Question About Syria

[LordKiran]

Those strikes were not just a US decision. The UK and France participated in them. So it is probably unlikely that Putin will make good on his threat to target the launch sites. The fact is that Putin could have deterred his puppet from using chemical weapons, but why should he? He develops and uses them himself. This was a case where he probably assumed that the West would turn a blind eye to Assad's use of terrorism with poison gas to "cleanse" areas that were opposition strongholds.

The problem is that Trump gave plenty of advance warning, so these attacks are largely symbolic. Assad and his Russian allies had plenty of time to move military assets away from target zones. The damage will be very limited, and Assad can pick up where he left off. He will probably dial back on the gas attacks, but he is committing plenty of atrocities by other means. And neither the Russians nor the Iranians are going to abandon him, no matter what he does.

You know it almost looks like a small part of a larger ploy in a biblical sense; round the gates enough times and eventually the defenders leave the front door unlocked.

But then I remember who our president is and that I'm probably giving him too much credit.

 

[Derec]

But that's still not making a significant strategic difference. The Iranian regime can afford to lose a handful of military personnel, and continue with its plans only slightly delayed.

No. But Israel is a small country. The US/France/UK should have done an attack at same time, of similar magnitude as this later one. That would have been very different.

 

[Copernicus]

Possibly, Trump felt compelled to be seen as tough on Russia, so he softened the blow as best he could. But it's also possible that he is just a fucking moron, as they say. In any case, there is little purpose to these missile strikes. They ratchet up international tensions, but Assad and Putin are still on track to win the long game here. Assad depends much more on Putin for his security, and Trump probably didn't manage to kill a lot of Russians. There is little effective opposition left to topple Assad's regime. The Kurds are really only interested in their own nationhood, and Turkey is going to keep them contained.

 

[barbos]

Those strikes were not just a US decision. The UK and France participated in them. So it is probably unlikely that Putin will make good on his threat to target the launch sites.

Once again, Putin made no such threat. You have been lied to.

The fact is that Putin could have deterred his puppet from using chemical weapons, but why should he? He develops and uses them himself. This was a case where he probably assumed that the West would turn a blind eye to Assad's use of terrorism with poison gas to "cleanse" areas that were opposition strongholds.

The problem is that Trump gave plenty of advance warning, so these attacks are largely symbolic. Assad and his Russian allies had plenty of time to move military assets away from target zones. The damage will be very limited, and Assad can pick up where he left off. He will probably dial back on the gas attacks, but he is committing plenty of atrocities by other means. And neither the Russians nor the Iranians are going to abandon him, no matter what he does.

Problem is, the more successful US strikes against Assad are the more innocent people will die.

 

[Copernicus]

...
Problem is, the more successful US strikes against Assad are the more innocent people will die.

The problem is that more innocent people will die regardless of the "success" of those strikes. Assad's use of poison gas (with Russia's complicity) is utterly contemptuous, but all sides in this war are committing horrible atrocities. That is why I think that the US should now withdraw. We have no strategic goal to achieve there. Russia has its naval base and a foothold in the oil-rich Middle East. Putin's overall strategy is to corner as much of the oil market as he can. Trump is in no position to oppose him, even if he understood anything about international politics.

 

[barbos]

...
Problem is, the more successful US strikes against Assad are the more innocent people will die.

The problem is that more innocent people will die regardless of the "success" of those strikes.

No

Assad's use of poison gas (with Russia's complicity) is utterly contemptuous, but all sides in this war are committing horrible atrocities.

US is complicit with atrocities of other side.

That is why I think that the US should now withdraw.

And help ISIS?

We have no strategic goal to achieve there.

Oh, you do have it, Your strategic role is the same as it was during soviet "invasion" of Afghanistan - hurt your enemy - Russia.

Russia has its naval base and a foothold in the oil-rich Middle East. Putin's overall strategy is to corner as much of the oil market as he can. Trump is in no position to oppose him, even if he understood anything about international politics.

Wow, just wow, what shit are you smoking, I am asking for a friend.

 

[steve_bank]

IMO Obama walked a fine line between all factions in the region.

He did say his conclusion was that there was no military or political solutions. It has been recalled in the media with Trump's potential to take half assed action. It took a lot of strength for Obama to resist the hawks on both sides.

Obama did something no other president has done. He essentially called the Arabs duplicitous. They always play all sides, and while arming anti-Iran opposition in Syria they play the victim.

Trump on the verge of doing something with very serious consequences. The fool is taunting Russia in tweets like it is a TV show. I am not religious, but god help us. Somebody in the media needs to get serious and start sounding a loud alarm.

After the Cuban Missile Crisis, it became clear that there was a real risk of a war starting because the leaders of the US and USSR could not rapidly communicate with each other; This lead to the establishment of the 'Hot Line'.

It seems that today we need the opposite - a 'Cold Line' where any communication from the POTUS can be examined and (if it might cause a diplomatic incident, or the outbreak of war) be redacted before any other nation's leaders - particularly the Russians - get to see it.

