Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 whembly wrote:
The administration has been backpedaling from his red line for awhile now:

Obama first laid down his red line on chemical weapons in the Syrian civil war in August 2012. “A red line for us is (if) we see a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around, or being utilized. That would change my calculus” on whether a U.S. intervention is merited, the president said…

While the administration did not discuss specifics, outside experts interpreted the reference to movement of chemical weapons as addressing the potential removal from storage and transport of chemical weapons for firing or for proliferation to nonstate actors. However, when the Syrian military was detected in December apparently loading sarin into aerial munitions, the administration indicated that its red line was actually carrying out a chemical attack, not readying for one.

Weeee!

Will a strongly stern letter from the U.N. suffice?

Maybe one from Canada, I hear they've been ready to go for a while now but somethings been holding them back.

Officially and Unofficially



We tend to do things our way. Think of it like a MMORPG: we're the support healer; the US is the meat shield & damage-over-time dealer
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2012/06/21/canada-military-syria-intervention.html
http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/2012/08/13/canada_throws_syrias_refugees_a_welcome_lifeline.html

As a person, the worst part is that the Administration is kowtowing to people like Whembly.

As an analyst, I know that must be done.

The secretary general of the Arab League called on Monday for the international community to deploy a peacekeeping force, which observers have suggested could lead to the establishment of safe havens, similar to the UN-mandated zones set up during the Balkan wars of the 1990s.

Is there not someway that NATO or even the US could provide the logistical support for the Arab league to send its forces in. I'd be all for that. If anybody should want this issue handled to provide stability in the region, shouldn't it be, oh, I don't know......the people that live there?

We tend to do things our way. Think of it like a MMORPG: we're the support healer; the US is the meat shield & damage-over-time dealer

Yeah, you go first this time. It's only a small skirmish, I think you can handle it with out support.

Andrew1975 wrote:

We tend to do things our way. Think of it like a MMORPG: we're the support healer; the US is the meat shield & damage-over-time dealer

Yeah, you go first this time. It's only a small skirmish, I think you can handle it with out support.

That sounds like fear. You rolled a Warrior; we rolled a Cleric. You can always reroll, but then you'd have to respec all your points from military strength into social programs and health care.

 azazel the cat wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:

We tend to do things our way. Think of it like a MMORPG: we're the support healer; the US is the meat shield & damage-over-time dealer

Yeah, you go first this time. It's only a small skirmish, I think you can handle it with out support.

That sounds like fear. You rolled a Warrior; we rolled a Cleric. You can always reroll, but then you'd have to respec all your points from military strength into social programs and health care.

Sounds great. You go fight the good fight, will invest in our infrastructure and get us some free health care, like most of our allies already have. What sounds like fear is "Canada was ready to intervene months ago when something could have been done, but we couldn't because the US wouldn't do the actual fighting for us".

You act like Canada is better at giving aid than the US is. I'd really like to see where you are getting that from.

 dogma wrote:
As a person, the worst part is that the Administration is kowtowing to people like Whembly.

As an analyst, I know that must be done.

wait..wut?

Kowtowing to whom? On what exactly?

 whembly wrote:

wait..wut?

Kowtowing to whom? On what exactly?

Kowtowing to people that form opinions based upon their initial impression of a statement, rather than the actual content of it.

I mean, just go back to the article you last cited. You claimed that the administration is backpedaling from its "red line" comment, and it is. But it shouldn't have to as the initial comment did not imply action given the Syrian use of chemical weapons, merely that it would alter the "calculus". The backpedaling is only occurring because so many news outlets, people, and "experts" (read: pundits) have latched onto the notion that crossing the "red line" meant military action.

 dogma wrote:
The backpedaling is only occurring because so many news outlets, people, and "experts" (read: pundits) have latched onto the notion that crossing the "red line" meant military action.

In all fairness, that's a pretty safe bet considering the US track record in the last few decades with totalitarian regimes supposedly wielding WMDs.


