Is the US Red Line in Syria Just Empty Rhetoric?

[russ_watters]

[April 26, 2013]
The UN says the death toll is 70,000, with roughly eighty percent being civilians. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Syrian_civil_war

So my question is: how many is enough?

Now the number is over 100,000, with around 1,500 of them killed by chemical weapons. Clearly, the answer to my 5 month old question is that that's not enough. So I have two new questions:

1. Does anyone actually believe there won't be more?
2. Is there any number that is enough? 500,000? A million?
3. What will the next cruel dictator think when he's considering using chemical weapons and sees the world community did nothing to stop Syria from using them?

 

[lisab]

Now the number is over 100,000, with around 1,500 of them killed by chemical weapons. Clearly, the answer to my 5 month old question is that that's not enough. So I have two new questions:

1. Does anyone actually believe there won't be more?
2. Is there any number that is enough? 500,000? A million?
3. What will the next cruel dictator think when he's considering using chemical weapons and sees the world community did nothing to stop Syria from using them?

1. There will be more, sadly.

2. No idea. This whole thing has had me in a dilemma since the beginning -- as MarneMath puts it, we seem to be trying to solve unsolvable problems in the ME. I keep wondering how our response would be were it not for our Iraq involvement. From a practical standpoint it make sense to consider the other wars we are involved in before getting into a new one. From a moral standpoint, it doesn't, though.

3. This is what worries me most, and it's why I think we can't let this go. We need to really get this guy. As The Economist put it, Hit Him Hard.

I should add, in my opinion, that "red line" was there before Obama pointed it out to us. I'd feel the same way about this issue even if he had not mentioned it.

 

[nsaspook]

It is a bit vague, but that's what it appears to me Obama is saying: http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...19213c-125d-11e3-b4cb-fd7ce041d814_story.html
What war crime would that be? Where is that written? I've never heard of any such thing.

Sorry, but Obama is simply not telling the "whole" truth and I think it's the main reason he punted it to congress (the real military requirements are much larger than what can be justified by the war powers act). This is Joint Chiefs Chairman General Martin Dempsey a month ago.
http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2013/...ntion-is-act-of-war-that-could-cost-billions/

Options to prevent the use and proliferation of chemical weapons would also include lethal force through the destruction of known stockpiles, movement interdiction, or through the physical seizure of known chemical weapons sites.

Dempsey said this option would also require a no-fly zone along with "air and missile strikes involving hundreds of aircraft, ships, submarines."

"Thousands of special operations forces and other ground forces would be needed to assault and secure critical sites," Dempsey wrote. "Costs could also average well over $1 billion per month."

Indiscriminate effects from the targeting of NBC weapons must be very carefully controlled. If you need to destroy them it's your responsibility (within reasonable limits) to reduce human suffering because of your actions. The general knows the rules and requirements for targeting CW so I'm not surprised at his costs or troop needs to get the job done.

http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/RC-Weapons.pdf

 

[nsaspook]

3. This is what worries me most, and it's why I think we can't let this go. We need to really get this guy. As The Economist put it, Hit Him Hard.

From The Economist

So Mr Obama should focus on the third option: a more limited punishment of such severity that Mr Assad is deterred from ever using WMD again. Hitting the chemical stockpiles themselves runs the risk both of poisoning more civilians and of the chemicals falling into the wrong hands.

"Hit Him Hard" still leaves him with CW, a weaken military to control that CW and even more brutal attacks to maintain control with the forces he will have left. "launch a sustained assault with the clear aim of removing Mr Assad and his regime" is the only true military option but there is nothing outside of a direct attack (aka 9/11 via Syria) that can justify that. I also don't think we should "Do nothing", there are plenty of ways to affect that country without overt military power if we could get Russia to decide the current Syrian regime is not in their best interest.

 

[chemisttree]

The only real option we have is to arm the rebels and hope. If the Islamists take over, then our option changes to 'regime change' behind the scenes and we secretly support a Not-A-Coup all the while acting completely impotent.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Legal apprehension? Please tell me you are joking, Ryan? How exactly would that be possible?

No, not joking. You know how your country ran a mission in another without asking them and assassinated Bin Laden? Like that but with a UN mandate and a goal to capture and drag to The Hague rather than kill.

