Middle East Thread of Despair: More Broken Than Syria

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Middle East Thread of Despair: More Broken Than Syria

«‹›3125 »

Volkerball: Oct 15, 2009; by FactsAreUseless

Raneman posted:

Where did you get this? I'd like to note that the EU times is not a legit paper and the only other article regarding this is from Iranian Press TV. Is this seriously being posted around anywhere? I've seen it on /pol/ a few times but I don't see how anyone can take conspiracy fearmongering seriously. IT'S HAPPENING

The telegraph reported it too.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/10266957/Saudis-offer-Russia-secret-oil-deal-if-it-drops-Syria.html

# ? Aug 28, 2013 21:43

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 7, 2024 04:09

Sergg: Sep 19, 2005; I was rejected by the:

farraday posted:

Just eyeballing it, it appears the munitions in the latest video are much larger then the remnants found. The height between the nozzle and the baseplate of the warhead in the video appears taller than the men around it, but in the videos of remnants the same distance seems quite a bit shorter. Undoubtedly the same design, but a different munition. Were you able to discern any larger propellant tubes in the various wreckage you've IDd?

The munitions recorded on the ground were all bent from impact. The arms analysis from the guy Brown Moses contacted said they were approximately 3 meters long.

# ? Aug 28, 2013 21:44

FuriousxGeorge: Aug 8, 2007; We've been the best team all year.

They're just finding out.

quote:

Putin Orders Massive Strike Against Saudi Arabia If West Attacks Syria

Maybe Russia could take over the "Great Satan" title for once.

# ? Aug 28, 2013 21:44

Sergg: Sep 19, 2005; I was rejected by the:

And the Saudis have been offering all sorts of poo poo to Putin to get him to drop Syria like a hot potato. Prince Bandar met with Putin several weeks back and they were in the midst of hammering out some kind of pretty sweet deal for the Russkies.

# ? Aug 28, 2013 21:45

Paul MaudDib: May 3, 2006; TEAM NVIDIA:
FORUM POLICE

What would the endgame of a Saudi-brokered regime change deal be, after Assad gives in or is broken down? Democratic elections? A more palatable dictator?

# ? Aug 28, 2013 21:46

Volkerball: Oct 15, 2009; by FactsAreUseless

Paul MaudDib posted:

What would the endgame of a Saudi-brokered regime change deal be? Democratic elections? A more palatable dictator?

Getting the regime overthrown so that the SNC they've paid so much to coopt can finally be in charge.

# ? Aug 28, 2013 21:47

Sergg: Sep 19, 2005; I was rejected by the:

OK I'm reading that EU Times article and its absolutely hilarious. Apparently Prince Bandar threatened to use Chechen terrorists (?!) to attack the Sochi Olympics, enraging Putin enough to declare that they'll wage war on Saudi Arabia (how?) if there is a Western attack on Syria.

Also SECRET LEAKED EMAILS reveal that Obama is getting ready to unleash simultaneous attacks against both Syria and Iran, starting World War III!!!

Seems legit.

# ? Aug 28, 2013 21:48

Volkerball: Oct 15, 2009; by FactsAreUseless

Sergg posted:

OK I'm reading that EU Times article and its absolutely hilarious. Apparently Prince Bandar threatened to use Chechen terrorists (?!) to attack the Sochi Olympics,

This at least is in that telegraph link I posted. :shrug:

# ? Aug 28, 2013 21:50

A Winner is Jew: Feb 14, 2008; by exmarx

Paul MaudDib posted:

What would the endgame of a Saudi-brokered regime change deal be, after Assad gives in or is broken down? Democratic elections? A more palatable dictator?

As Volkerball said, elections with the SNC probably taking most of the power but for Russia probably a Guantanamo Bay type permanent land lease for their naval base in Syria. Only you know, with out the torture of enemy combatants.

