Is the US Red Line in Syria Just Empty Rhetoric?

[Borg]

You and your "mainstream sources"...

Do you think that this behavior helps to sway anyone to your side? Except for one link that doesn't load, your only sources are your own foul-tempered opinion. This is a forum of physics where reasoned arguments and acceptable sources of information are used to discuss a topic. Just as there are many unacceptable crackpot sites that claim that relativity is wrong, there are also standards here for media sites which have been deemed unreliable. EVO was only stating the policy (to someone else BTW) which has existed for years and you respond by lashing out. If you can't contribute something worthwhile, find another hobby.

 

[nsaspook]

Some of the nuggets in there are straightforward though: This was a coordinated attack, using rockets and artillery, for multiple days.

The best evidence so far is that the attack orders originated from at least one of the al-Assad brothers(Bashar, Maher). At this point it's unclear if Bashar originated the action, just let it happen or is covering but the official Syrian government IMO bears full responsibility for the deaths.

Someone tried to kill them both a while back and failed so attempting an operation just to capture them is very unlikely to succeed. I also don't see them ever giving up their chemical weapons stash even if it's never used on civilians again as their possession at key locations limits our options of attack and they saw what happened to Colonel Gaddafi after he let the UN destroy most of his weapons before the Libyan civil war.

http://en.dunyatimes.com/article/maher-alassad-alive-directing-attacks-by-phone-witnesses-claim-71808.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...n-town-led-by-murderous-brother-of-Assad.html

I'm waiting for Congress to set the limits on what we can do and how Obama will operate within those limits now that he believes "some" of his own words.
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/CandidateQA/ObamaQA/

 

[kith]

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

What's wrong with this statement? For a start it doesn't make sense to claim that the regime killed all those people as you did in #156.

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.

There are two independent points. One is the question who used chemical weapons. The other is the question if a military intervention is more beneficial to a) the Syrian people and b) the region as a whole, compared to no intervention. This is the follow up to my last question.

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.

I agree that taking it to Den Hague may take too long. This doesn't imply that there is no time to discuss the evidence in a more public forum at all. For example, if you present striking evidence before the UN security council and the russians present nothing, it is a) harder for them to veto and b) easier for pro intervention governments to convince the parliament and the public.

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

That's wrong. The british parliament for example wasn't convinced and therefore voted no to a military intervention.

4. Conspiracy theorists will assume anything is fabricated anyway, so there is no value in trying to convince them.

I agree. But that's also a killer argument. Just because someone is paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get him.

Some of the nuggets in there are straightforward though: This was a coordinated attack, using rockets and artillery, for multiple days.

I have to check this.

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.

Sure it does, militant islamistic fanatics sacrifice the lifes of their people all the time. And the benefits of a military intervention for the opposition are more than obvious.

 

[russ_watters]

What's wrong with this statement?

What's wrong is that it is open-ended, enabling you to follow-up by demanding proof of every "bad thing happening" done by the Syrian government, which short-circuits discussion of the issues that are still up for debate. There just plain isn't enough controversy over this in the world community for that to be a useful exercise. Choose not to believe that Assad is a "bad guy" (or it is not adequately enough proven that he is) if you want. It makes no difference and I'm not concerned with trying to convince you of it. What matters isn't what you and me think, what matters is what Obama, Putin and the leaders of the other involved countries think/choose to project. The issue those countries are debating is not whether Assad is a "bad guy", they are debating whether or not to do anything about it.

For a start it doesn't make sense to claim that the regime killed all those people as you did in #156.

A fair point: I overreached. The UN states that more than half are civilians and the number is likely under-reported, specifically for civilian deaths. So of those 100,000 total official deaths, at least 50,000 are civilians and under-reported civilian deaths may account for an additional 60,000. And of those, the vast majority of civilian deaths are at the hands of Assad's regime.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/14/world/middleeast/un-syria-death-toll.html?_r=0
[note, link is slightly out of date, saying the official death toll at the time was 93,000. It is over 100,000 today. I haven't seen an updated estimate on additional under-reported deaths.]