 

[kith]

1. Does anyone actually believe there won't be more?
2. Is there any number that is enough? 500,000? A million?
3. What will the next cruel dictator think when he's considering using chemical weapons and sees the world community did nothing to stop Syria from using them?

1. No
2. There is no fixed number. Maybe something like "much more than in comparable civil wars"
3. The prerequisite for a situation like in Syria is that it is not clear who the bad guy is. So it doesn't apply to most cruel dictator situations and the rational dictator knows this.

Questions to you:
1. How do you determine who the bad guy is? (Assad's motive to use chemical weapons is weak, Assad's acceptance among the population is high, militant islamists are fighting against him)
2. Why are you so confident that there will be less victims in a scenario where the US intervene compared to a scenario where they do nothing?

 

[mheslep]

...
2. Is there any number that is enough? 500,000? A million?

Rwanda: as high as one million. No intervention.

 

[mheslep]

Ryan:

A bloodless (attempt) at police action for legal apprehension could be run by any country with some cops, some hand cuffs, a couple helicopters, and maybe some night vision. A Luxembourg or an Estonia has that much capability. Certainly the UK. Plenty of time to execute such a mission at the moment, i.e. a grab operation of a sitting dictator and maybe a dozen or so in the military chain of command. Good luck.

 

[amonraa]

russ_watters, obviously you hate Assad or any secular government who enforces the idea of Arab or Levant region nationalism which protect all sects and groups in that regions, from all religions whether they are minorities or not, they are all Levant's. For some reason this fact discomforts you and your alike. Would you side would extremist Jihadi Al Qaeda affiliated groups just to outset someone you hate? I understand your love for Israel but this guy at least respected the piece deal and protected the borders with Israel. Do you have any idea these group can do when your troops on the ground? What about other Assad's allies in the neighboring countries. Believe me they are much more powerful on the ground than yours. Obama is thinking and considering the consequences to his troops and to the entire region as well, things you apparently cannot see.
Second who made USA the police of the world? Who gave Israel the right to defend itself and act above all laws in the name of defending itself while no other country is allowed what Israel is allowed to do? Have you heard of Lebanon war 2006? Have you seen the killed children and infants using forbidden bombs? You will say their enemies were taking those poor civilians as shields, then I would ask you to say the same for great Syria which is fighting terror on its land.
Want to stop the war, there's one and only one easy way, stop supporting the Al Qaeda groups and ask their allies to take them out of Syria where they originally belong.

 

[lisab]

russ_watters, obviously you hate Assad or any secular government who enforces the idea of Arab or Levant region nationalism which protect all sects and groups in that regions, from all religions whether they are minorities or not, they are all Levant's. For some reason this fact discomforts you and your alike. Would you side would extremist Jihadi Al Qaeda affiliated groups just to outset someone you hate? I understand your love for Israel but this guy at least respected the piece deal and protected the borders with Israel. Do you have any idea these group can do when your troops on the ground? What about other Assad's allies in the neighboring countries. Believe me they are much more powerful on the ground than yours. Obama is thinking and considering the consequences to his troops and to the entire region as well, things you apparently cannot see.
Second who made USA the police of the world? Who gave Israel the right to defend itself and act above all laws in the name of defending itself while no other country is allowed what Israel is allowed to do? Have you heard of Lebanon war 2006? Have you seen the killed children and infants using forbidden bombs? You will say their enemies were taking those poor civilians as shields, then I would ask you to say the same for great Syria which is fighting terror on its land.
Want to stop the war, there's one and only one easy way, stop supporting the Al Qaeda groups and ask their allies to take them out of Syria where they originally belong.

Your post is all but unreadable.

When debating someone, it is quite rude to ask rhetorical question after rhetorical question.

It does not make you look thoughtful when you make wild assumptions and/or claims about the person you are debating. It makes you seem too emotional, even unstable.

Please read the guidelines before posting again:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=113181

 

[OmCheeto]

Good post.

I've never known hmheslept to make a bad post.

 

[jim hardy]

never mind ...

 

[AnTiFreeze3]

No, not joking. You know how your country ran a mission in another without asking them and assassinated Bin Laden? ...

There was a very understandable reason as to why the U.S. bypassed the involvement of the Pakistani government.

