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.
Korinov wrote: Kill 100.000 with conventional weapons -> hah, tough luck, nothing to see here.
Kill 100 with chemical weapons -> TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE.
I'm freaking scared of chemical weapons too, but come on, the hypocrisy level went past Mars a while ago.
Specially when it's still not that clear who did actually launch the chemical attack. Yeah, most fingers point to Assad's regime, but it seems weird at least for him to do such a thing right now. And the USA have quite a history of lies regarding chemical weapons.
Really?
It "seems weird" for him to do such a thing right now?
I mean, you would think that in 2013 it would have been "seeming weird" for him to be butchering his own people buut....
He's a brutal dictator, yes. He's proved a hundred times he has no qualms about slaughtering his own people, yes. But why do such a thing right now, when he seems to be winning the war, and such an action could only bring him harm? Makes little sense, to be honest.
Progress is like a herd of pigs: everybody is interested in the produced benefits, but nobody wants to deal with all the resulting gak.
GW customers deserve every bit of outrageous princing they get.
I'm wondering what makes chemical weapons such a red line?
Being shot and bleeding to death over several hours or blown apart by a bomb aren't exactly any less unpleasant than choking to death or the like.
The real reason they're not really used is because they're more trouble for armies than they are worth, they don't really inflict lots of casualties or anything, but require lots of safeguards to both deliver and defend against and are very finicky to deploy and control, and just bog everything down for everyone for no real gain on either side beyond small scale immediate tactical surprise at the first use or two. Their threat is primarily to morale and in shock but that wears off quickly with continued use.
People were fine with civilians being blown to bits, bulldozed alive, shot, stabbed, burned, etc, not sure what makes gassing civilians worse than a barrel bomb or smoke inhalation (it's on type of gassing) or shrapnel killing them.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
Medium of Death wrote: IT WAS THAT EVIL EMPIRE FROM 60 YEARS AGO. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH US. WE DIDN'T TOTALLY FORCE THE UK OFF STAGE AND TAKE ITS ROLE.
Yanks truly are pathetic. Complain about Britain and then act worse as soon as you have power. I can't wait for your country to Balkanize.
And...reported.
Frazzled why are you such a light weight? You always go off on people and yet you're this easily triggered.
No scale I ever stepped on would say I was a lightweight. Most would scream Dear Dog get off me!
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
jmurph wrote: Since this was a strike on a sovereign nation, it does seem odd that the US president would unilaterally order a strike, especially when his party controls Congress. Wouldn't getting Congressional authorization first been a smarter play? I have no doubt they will quickly scurry to approve the act, however. Despite GOP lamenting Obama using force in Syria or Hillary Clinton dragging us in because politics.
Also, doesn't striking Assad aid Al Quaeda/ ISIS forces? I thought that is why the previous administration was backing off- the alliances and factions are so treacherous.
Korinov wrote: He's a brutal dictator, yes. He's proved a hundred times he has no qualms about slaughtering his own people, yes. But why do such a thing right now, when he seems to be winning the war, and such an action could only bring him harm? Makes little sense, to be honest.
Is Assad actually in control of anything? He was only recalled to Syria and groomed to take over for daddy when the favorite elder brother died in an accident, as I recall. He rarely makes statements and often doesn't even appear for official functions, instead straight-up photoshopping his presence later. Maybe he's locked up in his rooms and kept as a figurehead for Generals and other advisors doing their own thing?
edit: how convenient to have a despicable dictator one can depose when necessary, becoming the hero of Syria who can head the new government...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/07 14:32:09
What was the impetus for the missile strike? E.g is it because it was thought that chemical weapons, particular nerve gas were no longer being used or that Syria had completed disarmed?
What has changed since the last alleged chemical attacks (In 2015 IIRCC)? Syria’s objectives? The US’s objectives?
I know the flippant answer will be the President of the US has changed, but that seems too obvious. Would Hillary, who was definitely more hawkish than Obama, have made the same decision?
Is this really just a case of pure political opportunism? If so what is evidence for this?
What does this achieve?
Is this sufficient to deter Syria? Does it serve as an effective notice that if Assad uses chemical weapons the US will launch retaliatory strikes?
What is to stop Assad from effectively using the Russia’s military assets on the ground as “shields” against future retaliatory strikes?
Would Russia be complicit by suggesting and supporting such a strategy or would Russia seek to withdraw their personnel to avoid becoming collateral casualties?
