Syria What do you think we SHOULD do

[blueash]

The sabers are rattling ever more loudly. Echoes of the buildup to Iraq can be heard. Our country may be very close to punishing Assad for his (do I need to say alleged) use of chemical weapons in Syria's civil war.

I am not interested in political noise. I am interested in how Villagers see the role of the US in the world. As background the use of chemical weapons was banned in the aftermath of WW I. As such it differs from slaughtering your enemies with guns, or bombs, or drones, or rockets or even nuclear devices all of which are allowed in the "right" circumstances by international agreement.

There is no provided penalty for the use of chemical weapons. We did not act against Saddam when he used them in his war against Iran. In fact there is some evidence we facilitated his use.
How the U.S. helped Saddam Hussein use chemical weapons against Iran (http://news.yahoo.com/u-helped-saddam-hussein-chemical-weapons-against-iran-161600457.html)

For the moment take as a given that the recent use of chemical weapons was an act of the Assad government . (the other theory being that the rebels gassed their own side using rockets known to be used by Assad in an attempt to make it look as if Assad did it to provoke international action)

Should we as the only military super power act in some forceful way to deter this Syrian regime and any future regimes from thinking they can get away with using such weapons?

Should we say that whether Syrians gas each other is none of our business and let them kill each other as long as it doesn't impact the homeland?

Should we mount a campaign to neutralize the Syrian military by degrading their air force, communications, army bases? Or do we mount an attempt to specifically target Assad and take him out?

If you were Assad how would you respond to an American attack against you? Would you attack US interests in the area, attack Israel, resign and apologize, use the rest of your chemical weapons, do nothing?

I have no answers but I hope we ask the right questions.

[rubicon]

Perhaps the starting point for discussion here begins with the issue of who was more likely to have possession of stock piles chemical weapons? the likely candidate would be Assad. secondly who would be more likely to use chemical weapons? In my view it would be unlikely that rebels would be foolish enough to use chemical weapons against their own for fear if found out it would be a bigger crush to their movement than any Assad could create. It is likely that Assad based on his background would drop a nuclear bomb if he believed it would yield results.

The next question is why should America involve itself in this civil war. to that I respond ask Iran ask Russia, ask Turkey.

The fact is that if Assad wins the middle East will fall county by country and if any reading this still have a fear of what terrorism is doing to America now can you imagine what it will look like if Assad prevails.

I question whether America is any longer a super power.

In my view we should have intervened earlier however we can no longer sit by and let this fester any longer. We need a strategical strike on getting Assad and his chemical weapons to begin

[gomoho]

If we strike - how do we get out??? Made this same mistake too many times. We can certainly go in and accomplish a goal, but fall short of what to do then. Without a specific exit plan we better wait to enter. My heart aches for the people of Syria, but we can't destroy our country in an attempt to save theirs.

[Villages PL]

If we don't go in, we don't have to worry about how to get out. Punishment can be accomplished without going in, assuming that "going in" means boots on the ground. Rockets can be fired from ships at sea and bombs can be dropped by planes. Or, we can use drones. One day "shock and awe" and we're done.

[quirky3]

This is probably simplistic, but I don't understand why the U.N. doesn't sponsor action instead of the U.S. taking action on their own. I also agree about having an exit plan before seriously considering going in.

[billethkid]

I say do not "go in". It will be another Iraq.

I support sending in missles to take out any and all supply routes to and from suspected gas stockpile areas. Cripple railways and highways.

Neutralize the airbases that have planes that support the civil war.

And then get out of the way and let them do their thing as they have been for hundreds of years.

For those who favor "going in" or boots on the ground what would be the objective? Democracy? As in Afghanistan and Iraq? I hardly think so.

The only real objective, the one our allies are stating....punish Syria for using chemical weapons on it's own people. There is no need for anything else.

NO BOOTS ON THE FROUND. NONE! NO FINANCIAL AID (you know the old saying of go to war with the USA and loose (then become another country sapping our dollars).

