Chemical Attacks in Syria

[geonuc]

I dunno why I mention all this, I guess I just always found it politically interesting.

I don't either. Is someone suggesting Obama get impeached for threatening to bomb Syria? Or for not having already bombed Syria?

Dammit, I'm suggesting I was going to post in the other thread and did it wrong.

As if anyone would care on FWIS, what with our penchant for derailments.

[Sigma_Orionis]

We don't derail threads, that's a vicious rumor spread by the misinformation services of the evil empire to discredit us.

And in other news I stopped taking my meds, have decided that being deranged is much more relaxing.

(Now THAT's what I call a derailment )

[Swift]

And in other news I stopped taking my meds, have decided that being deranged is much more relaxing.

I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.

I put the FUN in dysfunctional.

[Rommie]

*checks that this is the correct thread*

Thought this comic was funny and sums things up well... link

[geonuc]

*checks that this is the correct thread*

Thought this comic was funny and sums things up well... link

Yep. Chemical weapons are bad news, but so if killing loads of people using more people-friendly weapons. Dead is dead.

[Rommie]

*checks that this is the correct thread*

Thought this comic was funny and sums things up well... link

Yep. Chemical weapons are bad news, but so if killing loads of people using more people-friendly weapons. Dead is dead.

Indeed. One of the more odd things I ever heard are those who lambast the use of nuclear weapons at the end of WW2 for the loss of life it incurred- not saying that was a hunky dory occasion, but usually when someone tells you that one can quickly establish they never heard of the firebombing in Tokyo or Dresden.

Apparently death by natural means is ok in many peoples' psyches, modern ones aren't, and I'm not sure why one is ethical and one isn't.

[geonuc]

I think the rational argument is that chemical, and nuclear for that matter, weapons are indiscriminate killers of innocent bystanders. And they are. But when you have a regime indiscriminately killing people with conventional weapons, that argument kind of loses the point.

[SciFiFisher]

I think the rational argument is that chemical, and nuclear for that matter, weapons are indiscriminate killers of innocent bystanders. And they are. But when you have a regime indiscriminately killing people with conventional weapons, that argument kind of loses the point.

I think it's a matter of scale too. The Dresden bombingcovered a span of 3 days and was comprised of almost 1300 bombers and over 3900 tons of munitions. Total death toll estimated at 25,000.

Hiroshima killed approximately 166,000 with at least 80,000 being attributed directly to the initial blast and many others dying within days to weeks afterwards. They dropped one bomb. The total number airplanes involved was 7 counting the back up plane carrying a second bomb in case the first one didn't go off. 3 were weather observation, 2 others were there simply to observe and measure the effects. Only one plane actually delivered a destructive force that was almost 7 times more devastating than the Dresden fire bombing.

Strangely, chemical weapons seem to strike fear into people somewhat out of proportion to their actual effectiveness. As the cartoon Rommie posted so aptly illustrates. While they are definitely ugly, nasty, cheap weapons of mass destruction (when compared to atomic bombs) they are not as devastating as nuclear weapons in many respects.

[The Supreme Canuck]

Indeed. One of the more odd things I ever heard are those who lambast the use of nuclear weapons at the end of WW2 for the loss of life it incurred- not saying that was a hunky dory occasion, but usually when someone tells you that one can quickly establish they never heard of the firebombing in Tokyo or Dresden.

Apparently death by natural means is ok in many peoples' psyches, modern ones aren't, and I'm not sure why one is ethical and one isn't.

Have you ever seen Errol Morris' documentary The Fog of War? It's essentially a very long interview with (former Secretary of Defence) Robert McNamara. It goes into a lot of stuff surrounding the Cuban Missile Crisis and Vietnam, but McNamara also speaks about the strategic bombing of Japan - he was under Gen. Curtis LeMay during the war. LeMay was responsible for firebombing and then atomic bombing the Home Islands. What McNamara had to say speaks directly to your comment.

He even admits to thinking of himself as a war criminal for being complicit in the firebombings.

Can't recommend that documentary enough.

[Parrothead]

http://www.rferl.org/content/iran-syria-us-rapprochement/25090005.html

I found that article and the other ones linked to within it, interesting.

Yup, the comic Rommie linked to echoes, what I've heard in radio and tv interviews, I heard seen the past couple of days. Even if it comes down to surgical strikes against Syria, many have mentioned, "What then?". Boots on the ground is not an option. If by fluke, Assad gets taken out in one of the strikes, who replaces him?, that could be even more problematic, for the region. Last I heard, the French are onboard as a coalition member. Any actions will happen without UN approval, due to Russia - China veto power at the Security Council. Perhaps, the time to strike was a year ago, when the first reports of chemical warfare came to light. Being in the midst of an election, better keeping with the "Osama's dead" line, then getting involved in a messy affair. Problem then as now, who exactly was responsible and not much knowledge (moreso now) of the composition of the "rebel forces". One thing I do agree with from what I've heard, it would be nice of some of those bordering and regional arab nations, would get onboard. With only "western nations" taking part, eventually, stuff/blame gets thrown back at them for creating the resulting mess. Wash, rinse, repeat.