# ? Aug 28, 2013 21:52

Ardennes: May 12, 2002

Granted, the SNC would only be able to assume power after every other faction was beaten into the ground.

# ? Aug 28, 2013 21:55

Volkerball: Oct 15, 2009; by FactsAreUseless

Actually, I'd imagine the SNC would "assume" power almost immediately. They'd just inherit a security situation so volatile that it would make the Libyan government feel pretty drat lucky.

# ? Aug 28, 2013 21:59

farraday: Jan 10, 2007; Lower those eyebrows, young man. And the other one.

Sergg posted:

The munitions recorded on the ground were all bent from impact. The arms analysis from the guy Brown Moses contacted said they were approximately 3 meters long.

The one does, but other ones look shorter to me. I think we're looking at atleast two different calibers, for lack of different word.

# ? Aug 28, 2013 22:00

HUGE PUBES A PLUS: Apr 30, 2005

farraday posted:

Also, this is too hilarious not to share.

Putin Orders Massive Strike Against Saudi Arabia If West Attacks Syria

Do people actually take the EU Times seriously or is it an Onion parody website that keeps the teabagger types frothing at the mouth?

# ? Aug 28, 2013 22:01

Amused to Death: Aug 10, 2009; google "The Night Witches", and prepare for

A Winner is Jew posted:

Only you know, with out the torture of enemy combatants.

Of course not, they'll just do it in Russia itself :v:

I imagine though whatever happens in the end, Russia will keep its base. A war torn Syria isn't going to give up those rubles.

Highspeeddub posted:

Do people actually take the EU Times seriously or is it an Onion parody website that keeps the teabagger types frothing at the mouth?

Someone with all seriousness posted last night the article from them about Russia bombing Saudi Arabia. They're not even just some paranoid idiot, they're actually a well respected lawyer.

e: This Onion article of an op-ed written by Assad actually manages to be spot on about reality.

Also, has there been any conclusive ideas on what the chemical agent used was in that attack?

Amused to Death fucked around with this message at 22:13 on Aug 28, 2013

# ? Aug 28, 2013 22:02

Warbadger: Jun 17, 2006

FuriousxGeorge posted:

Maybe Russia could take over the "Great Satan" title for once.

They've been there and done that and in many regions still hold the equivalent titles.

# ? Aug 28, 2013 22:41

cremnob: Jun 30, 2010

A good article in Foreign Affairs on how to implement regime change in Syria, which is the only sensible option. Anything short of that is just a waste of time and money.

quote:

How to Oust Assad

And Why the United States Should Try

Michael Weiss

MICHAEL WEISS [1]is a columnist at NOW Lebanon and Editor of The Interpreter, a Russian translation and analysis journal.

On Tuesday, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry spoke of the recent chemical attack in Syria as an �undeniable� fact -- not a subject for debate. He called it �moral obscenity� and laid the blame squarely on the regime of Bashar al-Assad. The statement was an undisguised war speech. The only question now is what form that war might take and how long the battle will last.

There are several rumors swirling. One is that the Obama administration would prefer a mere �punitive� campaign. Some precision-timed leaks to the media seem to point in this direction. But such a strategy would accomplish nothing if the goal is to deter the Assad regime from ever using chemical agents again. Over the past year, Israel has waged half a dozen pinprick strikes on caches of advanced weapons inside Syria, likely because they were destined for Hezbollah in Lebanon. The very number of operations attests to how little they altered Assad�s mindset: he still imports high-tech hardware.

Another rumored plan, which NBC reported, citing senior U.S. officials, is that sorties over the next few days would not aim to kill Assad or topple his regime, but may seek to destroy or to degrade his command-and-control facilities, artillery systems, and airfields. That is surely a smarter option, provided that the strikes rise above sending a message and do some lasting damage to the regime�s military infrastructure. Anything short of that would be strategically useless and a waste of expensive missiles.

