Hundreds (allegedly) dead in Syrian chemical weapons attack

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.

**Dreadclaw69**

whembly wrote:
Syria: Subjective Desires Fed by Ambiguous Intel Never Turns Out Well

On Syria, here are 14 points that need to be pondered a lot more than they are. I think in may ways we Westerners are misreading what is going on in Syria - something I reviewed in the free-swim portion of Midrats Sunday.

1. Bashar is the second son whose oldest brother was to be next in line until died in a car accident in '94. Bashar was a mild-mannered ophthalmologist and had less than 7-yrs to transition from a London eye doctor to head of a government.

2. Bashar is the leader of a family who has seen two of his brothers die prematurely in accidents and a brother in law killed in a civil war. His only surviving brother is the head of the Republican Guard and a survivor of a previous assassination attempt.

3. He is a member of a small Shi'ite sect who are not even seen as Muslims by Sunni fundamentalists. They are hated by most Syrians for the preferential treatment they have received for over 40 years. He knows if he does not hold power, Alawites will be slaughtered wholesale. His tribe does not have the best reputation either.

4. He has no options for him, his family, his tribe and his co-religionists other than victory.

5. He is of no serious threat to his neighbors and is focused on one thing; survival.

6. Some focus on taking out his "offensive power" - most of which is on paper only. Even if he had the ability, he has nothing to gain by attacking Western naval and air targets when his capital is infested with insurgents. He gains nothing from attacking his neighbor to the south. He gains nothing from attacking British bases in Cyprus.

7. What he needs are three things; time, Russia & Iran. Giving the West an excuse to attack him buys him nothing.

8. Always ask, "Who gains?" Small uses of gas helpful at the Tactical level? No. Useful at the Operational level? No. From a Strategic or Political level, does his use of gas produce any positive effects? No; for him.

9. If the international community thinks that Assad used poison gas, who gains positive Political and Strategic effects? The anti-Assad forces.

10. If Assad falls, who gets possession of all of Syria's poison gas stockpiles? The anti-Assad forces.

11. Who in the anti-Assad forces has the most military power to keep and control the gas? Al-Qaeda affiliated groups.

12. Who has the most to gain from Assad's use of gas? Al-Qaeda.

13. What is one weapon-set Al-Qaeda has wanted to use against the West since even before 9/11? WMD; chemical, biological, or nuclear.

14. What is the #1 target of Al-Qaeda if they had WMD? The West in general, USA specifically.

So, if we contribute to the fall of Assad, we are giving our enemy the weapons they want to kill thousands of OUR people.

If that is the case - is it in our national interest to see Assad survive? Yes.

Is that pretty? No.

Which is worse, thousands of dead Sunnis or thousands of dead Shi'ite & Christians? They are all bad ... but none of them are worse than thousands to tens of thousands of dead Americans gassed in subways in 2016.

That pretty much sums it up...eh?

Pretty good summation. It's like someone went and made a "Why We Should Not Intervene For Dummies"

**Warpig1815**

In a word - yes. It's quite strange that even should the West's intentions be purely noble (which they probably aren't) intending to help innocents will still end up harming them.

**Dreadclaw69**

Grey Templar wrote:
And if Syria does get invaded and occupied, the Russians at least got some field tests on their weapons

Yup! They get to test their new toys against the hardware and tactics that they had in mind when they were designed

Warpig1815 wrote:
Well then, correct me if I'm wrong, but would it not be counter-productive for the USA and the UK to rush headlong into armed intervention if that just weakens their influence in the area? It seems even should be forgo armed intervention then Russia gains influence, but if we intervene and topple the regime then Russia still gains a moral high ground.

Then we should have chosen the least worst option. Take the course of action that causes the least harm to your goals, and start mitigating against the harmful effects as much as possible.

**Seaward**

BrassScorpion wrote:
Great satire from MAD Magazine on this sad situation with Syria.

That's positively biting.

**Warpig1815**

@Dreadclaw - Which pretty much sums up everything I said in my very first post - thanks for clarifying that, I was just wading in to see what others were thinking on the matter.

**BaronIveagh**

Mr. Burning wrote:

Missed panama. Mali flew under my radar.

Nit picking much?

Not really. Your point was that the failures out number the successes. This is untrue. The problem is success is quick. Failure is long and drawn out.

**whembly**

BrassScorpion wrote:
Great satire from MAD Magazine on this sad situation with Syria.

Spoiler:

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=617419251611854&set=a.456938077659973.101519.115919138428537&type=1&theater

So... um, waterboarding 3 terrorist = evil bush admin... republic is being destroyed.

But, droning untold targets = nobel peace prize obama... republic is a-ok.

amirite?

**xole**

whembly wrote:
BrassScorpion wrote:
Great satire from MAD Magazine on this sad situation with Syria.