There are two independent points. One is the question who used chemical weapons. The other is the question if a military intervention is more beneficial to a) the Syrian people and b) the region as a whole, compared to no intervention. This is the follow up to my last question.

I don't see how Assad's popularity/reputation, if he's winning or how the conflict figures into the Arab/Israeli conflict has anything to do with whether the US intervention will cause more or less deaths.

And in any case, almost every time you start to address the second, you circle back to the first.

For example, if you present striking evidence before the UN security council and the russians present nothing, it is a) harder for them to veto and b)...

You really believe that? I don't. I don't think they can be shamed into changing their mind.

...easier for pro intervention governments to convince the parliament and the public.

Pro intervention governments already have and accept the evidence, so there is nothing to be gained there. Pro-intervention governments have not had a hard time convincing parliament and public to bypass a balky [Russia] UN before. My perception is that the question of whether to act or not hinges upon self-interest, not UN support or acceptance of the evience.

But that's also a killer argument. Just because someone is paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get him.

That's fine, but my point was simply that it means there is no value in trying to argue/reason with them. Whether they believe the evidence or not doesn't matter.

Sure it does, militant islamistic fanatics sacrifice the lifes of their people all the time. And the benefits of a military intervention for the opposition are more than obvious.

Fanatics sacrifice their people's lives by using civilians for suicide bombers and as human shields, but not for subterfuge, as far as I'm aware. If you have any examples of such false-flag operations (where they killed their own people and then framed someone else for it), please provide one.

It also doesn't pass the laugh test. Such an action would carry a huge risk not associated with other sacrifices of their own civilians. If you fail to convince forein troops to intervene, you've killed 1400 of your own people for nothing. Worse, if the trick is discovered, the foreign troops may intervene against you.

 

[chiro]

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.

This is kind of what everybody has been talking about anyway, but here you go:

France accusing the Syrian "regime"

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/09/04/french-lawmakers-debate-their-own-military-action-in-syria/

Definition of regime:

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

Opposing arguments being made against such claims:

Claims that rebel groups not affiliated with the regime did it (from Russian officials):

http://rt.com/news/chemical-aleppo-findings-russia-417/

Assad denies chemical weapons use

http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/1.543600

These claims and stories are redundant on the internet with respect to other websites and sources saying the same thing.

I'm surprised you actually needed me to spell this out like I did above: haven't you been reading this thread in enough detail?

 

[OmCheeto]

My prophesies of WWIII from 2003 are coming true...

Bashar al-Assad interview: 'Show me the proof of regime chemical attack'
...
Describing the Middle East as a "powder keg" whose "fuse is getting shorter", he warned it would "explode" if Western forces struck Syria. "Nobody knows what will happen (after such strikes). Everyone will lose control of the situation when the powder keg explodes. Chaos and extremism will spread. The risk of a regional war exists," he warned.
...

ahemmm...

I was discussing the situation today with someone who I highly respect. He said Bashar had nothing to do with the gassing. He directed me to the Assad interview.

 

[jim hardy]

Best info I've been able to find is articles by David Tabler and Michael Herzog.
They both work for think tanks.
A quick search turns up plenty of them.

The more I read the more it makes me think about this picture:

(picture courtesy Wikipedia)

The story isn't the fight but the guys in background.

My good Master said: ‘Son, there you see the aggressive spirits of those that live in anger,

 

[nsaspook]

Best info I've been able to find is articles by David Tabler and Michael Herzog.

The best information on what's happening there is from the IDF (Herzog). They live in the hood and their guys are very good.
http://www.businessinsider.com/best-tech-school-is-israels-unit-8200-2013-8

 

[Evo]

I'm surprised you actually needed me to spell this out like I did above: haven't you been reading this thread in enough detail?

