As far as I can tell, everyone at A&A.org is a strategic thinker, and I’d to hear your thoughts on an interesting debate I had with someone on the recent Syria crisis.
Going into a month or so ago, and even looking at the situation now, Assad’s forces are winning the civil war, with a very strong upper hand, as Assad’s Syria is propped up by Iran, Hezbollah and Russia.
In the Rebels/FSA’s “own” words. Without international help, they are going to lose.
And of course, also notable over the last few months, there’s only been one thing that the international community has made a clear statement on. Assad must NOT use chemical weapons on his people.
What we know for sure, is that chemical weapons were used on civilian/rebel targets. Without a doubt - this has been established.
However… lets pose the question, is it plausible that an element of the rebels secretly gassed their own people?
I’ll paint the picture as it was painted for me:
1. The FSA is roughly 40% made up of what used to be regular syrian army. Troops who could have had access to chemical weapons, delivery systems, and training on how to use them.
2. The rebels are going to lose without international help, and a chemical weapon attack by Assad is the only way to garuntee this
3. The rebels have now included Al Quaeda in their ranks, and as we know it only takes one extremist…
4. If you’re Assad, and you know you’re winning, why would you play the only card that threatens that “win”?
5. The rebels are desperate, already sacrificing the lives of thier own people to stay in the game. What’s a few more in the name of the cause?
With the reason, means, and people crazy enough to carry out such a desperate and despicable attack.
Is it plausible the rebels gassed themselves?
Interesting…
http://www.aina.org/news/20130826131925.htm
“Carla del Ponte, a member of the U.N. Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Syria, told Swiss TV there were “strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof,” that rebels seeking to oust Syrian strongman Bashar al-Assad had used the nerve agent.”
http://www.wnd.com/2013/08/video-shows-rebels-launching-gas-attack-in-syria/
Interesting again. With some “video’s”, and what looks like Sarin gas labels from Saudia Arabia but who knows.
It does seem like a stupid move on Assad’s part, if he really did authorise it.
my first reaction on hearing it, was denial. I thought it was rebel propaganda, exactly for the reasons you mentioned Garg.
Thanks for the second article and link.
I am not too happy about more British forces being sent around the world, so hope we can stay out of it.
@wittmann:
It does seem like a stupid move on Assad’s part, if he really did authorise it.
my first reaction on hearing it, was denial. I thought it was rebel propaganda, exactly for the reasons you mentioned Garg.
Thanks for the second article and link.
I am not too happy about more British forces being sent around the world, so hope we can stay out of it.
I had similar thoughts. Thanks for posting this topic. I do not wish for another Middle East War. Let these people fight to a finish.
Anyone remember how Bush’s dad wanted to go back to Iraq after the Kurd’s got gassed?
I think he really wanted to get in there to fully remove Saddam Hussain from power, but congress then did not really want another war for oil.
He settled for that “no-fly zone”.
Comparing Iraq in the '90’s to Syria today. Saddam’s media was projecting war propaganda against us and Israel then.
Syria is not such an immediate threat.
And, like Bosnia, they have no oil or key US material interest.
While we have been steered into wars by some clever past presidents such as Polk or Roosevelt,
our constitution is designed to have congress vote on declarations of War.
Sadly , nobody in DC is asking if this is an engagement that George Washington would lead us into.
I recall that the gassings you mention during the Iran vs Iraq war did not get us or the UN involved either.
Of course, during that war, Iraq and Saddam were considered our ally.
It’s also my understanding that Syria is rather resource rich.
RJpeters, GREAT Comments by the way!
I recall that the gassings you mention during the Iran vs Iraq war did not get us or the UN involved either.
Of course, during that war, Iraq and Saddam were considered our ally.
Um, we were involved. Hell, documents this week were released showing our involvement and Reagan’s culpability: http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/08/new-docs-show-us-involvement-saddams-nerve-gas-attacks/68698/
And really, it wasn’t so much as allies as feeling more threatened with the Iranians so helping the Iraqis a bit more suited us better. But we equally didn’t want the Iraqis to take control….just a balance of power.