And as far as backing the Arab League, it's perfectly possible for the US and NATO to do that, except that Israel is (likely) going to tell us it's a no-sell due to the fact they have this strange aversion to large Arab League armies squatting on their doorstep without the big bad US standing there watching them.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

In all fairness, that's a pretty safe bet considering the US track record in the last few decades with totalitarian regimes supposedly wielding WMDs.

If you think a safe bet is 50% or less, then I will gladly play Warhammer (or poker) with you.

The whole "Red Line" Statement is a none statement. It's basically like a parent saying "don't make me pull the car over".

 Andrew1975 wrote:
The whole "Red Line" Statement is a none statement. It's basically like a parent saying "don't make me pull the car over".

In my family that would have struck terror. It definitely wasn't a nonstatement.

 Andrew1975 wrote:
The whole "Red Line" Statement is a none statement. It's basically like a parent saying "don't make me pull the car over".

No, it was the President of the United States addressing something which was, and is, an issue to people in the United States.

That speech was not aimed at the Assads, and neither have been the comments about backing down.

We blinked...if Assad really did order the chem attack...then we "Blinked"

The President should have said "From this point forward, if Syria uses chemical weapons they are agreeing publicly to the statement that NK's Little Kim is fat poopy head. I'm out."

 Jihadin wrote:
We blinked...if Assad really did order the chem attack...then we "Blinked"

I don't think so. He said it was a red line. He never spelled out what the response would be. Basically just saying you will attract my attention. Just like parents saying "Don't make me pull this car over." its vague. It could result in a whipping, having to walk the rest of the way, or a stern talking to. "Don't make me pull this car over or I'm going to come back there and whip you" is not vague.

Even so there is no concrete proof who set off the bomb. I could see AQ setting it off just to cause trouble and blame it on Assad. Most likely it's Assad, but you never know.
'

He knew exactly what he meant, and that was military action. Just because he didn't clearly lay it out doesn't mean that's not what he meant. But Obama was bluffing and the Syrians called him on it. Either Assad called him on it, or the rebels used it to try to get Obama to come over. So now Obama is trying to move the goalpost to save face.

Assad knew Obama didn't have the balls to start another war in the ME, and the rebels were probably hoping he did.

 Grey Templar wrote:
He knew exactly what he meant, and that was military action. Just because he didn't clearly lay it out doesn't mean that's not what he meant. But Obama was bluffing and the Syrians called him on it. Either Assad called him on it, or the rebels used it to try to get Obama to come over. So now Obama is trying to move the goalpost to save face.

Assad knew Obama didn't have the balls to start another war in the ME, and the rebels were probably hoping he did.

I think most people think they know what the intent of the threat was, but it would just be conjecture, you can't hold him to it because it was not explicit. Even so nobody can still prove where the gas came from, you can guess and you may be 70/30, but it would be wise to find out before doing anything rash. I don't think he is moving goalposts, goalposts were never really set up.

Look how much crap bush gets for WMD! You don't think Obama would get the same treatment if we went to war with Assad and help AQ, only to find out that AQ set off the gas.

 Andrew1975 wrote:

Look how much crap bush gets for WMD! You don't think Obama would get the same treatment if we went to war with Assad and help AQ, only to find out that AQ set off the gas.

Sarin isn't something that most people can just whip up in their basements. Aum Shinrikyo had a frankly fairly large and technically sophisticated setup with their own highly skilled specialists (and a Hind gunship). While underestimating is bad, I don't think that AQ would run a believable false flag operation using sarin. It has too much potential to backfire on them if anyone caught wind of it.

And wouldn't they just use it in a Terror attack and take the credit instead of trying to frame someone?

Seems like that would be a better use of the gas if they had it, from their perspective anyway.

 Grey Templar wrote:

Seems like that would be a better use of the gas if they had it, from their perspective anyway.

Sarin takes facilities and has a relatively short shelf life compared to a lot of other agents (anthrax...brrr..). Advertising you have it is a good way to get people looking for them and blowing them up.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

Seems like that would be a better use of the gas if they had it, from their perspective anyway.