[The Supreme Canuck]

Hm. Also interesting are points 7 and 8 from this article:

7. So why would Obama bother with strikes that no one expects to actually solve anything?

OK, you’re asking here about the Obama administration’s not-so-subtle signals that it wants to launch some cruise missiles at Syria, maybe with the United Kingdom, which it says would be punishment for Assad’s strongly suspected use of chemical weapons against civilians.

It’s true that basically no one believes that this will turn the tide of the Syrian war. But this is important: it’s not supposed to. The strikes wouldn’t be meant to shape the course of the war or to topple Assad, which Obama thinks would just make things worse anyway. They would be meant to punish Assad for (allegedly) using chemical weapons and to deter him, or any future military leader in any future war, from using them again.

8. Come on, what’s the big deal with chemical weapons? Assad kills 100,000 people with bullets and bombs but we’re freaked out over 1,000 who maybe died from poisonous gas? That seems silly.

You’re definitely not the only one who thinks the distinction is arbitrary and artificial. But there’s a good case to be made that this is a rare opportunity, at least in theory, for the U.S. to make the war a little bit less terrible – and to make future wars less terrible.

The whole idea that there are rules to war is a pretty new one: the practice of war is thousands of years old, but the idea that we can regulate war to make it less terrible has been around for less than a century. The institutions that do this are weak and inconsistent; the rules are frail and not very well observed. But one of the world’s few quasi-successes is the “norm” (a fancy way of saying a rule we all agree to follow) against chemical weapons. This norm is frail enough that Syria could drastically weaken it if we ignore Assad’s use of them, but it’s also strong enough that it’s worth protecting. So it’s sort of a low-hanging fruit: firing a few cruise missiles doesn’t cost us much and can maybe help preserve this really hard-won and valuable norm against chemical weapons.

You didn’t answer my question. That just tells me that we can maybe preserve the norm against chemical weapons, not why we should.

Fair point. Here’s the deal: war is going to happen. It just is. But the reason that the world got together in 1925 for the Geneva Convention to ban chemical weapons is because this stuff is really, really good at killing civilians but not actually very good at the conventional aims of warfare, which is to defeat the other side. You might say that they’re maybe 30 percent a battlefield weapon and 70 percent a tool of terror. In a world without that norm against chemical weapons, a military might fire out some sarin gas because it wants that battlefield advantage, even if it ends up causing unintended and massive suffering among civilians, maybe including its own. And if a military believes its adversary is probably going to use chemical weapons, it has a strong incentive to use them itself. After all, they’re fighting to the death.

So both sides of any conflict, not to mention civilians everywhere, are better off if neither of them uses chemical weapons. But that requires believing that your opponent will never use them, no matter what. And the only way to do that, short of removing them from the planet entirely, is for everyone to just agree in advance to never use them and to really mean it. That becomes much harder if the norm is weakened because someone like Assad got away with it. It becomes a bit easier if everyone believes using chemical weapons will cost you a few inbound U.S. cruise missiles.

That’s why the Obama administration apparently wants to fire cruise missiles at Syria, even though it won’t end the suffering, end the war or even really hurt Assad that much.

[Swift]

Much edited quotes to make my point:

Strangely, chemical weapons seem to strike fear into people somewhat out of proportion to their actual effectiveness. As the cartoon Rommie posted so aptly illustrates. While they are definitely ugly, nasty, cheap weapons of mass destruction (when compared to atomic bombs) they are not as devastating as nuclear weapons in many respects.

Hm. Also interesting are points 7 and 8 from this article:

Fair point. Here’s the deal: war is going to happen. It just is. But the reason that the world got together in 1925 for the Geneva Convention to ban chemical weapons is because this stuff is really, really good at killing civilians but not actually very good at the conventional aims of warfare, which is to defeat the other side. You might say that they’re maybe 30 percent a battlefield weapon and 70 percent a tool of terror. In a world without that norm against chemical weapons, a military might fire out some sarin gas because it wants that battlefield advantage, even if it ends up causing unintended and massive suffering among civilians, maybe including its own. And if a military believes its adversary is probably going to use chemical weapons, it has a strong incentive to use them itself. After all, they’re fighting to the death.