Macnamara said in the 90s that when he went to bed during the crisis he did not know if he would wake up.

It was more than just a risk, it was close.

Khrushchev was fighting Russian hawks facing a hardliner coup. American hawks like Lemay wanted to start it and settle it. You can hear him on the tapes.Both JFK and Khrushchev were WWII combat vets and new the consequences of war, IMO that is what saved the day.

The problem today is Trump does not seem to grasp consequences.

 

[Derec]

Macnamara said in the 90s that when he went to bed during the crisis he did not know if he would wake up.

What? They did not evacuate the top brass to some of our deeper mine shafts? Must be that mine shaft gap.

 

[Derec]

And help ISIS?

ISIS is pretty much finished militarily. And they are hardly the only group who hate Assad, Hezbollah and the Iranians.
And yes, Assad is allied with those two. Any victory for Assad is a victory for the Weird Beards.

 

[steve_bank]

It is all Trump window dressing and misdirection.

While chemical weapoms are horrific, the causalities from chemical weapons don't even register against the total civilian casualties and suffering.

The strikes do nothing to help.

From what we know of Trump whatever he does is for himself. He suddenly shifts making Putin a bad guy. Something has changed in Trump's mind. It is likely an attempt to counter the Russian collusion claims. He is in deep, deep shit and the reports are he is bouncing off the walls in anger.

Does anyone really think Trump did this out of a sense of morality and concern for Syrian welfare? Does anyone really think this will do any good for the Syrian people?

He did it solely to appear strong to his base and as cover.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

But that's still not making a significant strategic difference. The Iranian regime can afford to lose a handful of military personnel, and continue with its plans only slightly delayed.

No. But Israel is a small country. The US/France/UK should have done an attack at same time, of similar magnitude as this later one. That would have been very different.

But different how?
Sure, that can kill more bad guys, but military strikes are not meant to be used as the death penalty (for a number of reasons), so what would justify them?

Assad's regime before the war was a run of the mill oppressive dictatorship in the Middle East. It wasn't anywhere near as murderous as it is now. When he wins, he'll like to have some sort of stability. He's not out to murder for the sake of it. He will probably kill some more people even after he wins, but that he will do regardless of when he wins. But the longer it takes, probably the worse in terms of number of victims.

- - - Updated - - -

And help ISIS?

ISIS is pretty much finished militarily. And they are hardly the only group who hate Assad, Hezbollah and the Iranians.
And yes, Assad is allied with those two. Any victory for Assad is a victory for the Weird Beards.

True, and also a victory for Putin. But realistically, that will happen. The question is when.

 

[Derec]

But different how?
Sure, that can kill more bad guys, but military strikes are not meant to be used as the death penalty (for a number of reasons), so what would justify them?

It would reduce the fighting strength and it would make Iranian war advernturism more unpopular at home.
I know you think Assad is not that bad when not cornered. But Putin and Khamenei are bad hombres too.
It's a difficult part of the World for sure, I have no illusions about that. But that does not mean we should capitulate to Russia and Iran either.
Maybe the best course of action would be to have Shiite extremist fight Sunni extremists for as long as possible without letting either win. That way they are too busy fighting each other to bother us.

True, and also a victory for Putin. But realistically, that will happen. The question is when.

Well US could end the Assad-Putin bromance right now by just bombing Assad directly. Nothing is inevitable.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

It would reduce the fighting strength and it would make Iranian war advernturism more unpopular at home.

The reduction of their fighting strength with this sort of attacks would me negligible. As for the popularity at home, it might do the opposite: more support to fight against America, retaliate and make the US pay for the attacks.

I know you think Assad is not that bad when not cornered. But Putin and Khamenei are bad hombres too.

I think he's pretty bad when not cornered, but he's much worse when cornered, or generally when fighting a war than he is when ruling his country without militarily significant opposition.

As for Putin and Khamenei, sure, they're pretty bad, but they're not going to be stopped by the attack you have in mind (i.e., an attack "of similar magnitude as this later one"). Instead, they would murder more people until Assad (and they) wins the war.

It's a difficult part of the World for sure, I have no illusions about that. But that does not mean we should capitulate to Russia and Iran either. Maybe the best course of action would be to have Shiite extremist fight Sunni extremists for as long as possible without letting either win. That way they are too busy fighting each other to bother us.

The US does not need to do anything to achieve that. Assad will win the war, but Sunni extremists will keep fighting, carrying out terrorist attacks, etc., targeting Iran and Syria. They will also target Russia. But they will keep targeting the US as well.
But if you mean try to keep the war going, that would be disastrous for the civilian population, and while it would kill many violent extremists, it would result in further radicalization of many others.

Well US could end the Assad-Putin bromance right now by just bombing Assad directly. Nothing is inevitable.

You mean, actually killing Assad?
That's doable at the cost of killing a lot of civilians. But what do you think that that would achieve?

My impression is that someone from his regime would probably take over and keep things going, with the support of both Russia and Iran. They have different interests, but still they prefer to cooperate on this, since it works reasonably well for both.

