The Syrian Invasion

[Warren Dew]

So, where is the proof? http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/08/ ... ely-wrong/

Anyone interested?

I doubt anything is going to happen until the UN team comes back with some confirmation. A strike is going to be unpopular enough, but it'll be a public relations disaster if the UN inspection report is iffy.

But regardless of what the report says, China and (especially) Russia would still veto any military action.

It won't be a UN-sponsored action. But the US/UK/France/whomever else is going to want UN-produced verification that chemical weapons were used.

Are they? My understanding is that our Secretary of State Kerry said it was "too late for inspections".

After all, we waited last time, and then UN inspectors said the attacks were by the rebels. Can't let that happen again.

[Ian]

Indeed. That was an allegation back in May. I don't think any evidence for it was brought out though.

[pErvinalia]

I couldn't be arsed chasing links down, but here's my understanding of a couple of the most recent points: The attack in May was confirmed (or as close to that as you'll get) as being done by the opposition. I thought the UN had made that confirmation. Perhaps it was someone else. Relating to the current inspection, I heard on our ABC (so usually pretty reliable) last night that the inspections aren't tasked with assigning blame, but only confirming if chemical weapons were used. If they find in the affirmative, it will say nothing about who used them (although, they might report off-record who is likely to be the culprit, you'd imagine).

An article today about the opposition:

If Barack Obama decides to attack the Syrian regime, he has ensured – for the very first time in history – that the United States will be on the same side as al-Qa’ida.

Quite an alliance! Was it not the Three Musketeers who shouted “All for one and one for all” each time they sought combat? This really should be the new battle cry if – or when – the statesmen of the Western world go to war against Bashar al-Assad.

The men who destroyed so many thousands on 9/11 will then be fighting alongside the very nation whose innocents they so cruelly murdered almost exactly 12 years ago. Quite an achievement for Obama, Cameron, Hollande and the rest of the miniature warlords.

This, of course, will not be trumpeted by the Pentagon or the White House – nor, I suppose, by al-Qa’ida – though they are both trying to destroy Bashar. So are the Nusra front, one of al-Qa’ida’s affiliates. But it does raise some interesting possibilities.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/com ... 86680.html

[Ian]

I think things are rarely as clear as most people (and media reporting) make them out to be. Assad's regime uses chemical weapons, so they face retaliation from an outraged world... okay, that's the simple narrative, but one should always ask: what's really going on here? Yes, Obama has expressly ruled out a goal of regime change, as he rightly doesn't want to get the US involved in another of of those messes, but with any military involvement there are secondary geopolitical effects to consider. What it might mean to Iran, to Israel, to Russia, to Turkey, etc... Moral outrage at the use of chemical weapons is not the end-all-be-all of this scenario.

[pErvinalia]

I don't even particularly believe the moral outrage. The US et al were happy for Saddam to gas Iranians back in the 80's, and both the US and Israel have used white phosphorous recently, which is akin, if not worse, to gassing people. I just figure there's got to be a political motive. Unless this really is a rare case of the dog wagging the tail and the body politic of the US is actually outraged and want something done. Although, I think I recall seeing a poll saying that the vast majority of US citizens don't want to go to "war" with Syria. Perhaps that's open to interpretation..

[cronus]

With Cameron it's re-election and he's seeking his Falklands factor to boost popularity. A bit dim he's no idea how this could spiral. With Obama he's got a massive supercomputer mapping this all out with strategic fine graining that make's it useless to figure where he's going between initiative and endgame(a return to total US hegemony). Anything throws the magic map off course and he'll be lost as everyone else, albeit with the advantage still.

[Pappa]

I think things are rarely as clear as most people (and media reporting) make them out to be. Assad's regime uses chemical weapons, so they face retaliation from an outraged world... okay, that's the simple narrative, but one should always ask: what's really going on here? Yes, Obama has expressly ruled out a goal of regime change, as he rightly doesn't want to get the US involved in another of of those messes, but with any military involvement there are secondary geopolitical effects to consider. What it might mean to Iran, to Israel, to Russia, to Turkey, etc... Moral outrage at the use of chemical weapons is not the end-all-be-all of this scenario.

Plus, any intervention should hopefully have the effect of ending further atrocities. It's not clear yet how this goal can be guaranteed.

[Svartalf]

It can't... it's putting out a fire with gasoline...

[cronus]

It can't... it's putting out a fire with gasoline...

Under cover of war and social chaos assassinations can be implemented removing potential kingpins of opposition for the next saga in October. Are you a eight move or three move player?

[Pappa]

It can't... it's putting out a fire with gasoline...

Which could easily lead to mission creep a little while down the line.

[Svartalf]

That's why I said the news "asserted"... I trust that as much as the word of a used car salesman.

[Clinton Huxley]

After we have blown up some command and control centres, some barracks and an orphanage, Assad will admit its a fair cop and agree to hand over all his Sarin gas.

[JimC]

Send in the French Foreign Legion!

[cronus]

Stakes ratchet up one. Iran plays a card and it's a good one in their circumstance.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/28/world ... .html?_r=0

Strike on Syria Would Cause One on Israel, Iran Declares

Iranian lawmakers and commanders issued stark warnings to the United States and its allies on Tuesday, saying any military strike on Syria would lead to a retaliatory attack on Israel fanned by “the flames of outrage.”

(continued)

[Svartalf]

Send in the French Foreign Legion!

Our best troops are too precious to waste in this quagmire. I hope my rulers agree with my view.