What steps will Russia take? Iran?
Does this strike change the calculus for anyone else, e.g. Turkey, ISIS, Iraq, etc.?
Who will be the main beneficiary? Syrian civilians, Syrian opposition, ISIS, Turkey, Assad, Russia, the US? Why?
As others have raised, is there truly a moral distinction between the use of chemical weapons and conventional weapons? If so, what action is the US or any other signatory to the Chemical Weapons Convention obligated to take?
I know I am asking a lot of questions, but I am really curious and wanting to avoid becoming myopically focused on just one or two questions that only serve to reinforce a preferred narrative or position that only serves to distract and not inform.
"Preach the gospel always, If necessary use words." ~ St. Francis of Assisi
Dmitry Peskov, spokesman for Russian President Vladimir Putin, called the US strike an "act of aggression against a sovereign nation".
The Russian foreign ministry said that, as a result, it was suspending a deal with the US designed to prevent clashes in the skies over Syria as the two countries wage different campaigns.
Defence officials also said Syria's air defences would be strengthened to protect key infrastructure.
I would expect that if Russia had dirt that they aided Trump in getting elected we should see it soon, after all the supposed Russian Puppet President has now gone off the reservation. If Putin has the receipts perhaps he can get a refund
jreilly89 wrote: So is Trump a warmonger? Or is there a convenient excuse for him to get out of this?
No more than any other President that has taken military action
Automatically Appended Next Post: Russia calls for emergency U.N. meeting after U.S. strikes on Syria Surely it would have been easier for Putin to call his BFF in the White House. I mean after all what sort of ingratitude does the strike show to the person who is supposed to have gotten him elected?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/04/07 15:30:42
I think some ideas on the Trump/Putin thing have been taken by both sides a wee bit far.
Is Trump merely a Putin puppet? Almost certainly not.
Did Russia make attempts to influence the election in Trump's favor because they thought he would be more favorable to their goals than Hillary? Almost certainly. To what degree is debatable, perhaps nothing that affected the outcome, perhaps something that did.
Was there inappropriate contact between people within Trump's administration and Russia? Almost certainly.
Does this mean Trump and his administration are "owned" by Russia? Almost certainly not.
Did Russia really know what they were going to get when they were hoping for a Trump win? Almost certainly not.
Has Russia been regretting their support of Trump for weeks? Almost certainly.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
Lord of Deeds wrote: What was the impetus for the missile strike? E.g is it because it was thought that chemical weapons, particular nerve gas were no longer being used or that Syria had completed disarmed?
The fact that Assad used them after saying he got rid of them, the world saw pictures of the dead children, and Trump got upset.
In reality, Assad using them makes a lot of people look bad, in particular everyone who agreed to the previous deal.
What has changed since the last alleged chemical attacks (In 2015 IIRCC)? Syria’s objectives? The US’s objectives?
Obama wouldn't do anything without congressional approval. Trump doesn't care.
I know the flippant answer will be the President of the US has changed, but that seems too obvious. Would Hillary, who was definitely more hawkish than Obama, have made the same decision?
Probably, although Hillary doing it would have brought on a ton of criticism from the Republican congress, who would either tell Hillary to stay out, or that it didn't go far enough. The Republicans will rally around a Republican president and slam a Democratic one no matter what.
But also understand that the agreement under Obama was essentially, 'lets give peace a chance'. That didn't work. And because Obama blinked no one respected him, or believed the US would do anything if it happened again. Trump just showed his cards and its a different game now.
Is this really just a case of pure political opportunism? If so what is evidence for this?
No, Trump is a pretty transparent guy. I am sure he was affected by the pictures. But I also said that the timing of this was also brilliant, even if consequential. It sends a message to China while Xi is here that he isn't going to be soft, and sends a warning to North Korea.
What does this achieve?
It essentially forces everyone else to re-think their game plan. After 8 years, everyone knew what Obama would and wouldn't do. Trump is showing he is unpredictable.
Also, the threat of using force without the others believing you won't use it, along with the likelihood that you won't, doesn't mean much. Sometimes you do have to break someone's nose to let everyone else know you mean business. Essentially Trump is letting everyone know things are going to be different.
Is this sufficient to deter Syria? Does it serve as an effective notice that if Assad uses chemical weapons the US will launch retaliatory strikes?