Spoiler:

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=617419251611854&set=a.456938077659973.101519.115919138428537&type=1&theater

So... um, waterboarding 3 terrorist = evil bush admin... republic is being destroyed.

But, droning untold targets = nobel peace prize obama... republic is a-ok.

amirite?

Let's not get into the debate of which leader is the most evil. It draws unwanted comparisons.

Off topic, can a nobel prize be revoked?

On topic, I'm not sure I'd care about this conflict if Assad went on television spraying nerve gas into an orphanage. I'm sorry, I'm just all out of care about the middle east.

**whembly**

xole wrote:

Let's not get into the debate of which leader is the most evil. It draws unwanted comparisons.

Just tweaking the good entertainer that we have in Brass...

Off topic, can a nobel prize be revoked?

Nope:

§ 10.
No appeals may be made against the decision of a prize-awarding body with regard to the award of a prize.

On topic, I'm not sure I'd care about this conflict if Assad went on television spraying nerve gas into an orphanage. I'm sorry, I'm just all out of care about the middle east.

On the surface... I'd agree with ya.

But look who's watching... (Iran, Hezbellah, etc...). See my drift. If Assad's wrist get slapped, are we going to see more WMD style attacks?

**whembly**

he doesn't disappoint...

**Soladrin**

The problem with that is, the UN inspection isn't allowed to check who used the gas.

**xole**

whembly wrote:
But look who's watching... (Iran, Hezbellah, etc...). See my drift. If Assad's wrist get slapped, are we going to see more WMD style attacks?

Yes, eventually. But that was always a matter of time.

**djones520**

Hey, Brass, whats your DU name?

**Medium of Death**

There is absolutely no reason for the UK, and the West in general, to wade into the middle of a bloody and complex civil war.

Who actually wants this? What good will this achieve?

**djones520**

Medium of Death wrote:
There is absolutely no reason for the UK, and the West in general, to wade into the middle of a bloody and complex civil war.

Who actually wants this? What good will this achieve?

Personally, I don't see how anything bad could come of parking a cruise missile in Assads bedroom.

Plus, as our admin leaks more and more details about how we are going to strike (does this strike anyone else as a really stupid thing to do), it's becoming increasingly clear that all we will do is help prolong this effort by slightly weakening Assad's fighting capabilities, putting the opposing forces more at parity.

**whembly**

Back OT...

Wouldn't also be against the Western World's interest to NOT engage Syria?

Because starting a war in this weak economy may not be such a smart thing.

**Dreadclaw69**

djones520 wrote:
Plus, as our admin leaks more and more details about how we are going to strike (does this strike anyone else as a really stupid thing to do), it's becoming increasingly clear that all we will do is help prolong this effort by slightly weakening Assad's fighting capabilities, putting the opposing forces more at parity.

Maybe they're hoping it's a way of putting pressure on the Assad regime knowing that they might be targetted. That might force them to make a political settlement rather than risk a missile strike.

**Mr. Burning**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
djones520 wrote:
Plus, as our admin leaks more and more details about how we are going to strike (does this strike anyone else as a really stupid thing to do), it's becoming increasingly clear that all we will do is help prolong this effort by slightly weakening Assad's fighting capabilities, putting the opposing forces more at parity.

Maybe they're hoping it's a way of putting pressure on the Assad regime knowing that they might be targetted. That might force them to make a political settlement rather than risk a missile strike.

One of the only settlement the rebels want is the ousting of Assad, his family and their family 'tribe'.

Assad Cannot bow to demands or threats.

**whembly**

Okay... c'mon... this is hysterical:

**xole**

whembly wrote:
Okay... c'mon... this is hysterical:

It's not like that's never happened before.

It is funny though.

**Dreadclaw69**

Mr. Burning wrote:
One of the only settlement the rebels want is the ousting of Assad, his family and their family 'tribe'.

Assad Cannot bow to demands or threats.

Looking at it from his perspective he is a part of a minority sect in Islam that is seen as heretical, and he's been in charge during the civil war. Of course he isn't going to step down without assurances, and possibly guaranteed asylum and protection in another country.

**BaronIveagh**

BrassScorpion wrote:
Yeah, this happened once before and it didn't turn out so well.

**xole**

Spoiler:

Then they should probably do something about that, then.

**Ketara**

whembly wrote:
Syria: Subjective Desires Fed by Ambiguous Intel Never Turns Out Well

On Syria, here are 14 points that need to be pondered a lot more than they are. I think in may ways we Westerners are misreading what is going on in Syria - something I reviewed in the free-swim portion of Midrats Sunday.

1. Bashar is the second son whose oldest brother was to be next in line until died in a car accident in '94. Bashar was a mild-mannered ophthalmologist and had less than 7-yrs to transition from a London eye doctor to head of a government.