And I say we when I really mean the doodooheads in charge back then. I was a kid back then.
And lets be clear here.
“Tear gas” is a chemical weapon.
When can I expect my shipments of VX? for my next axis and allies game?
That’s a stable substance to be playing with isn’t it? :p
We’ve all seen the rock. Pfftp, those pansies just didn’t know how to tough it out and hold their breath.
@rjpeters70:
Not really for tear gas. That’s more of a riot control agent.Â
Most Chemical Weapons are defined as toxic weapons having the potential for lethal effect (according to the CWC). So, we’re talking stuff like:
Chlorine (Cl)
Phosgene (PG)
Diphosgene (DP)
Chloropicrin (PS)
Sulfur mustard (H, HD)
Nitrogen mustard (HN)
Phosgene oxime (CX)
Lewisite (L)
Hydrogen cyanide (AC)
Cyanogen chloride (CK)
Arsine (SA)
Tabun (GA)
Sarin (GB)
Soman (GD)
Cyclosarin (GE, GF)
VX
Been Chlorine gased, I work for a water utility and work with the gas every day. In 2000 I got exposed to the gas, felt like a fish out of water. I can only imagine getting gased by a more toxic gas!
It’s a set up for the U.S. and it only depends on if the U.S. falls for that.
It is questionable if the U.S. is still super power, if they have to rethink the strategy when Russian Ship are sent down there for “Training”.
The best way is to settle for a diplomatic solution and peace without a fight. Then figure out who exactly dropped the gas bombs.
Then persecute who ever was behind the gas attack.
The solution is to butt-out.
Is killing more syrians, because syrians killed syrians with CW’s, really the answer?
And the syrians who get killed in US stirkes, probably will have nothing to do with the syrians who launched gas.
I mean, unless the U.S. can assassinate Assad, any other attack is ludicrous.
Looks like if you do take some sort of action, it will be without us.
Cameron’s vote failed to pass in parliament.
He can’t be making many friends over there can he?
Doesn’t sound right to me.
Thank you for that and all other information.
Here’s an odd historical footnote to the Syria situation, involving yesterday’s vote by the House of Commons on British Prime Minister David Cameron’s motion to authorize the principle of military strikes by Britain against Syria. The “principle” part was a watering down of what Cameron originally wanted, which was the actual authorization to use force, but Cameron’s motion was nevertheless defeated by 285 votes to 272. Cameron thus became the first British Prime Minister in 231 years to lose a Parliamentary vote on military action, the last one being Lord North, who, in 1782, saw Parliament vote against further fighting in the American Revolution and thus effectively concede independence to the American colonies.
@rjpeters70:
Like I said, I think the President was backed into a corner by his own rhetoric, and now feels compelled to act in order to shore up his own credibility, but it’s not something he really wants to do.
Really sad for the leader of a superpower.
And Aequitas: The U.S. is still a superpower: We’re the only nation able to project force on a global scale. We are, I’ll admit, in a rough patch, but we’re better set up to remain the global hegemon for the next three decades than anyone else.
I prefer the good old Monroe Doctrine days.
@CWO:
Here’s an odd historical footnote to the Syria situation, involving yesterday’s vote by the House of Commons on British Prime Minister David Cameron’s motion to authorize the principle of military strikes by Britain against Syria. The “principle” part was a watering down of what Cameron originally wanted, which was the actual authorization to use force, but Cameron’s motion was nevertheless defeated by 285 votes to 272. Cameron thus became the first British Prime Minister in 231 years to lose a Parliamentary vote on military action, the last one being Lord North, who, in 1782, saw Parliament vote against further fighting in the American Revolution and thus effectively concede independence to the American colonies.
Well I never! Good to know. Thanks again Marc.