Sarin takes facilities and has a relatively short shelf life compared to a lot of other agents (anthrax...brrr..). Advertising you have it is a good way to get people looking for them and blowing them up.

Well it's possible they could have gotten it from all those chem weapons that disappeared Iraq. If it's got a short shelf life, maybe even more of a reason, use it while its still good.

I don't know using it to get the US to attack Assad's regime is a pretty good use. I think its a bigger score than using it for classic terrorist work. Basically Advertising that someone else have it is a good way to get people looking for them and blowing them up.

Advertising you have it is a good way to get people looking for them and blowing them up.

Which is why to me it makes very little sense for Assad to be using it, and makes lots of sense for AQ to use it and blame him for it. When you look at it Iraq and Afghanistan hurt America much more than the twin towers. If AQ could get us into another crusade, that's a win for them.

If its a non persistant agent then looking at east a min of 8 hours before he chemical wear off. If its persistat then that sucker going to be around for a awhile and the delivery shells can be removed from the ground....depending on delivery.. If some general over there really knows his stuff then he be screwing the system totaly up and luanch a blood agents into the area just to drag it out and intensify the blame game

 Andrew1975 wrote:

Well it's possible they could have gotten it from all those chem weapons that disappeared Iraq. If it's got a short shelf life, maybe even more of a reason, use it while its still good.

According to what I've read, the sarin that the US recovered in Iraq was so low grade it decayed past usability in two to three weeks. Typically it's good for a few months if stored correctly, away from water, which quickly breaks it down. Typically to get around this, it's stored in a binary munition, which mixes the chemicals in flight, allowing much longer shelf life.

Iraqi mustard gas was much more stable and higher grade, and could be stored for long periods. The other missing Iraqi agent that worries me is Cyclosarin, a sarin derived persistent agent with a much longer shelf life and lower lethal doze (about 1/5th sarin's).

 Andrew1975 wrote:

Which is why to me it makes very little sense for Assad to be using it, and makes lots of sense for AQ to use it and blame him for it. When you look at it Iraq and Afghanistan hurt America much more than the twin towers. If AQ could get us into another crusade, that's a win for them.

The problem is that if it comes out that AQ used it rather than Assad, they would find themselves unwelcome pretty much everywhere. It's hard to claim to be the 'hero' when you're using nerve gas on civilians even in the middle east. The situation has far too much potential to backfire on them for them to contemplate it. Particularly when they're already making out like bandits supporting the rebels. All that good will and gains with the potential for long term support would be pissed away instantly.

Assad however can use it as he already has a reputation as a butcher of his own people, if you get down to it. Sarin really won't make him that much more horrid in their eyes.

Wait, are you saying AQ is welcome everywhere now?

 Frazzled wrote:
Wait, are you saying AQ is welcome everywhere now?

Not everywhere, no, but there are many places they're still quite welcome. A large number of those would dry up if it came out that AQ was practicing mass murder of their fellow Muslims via nerve gas. Further, it would be counter productive to their goals in Syria. The longer they're the only one's in town supporting the rebels, the better they look and the more like hypocrites the US looks.

But mass murder via IED is ok?

 Frazzled wrote:
But mass murder via IED is ok?

It's all about whose pushing the propaganda.

That and it's easy to spin IEDs as a unfortunate weapon of necessity. It's not like they have tanks and artillery and bombers. Hell, the IRA has been doing it in the US for years.

It's a hell of a lot harder to justify nerve gas.

The problem is that if it comes out that AQ used it rather than Assad, they would find themselves unwelcome pretty much everywhere. It's hard to claim to be the 'hero' when you're using nerve gas on civilians even in the middle east. The situation has far too much potential to backfire on them for them to contemplate it. Particularly when they're already making out like bandits supporting the rebels. All that good will and gains with the potential for long term support would be pissed away instantly.

Assad however can use it as he already has a reputation as a butcher of his own people, if you get down to it. Sarin really won't make him that much more horrid in their eyes.

AQ could just say it is an American plot to discredit them, the people that support them would easily buy into that.