I believe so, at least for the time being. Maybe if Assad's forces lose a lot of ground, are backed into a corner, they will probably unleash everything they have and not care.
What is to stop Assad from effectively using the Russia’s military assets on the ground as “shields” against future retaliatory strikes?
He could try, and if it becomes a matter of taking this further, what would Russia's option be if the US did destroy the other bases and their assets along with them? Sure they could fire back a bit, maybe cause the US a few casualties, but the US can bring far far more assets to the region that Russia can. They will just be overwhelmed.
Would Russia be complicit by suggesting and supporting such a strategy or would Russia seek to withdraw their personnel to avoid becoming collateral casualties?
Well, Putin cares nothing for the lives of his people, but he does care about Russian prestige, because that affects his own prestige. If he thought Russian assets in the region would prevent American strikes, he gambled wrong. If he sends more assets to the region, I doubt it would change the US's mind about taking things further if they felt they needed to.
What steps will Russia take? Iran?
For Russia, you'll probably see them send some assets to Syria, but they know that would just be kissing them goodbye if it came to an all out shooting match. I do think Russia wants to pull back on their involvement there, and were in the process before this.
However, I do think its likely you will see things flare up in Ukraine now. Russia can't take the US on directly, so you'll see them do things like help the Taliban in some way.
Iran can't do much. We have already told them to back off Yemen and they have. You'll see some bitter tweets and so on, but again, they got away with a lot under Obama and I think they will need to rethink their game plan too.
Who will be the main beneficiary? Syrian civilians, Syrian opposition, ISIS, Turkey, Assad, Russia, the US? Why?
Maybe this provides a morale booster for some who oppose Assad, but this isn't going to change things much on its own.
As others have raised, is there truly a moral distinction between the use of chemical weapons and conventional weapons? If so, what action is the US or any other signatory to the Chemical Weapons Convention obligated to take?
None of us lived through WWI, so we don't quite have a frame of reference for the mass deaths by chemical weapons in war. But after that, people were horrified enough to try and prevent their use again. I am not sure why they are considered so horrific, aside from seeing innocent people getting killed. I think flame throwers are banned in the Geneva Convention too but I am not sure. But even if they were, as horrible as it is being burned alive, how is getting a leg blown off or disemboweled by an artillery shell from beyond visual range considered any better? Horrific things already happen on the battlefield with "conventional" weapons as it is, and no one is arguing to ban those. It does seem hypocritical to have any "rules' in war at all, considering what humans are essentially trying to do to each other while doing it. "You can kill this person this way and that way, but you can't use this way." You are still killing.
Now I am not supporting Assad here. I am just saying war is in itself, a terrible affair and you are going to have mass destruction with bullets, bombs, shells, and missiles too.
And this sounds kind of morbid, but it might be hard to rally troops to fight if the conditions are so terrible that they wont. So if you ban chemical weapons, you make the soldier believe he has a more even chance against his opponent, even though that is actually rarely the case (such as the US having air supremacy most of the time). In Desert Storm, everyone was terrified by chemical weapons by Saddam, but you barely heard a peep about all the bullets and shells he had.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/04/07 15:37:22
What has changed since the last alleged chemical attacks (In 2015 IIRCC)? Syria’s objectives? The US’s objectives?
Obama wouldn't do anything without congressional approval. Trump doesn't care.
That is not correct. Obama definitely dropped bombs without congressional approval. Trump did notify members of congress before this (leaders) but legally does not need their approval (neither did Obama until he went over the 60 days...)
Yes that is correct, Obama was set to back up his red line but couldn't get support from congress before hand. Trump informed congress, but did not seek prior approval.
Vaktathi wrote: I'm wondering what makes chemical weapons such a red line?
Being shot and bleeding to death over several hours or blown apart by a bomb aren't exactly any less unpleasant than choking to death or the like.
The real reason they're not really used is because they're more trouble for armies than they are worth, they don't really inflict lots of casualties or anything, but require lots of safeguards to both deliver and defend against and are very finicky to deploy and control, and just bog everything down for everyone for no real gain on either side beyond small scale immediate tactical surprise at the first use or two. Their threat is primarily to morale and in shock but that wears off quickly with continued use.
People were fine with civilians being blown to bits, bulldozed alive, shot, stabbed, burned, etc, not sure what makes gassing civilians worse than a barrel bomb or smoke inhalation (it's on type of gassing) or shrapnel killing them.