It's not for my benefit, it's for anyone reading this thread, plus, it's a requirement in this forum.

Here are the first 5 rules

To maintain quality discussions that stay focused on issues and do not become personal or degenerate into arguments of “I’m right, you’re wrong,” the following rules apply to all new threads started in Current Events effective as of the date of posting of these guidelines:
1) A clear statement of purpose written by the person starting the thread and contained in the opening post of the thread.
2) Citations of sources for any factual claims (primary sources should be used whenever possible).
3) Any counter-arguments to statements already made must clearly state the point on which there is disagreement, the reason(s) why a different view is held, and cite appropriate sources to counter the argument.
4) When stating an opinion on an issue, make sure it is clearly stated to be an opinion and not asserted as fact.
5) When posting on topics of foreign policy or world issues, remember to ensure the topic is presented in a manner that makes all of our membership welcome to participate.

 

[Evo]

Let's keep this on topic please.

 

[chiro]

It's not for my benefit, it's for anyone reading this thread, plus, it's a requirement in this forum.

Here are the first 5 rules

Thanks for the heads up: I'll remember that for the future.

 

[fargoth]

The number 100000 keeps coming up as the number of victims killed by Assad in this thread...
Just wanted to make it a bit less biased:

about 45000 of these deaths (almost half) are Assad's people - 1000 of which civilian.
25000-45000 are islamist militants (this number has such a large margin, due to the opposition's policy of counting rebel fighters that were not defectors as civilians)
about 6000 children, and 4000 women (rounding up a bit) - we usually regard women and children as innocent bystanders... but this might not always be the case, it's hard to say which fraction of these were involved in actual fighting, and which were completely innocent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Syrian_civil_war[/URL]
[URL="http://www.vice.com/read/the-little-lion--syrias-11-year-old-killing-machine"]http://www.vice.com/read/the-little-lion--syrias-11-year-old-killing-machine
http://photoblog.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/07/05/12577244-are-children-fighting-on-syrias-rebel-front-lines?lite
http://in.reuters.com/article/2013/06/12/un-children-conflict-idINDEE95B0HD20130612
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/08/28/the_civil_war_within_syria_s_civil_war_kurdish_fighters
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/07/26/syria-female-fighters_n_3658205.html

 

[kith]

What's wrong is that it is open-ended, enabling you to follow-up by demanding proof of every "bad thing happening" done by the Syrian government

This isn't my intention. My main reason for using a more general formulation was your claim of 100'000 deaths at the hands of the regime.

Choose not to believe that Assad is a "bad guy"

I haven't said that. I believe that Assad is a bad guy. But this by itself doesn't justify a military intervention.

What matters isn't what you and me think, what matters is what Obama, Putin and the leaders of the other involved countries think/choose to project.

I disagree. In a democratic country, it does matter what the people think.

So of those 100,000 total official deaths, at least 50,000 are civilians and under-reported civilian deaths may account for an additional 60,000. And of those, the vast majority of civilian deaths are at the hands of Assad's regime.

From your source: "The report was not able to break down the deaths by combatant and noncombatant, or pro- and antigovernment forces." I'm inclined to think that the regime has killed more people because of their bigger guns.

I don't see how Assad's popularity/reputation, if he's winning or how the conflict figures into the Arab/Israeli conflict has anything to do with whether the US intervention will cause more or less deaths.

A US intervention will influence the civil war and it's aftermath. The points you mentioned are all relevant to how the conflict will look like after the intervention which is the most important thing to consider.

And in any case, almost every time you start to address the second, you circle back to the first.

Because they are not independent.

You really believe that? I don't.

I agree that this is a rather weak point.

Pro intervention governments already have and accept the evidence, so there is nothing to be gained there. Pro-intervention governments have not had a hard time convincing parliament and public to bypass a balky [Russia] UN before. My perception is that the question of whether to act or not hinges upon self-interest, not UN support or acceptance of the evience.