In addition to this, in an interview to Time magazine, CIA Director Leon Panetta stated that U.S. officials did not alert Pakistani counterparts to the raid because they feared the terrorist leader would be warned.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_support_system_in_Pakistan_for_Osama_bin_Laden

This isn't to say that I would be against a lawful prosecution of those responsible for the use of the chemical weapons, but the situations here are hardly comparable, and I inferred a bit of cynicism directed towards the decisions made by the U.S. wrt Bin Laden's assassination.

 

[chiro]

One side is saying that Syria did use chemical weapons while another side says that they didn't (i.e. the Syrian government/military/police).

Someone is obviously lying.

For a situation as serious as this, people should give very very specific reasons why they would trust one group over the other as well as looking at the history of the actions of each group in a careful manner.

The US unfortunately doesn't really have a good track record when it comes to wars whether acting as a primary agent or in more of a supporting role. Some of these things have been highlighted by a few members already.

If anyone here is going to sell their ideology and support to a related action, they need to answer the above question (i.e. why we should trust them taking into account their history without any form of fabrication).

 

[russ_watters]

You believe the Syrian government over the US despite Syria having killed 100,000 in the conflict we're discussing? You know what, set that aside for now. Forget if you believe the US over Syria: Do you believe Germany? France? The UK?

You're making a big mistake by framing this as a US vs Syria issue.

 

[russ_watters]

1. No
2. There is no fixed number. Maybe something like "much more than in comparable civil wars"

Fair enough. As others have suggested, the range is pretty wide there. Only 10,000 or so were dead in Libya before we acted. A million in Rwanda with no action.

3. The prerequisite for a situation like in Syria is that it is not clear who the bad guy is. So it doesn't apply to most cruel dictator situations and the rational dictator knows this.

I'm talking about the use of chemical weapons. The guy who uses chemical weapons is "a" bad guy, if not "the" bad guy.

The rational dictator will recognize from this that use of chemical weapons does not automatically elicit a military response. That, IMO makes the world a more dangerous place. Worse, the rational dictator will see us doing nothing to stop nuclear powers like North Korea and conclude that even chemical weapons aren't enough: dictators need nuclear weapons.

Questions to you:
1. How do you determine who the bad guy is?

Using chemical weapons makes Assad if not "the" bad guy at least "a" bad guy.

(Assad's motive to use chemical weapons is weak...

Not really, no. He's been embroiled in a civil war for two and a half years. I would think that that would be starting to wear on him and make him want to try to end it.

...Assad's acceptance among the population is high...

I doubt that, given that the civil war started with several months of nonviolent civil uprising, which Assad responded to with utter brutality. But even if true, that wouldn't make the use of chemical weapons morally acceptable.

2. Why are you so confident that there will be less victims in a scenario where the US intervene compared to a scenario where they do nothing?

I base it on our response in Libya. Conveniently, the number of people killed by the coalition airstrikes and no fly zone in Libya is similar to the number killed by Assad in this chemical weapons attack. That means we only have to stop the next attack (and most seem to agree there will likely be a next attack) for it to even out. And that's even setting aside the fact that our airstrikes will kill mostly military while the chemical weapons attacks killed mostly civilians.

In the long term, the calculus is more complicated of course, but the smart money is on this getting a lot worse before it gets better. It would be difficult to see how rebels with limited resources could make it worse than Assad is capable of.

 

[russ_watters]

No, not joking. You know how your country ran a mission in another without asking them and assassinated Bin Laden? Like that but with a UN mandate and a goal to capture and drag to The Hague rather than kill.

Bin Laden was not a head of state and as such there was neither the legal issue nor the practical issue of how physically defended Assad is. They aren't even close to similar in their logic/implications. As far as I'm aware, no sitting head of state has ever been arrested by an international police force or other country's law enforcement (you weren't clear on exactly who would do the arresting). Assuming it would even be possible, such an act would be no less an act of war than bombing him and would carry more follow-through responsibility (if one assumes it exists) than a non-decapitating attack on his warmaking ability.

It is difficult for me to see this as more than a calculated failed fantasy. Could you explain in more detail just how you think such a thing could be made to happen?