So both sides of any conflict, not to mention civilians everywhere, are better off if neither of them uses chemical weapons. But that requires believing that your opponent will never use them, no matter what. And the only way to do that, short of removing them from the planet entirely, is for everyone to just agree in advance to never use them and to really mean it. That becomes much harder if the norm is weakened because someone like Assad got away with it. It becomes a bit easier if everyone believes using chemical weapons will cost you a few inbound U.S. cruise missiles.

I think the article TSC quoted exactly answers Fisher's question.

I'm not sure we any longer appreciate how much WWI shocked people, particularly things like chemical warfare. There was a truly global decision that this was a line too far. I quoted early in this thread the number of countries that have signed the convention against chemical weapons and it is as much as it ever gets, the entire world.

As the article points out, maybe it is a gesture, but it is an important gesture. We as a species have decided that the use of these weapons is a crime against all of humanity. If we ignore such a crime, we are inviting others to do it.

[FZR1KG]

Between WWI and WWII and for a few years after WWII you had to be a big power (if not a super power) to even get the worlds attention.

Look at how Israel was formed immediately after WWII. A handful of countries decided the Jews needed a country of their own. Viola! Hello world, my name is Israel. I love puppies and if I win the contest I will be a homeland for those of the Jewish faith. Oh, and I believe we should give world peace a chance.

Now, if you tried something like that no one would be able to agree and it would take 50 years just to get the UN to agree to pass a resolution that sort of, kind a, suggested that the UN thinks it's a good idea but it still needs everyone to agree.

That's because the three vito'ers will never let anything pass.
Never forget, the US is one of those three.
Not that I'm saying you are, but, many Americans throw crap at the UN because they can't pass anything but fail to acknowledge that the US is one of the three powers that can vito any resolution and it exercises that.

Next up, don't get me going on how many Americans complain about how much the US puts into the world bank without understanding that is exactly how the US wants it and rejects offers by others to put in more.

[geonuc]

Actually, there are five countries with permanent veto power in the UN Security Council. France and the UK also are included, along with US, China and Russia.

[Parrothead]

Putin demands proof Syrian gov't behind use of gas:

http://www.rferl.org/content/syria-us-poised-to-act/25091456.html

Of course, any kind of strike carried out, will lead to Assad's supporters dragging out bodies of civillians killed and blaming "The West" and stoke more anti-american sentiment.

My reading of Putin's viewpoint:

Putin said it would be "utter nonsense" for the Syrian government to use chemical weapons when its forces are winning in the fight against rebels.

"Common sense speaks for itself. The Syrian government forces are advancing, in some regions they have surrounded the rebels. In these conditions, to give a winning card to those who are calling for a military intervention is utter nonsense," Putin said.

"It does not fit any logic, especially on the day of the arrival of the UN inspectors, so I am convinced that it is just a provocation by those who want to pull other countries into the Syrian conflict, who want to gain support from powerful international players, first of all -- the United States" ...

Putin said Obama, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate, should consider potential victims of a military strike.

Shouldn't he then be prepared to support UN intervention, not use his veto power and get China onboard too, if the inspectors do find chemical weapons were used, regardless if it is Assad's regime or not. Russia is a signatory to the chemical weapons ban treaty, his ally Syria is not. Where is wikileaks now, it would be interesting to have diplomatic cables between Russia, Iran and Syria, suddenly pop up in the press, especially if it turns out Assad's regime is behind the use of chemical weapons. If the UN can't support intervention, Kosovo does provide precedent outside of the UN. Can Turkey help find regional support for any action, not the usual "we support the idea something must be done, but we won't let you cross our airspace to do so".

[The Supreme Canuck]

Where is wikileaks now

Crushed for speaking up when it was inconvenient. Now we don't get to benefit from them when it is convenient. Whoops.

If the UN can't support intervention, Kosovo does provide precedent outside of the UN.

Not really, according to this law professor (his specialty is "international humanitarian law" - which is what we call the law of war these days):

President Obama mentioned that the U.S. is actively looking at Kosovo as a precedent. In a legal opinion published Thursday, the UK stated that if Security Council approval is blocked by veto, then unilateral intervention is deemed permissible in extreme humanitarian crises.

The broad consensus among international lawyers is that Kosovo is not a precedent for this proposition.

In Kosovo, Russia never vetoed a resolution that would have authorized intervention (they merely hinted that they might), no NATO government justified its intervention in Kosovo on a general legal right to humanitarian intervention (they were extremely fuzzy, when not simply silent, as to its legal basis), and the Responsibility to Protect later adopted by the UN explicitly removed any suggestion of unilateral intervention (developing countries were forcefully against the idea). Kosovo is a precedent that stands for the failure by NATO to engage with the international community, however slow and painful that may be, despite a claim to be acting in the name of humanity as a whole.