It's really a quirk of history. Everyone got together and agreed to outlaw chemical weapons I believe around the start of the 20th century. Unlike Nukes after WW2, no one had any stockpiles of chem weapons anyway so no one felt it was much of a sacrifice to ban it. Around the same time there was resolutions passed against attacking civilians from aircraft etc.
Any of those banned means of war were utilized anyway during WW1 when it came to a choice between following the rules or gaining military advantage, but chemical weapons as you say, proved to not really be worth the effort. They're not worth the hassle compared to conventional weapons and all the states with real pull in International Politics have much better weapons to utilize so there's no reason to change the legal status of chems. Unlike say, the rules of air-to-ground combat or submarine warfare.
With risk of sounding overly conspiratorial, I'm among those who find it rather suspect the Assad regime would utilize these kind of weapons when they currently have the upper hand in conventional warfare. Since their usage provide such a rare and easy justification for outside interference, for very little military gain.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/04/07 16:04:03
KTG17 wrote: Yes that is correct, Obama was set to back up his red line but couldn't get support from congress before hand. Trump informed congress, but did not seek prior approval.
Obama bombed the snot out of Libya, past the 60 days he was allowed under the War Powers Act, and never got congressional approval.
So, no, Obama did not refuse to act based on inability to get approval from congress.
He did not ever need approval for a reprisal strike against a WMD use in Syria, and as his actions in Libya show, congress refusing to approve was a cop out. He clearly was willing to act without their approval.
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
None of us lived through WWI, so we don't quite have a frame of reference for the mass deaths by chemical weapons in war. But after that, people were horrified enough to try and prevent their use again. I am not sure why they are considered so horrific, aside from seeing innocent people getting killed. I think flame throwers are banned in the Geneva Convention too but I am not sure. But even if they were, as horrible as it is being burned alive, how is getting a leg blown off or disemboweled by an artillery shell from beyond visual range considered any better? Horrific things already happen on the battlefield with "conventional" weapons as it is, and no one is arguing to ban those. It does seem hypocritical to have any "rules' in war at all, considering what humans are essentially trying to do to each other while doing it. "You can kill this person this way and that way, but you can't use this way." You are still killing.
To answer this, and maybe provide a counterpoint to my earlier assertion, a lot of these "rules" of war arent so much about making things humane, but about pissing people off less and making it easier to resolve the conflict. Had the Argentines or Brits wantonly executed prisoners or used banned weapons or something, the Falklands conflict would have escalated into something much larger, costlier, and uglier, as emotions drove the sides to seek "vengeance" or "justice", for no real advantage to either side. As it was, it was a short, decisive conflict with relatively few casualties and a clear outcome with little collateral damage to repair and a relatively quick resumption of normal relations.
Rules of war help promote these outcomes. Without rules, you get forever wars and long lasting scars. One can look at the difference in conduct and effect between the Western and Eastern fronts of WW2 and see huge differences in outcomes even with hard fighting on all sides.
That said, with a conflict like Syria thats already brutal, personal, and horrific, gas or flamethrowers and the like is really just icing on the cake, all the things those "rules" help prevent have already come to pass.
The big thing with gas is that it just makes everything shittier for no real gain over conventional weapons, and causes nearly as much stress for the user as the victims (albeit in different ways, with the user they have to deal with producing, safely handling and delivering the weapon which is no simple thing, and then have to be ready for retaliation which requires procuring and distributing gas masks and suits and whatnot), largely just increasing the cost of the conflict for all sides without really contributing to ultimate victory so it's easier for all sides just to agree to not use them. But when you're at a place like Syria is, those rules are already out the window as the consequences have already come to pass.
Vaktathi wrote: I'm wondering what makes chemical weapons such a red line?
Being shot and bleeding to death over several hours or blown apart by a bomb aren't exactly any less unpleasant than choking to death or the like.
The real reason they're not really used is because they're more trouble for armies than they are worth, they don't really inflict lots of casualties or anything, but require lots of safeguards to both deliver and defend against and are very finicky to deploy and control, and just bog everything down for everyone for no real gain on either side beyond small scale immediate tactical surprise at the first use or two. Their threat is primarily to morale and in shock but that wears off quickly with continued use.
People were fine with civilians being blown to bits, bulldozed alive, shot, stabbed, burned, etc, not sure what makes gassing civilians worse than a barrel bomb or smoke inhalation (it's on type of gassing) or shrapnel killing them.