Indeed, U.S. President Barack Obama should rearticulate his policy of regime change for Syria, which he first announced in the summer of 2011 and has quietly revised and rescinded ever since. And he should gear any intervention toward furthering that policy, in accordance with what key American allies have said is their own preferred method for dislodging the 40-year dynastic dictatorship: the opposition�s gradual assertion of control. Contrary to the conventional wisdom, there are already examples that this can work in Syria.

THE PINCH

The easiest way to achieve regime change is no mystery to policymakers or to Pentagon war planners. Its initial phase might be called regime isolation. The United States should degrade or destroy the Assad regime�s aerial resupply capacity. This would entail no deployment of U.S. forces to Syria, nor would it spell the collapse of the regime overnight. But it would hinder his ability to move men and weapons around inside Syria.

The strategy would have the added benefit of isolating Syria from its allies. Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, has repeatedly downplayed the importance of the Syrian Air Force, claiming, for instance, that of all the Syrian fatalities in the two-and-a-half-year war, only about a tenth have been caused by rockets and bombs dropped from Assad�s aircraft. But this statistic elides a more important aspect of the regime�s use of airports, helicopters, and planes: Russian and Iranian military and commercial planes arrive daily to offload weapons (some of them advanced air or sea defense systems), ammunition, and personnel. Iran is spending an estimated $500 million a month to keep its ally afloat.

As a consequence, Iran has virtually inherited the Syrian security portfolio. By Syrian security officials� own admission, Iran and Hezbollah have helped Damascus construct a 100,000-strong sectarian militia called the National Defense Force, without which, as The Wall Street Journal concluded on August 26, those recent regime victories in Homs would simply not have been possible. In some cases, Iran has even been flying conscripts for the National Defense Force to Tehran where they receive guerrilla warfare training. Because all of Syria�s borders -- save the one with Lebanon -- are either controlled by the rebels (Turkey, Jordan) or are easily monitored by them (Iraq), land transports of equipment and personnel are growing less frequent. But the shipments that make it to Damascus International Airport and Mezze airbase, which is controlled by the Fourth Armored Division and located southwest of the capital, are not.

So, it's as simple as this: if you take out the runways, Iranian and Russian planes cannot land, nor can Syrian planes take off.

The good news is that there aren�t many high-use tarmacs left to hit. Of the 27 airbases in Syria that are capable of assisting with the Syrian Air Force�s primary missions, just six are left in full use. The others are either rebel controlled or fiercely contested. Chris Harmer, senior naval analyst at the Institute for the Study of War, has shown that the Syrian Air Force is down to around 100 fixed-wing mission-ready aircraft. In a series of intricately detailed briefings, Harmer has also outlined a credible plan of action for seriously degrading Assad�s air capability without �any US aircraft entering Syrian air space.� Instead, the United States would rely chiefly on naval-launched cruise missiles or aircraft stand-off systems fired from international or allied territory. Israeli, Jordanian, Saudi Arabian, Turkish, and even Italian soil could all be used for this purpose. Those countries would all allow it, too.

Already, the USS Mahan, the USS Barry, the USS Ramage, and the USS Gravely -- all Arleigh Burke-class destroyers carrying Tomahawk land-attack missiles -- are en route or in position in the eastern Mediterranean. All are equipped with defensive weaponry against which any Syrian naval assault would be ineffective. (Tomahawks have a range of 1,000 nautical miles; Assad�s most advanced anti-ship missile, the P-800 Yakhont, has a range of 180.) The number of Tomahawks in the region could effectively double if the United States deploys attack or cruise missile submarines there, too. Furthermore, as Harmer notes, if the USS Harry Truman aircraft carrier division, which includes two Ticonderoga class cruisers and two additional Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, were repositioned from the Red Sea, where it is now, to the eastern Mediterranean, �it would significantly increase the striking power available to hit targets in Syria.� Targets for these munitions can and should include runways, stationary rotary and fixed-wing aircraft, air traffic control towers, army vehicles, air defense systems, naval ships, and regime headquarters.