Expanding;
Only one person has been indicted by the ICC while still in power; the President of Sudan, in 2008. The arrest warrant is active, but no one seems interested in pursuing him. He's visited several countries since then, including China:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omar_al-Bashir#Arrest_warrant

"Crimes against humanity" under the ICC would appear to me to be a legitimate basis for going after Assad:

For the purpose of this Statute, "crime against humanity" means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:[23]

(a) Murder;

Further:

UN Security Council Resolution 1674, adopted by the United Nations Security Council on 28 April 2006, "reaffirms the provisions of paragraphs 138 and 139 of the 2005 World Summit Outcome Document regarding the responsibility to protect populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity".[20] The resolution commits the Council to action to protect civilians in armed conflict.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimes_against_humanity

Extension:
So there is legal verbiage that appears to me to compel international action here. And Obama has said he wants to act, but is trying to jump through legal hoops to make it acceptable. But here's my problem with that: that's politics getting in the way of doing what is morally right. The legality of Obama going completely alone at this (no UN, no Congress) might be questionable, but preventing him from doing it, much less punishing him for it would be utterly impossible. Examples abound for both Obama, his predicessors and our allies and adversaries flouting the letter of the law when it suits them. In most of these cases, the reason is more about politics than about doing the right thing:

-China declining to arrest Bashir (above).
-The coalition (Clinton) utilizing NATO instead of the UN against Milosevich.
-Internally, multiple separation of powers fights, analogous to the issue on the international level:
-----Arizona challenging lax enforcement of immigration law; US government sued and won.
-----(related) Obama trimming immigration laws by selective enforcement.
-----Obama trimming drug laws by selective enforcement.
-----Obama shutting down the Yucca mountain nuclear waste repository, being sued for it, and losing.

Plenty of people - Obama included - have shown a willingness to flout the law when they feel like it and think they can get away with it. If there is ever a Right reason to do it, upholding international law unilaterally due to the failure of the international community to do so would be a Right reason.

It appears to me that Obama has backed himself into a tight corner with both his campaign promises (to not be like Bush) and his "red line" comment. Adhering to the letter of the law here would allow him a way out of that corner, but not one I think History would deem acceptable -- it would just provide him good company. My preference, though, is for our leaders to actually lead. If Obama really thinks action is Right and isn't just saying he thinks it is because he stuck his foot in his mouth and doesn't want to admit he erred, he should act and unapologetically explain why. He should say: "Murdering civilians with gas is wrong. Helping the Syrian people free themselves of a murderous dictator is right. And shame on all of you in the international community (and maybe Congress too...) for failing to do your moral duty. Anyone have a problem with it? Come see me: I live at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave."

Or if he really doesn't want to, say so too. Admit the red line was a bluff that got called. Explain that these particular civilians aren't worth helping becasue we don't like either side of the war that is raging around them (but make it sound less heartless -- it is a legitimate position, even if it makes my stomach turn).

Own your decision. This is a Leadership Moment and that's what leadership means. Whether he does something or nothing, he should do it strongly and decisively.

 

[chiro]

You believe the Syrian government over the US despite Syria having killed 100,000 in the conflict we're discussing? You know what, set that aside for now. Forget if you believe the US over Syria: Do you believe Germany? France? The UK?

You're making a big mistake by framing this as a US vs Syria issue.

The sad truth is that people lie, exaggerate claims, or tag on to situations for their own benefit (i.e. not letting a good crisis go to waste).

The US hasn't really had a good track record of telling the truth. It doesn't matter if it was the Iraq war, Operation Northwoods, or something else.

I'm not believing anyone at the moment: I'm just pointing out that you need to give some very very good reasons to trust someone if you are going to argue that they are telling the truth.

Again, hopefully I don't have to point this out again - this is not an issue of taking sides: it's an issue of establishing trust on a basis with minimal bias and minimal "promise". Promises can be very empty and many promises are.

If you can not give a good enough justification why someone should be trusted (whoever that may be), then there is really no substance to the claim.

 

[russ_watters]

If you can not give a good enough justification why someone should be trusted (whoever that may be), then there is really no substance to the claim.

It would be best to let the evidence speak for itself, but if you would rather just pick a side to trust, logic would say one should not trust the side who's position is highly aligned with itself interests (Russia, Syria).

 

[Pythagorean]

I thought we were picking a side aligned with self interests? Islamist extremists that want to restore Islam to Syria (i.e. the "rebels").

 

[chiro]

Are you actually implying that the US doesn't have its own self-interests?

Also what do you have to say about the US track record regarding war and lying to not only its own people but countries abroad?

Trust often comes on foot but leaves on horse-back: how can you possibly expect credibility when you have situations like the Iraq war (and the lies that led to it) or similar situations? What about the situation involving Snowden confirming the massive spying that has taken place (that was previously denied)?