It's really a quirk of history. Everyone got together and agreed to outlaw chemical weapons I believe around the start of the 20th century. Unlike Nukes after WW2, no one had any stockpiles of chem weapons anyway so no one felt it was much of a sacrifice to ban it. Around the same time there was resolutions passed against attacking civilians from aircraft etc.
Any of those banned means of war were utilized anyway during WW1 when it came to a choice between following the rules or gaining military advantage, but chemical weapons as you say, proved to not really be worth the effort. They're not worth the hassle compared to conventional weapons and all the states with real pull in International Politics have much better weapons to utilize so there's no reason to change the legal status of chems. Unlike say, the rules of air-to-ground combat or submarine warfare.
With risk of sounding overly conspiratorial, I'm among those who find it rather suspect the Assad regime would utilize these kind of weapons when they currently have the upper hand in conventional warfare. Since their usage provide such a rare and easy justification for outside interference, for very little military gain.
aye, its very odd. Im never one to rule out stupidity, and Assad's regime has shown itself as such in the past, but there is also every possibility of a false flag or renegade local commander or the wrong shells getting on the wrong pallet or something else too.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/04/07 16:08:56
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
Just to clarify; now that Syria is being subjected to chemical attack and being bombed by the worlds most powerful military do any of its people -- the children for example -- get to come into the USA as refugees yet ?
A cynical person might say it's almost as if the reporters who repeatedly noted during the campaign that Trump had a tendency to support military interventions were telling the truth all along..
.. who could've seen that ?
sidenote :
if any dakkanauts and/or their friends/families are involved in this in whatever way -- stay safe and good luck to y'all
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
None of us lived through WWI, so we don't quite have a frame of reference for the mass deaths by chemical weapons in war. But after that, people were horrified enough to try and prevent their use again. I am not sure why they are considered so horrific, aside from seeing innocent people getting killed. I think flame throwers are banned in the Geneva Convention too but I am not sure. But even if they were, as horrible as it is being burned alive, how is getting a leg blown off or disemboweled by an artillery shell from beyond visual range considered any better? Horrific things already happen on the battlefield with "conventional" weapons as it is, and no one is arguing to ban those. It does seem hypocritical to have any "rules' in war at all, considering what humans are essentially trying to do to each other while doing it. "You can kill this person this way and that way, but you can't use this way." You are still killing.
Flamethrowers are not banned in Geneva conventions, per se. Regular militaries can use them, but they are supposed to only be used for things like brush clearing and the like. They aren't to be used "intentionally" on people.
There are a number of reasons why we don't use them today. Firstly, the soldier carrying it, has a fething fuel tank, on their back. Secondly, aside from 'Nam, we haven't actually been in a country where they would be all that useful (and we did use them in 'Nam, including having a flamethrower tank). Thirdly, the US military system as a whole, has become a lot more environmentally conscious. A LOT MORE. Enviro impact statements are now a part of a number of operational things done, as of when I left the military, and Mad Dog himself has been on that bandwagon publicly since taking the SecDef job, despite Cheeto-Lord and minions taking an ax to anything that says "environment" on it.
Lord of Deeds wrote: What was the impetus for the missile strike? E.g is it because it was thought that chemical weapons, particular nerve gas were no longer being used or that Syria had completed disarmed?
The fact that Assad used them after saying he got rid of them, the world saw pictures of the dead children, and Trump got upset.
In reality, Assad using them makes a lot of people look bad, in particular everyone who agreed to the previous deal.
What has changed since the last alleged chemical attacks (In 2015 IIRCC)? Syria’s objectives? The US’s objectives?
Obama wouldn't do anything without congressional approval. Trump doesn't care.
I know the flippant answer will be the President of the US has changed, but that seems too obvious. Would Hillary, who was definitely more hawkish than Obama, have made the same decision?
Probably, although Hillary doing it would have brought on a ton of criticism from the Republican congress, who would either tell Hillary to stay out, or that it didn't go far enough. The Republicans will rally around a Republican president and slam a Democratic one no matter what.
But also understand that the agreement under Obama was essentially, 'lets give peace a chance'. That didn't work. And because Obama blinked no one respected him, or believed the US would do anything if it happened again. Trump just showed his cards and its a different game now.
Is this really just a case of pure political opportunism? If so what is evidence for this?