(Emphasis added)

[Sigma_Orionis]

Where is wikileaks now

Crushed for speaking up when it was inconvenient. Now we don't get to benefit from them when it is convenient. Whoops.

Crushed? they seem pretty healthy to me And asking for donations too

Apparently the move by VISA and Mastercard to deny them of donation funds hasn't worked all that well

Since late 2010, credit card donations to us have been blocked by VISA and MasterCard, in an effort to suppress our public interest publishing activities. The blockade is still in effect, but as of Summer 2012, there are ways around it. There is no legal basis for the blockade, as attested by US Treasury Secretary Timothy C. Geithner. We have won several victories against the banks in the courts, and we will continue to fight the banking blockade. Your donations will help us.

Sure, Bradley is in jail, and ASSange is still holed up at the Ecuadorian Embassy in the UK, but Wikileaks doesn't seem dead to me.

[The Supreme Canuck]

Huh. I was under the impression that it had been shuttered.

[SciFiFisher]

Huh. I was under the impression that it had been shuttered.

More like, laying low, hoping that they won't find themselves being prosecuted.

[Sigma_Orionis]

Well Well, the Buggers HAVE published info on Syria, but it seems that the latest of the stuff is from March 2012.

I guess that what they published ain't all that juicy, apparently, AP in the US gets the scoop on whatever WIkileaks finds.

[Swift]

Where is wikileaks now, it would be interesting to have diplomatic cables between Russia, Iran and Syria, suddenly pop up in the press, especially if it turns out Assad's regime is behind the use of chemical weapons.

wikileaks isn't interested in justice, or fair reporting, or even The Truth. They are interested in embarrassing the Western nations, particularly the US and the UK. They could care less how many innocent Syrians are killed by the Syrian government. Now, if they show the US somehow killed them, that would get their attention.

IMO

[geonuc]

Where is wikileaks now, it would be interesting to have diplomatic cables between Russia, Iran and Syria, suddenly pop up in the press, especially if it turns out Assad's regime is behind the use of chemical weapons.

wikileaks isn't interested in justice, or fair reporting, or even The Truth. They are interested in embarrassing the Western nations, particularly the US and the UK. They could care less how many innocent Syrians are killed by the Syrian government. Now, if they show the US somehow killed them, that would get their attention.

IMO

I hadn't considered that. Whatever one may think of Wikileaks an Assange, I was under the impression that there wasn't a bias against western powers. That would be the first time in the history of the universe were that to be so, but it shows my ignorance of the organization (wikileaks, that is).

[Rommie]

Where is wikileaks now, it would be interesting to have diplomatic cables between Russia, Iran and Syria, suddenly pop up in the press, especially if it turns out Assad's regime is behind the use of chemical weapons.

wikileaks isn't interested in justice, or fair reporting, or even The Truth. They are interested in embarrassing the Western nations, particularly the US and the UK. They could care less how many innocent Syrians are killed by the Syrian government. Now, if they show the US somehow killed them, that would get their attention.

IMO

I hadn't considered that. Whatever one may think of Wikileaks an Assange, I was under the impression that there wasn't a bias against western powers. That would be the first time in the history of the universe were that to be so, but it shows my ignorance of the organization (wikileaks, that is).

I think swift has a fair point here on all this. I further note that wikileaks is nowhere near as omnipotent as people seem to think they are (were?) when it comes to securing diplomatic cables and the like, as their main trove came from folks like Manning who are now in jail.

My proof of this is if they were that awesome, why on Earth would Snowden not have recruited their assistance for his own leak? Surely it should be better to collaborate with folks who already know the ins and outs of how to out major world governments than go it alone.

[Rommie]

So apparently Obama is going to ask Congress for assistance.

Good. But then part of me wonders- who is pro-war with Syria in the US? Because just from monitoring the news and the Facebook posts of various friends, the Democrats certainly aren't interested because of post-Iraq PTSD (so to speak), and my Republican acquaintances are all some sort of combination of isolationist and no way we want to support anything Obama wants. Polls show more than half of Americans don't want a war, and these days Congress is hyper-sensitive to polls, so just who are they expecting to vote for it?

My only idea is Obama knows he likely won't win this battle but he doesn't want history to later say he didn't try anything, and he won't face re-election so it doesn't matter to him if he appears weak if he gets voted down on this. Or something like that, because I really can't think of another reason around it.

[SciFiFisher]

And just to be sure that the waters are as muddied as possible. There are a number of stories that the Syrian rebels accidently gassed their own people.

Even NPR is carrying a story that the rebels "might" have done it but that the logical candidate is Assad because the Syrian army has control of the weapons and the training to use them. And if it were the rebels then the US and Syrian assessment that the chemical stockpiles are secure would be wrong. Oh, so we are going with a hypothesis because (now) we want the US to be right?