We need to be disengaging the middle east....not getting in deeper.

btk

[eweissenbach]

What BTK said! :agree:

[Moderator]

Please address the topic at hand and refrain from any associated political connections.

Moderator

[Monkei]

This was my main concern about the two wars we are already in. Mainly, how do we know if we won, how do we know when it's over. The defense contractors continue to eat at the trough.

We did not do anything to Iraq when they used chem weapons against Iraq. I see no reason to do so now.

Stop feeding the real pig here, the war profiteers.

[gomoho]

So allow the innocents to be murdered??? I don't know the answer, but what if Hitler hadn't been stopped? It's not cut and dry - it is very complicated and there is a humanitarian issue.

[JP]

Stay out and get the heck out of the middle east. Start acting like China in foreign relations.

[Monkei]

So allow the innocents to be murdered??? I don't know the answer, but what if Hitler hadn't been stopped? It's not cut and dry - it is very complicated and there is a humanitarian issue.

There have been many occasions and situations where innocents were killed and massacred and we did nothing to stop it. We just cannot be the policeman of earth.

If this country went out and took care of all the bullys in the world we would constantly be at war. Since we can't do that, it's better if we just stick to trying to figure things out here in this country. Stop spending $ abroad fighting and then rebuilding the same country we just fought.

I can think of a ton of things that need fixed in the US before we rebuild another country.

[blueash]

Interesting commentary so far. Interesting to see people who are often not in agreement on issues, seemingly congruent on this one. In the interest of continuing the thinking I will try to address a couple comments.


The UN is not going to do anything here as Syria is a Russian ally. One important factor to remember about Russia is that it has a serious problem with Islamic independence movements. The Russians have been strongly supportive of any government that is more secular against any more fundamentalist opposition movements. Russia will not be allowing any UN action and will use its veto. China likely would also oppose UN action as it does in almost all cases.

I see general agreement that we don't want American ground forces. I don't yet see the outlines clearly of what our bombing accomplishes if we only weaken Assad as he may take out his revenge on his own people and likely consider making Israel a target which would be an invitation for a massive Israeli response. I don't know that they would be a passive player like they were for Saddam when the scuds landed in Israel and they did nothing thus preserving the Bush alliance of the willing in the first Gulf War.

[gpirate]

If we strike - how do we get out??? Made this same mistake too many times. We can certainly go in and accomplish a goal, but fall short of what to do then. Without a specific exit plan we better wait to enter. My heart aches for the people of Syria, but we can't destroy our country in an attempt to save theirs.

First off shut off the foreign aid. Who has any idea whom it is going to and seems to have not worked in the past. Never send troops into this war. With all the weapons we have we could take out all the chemical weapons without a soldier being on their soil.

[Duckfinger2]

These groups have been fighting for hundreds of year's, we may slow it down for a while but histroy says they will go right back to fighting after we pull out or stop the action. We have enough concerns within our own country to apply those dollars to.

[Monkei]

I am having a real problem with this line in the sand stuff over chemical warfare. We let Ethnic cleansing go on without interfering we allow people to starve because our aid is stopped by guerrillas and thieves, in the end it is a bitter death for others who afforded a much better outcome as did the chem weapons. Unfortunately we cannot pick and choose no matter how much we would like to.

Stopping aid I am sure is not going to work I think Russia would just fill in the gaps. But I am not against trying it.

[Villager Dude]

So allow the innocents to be murdered??? I don't know the answer, but what if Hitler hadn't been stopped? It's not cut and dry - it is very complicated and there is a humanitarian issue.

I am not sure what authority the US has to strike Syria. I think the US should wait for a UN resolution and if it does not come then do not get involved. If it comes make sure you are just a participant with other nations.

Also based on the circumstances I do not believe the President has the authority to strike without congressional approval.

[skip0358]

I am not sure what authority the US has to strike Syria. I think the US should wait for a UN resolution and if it does not come then do not get involved. If it comes make sure you are just a participant with other nations.