 

[Cycad]

Those strikes were not just a US decision. The UK and France participated in them.

Absolutely
Like the destruction of Libya had nothing to do with Hillary Clinton and was a European initiative.
Or wait : the coalition of the willing. It included even Micronesia and Palau.
Nobody is surprised that the UK is participating in this latest US Imperial coup.
But France ?

 

[Cycad]

Show us the proof Assad regime is responsible for the chemical attacks. Dont just claim you have the absolute proof, show it !
(since the west claims its a proven fact)

.
It's vastly more likely than any "alternative facts" presented by Russia or its apologists.

The Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic says it has confirmed at least 34 chemical attacks since 2013, many of which it said used chlorine or sarin, a nerve agent, and were conducted by the Syrian government. The commission, which is currently investigating the attack on Douma, is an independent body established by the United Nations Human Rights Council.

I'll take the word of a independent commission established by the UN long before I'll take the word of Putin, Trump or any other mobsters.

Vastly more likely ? Is that good enough for you to start killing people and getting involved in a hopeless religious conflict ?

Again, if there are multiple proofs by multiple neutral and independant organizations, why are these proofs not presented. Not just a statement but solid peer reviewed proofs.
Why is the world supposed to take at face valued some unsupported statements ? Even by so called independent commissions.

There is undisputed proof that Saudi is causing genocide in Yemen. But Saudis order for billions of dollars weapons and happen to sit on a dwindling but vast reserve of oil. Bad luck for the houthi civilian population. But hey, who cares, lets beat war drums and further destroy Syria.

Same went for Iraq where we still wait for the proof that independent comissions conclusion about WMD was correct.

 

[Philos]

Folks,

CNN are reporting that Russian air defence systems have brought down most of the incoming missiles. Syrian government forces undiminished.

Next move?

A.

 

[barbos]

Folks,

CNN are reporting that Russian air defense systems have brought down most of the incoming missiles. Syrian government forces undiminished.

Not Russian, Syrian air defense and it is according to Syrian government, So Assad is trolling Trump, I wonder if it's smart.

Next move?

A.

Another strike?

 

[Axulus]

What do you imagine - that Syrian rebels have absolutely no backing from any foreign powers? "Pooled their resources", geez.

You must be right - it elegantly explains why most of the 50 or so known chemical attacks in Syria have happened in rebel-held areas.

But does it explain "I'm about to win, so therefore I'll fuck it up by performing a chemical attack"? You seem to think it makes sense.

Why not? The gas attack is an easy, relatively low risk tactic to accomplish takeover of the area. And it worked as planned:

In Douma, site of the suspected gas attack, the last buses were due on Saturday to transport out rebels and their families who agreed to surrender the town, state TV reported. That effectively ends all resistance in the suburbs of Damascus known as eastern Ghouta, marking one of the biggest victories for Assad’s government of the entire war.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ad-for-suspected-poison-gas-use-idUSKBN1HJ0ZS

The gas attack is also an effective fear tactic for other pockets of resistence and potential future resistence. The real question to ask is why wouldn't Assad (and/or his generals) use such weapons? The idea that there is any chance in hell the West will topple him for doing this is laughable at this stage.

The idea that the rebels would murder and torture their own friends and family and willingly destroy one of their few remaining areas of control, handing it over as a gift to Assad, on the near zero chance that the West would suddenly decide to topple Assad after doing almost nothing after 50 other chemical weapon attacks have taken place, and, further, that the entirety of the West would willingly go along with the lie and actively perpetuate it, is to live in an alternate reality.

 

[repoman]

But does it explain "I'm about to win, so therefore I'll fuck it up by performing a chemical attack"? You seem to think it makes sense.

Why not? The gas attack is an easy, relatively low risk tactic to accomplish takeover of the area. And it worked as planned:

In Douma, site of the suspected gas attack, the last buses were due on Saturday to transport out rebels and their families who agreed to surrender the town, state TV reported. That effectively ends all resistance in the suburbs of Damascus known as eastern Ghouta, marking one of the biggest victories for Assad’s government of the entire war.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ad-for-suspected-poison-gas-use-idUSKBN1HJ0ZS

The gas attack is also an effective fear tactic for other pockets of resistence and potential future resistence. The real question to ask is why wouldn't Assad (and/or his generals) use such weapons? The idea that there is any chance in hell the West will topple him for doing this is laughable at this stage.

The idea that the rebels would murder and torture their own friends and family and willingly destroy one of their few remaining areas of control, handing it over as a gift to Assad, on the near zero chance that the West would suddenly decide to topple Assad after doing almost nothing after 50 other chemical weapon attacks have taken place, and, further, that the entirety of the West would willingly go along with the lie and actively perpetuate it, is to live in an alternate reality.

This has brought hellfire from above onto Damascus, so there is that.

 

[barbos]

The idea that the rebels would murder and torture their own friends and family and willingly destroy one of their few remaining areas of control, handing it over as a gift to Assad.

You assume rebels are from Douma and Douma residents support them. You also assume there was actually an attack.