It seems that the above hint to what some of the US "interests" really are. Do you care to comment on this and the instances of the US outright breaching its trust?

 

[Evo]

One side is saying that Syria did use chemical weapons while another side says that they didn't (i.e. the Syrian government/military/police).

Please link to the mainstream sources of both of these scenarios so we can evaluate them. Please do this before posting again. It is against the rules to claim facts without backing them up with appropriate sources. Please read the rules for Current Events.

 

[kith]

You believe the Syrian government over the US despite Syria having killed 100,000 in the conflict we're discussing?

Using chemical weapons makes Assad if not "the" bad guy at least "a" bad guy.

But even if true, that wouldn't make the use of chemical weapons morally acceptable.

Again: these arguments assume that Assad is responsible for all the bad things happening which is the very fact I and others are questioning.

The rational dictator will recognize from this that use of chemical weapons does not automatically elicit a military response. That, IMO makes the world a more dangerous place.

I don't think that this is worse than always having a military strike without considering the specific situation.

Not really, no. He's been embroiled in a civil war for two and a half years. I would think that that would be starting to wear on him and make him want to try to end it.

His position is already much better than it has been in the past. I just don't think it is reasonable for him to take such a risk in this situation.

I doubt that, given that the civil war started with several months of nonviolent civil uprising, which Assad responded to with utter brutality.

Yes, initially his reputation was low but it got much better after militant islamists joined the opposition. Even NATO data suggests that Assad has strong public support (http://www.worldtribune.com/2013/05/31/nato-data-assad-winning-the-war-for-syrians-hearts-and-minds/ ).

In the long term, the calculus is more complicated of course, but the smart money is on this getting a lot worse before it gets better. It would be difficult to see how rebels with limited resources could make it worse than Assad is capable of.

This region is a powder keg and Syria is a key figure in the Arab-Israeli conflict. I can picture a lot of ways how militant islamists could make the situation worse than Assad slowly gaining back control over the country.

Also I don't think it is obvious what benefits the Syrian people the most:
-military support for the opposition
-military support for Assad
-no military intervention at all

 

[russ_watters]

Kith, you are questioning an awful lot of facts widely held to be true by the world community about events that have taken place over several years. I'm not interested in trying to prove every event over the course of a multi-year war to you. Its just seems to me to be the same stall/diversion tactic that Putin is using: say "prove it" over and over in response to anything and then not listen to any of the evidence, much less respond to it. It is an endless diversionary loop.

 

[russ_watters]

Are you actually implying that the US doesn't have its own self-interests?
...

It seems that the above hint to what some of the US "interests" really are. Do you care to comment on this and the instances of the US outright breaching its trust?

Again:
1. As pythagorean's sarcasm implies, the US/western position is largely AGAINST itself interests.
2. You are incorrectly focusing on the US (taking any opportunity to bash the US with irrelevant issues from the past). The western view is not a uniquely US position.

Your arguments mirror Putin's misdirection/distraction technique as well.

 

[Pythagorean]

Let's clarify. There is more than one chemical attack. Only one of them is claimed (by Russia) to be performed by the rebels. So there are three possibilities here, the third being that both of them have used chemicals. The only evidence for rebel use is that Hexogen was found (implying the weapon was improvised, not industrially made). I don't think this is the most solid evidence. After reading many reports, I agree with russ about the chemical weapons: evidence points to Assad in all but one case, and that case is weak.

However, the problem is that there's no scope about what a "punitive attack" is. Many (if not most) Syrian civilians do not want an Islamist government: they want a secular government that's tolerant of both secular and Christian ideologies. Since the rebels are now being backed by Islamic extremists like Al-Nursa, who have been designated as terrorists by US, AU, and UK, it's feared that attacks on Assad will allow Islam to be restored to Syrian politics.

Certainly, there are numerous human rights violations by both Assad and the opposition; so you run the risk of condoning (and assisting) the actions of one evil when you attack the other evil.

I'm all for a silent ninja destruction of chemical weapons, if that's possible... but I'm skeptical it is possible. Of course, people with a lot more ground truth than me know the answer to that better, so it's not really my place to judge. I just wonder if that's really what a "punitive strike" is.