SUNNI AWAKENING

No direct U.S. military engagement would work without a concomitant commitment to building up the armed opposition, which has also been a long-neglected official U.S. goal. A responsible and trustworthy rebel army could be tasked not only with fighting the regime and its manifold proxies but also with safeguarding U.S., European, and regional interests from the rise of extremists in the Levant.

Following Assad�s earlier violation of Obama�s red line on chemical weapons, the White House announced that it would begin sending light weapons to the Supreme Military Command, a United States-backed coordination and logistics umbrella for the Free Syrian Army (FSA) led by Salim Idris, a man with whom every Western intelligence agency has grown quite familiar. To date, however, few if any weapons have been delivered. The status quo policy of allowing indirect gun-running in the Gulf states does persist.

And yet, in spite of such torpidity, there are encouraging signs. Little covered by the international press and policy wonks, in recent months, the southern front in Syria has seen rebel units backed by the West and its allies winning more and more territory at the expense of both Assad and al Qaeda, which has been using the war in Syria as an opportunity to expand its reach to establish what it hopes will be a Islamic emirate in advance of a worldwide caliphate. The credit for this goes mainly to Saudi Arabia and to what it calls its �southern strategy,� or the buildup of rebel forces in and around Damascus, particularly in the towns of Barzeh, Jobar, and Qaboun, where rebels have seized regime weapons caches and even overtaken an electrical facility. All of these towns are located in Eastern Ghouta district, the very same area that Assad gassed last week and had gassed before then, too.

As part of its southern strategy, Saudi Arabia has worked closely with Jordan -- a development that Saudi Arabia has downplayed, even denied, owing to King Abdullah�s fear that Assad will retaliate against his southern neighbor. Together, the two countries and their American, British, and French counterparts have set up and run an undisclosed joint operations center in Jordan to train vetted Syrian rebels in tactical warfare methods, intelligence, counterintelligence, and weapons application. One Syrian I interviewed this month confirmed that his brother had recently been through the training program. He remarked on the stark before-and-after contrast in his sibling�s martial skills, which now include proper breathing techniques during aiming a rifle. Roughly 1,000 trainees are said to have graduated from the program so far.

The United States should now make recruiting and training many thousands more rebels a top priority. One incentive for doing so is that, unless Washington plans to dispatch Joint Special Operations Command units into Syria at a later date (and that does not seem likely), it will require its own proxy -- a Syrian gendarmerie -- for curtailing the military and political influence of al Qaeda.

Some have said that building a trustworthy rebel ally is an impossible task. But there is perhaps no better indicator of the readiness of certain rebel formations to play ball than the confidence with which top FSA commanders in Deraa openly condemn Jabhat al-Nusra and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant -- the two al Qaeda franchises in Syria -- and label them hirelings of Syrian intelligence. A meeting I had two weeks ago with Ziad al-Fahad, the Supreme Military Command�s top commander in the southern front, was instructive. Fahad told me that �the only reason people ever started fighting for extremist groups was because they had weapons and means.� By contrast, he said, �we had weapons and means in the south -- we raided regime caches effectively. This is why the extremists here are not as strong.� He also spoke in no uncertain terms about the fact that the struggle for Syria is now a struggle against the regime and jihadists. Why? Because if �extremists get all the advanced weapons, [the FSA] will themselves become victims.�

Self-preservation, it should be remembered, was the main reason that rebels took up arms against Assad in the first place. Their fear of being beheaded by militants after Assad leaves is justified, and is a strong calculation in their forward-planning. Both Fahad and his deputy, Abu Fadi, with whom I also spoke, relayed several anecdotes about how FSA units and local populations have defied or expelled Jabhat al-Nusra from villages in Deraa. Their stories were subsequently corroborated by activists. All in all, defiance against al Qaeda-aligned militants is an embryonic example of, as well as an object lesson for, a kind of Sunni awakening, or sahwa, that will be crucial for any U.S. strategy.