In the decision of the british parliament, it did play an important role (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/29/british-parliament-syria-vote_n_3839067.html ). Which is comprehensible, given the Iraq disaster.

Fanatics sacrifice their people's lives by using civilians for suicide bombers and as human shields, but not for subterfuge, as far as I'm aware. If you have any examples of such false-flag operations, please provide one. If you fail to convince forein troops to intervene, you've killed 1400 of your own people for nothing.

I don't know of such an example. But there are numerous situations where militant islamists showed that they don't care about the life of civilians even if they are associated with them one way or the other.

Worse, if the trick is discovered, the foreign troops may intervene against you.

Given the statements of Obama and others, this is very unlikely. They would probably follow the logic of your post #130, especially if we take into account that the opposition is no homogeneous group. People who started to protest with the intent to end the repression of the Assad regime obviously won't approve of the use of chemical weapons by militant islamists.

 

[jim hardy]

The best information on what's happening there is from the IDF (Herzog). They live in the hood and their guys are very good.
http://www.businessinsider.com/best-tech-school-is-israels-unit-8200-2013-8

For me, this one by Herzog last year removed a lot of the ambiguity and fog.

http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/uploads/Documents/opeds/Herzog20120710-BICOM.pdf

Would paste some of it if I could but even nitro reader refused...
It's only an eight page pdf and it's well written.
Plodder that I am I need straightforward explanations like this one.

Because I get confused --- "Tell me again - Who's on first" ?

old jim

 

[nsaspook]

Because I get confused --- "Tell me again - Who's on first" ?

old jim

My foremost fear is that we are creating future 'bin Ladens' from this sort of "our bad guys will kill the other bad guys' tactic. Much of the original training and weapons for the original jihadist Mujahadeen forces in Afghanistan (Under Carter in 1979) was justified as a way to force Russian into a losing war and the effects of empowering brutal tribal and religious forces were minimized. I don't want us to fight in Syria but if we must, don't use murdering proxies to do our dirty work.


http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/05/w...rian-rebels-pose-dilemma-in-west.html?hp&_r=0

 

[jim hardy]

Thanks for those links spook. Zbig_B was Obama's department head at Columbia if I recall correctly.

I'm still circumspect

Is Yossef Bodansky anybody you know?

 

[nsaspook]

Is Yossef Bodansky anybody you know?

No, but there is pretty good evidence the gas attack was prompted by the sizable delivery of US (via third parties) provided weapons to the rebels for an offensive in that area.

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-06-21/world/40112212_1_weapons-shipments-tanks
http://english.alarabiya.net/en/New...hipment-reaches-Syrian-rebels-opposition.html

 

[Dotini]

A few minutes ago I was watching Fox TV news channel, and a Fox staff military analyst commented that the administration's intel was "unraveling". He did not elaborate.

Here is a McClatchy (I think they are mainstream enough, i.e., frequently appearing on NPR's Diane Rehm show) report of a 100 page document delivered by the Russians to the UN detailing forensically the rebel's use of chem weapons in an earlier attack near Aleppo. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/09/05/201268/russia-releases-100-page-report.html

I have seen non-mainstream media, which I should not link to, "MintPress News", which purports to identify and interview the responsible parties on the ground at the scene. This report appears to dovetail with what little is so far known of the Russia document.

Earlier today Vladimir Putin described John Kerry as "a liar". Later today, a grinning President Obama shook Putin's hand, in public, at St. Petersburg. It seems extremely odd to me that any US President would shake the hand of man who just called his Secretary of State a liar.

 

[nsaspook]

Here is a McClatchy (I think they are mainstream enough, i.e., frequently appearing on NPR's Diane Rehm show) report of a 100 page document delivered by the Russians to the UN detailing forensically the rebel's use of chem weapons in the Damascus attack. http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/09/05/201268/russia-releases-100-page-report.html

That report is about the earlier reported use of CW blamed on the rebels that the UN was there to investigate before the latest mass gas attack side tracked them to only looking that incident. It's very likely the rebels used an improvised device in the earlier incident because of the target and the "lack" of effect. That use could have motivated an "effective" use by the Syrian government later.