No, Trump is a pretty transparent guy. I am sure he was affected by the pictures. But I also said that the timing of this was also brilliant, even if consequential. It sends a message to China while Xi is here that he isn't going to be soft, and sends a warning to North Korea.
What does this achieve?
It essentially forces everyone else to re-think their game plan. After 8 years, everyone knew what Obama would and wouldn't do. Trump is showing he is unpredictable.
Also, the threat of using force without the others believing you won't use it, along with the likelihood that you won't, doesn't mean much. Sometimes you do have to break someone's nose to let everyone else know you mean business. Essentially Trump is letting everyone know things are going to be different.
Is this sufficient to deter Syria? Does it serve as an effective notice that if Assad uses chemical weapons the US will launch retaliatory strikes?
I believe so, at least for the time being. Maybe if Assad's forces lose a lot of ground, are backed into a corner, they will probably unleash everything they have and not care.
What is to stop Assad from effectively using the Russia’s military assets on the ground as “shields” against future retaliatory strikes?
He could try, and if it becomes a matter of taking this further, what would Russia's option be if the US did destroy the other bases and their assets along with them? Sure they could fire back a bit, maybe cause the US a few casualties, but the US can bring far far more assets to the region that Russia can. They will just be overwhelmed.
Would Russia be complicit by suggesting and supporting such a strategy or would Russia seek to withdraw their personnel to avoid becoming collateral casualties?
Well, Putin cares nothing for the lives of his people, but he does care about Russian prestige, because that affects his own prestige. If he thought Russian assets in the region would prevent American strikes, he gambled wrong. If he sends more assets to the region, I doubt it would change the US's mind about taking things further if they felt they needed to.
What steps will Russia take? Iran?
For Russia, you'll probably see them send some assets to Syria, but they know that would just be kissing them goodbye if it came to an all out shooting match. I do think Russia wants to pull back on their involvement there, and were in the process before this.
However, I do think its likely you will see things flare up in Ukraine now. Russia can't take the US on directly, so you'll see them do things like help the Taliban in some way.
Iran can't do much. We have already told them to back off Yemen and they have. You'll see some bitter tweets and so on, but again, they got away with a lot under Obama and I think they will need to rethink their game plan too.
Who will be the main beneficiary? Syrian civilians, Syrian opposition, ISIS, Turkey, Assad, Russia, the US? Why?
Maybe this provides a morale booster for some who oppose Assad, but this isn't going to change things much on its own.
As others have raised, is there truly a moral distinction between the use of chemical weapons and conventional weapons? If so, what action is the US or any other signatory to the Chemical Weapons Convention obligated to take?
None of us lived through WWI, so we don't quite have a frame of reference for the mass deaths by chemical weapons in war. But after that, people were horrified enough to try and prevent their use again. I am not sure why they are considered so horrific, aside from seeing innocent people getting killed. I think flame throwers are banned in the Geneva Convention too but I am not sure. But even if they were, as horrible as it is being burned alive, how is getting a leg blown off or disemboweled by an artillery shell from beyond visual range considered any better? Horrific things already happen on the battlefield with "conventional" weapons as it is, and no one is arguing to ban those. It does seem hypocritical to have any "rules' in war at all, considering what humans are essentially trying to do to each other while doing it. "You can kill this person this way and that way, but you can't use this way." You are still killing.
Now I am not supporting Assad here. I am just saying war is in itself, a terrible affair and you are going to have mass destruction with bullets, bombs, shells, and missiles too.
And this sounds kind of morbid, but it might be hard to rally troops to fight if the conditions are so terrible that they wont. So if you ban chemical weapons, you make the soldier believe he has a more even chance against his opponent, even though that is actually rarely the case (such as the US having air supremacy most of the time). In Desert Storm, everyone was terrified by chemical weapons by Saddam, but you barely heard a peep about all the bullets and shells he had.
KTG17 thank you for taking time to answer my questions. I found your answers illuminating and informative. Anyone have any different answers?
"Preach the gospel always, If necessary use words." ~ St. Francis of Assisi
I'm calling it now: 20:1 odds that Assad will be deposed by another Russian friendly/anti-Western leader. Or at least one that refuses to play ball with the West.
Russia gets to hold on to their monopoly supplying natural gas to Europe, which is a strategic asset I'm fairly sure they'd go to war with us over, and Trump gets to say not only did he "clean up" an Obama mess, but he shut down Assad when he stepped over the red line.
It's the best solution for Trump and Russia.