Unfortunately, the prospect for sahwa in the northern provinces of Idlib, Aleppo, and Raqqa is much dimmer than in the south, given the prevalence of jihadist forces there and the dependence of local populations on these groups for everyday needs such as food, water, and medical care. (The Islamic State even put on carnivals and distributed toys for Syrian children in Aleppo during Ramadan.) Still, Teletubbies and musical chairs notwithstanding, al Qaeda is still al Qaeda. It is already making all the usual mistakes associated with the Zarqawist �state-building� initiatives in Iraq. For instance, it imposed sharia punishments for perceived crimes of blasphemy, shooting 15 year-old Muhammad Qata'a in the neck and face in front of his parents. It detained respected tribal elders in Raqqa, the only fully �liberated� province in Syria, who disagreed with its draconian governance style. It recently backed the assassination of a top-level FSA commander in Latakia. And it very likely kidnapped and murdered Paolo Dall�Oglio, a Catholic priest who is much revered by the opposition for his early support of the anti-Assad protest movement. All that spells public disenchantment: demonstrations against the Islamic State have been consistent and growing in Raqqa. As one Syria analyst put it to me recently: �When was the last time you saw an FSA unit grow so unpopular that, within about two months, it incited protests against itself in five cities, one of which continued every day for at least two weeks?�

Conditions are fertile for the weakening of the jihadists at the expense of the moderates. Beyond training, there are ways that the United States can help. Already, Turkey seems to have realized that, by leaving its border open for every type of scrofulous mujahideen to walk across, it has fashioned a rod for its own back. There are rumors in Ankara that Turkish intelligence has finally begun curtailing the weapons flow to Jabhat al-Nusra in northern Syria. (Although the Turkish government denies ever turning a blind eye to extremists, it has been reluctant to crackdown on them because of their formidability in the theater. Not least among the tragedies of Syria has been seeing al Qaeda deferred to as the poor man�s special forces.) The United States should expend every effort to make rumors of al-Nusra�s interruption a reality. Turkey is desperate for intervention. The United States can use that to its own advantage by making its involvement contingent on better border discipline. It can also offer the FSA units in Aleppo, Idlib, and Raqqa performance-based incentives for cleaving their military operations and civil administrative responsibilities away from the crazies. If weapons get shared, seized, or simply �go missing,� no more will be forthcoming. Idris himself has offered just such an accountability agreement to the United States.

Finally, the U.S. Treasury Department, which has already designated al-Nusra as a terrorist entity, must pressure Gulf countries -- Kuwait and Qatar in particular -- to eliminate whatever private or quasi-state fundraising mechanisms al Qaeda and other non-FSA-aligned extremists groups in Syria exploit to keep themselves in cash and bullets. In Kuwait, the advertising campaigns to raise money for Ahrar al-Sham, another major Salafist brigade that will surely pose a security challenge in the future, are public affairs. This is a scandal, but an easily remedied one.

MYTH BUSTING

It has taken two and a half years and more than 100,000 lives for several myths about Syria to be shattered. The first is that a state run by a brutal crime syndicate -- the Sopranos with WMD -- could be pressured or coaxed from power peacefully. The second is that a Baathist dictator would never again deploy poison gas against a people he enslaves, much less do so in the age of the cellphone camera and YouTube. The third is that any direct military intervention would be unilateral and therefore met with international skepticism or censure.

Obama never needed to go searching for a coalition of the willing for Syria; one comes pre-assembled for him and has been knocking, in fact, at the door of the Oval Office for quite some time. Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and the United Arab Emirates, all see Syria as a grave short-term threat to their national security. Great Britain and France, both justly petrified of the return of radicalized militants to European soil, appear to glimpse at least a medium-term threat to their own borders. All will participate in a U.S.-led intervention, as has been made amply clear this week. And with four U.S. destroyers stationed in the Mediterranean -- and pock-marked runways in Damascus -- it is unlikely that Russia and Iran, neither of which share contiguous borders with Syria, can do much beyond scream and shout. Materially speaking, they�ve already done everything they can, and it�s led us to where we are now.