The report dealt with an incident that occurred March 19 in Khan al Asal, outside Aleppo, in which 26 people died and 86 were sickened. It was that incident that the U.N. team now probing the Aug. 21 attack was originally assigned to investigate, and the Russian statement noted that the investigation had been sidetracked by the sudden focus on the later incident.

Haq, the U.N. spokesman, acknowledged that the most recent attack “has pushed the investigation of the Aleppo incident to the back burner for now.” But he said that “the inspectors will get back to it as soon as is possible.”

 

[Dotini]

Thank you for that correction.

 

[Vanadium 50]

The LA times reported the following:

One U.S. official who has been briefed on the options on Syria said he believed the White House would seek a level of intensity "just muscular enough not to get mocked" but not so devastating that it would prompt a response from Syrian allies Iran and Russia.

For those who have argued that an attack is necessary to dissuade future dictators from using chemical weapons, I think you have to ask yourself if "just muscular enough not to get mocked" will do this, or if it will instead embolden them - will they say "Heck, Assad gassed his people and only got a couple missiles lobbed at him"?

 

[lisab]

The LA times reported the following:



For those who have argued that an attack is necessary to dissuade future dictators from using chemical weapons, I think you have to ask yourself if "just muscular enough not to get mocked" will do this, or if it will instead embolden them - will they say "Heck, Assad gassed his people and only got a couple missiles lobbed at him"?

Hard to say, this is almost a rhetorical question. I mean, if the attack kills Assad himself, would that be "muscular enough"?

"Heck, Assad gassed his people, he got blown to bits. Maybe I shouldn't gas my people." Equally possible.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Yes, but if your goal is to blow Assad to bits. isn't it better to plan an attack that will blow him to bits?

 

[lisab]

Yes, but if your goal is to blow Assad to bits. isn't it better to plan an attack that will blow him to bits?

It wouldn't break my heart if that was an outcome.

 

[nsaspook]

It wouldn't break my heart if that was an outcome.

Maybe we could scare him to death.
Secret Weapon

and if that fails...
What American really wants in Syria

 

[Pythagorean]

Hard to say, this is almost a rhetorical question. I mean, if the attack kills Assad himself, would that be "muscular enough"?

"Heck, Assad gassed his people, he got blown to bits. Maybe I shouldn't gas my people." Equally possible.

Though I seriously doubt future dictators would actually have this kind of thought process where they think they are susceptible to world police.

Wasn't the US accused of using chemical weapons in Iraq? I thought there were still birth defects being associated with it in some studies.

 

[russ_watters]

For those who have argued that an attack is necessary to dissuade future dictators from using chemical weapons, I think you have to ask yourself if "just muscular enough not to get mocked" will do this, or if it will instead embolden them - will they say "Heck, Assad gassed his people and only got a couple missiles lobbed at him"?

I don't think that "just muscular enough not to get mocked" is enough not to get mocked. Yes, I am very worried that our response - if any - will make things worse in one of several possible ways.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I don't think that "just muscular enough not to get mocked" is enough not to get mocked.

It's too late. The mocking has already begun. ("Does this war make me look fat?")

Killing a couple hundred Syrians in the hope that one might - might - be Assad seems to me not to be a credible deterrent to the next dictator.

If the point of a military response is so that the administration is not mocked, I would argue against one. The response of the world will not be "Look how credible those Americans are!" It will be "They killed a few hundred people just to appear credible". This is immoral.

If the point of a military response is to remove Syria's capability of using chemical weapons, the US is not going to be able to do this with a couple of missiles. The Pentagon says that 75,000 troops (which is a little less than half of the entire Marine Corps) is necessary to do this. And that action will have consequences: it will replace the Syrian government to one that is even more hostile to US interests. It will end the "reset" in US-Russia relations, and it will almost certainly provoke Russia to make S-300 sales to Iran - who has an even larger WMD program than Syria.