 

[turbo]

No, not joking. You know how your country ran a mission in another without asking them and assassinated Bin Laden? Like that but with a UN mandate and a goal to capture and drag to The Hague rather than kill.

The choice to do the Bin Laden operation covertly was well-advised, IMO. Bin Laden's compound was in proximity to a Pakistani military compound, so it was a pretty good bet that Bin Laden was living there with at least tacit approval from the Pakistani government.

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/05/0...de-just-yards-from-pakistan-military-academy/

If Assad can be taken out with little loss of civilian life, I'm all for it.

 

[Dotini]

It is common sense that you should have rock solid evidence before killing a man.

Before we attack Syria and kill people, we should wait for rock solid evidence from the UN scientists. They will provide certainty that a chemical weapons attack took place, and what the chemical was. To emotionally stampede into what could easily lead to a wider war would later be seen as an avoidable calamity.

 

[russ_watters]

Why should Obama (or France or Germany) care about UN evidence if he already has evidence he trusts?

I don't believe that Putin will ever accept any evidence and the West already accepts it, so what additional value is would a UN report provide?

(Edit) Also, the UN is not investigating who used the chemical weapons anyway, so I see little value at all.

 

[Borg]

As far as I'm aware, no sitting head of state has ever been arrested by an international police force or other country's law enforcement (you weren't clear on exactly who would do the arresting).

Does this count? Operation Just Cause

 

[russ_watters]

Does this count? Operation Just Cause

Not really, no. We invaded with 27,000 troops. That illustrates my point: you don't just send a police force (or even a few dozen SEALs) to go arrest the dictator, you invade and defeat him, then capture and arrest him.

 

[kith]

Kith, you are questioning an awful lot of facts widely held to be true by the world community about events that have taken place over several years. I'm not interested in trying to prove every event over the course of a multi-year war to you.

I don't see where I am questioning "an awful lot of facts". If you claim that I do, at least state these facts.

Its just seems to me to be the same stall/diversion tactic that Putin is using: say "prove it" over and over in response to anything and then not listen to any of the evidence, much less respond to it. It is an endless diversionary loop.

Well, if the evidence looks like this I wouldn't blame him. I agree that the fact that intelligent services from different countries have claimed to have evidence in the last days makes it more plausible that the regime is responsible than only the US claim. I just don't like this "we know how things work, but it's classified" because this is so prone to abuse. In my opinion, the way to go is to publish much miore than only the results of the intelligence analyses, so a more objective judgement is possible.

But only the first line in my post deals with the question if Assad is responsible so you can't dismiss my whole post by talking about the stall/division tactic.

 

[russ_watters]

I don't see where I am questioning "an awful lot of facts". If you claim that I do, at least state these facts.

Your words were "all of the bad things happening", which includes all of the 100,000 deaths to date.

But only the first line in my post deals with the question if Assad is responsible so you can't dismiss my whole post by talking about the stall/division tactic.

Nothing else matters if you can't get past that issue. And if you reread your initial response to me, every bit except the last question you asked (which you didnt follow up on) was arguing against Assad's guilt. You were asking over and over who the "bad guy" is and how we know.

 

[russ_watters]

Regarding the White House press release:

It says things like "We have a body of information..." and "Multiple streams of intelligence indicate..." Yes, it does not actually show the evidence: it is a press release summary, not a criminal indictment. It is basically just saying "here's how we know." It is then up to the reader to decide if they believe it or not.
So the question is; should the White House be required to present a criminal indictment quality document, with supporting evidence attached? IMO, no. Because:

1. This isn't a legal case.

2. There isn't time for it.

3. Our allies already know and believe it, so there is nothing to prove to them.

4. Conspiracy theorists will assume anything is fabricated anyway, so there is no value in trying to convince them. This is meant for the bulk of the US public for information and for the world community for an explanation of the US position. It doesn't need to be proven, just explained.

5. The Russians aren't idiots. They do have a quality intelligence service, so they already know all of this. [The White House and I believe] Russian opposition is just a game, so there is no value in going to a greater effort to try to prove anything to them.

Some of the nuggets in there are straightforward though: This was a coordinated attack, using rockets and artillery, for multiple days. The Syrian opposition has never done anything like that. They've never shown anywhere close to the capability required to do something like that. Add to this the fact that the area was an opposition stronghold that had been a problem for Assad and it just doesn't pass the laugh test to suggest there is much of a chance that it was the opposition did it.