical weapons, including sarin, against the population several times, says the report, but on 21 August it launched an attack which involved "massive use of chemical agents".

The use of chemical weapons can only be authorised by President Assad or "certain influential members of his clan", says the report, while opposition forces lack the capacity to carry out such a large-scale chemical attack.

After his meeting with MPs, Mr Ayrault told reporters: "France is determined to penalise the use of chemical weapons by Assad's regime and to dissuade with a forceful and firm response."

He said France would not act alone and that President Francois Hollande was "continuing his work of persuasion to bring together a coalition".

President Hollande is constitutionally able to order an attack without parliamentary approval.

French MPs are due to debate the issue in an extraordinary session of parliament on Wednesday. However, Mr Ayrault has ruled out a vote.

UK MPs voted last week against taking part in military action.

The US Congress will vote after it reconvenes next week, and White House officials have said that when it comes to a vote, they believe there will be enough support for the president.

Senator John McCain, a long-time advocate of arming the Syrian rebels, said he believed it would take time to convince the American public of the need to intervene.

But he warned it would be "catastrophic" if Congress were to go against President Obama and vote against intervention.

Mr Obama has often said that using them would cross a "red line" that would prompt US intervention.

"It would undermine the credibility of the United States of America and the president of the United States. None of us want that," he said.

Nato Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said on Monday he was personally convinced that a chemical attack took place and that the Assad government was responsible.

But he added that he did not envisage any further role for Nato, saying he would expect any military response to be "a very short, measured, targeted operation" and that the alliance's resources would not be needed.

Meanwhile fighting has continued across Syria, in a conflict which has already left an estimated 100,000 people dead since 2011.

In other developments:

A BBC poll shows about three-quarters of the British public believe MPs were right to reject UK military action in Syria in a vote last week
UK Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg said parliament will not vote again if stronger evidence of a state chemical attack emerges
Russia's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov says the US intelligence blaming Damascus is "absolutely unconvincing"

Bluntly the Russians wouldn't be convinced if Assad confessed on primetime TV. So their opinion is rather worthless to me.

Syria crisis: MPs 'right to reject military action' - BBC poll

Almost three-quarters of people believe MPs were right to reject UK military action in Syria, a poll commissioned by the BBC has suggested.

The poll also suggested 72% did not think the move would damage the UK-US relationship - and two-thirds said they would not care if it did.

ICM Research spoke to 1,000 adults in England, Scotland and Wales by telephone between Friday and Monday.

Downing Street has said there will be no second Parliamentary vote on Syria.

The government lost last week's Commons vote on supporting, in principle, military action against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's in response to a suspected chemical weapons attack.

'Firmed' opinion
The BBC poll suggested 71% of people thought Parliament made the right decision.

By a small margin, a greater proportion of men - 72% - thought MPs made the right decision than women, where 70% agreed.

The BBC News Channel's chief political correspondent Norman Smith said the BBC poll appeared to suggest that public opinion had "firmed up" against any military action in Syria.

He said that underlined the difficulty Prime Minister David Cameron had in trying to bring any debate back to Parliament.

BBC poll results on Syria military action
Almost half of people questioned - 49% - thought the vote would hurt Britain's international reputation, with 16% believing it would hurt the country's reputation a lot.

But 44% thought it would not make any difference.

More than two thirds - 67% - thought the so-called "special relationship" between the UK and the US was not relevant in the modern age.

Those aged under 35 appeared a bit more concerned than most about the UK's standing, with 57% agreeing the country's reputation would be damaged.

BBC poll results on Syria military action
Voters appeared split on their opinion of the way the prime minister was handling the situation, with 42% disapproving and 40% approving it, giving him a net approval rating of -2.

Labour leader Ed Miliband had what was known as a "net approval rating" of -6 for his handling of the issue, with 33% of people approving of how he conducted himself and 39% having the opposite view.

However, the figures were significantly better than their wider recent approval ratings.

A poll for ICM in May of this year gave David Cameron an approval rating of -15 and Ed Miliband an approval rating of -22.