2. Bashar is the leader of a family who has seen two of his brothers die prematurely in accidents and a brother in law killed in a civil war. His only surviving brother is the head of the Republican Guard and a survivor of a previous assassination attempt.

3. He is a member of a small Shi'ite sect who are not even seen as Muslims by Sunni fundamentalists. They are hated by most Syrians for the preferential treatment they have received for over 40 years. He knows if he does not hold power, Alawites will be slaughtered wholesale. His tribe does not have the best reputation either.

4. He has no options for him, his family, his tribe and his co-religionists other than victory.

5. He is of no serious threat to his neighbors and is focused on one thing; survival.

6. Some focus on taking out his "offensive power" - most of which is on paper only. Even if he had the ability, he has nothing to gain by attacking Western naval and air targets when his capital is infested with insurgents. He gains nothing from attacking his neighbor to the south. He gains nothing from attacking British bases in Cyprus.

7. What he needs are three things; time, Russia & Iran. Giving the West an excuse to attack him buys him nothing.

8. Always ask, "Who gains?" Small uses of gas helpful at the Tactical level? No. Useful at the Operational level? No. From a Strategic or Political level, does his use of gas produce any positive effects? No; for him.

9. If the international community thinks that Assad used poison gas, who gains positive Political and Strategic effects? The anti-Assad forces.

10. If Assad falls, who gets possession of all of Syria's poison gas stockpiles? The anti-Assad forces.

11. Who in the anti-Assad forces has the most military power to keep and control the gas? Al-Qaeda affiliated groups.

12. Who has the most to gain from Assad's use of gas? Al-Qaeda.

13. What is one weapon-set Al-Qaeda has wanted to use against the West since even before 9/11? WMD; chemical, biological, or nuclear.

14. What is the #1 target of Al-Qaeda if they had WMD? The West in general, USA specifically.

So, if we contribute to the fall of Assad, we are giving our enemy the weapons they want to kill thousands of OUR people.

If that is the case - is it in our national interest to see Assad survive? Yes.

Is that pretty? No.

Which is worse, thousands of dead Sunnis or thousands of dead Shi'ite & Christians? They are all bad ... but none of them are worse than thousands to tens of thousands of dead Americans gassed in subways in 2016.

That pretty much sums it up...eh?

It could be a triple bluff. Assad could be assuming anyone with a sense of logic will conclude it couldn't be him, and therefore think he's safe to use gas. Or alternatively, he could just believe the West will never intervene(not unjustified by the death toll and 'meh' response so far) and not be applying that logic particularly himself.

Or both sides could be using gas.

The funny thing about these things is that all three could be true.

**Medium of Death**

BaronIveagh wrote:

Yes. Yes it is.

Loads of kids die around the world every day and nobody "cares". Not really sure what your point is here? Complicating the civil war, all the while escalating it to an international incident, wont bring these kids back.

**Ouze**

Yeah, I understand it's terrible and awful. I totally get that.

What I'm still having a problem with it is why we need to send our kids over there to get blown up to stop it.

**djones520**

Ouze wrote:
Yeah, I understand it's terrible and awful. I totally get that.

What I'm still having a problem with it is why we need to send our kids over there to get blown up to stop it.

Well, don't trouble yourself, because YOU'RE not. We are doing it ourselves. We asked to wear this uniform, we knew what the risks were. Stop treating us like victims.

**pities2004**

djones520 wrote:
Ouze wrote:
Yeah, I understand it's terrible and awful. I totally get that.

What I'm still having a problem with it is why we need to send our kids over there to get blown up to stop it.

Well, don't trouble yourself, because YOU'RE not. We are doing it ourselves. We asked to wear this uniform, we knew what the risks were. Stop treating us like victims.

Exalted!

**whembly**

djones520 wrote:
Ouze wrote:
Yeah, I understand it's terrible and awful. I totally get that.

What I'm still having a problem with it is why we need to send our kids over there to get blown up to stop it.

Well, don't trouble yourself, because YOU'RE not. We are doing it ourselves. We asked to wear this uniform, we knew what the risks were. Stop treating us like victims.

Nice!

I'm sure Ouze didn't mean any disrepect...

**djones520**

whembly wrote:
djones520 wrote:
Ouze wrote:
Yeah, I understand it's terrible and awful. I totally get that.

What I'm still having a problem with it is why we need to send our kids over there to get blown up to stop it.

Well, don't trouble yourself, because YOU'RE not. We are doing it ourselves. We asked to wear this uniform, we knew what the risks were. Stop treating us like victims.

Nice!

I'm sure Ouze didn't mean any disrepect...

I don't think he did either, but he's posted this a couple times the past couple of days, and that's how it's coming across.