 

[jim hardy]

"just muscular enough not to get mocked"

??

Now THERE's a weak man's imitation of strength.

Truth IS stranger than fiction.
Is there a satirist in the house?

A Midsummer Night's Dream is a play by William Shakespeare. It is believed that it was written between 1590 and 1596. It portrays the events surrounding the marriage of the Duke of Athens, Theseus, and Hippolyta. These include the adventures of four young Athenian lovers and a group of six amateur actors, who are controlled and manipulated by the fairies who inhabit the forest in which most of the play is set.

Insert your favorite politicians.

 

[Pythagorean]

I played Bottom the *** in my high school production of A Midsummer Night's Dream

(When the title of a shakespeare character gets censored, you know you're in trouble)

Needless to say, I was type-casted.

 

[nsaspook]

I don't think that "just muscular enough not to get mocked" is enough not to get mocked. Yes, I am very worried that our response - if any - will make things worse in one of several possible ways.

Assad has won this battle, it's time to move on. Let's stop pretending IMO we (The East and West) really want the war to end. The Jihadist are busy killing someone other than us and we supply them with just the level of arms needed for them to think they might someday win. The other side supplies Assad and wants him to battle those Jihadist forces until doomsday but both sides have to play by the rules of no CW.

Will an overt attack at this late stage make them more or less likely to follow the rules and continue the war?

 

[BobG]

Further investigation to pin point exactly who used the weapons and authorised their use followed by legal apprehension of those individuals to put through a war crimes trial at the Hague would get my vote at the moment.

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.

There's a difference between a nation (usually at the direction of its head of state or government) waging war either on its own people or another country and a non-state actor waging "war". I'm not sure how much I buy into the idea of prosecuting "terrorists" as criminals, but there is still a big difference in how you fight a group like bin Laden and a country. Your goal is to eliminate the enemy's ability to threaten you. Being there's a difference in the weapons available to each, the method of eliminating the threat is going to be different.

A couple of things.

1) What red line is there against chemical weapons?

International agreements since around 1900 "banned" their use, but everyone ignored them until WWI when widespread use made it obvious that they were a really bad idea. The only red line that's existed since then is "Don't use chemical weapons against someone that can use them on you."

Japan used chemical weapons against China in WWII. But they didn't use chemical weapons against allied forces even when they were clearly losing the war.

Iraq used chemical weapons against Iran in their war. There was no huge outcry. There's a good reason there wasn't. Iraq was facing invasion. Expecting a country to cease to exist before dishonoring themselves by using chemical weapons is an unrealistic standard.

But, Japan did refrain from using chemical weapons against allied forces even when facing defeat. It's possible Japan was more honorable. Or it's possible Japan didn't believe chemical weapons would turn the tide of the war, especially when allied forces could retaliate with chemical weapons of their own (or worse, as things turned out).

Iraq used chemical weapons against their own people. This didn't bring immediate retaliation, but it probably contributed at least a little to the severity of the post Gulf War I sanctions.

Or one could argue that Iraq was the first country punished for using chemical weapons against its own people, since we invaded them because of their suspected chemical weapons program - except we punished them 15 years after the fact.

2) While I don't buy the rhetoric, that doesn't mean that it's not a good idea to discourage the use of chemical weapons.

While the Bush administration claimed that Iraq still had an operational chemical weapons program, the reality was that the post-Gulf War sanctions actually did work. I have to admit that this was very surprising, since Iraq's chemical weapons capability played such a vital role in defending it from Iran. I'm sure they kept the plans and blueprints so they could resurrect their chemical weapons program in the future, but they had no operational program by time the US invaded.

That proves that there's realistic alternatives to military force in punishing the use of chemical weapons. Unfortunately, that doesn't prove that any of the alternative methods would work in Syria. They could if Assad survives his civil war, but I think there's a good chance he won't.