'No will'
During the period in which the poll was carried out, President Barack Obama said he would consult Congress about military action, and the US Secretary of State John Kerry said Washington had evidence that the nerve agent sarin had been used by the Syrian government during the deadly attack in Damascus.

But it appears that the British public have little appetite to participate in any joint military response, said BBC political research editor David Cowling.

"[There is] emphatic support for what the parliamentary parties have done, [and] emphatic views that this is not really damaging the special relationship, which I know is a matter of concern for many politicians," he said.

He went on: "What strikes me from this poll and other polls that we have seen is that the British public certainly don't have an appetite for our [military] engagement but also don't see any link between us and what is going on in Syria.

"Nobody underestimates or understates the appalling damage that has been done over the last two years in Syria but there seems to be no will at all for the British people to be engaged in any military activity."

The poll's findings are broadly in line with other opinion polls asking similar questions, which have also concluded that a substantive majority of people are against UK military involvement in Syria.

A YouGov poll of nearly 2,000 people on Wednesday suggested 50% were against a missile strike, while 25% were in favour.

Meanwhile, a poll of nearly 2,000 people carried out by Opinium Research for the Observer newspaper on Saturday found 60% were opposed to British military action.

The interviews carried out for the poll were then weighted to the demographic profile of all adults across Britain.

[General Havoc]

I've said what I have to say on this subject. I believe strongly that we have not only the right, but the duty to strike Assad and his military structure in response to this attack. Claiming that the UN has jurisdiction when they will not act regardless of the circumstances in Syria is an empty excuse. Even if they had jurisdiction, the UN has plainly abrogated its responsibilities in this regard. Russia has gone on record saying that all evidence of Syrian chemical warfare is fake, irrespective of what it actually says, and that they will not permit the security council to take action or even recommend sanctions. It is not acceptable for us to use that as an excuse to do nothing.

If we do not act after something like this, we deserve the world's scorn. Were I a Syrian, and we refused to act, I would spit in the face of every westerner I met for the rest of my life. This is not some theoretical exercise of power. Men, women, and children, were gassed to death with Sarin. And while I can understand arguments against striking Assad based on the political impossibility of the action or the inability to meaningfully harm his structure or the risk that such strikes do nothing but aid Al Qaeda, to make the claim that we should not strike Assad because it would be morally wrong to intervene in a situation where civilians are being slaughtered with gas requires a mindset that I never wish to understand, much less condone. It is my sincere hope that those who espouse it never find themselves in need of the assistance of anyone else.

We probably won't attack Syria, to be frank. And as such, given the arguments on display here, I do not believe there is anything else to say.

[Josh]

Well if we're on closing arguments.

I don't give a flying fuck what the Russians think, or what the UN thinks. The UN is the club where horrendous third world governments are put on an equal plank with governments that don't murder their citizens in basements. It's the same outfit that put Khadafi's Libya on the Human Rights committee or whatever the fuck it is, and there were actually people arguing that such postings for such countries encourages them to behave better. We saw how well that worked just a few years later. The UN can do good work, like relief and so on, but when it comes to world governance it's a chattering society.

As for the Russians, they have their own vested interest in the Assad regime, as well as an interest in drawing themselves standing up to us in a somewhat equal fashion. (At least for their own media.)

Now as to the moral wrong or right of it, I'll answer this: if we had a solution that involved the use of force but actually promised some sort of resolution that would be favorable to the populace, I'd be all for it. However, that sort of solution is the realm of magic and fantasy rather than reality. On the other hand if you say that slaughtering civilians is bad and therefore causus belli for an all-out aerial campaign that will, in and of itself, kill a not-inconsequential number of civilians in the doing then you're destroying the village to save the village.

This is one of those ugly situations where there is no good answer. At least when we assisted the Libyan revolution we had an opposition that wasn't eating hearts and bragging about the post-war genocide they intend on. That was an example of a situation where we could intervene in a decisive fashion and potentially save more than we wreck. With Syria that option isn't there.

It's tragic, it's disgusting, it's infuriating, but it's also a clear demonstration of how the world works in ways beyond our immediate fixing.