Also based on the circumstances I do not believe the President has the authority to strike without congressional approval.

I agree 100%. IF the UN doesn't support this stay out period. No boots on the ground period. No prolonged engagement. We've been through enough. We can't afford another war and we're downsizing our military. Let someone else be the policemen period. JMO

[blueash]

Interesting how many are saying, if I am reading this correctly, that the US and whatever coalition it can develop, cannot act unless the United Nations says ok! Many Americans have, in other circumstances, loudly complained that the US should not in any way be restricted by the UN or any world court or any international law. The expression is often stated that our elected officials take an oath on our Constitution not the UN charter ....

Interesting comment on ethnic cleansing. If any non-UN major military intervention was a success it was the NATO action in Yugoslavia. The UN specifically did not support it as both Russia and China opposed it in the Security Council, but similarly the UN was unable to pass a resolution condemning the act. NATO acted to stop Serbian actions against Albanians in Kosovo. The theory of the legality of that military action was that instability in Yugoslavia could spill over into neighboring countries and destabilize the entire region. Couldn't that same argument be made here, that use of chemical weapons if ignored by the international community would so destabilize that the failure to respond would amount to appeasement?

That future tyrants would calculate that as long as they only use poisons on their own citizens they can do it with impunity? Remember that one of the major justifications for our Iraq war number 2 was the claim that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and would use them. Those weapons were chemical weapons, recalling Sec. Powell showing those photos of "mobile labs" to the UN. The arguments against the military action at the time was not that we shouldn't act if he had WMD's but whether our information was adequately accurate of the existence of WMD's which Saddam said he had already destroyed, admitting to past possession only. The US has at least a recent history of strong leadership in trying to prevent chemical warfare from being an option. Chemicals are, unlike nuclear weapons, easy to make and easy to use. If we don't act does that make us the Neville Chamberlain of this situation?

[Bay Kid]

+-100 women and children killed? How many women and children will be killed if we attack? Sounds like someone is baiting us to attack. Oh, STOP giving money away to people that hate us.

[keithwand]

Keep out.

[Taltarzac725]

U.N. Council set for Syria clash as West readies attack | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/28/us-syria-crisis-idUSBRE97K0EL20130828)

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/08/27/20209022-military-strikes-on-syria-as-early-as-thursday-us-officials-say?lite

I see no reason for any US or other European troops on the ground in Syria but the stockpiling and extremely probably use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime is deeply troubling. The US and other powers should be able to just target areas where there would be little or no civilian casualties like military airfields and the like.

[blueash]

And now just being reported

Exclusive: Intercepted Calls Prove Syrian Army Used Nerve Gas, U.S. Spies Say | The Cable (http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/08/27/exclusive_us_spies_say_intercepted_calls_prove_syr ias_army_used_nerve_gas)

Quoting from that article, and its important commentary:


an official at the Syrian Ministry of Defense exchanged panicked phone calls with a leader of a chemical weapons unit, demanding answers for a nerve agent strike that killed more than 1,000 people. Those conversations were overheard by U.S. intelligence services, The Cable has learned. And that is the major reason why American officials now say they're certain that the attacks were the work of the Bashar al-Assad regime -- and why the U.S. military is likely to attack that regime in a matter of days.

But the intercept raises questions about culpability for the chemical massacre, even as it answers others: Was the attack on Aug. 21 the work of a Syrian officer overstepping his bounds? Or was the strike explicitly directed by senior members of the Assad regime? "It's unclear where control lies," one U.S. intelligence official told The Cable. "Is there just some sort of general blessing to use these things? Or are there explicit orders for each attack?"

If this was a rogue officer rather than official government policy, does that make it better? Why would there even be chemical weapons available? Or was the call a deliberate deception knowing we would hear it and giving Assad plausible deniability?

[TOTV Team]

Too many users have made political references. Thread closed now as a result.