Russia's monopoly on the gas supply to Europe is an incredible strategic value for them. We went to war because Saddam Hussein presented a threat to American dominance in the oil market... Russia has already exhibited that they're willing to do the same over this. A Western alternative to Russian natural gas would more or less destroy any chance Putin would have of rebuilding Russia into the powerhouse that it once was... And that's very much his goal.
I don't think Trump is married to the hardline stance against Russia that Obama was. Even if they play hardball with each other in the coming days, I strikes me that it would likely be an act to get what both countries want. We take Assad out, and then agree on an interim government with Russia that may even be "moderate." Whatever government they eventually transition to will block the Qatari pipeline, and it will never get built.
Russia retains their most strategic asset, and Trump gets to chalk it up as a win, not only because he got to "play hardball" with Russia, but he'll also play it up real big how he's cleaning up Obama's messes.
And it's kinda a win. Except for the people we were backing. They'll probably be rounded up and jailed/murdered, or will more than likely fight to the bitter end against the Russians and whatever Russian-friendly new Syrian govt gets installed. And the fact that, strategically, it was a loss.
It's a hard place and Obama was in a really tough position in having to deal with it.
As this is developing, it's becoming easier to see it as being a Russian false-flag op.
Watch for tensions to grow between us. Russia is gonna act super pissed about it. And then we're gonna get together and agree to depose Assad.
I don't ACTUALLY think it's a Russian false-flag. It's way more likely to be a general who's really fething dumb, or doesn't give a gak what the rest of the world thinks. Or some idiots who did it by sheer accident. (Think about it, Assad was supposed to have handed over all his chemical weapons. He could have had some repackaged and stored in ammo dumps. Someone else accidentally grabbed them, whether they were rockets, artillery shells, whatever, and not knowing they were the "special" ones sent them out to the front, where they were loaded up and fired without a second thought. Yes, these people really are this horrible at war.)
Also, watch out for former US-backed rebel groups to get slaughtered by the Russians and government forces without us doing a damn thing about it, coming soon to a theater near you. This will probably serve as a better litmus test for my theory than waiting around for the pipeline to never materialize.
Spoiler:
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/04/07 16:45:53
Also, doesn't striking Assad aid Al Quaeda/ ISIS forces? I thought that is why the previous administration was backing off- the alliances and factions are so treacherous.
Well, I would be of the opinion that we should bomb both sides if we're going in anyway.
Its not like this is an Either/Or situation. Just treating multiple sides of this conflict, which is already pretty much a 3 way between Assad, ISIS, and the Kurds, as hostiles can be a thing.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
Also, doesn't striking Assad aid Al Quaeda/ ISIS forces? I thought that is why the previous administration was backing off- the alliances and factions are so treacherous.
Well, I would be of the opinion that we should bomb both sides if we're going in anyway.
Its not like this is an Either/Or situation. Just treating multiple sides of this conflict, which is already pretty much a 3 way between Assad, ISIS, and the Kurds, as hostiles can be a thing.
If we were to create another power vacuum, like we did in Iraq and Libya, the people most likely to take charge, the ones that are the best organized and armed, are the ISIS/AQ/Muslim Brotherhood type of fundamentalists that we wouldn't want to be in charge either. That's one of the main reasons all we've been doing since the Syrian civil war started is intermittent bombing campaigns. There is no faction for us to back that could win and there's no political or popular will for us to spend decades occupying Syria to prop up a regime we install. The other big problem is that Russia/Gazprom wants whoever governs Syria to be somebody that they can control well enough to ensure that no new pipelines are allowed to go through that country into the EU market. Russia cares a lot more about controlling Syria than we do so it's unlikely that we do anything that directly opposes their interests there.
Waiting for my shill money from Spiral Arm Studios
Which would be why we would bomb ISIS as well, and totally eliminate them. Let the Kurds be the only organized group standing.
Self-proclaimed evil Cat-person. Dues Ex Felines
Cato Sicarius, after force feeding Captain Ventris a copy of the Codex Astartes for having the audacity to play Deathwatch, chokes to death on his own D-baggery after finding Calgar assembling his new Eldar army.
Grey Templar wrote: Which would be why we would bomb ISIS as well, and totally eliminate them. Let the Kurds be the only organized group standing.
We've been bombing ISIS for years yet they're still going. I don't think we can wipe out a fundamentalist religious movement/militia with just air assets.