If we do decide bombing Syria is a good punishment, it also means that the bombing has to do more damage than the use of chemical weapons helped. It doesn't mean we have to bomb until the Assad regime falls. We only have to bomb until it's obvious that any sane person would wish they'd toughed things out against the insurgents.

3) The problem with the whole scenario is figuring out which side you want to see win.

Do you really want the punishment to be so severe that you assure the insurgents will win? Will they be any friendlier to the US than the Assad regime has been? Or are insurgents that are only just as unfriendly to the US acceptable as long as the insurgents are equally unfriendly to Iran? Or, if you're concerned about Syria, does the fall of Assad just mean the forces break up into new alliances for the post-Assad civil war?

To be honest, I'm very undecided about whether I think we should bomb Syria or not - mainly because there just aren't easy answers to the third question.

 

[nsaspook]

3) The problem with the whole scenario is figuring out which side you want to see win.

Do you really want the punishment to be so severe that you assure the insurgents will win? Will they be any friendlier to the US than the Assad regime has been? Or are insurgents that are only just as unfriendly to the US acceptable as long as the insurgents are equally unfriendly to Iran? Or, if you're concerned about Syria, does the fall of Assad just mean the forces break up into new alliances for the post-Assad civil war?

To be honest, I'm very undecided about whether I think we should bomb Syria or not - mainly because there just aren't easy answers to the third question.

The cynical answer is we don't what either side to win. Our waiting this long to act has disconnected the punishment from the event and created the possibility of transforming the Syrian crisis into a regional one if we tip the balance away from Assad by a large scale attack. A war of attrition killing the most radical elements on both sides and stalemate is the likely outcome if we do little or nothing.

Most of the possible outcome scenarios have been gamed long ago.
http://www.clingendael.nl/sites/default/files/20120800_syria_2013_scenarios.pdf

and there is always Plan Y:

 

[jim hardy]

US civil war killed ~ 650,000 from a population of ~31 million, around 2 %.
Syria is at 100,000 from a population ~21 million , around 0.5 %.
They might be just getting started.

Europe didn't help the Confederacy very much because of the slavery issue, which Lincoln deftly interjected with Emancipation Proclamation.

...Putin wants a strong leader in Syria who can keep things under control. ...

Putin knows what he is doing. He stands back while others blunder in and act in the heat of the moment. He needles and riles his opponents so they trip themselves up and do his work for him. Putin intends to win this particular round of his sparring match over Syria on points. A decision against using force in Syria, an embarrassed Obama, the prospect of a unilateral U.S. intervention launched without even the imprimatur of the U.S. Congress -- all that can be spun as a Russian victory if Putin keeps his cool. Against the backdrop of the G-20 summit, the international community will be the judge of whether Putin or Obama has made the most skillful moves.

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/139905/fiona-hill/putin-scores-on-syria

 

[nsaspook]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/07/us-syria-crisis-attack-idUSBRE98603A20130907

No direct link to President Bashar al-Assad or his inner circle has been publicly demonstrated, and some U.S. sources say intelligence experts are not sure whether the Syrian leader knew of the attack before it was launched or was only informed about it afterward.

While U.S. officials say Assad is responsible for the chemical weapons strike even if he did not directly order it, they have not been able to fully describe a chain of command for the August 21 attack in the Ghouta area east of the Syrian capital.
...
As more information has been collected and analyzed, early theories about the attack have largely been dismissed, U.S. and allied security sources said.

Reports that Assad's brother, Maher, a general who commands an elite Republican Guard unit and a crack Syrian army armored division, gave the order to use chemicals have not been substantiated, U.S. sources said. Some U.S. sources now believe Maher Assad did not order the attack and was not directly involved.

Now it looks like even the brother was out of the direct control loop.

CRS report on Syrian CW: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/nuke/R42848.pdf