In the next few days and weeks, then, it is not just live images of explosions in Damascus that should consume the United States� attention, but also to activity at the northern and southern borders of Syria. Are the rebels receiving adequate weapons and training? Are they gaining ground in the southern front? Has Idris stopped drafting open letters to the president begging him for more help than he�s yet received? The answers will indicate whether a coherent strategy is in play.

Even so, it would be folly to have witnessed the shattering of previously held myths about Syria only to see the recrudescence of another: that a Syria with Assad in it will prove more stable and manageable than a Syria without him. Obama needs to start by recognizing how foolish and dangerous that assumption is. Two or three days� worth of airstrikes that are not geared toward regime change would do little to prevent the emergence of a Congo on the Mediterranean. But they would guarantee that the United States will be returning to this conflict later, at time not of its own choosing.

# ? Aug 28, 2013 22:45

CommieGIR: Aug 22, 2006; The blue glow is a feature, not a bug; Pillbug

cremnob posted:

A good article in Foreign Affairs on how to implement regime change in Syria, which is the only sensible option. Anything short of that is just a waste of time and money.

Could I get a link to this article?

# ? Aug 28, 2013 22:55

pro starcraft loser: Jan 23, 2006; Stand back, this could get messy.

Welp, I'm convinced enough this was government forces which begs the question: What the gently caress were they thinking? What could they have possibly hoped to accomplish?

\/ I had forgotten about word of a phone conversation where the Command is frantically calling their chemical weapons unit which I would say leans toward option 2.

pro starcraft loser fucked around with this message at 23:02 on Aug 28, 2013

# ? Aug 28, 2013 22:58

Raneman: Dec 24, 2010; by T. Finninho

Just The Facts posted:

Welp, I'm convinced enough this was government forces which begs the question: What the gently caress were they thinking? What could they have possibly hoped to accomplish?

Option 1: It's a false flag.
Option 2: Lack of centralization leads to rogue army regiment doing it by themselves.
Option 3: Assad wanted an intimidating way to break a stalemate.

# ? Aug 28, 2013 23:00

Minarchist: Mar 5, 2009; by WE B Bourgeois

Raneman posted:

Option 1: It's a false flag.
Option 2: Lack of centralization leads to rogue army regiment doing it by themselves.
Option 3: Assad wanted an intimidating way to break a stalemate.

Option 4: Gross negligence/incompetence lead to chemical munitions being mixed in with standard ordnance.

_{Unless this was disproved already}

# ? Aug 28, 2013 23:03

farraday: Jan 10, 2007; Lower those eyebrows, young man. And the other one.

Minarchist posted:

Option 4: Gross negligence/incompetence lead to chemical munitions being mixed in with standard ordnance.

_{Unless this was disproved already}

It is highly unlikely the chemicals just sit in the warhead mixed. To maintain potency they're probably mixed shortly before being loaded/fired. It seems to me a little like arguing you accidentally threw a Molotov cocktail instead of a wine bottle.

# ? Aug 28, 2013 23:09

Pro-PRC Laowai: Sep 30, 2004; by toby

CommieGIR posted:

I posted earlier pointing out that Ethylene oxide does not cause the conditions seen among the victims of the attack as well.

He ignored it too.

You might want to do more research then, rather than just looking at wikipedia for answers. There's a vast difference between gas and liquid exposure, ditto for acute vs. chronic.

Blistering tends to be due to liquid exposure. Cyanosis, foaming at the mouth/excess salivation, miosis, etc... these are all things that happen. Secondary contamination is possible, but not nearly as consistent as sarin.

http://thekurdishcause.blogspot.com/2013/08/follow-up-analysis-of-alleged-cw.html

Until jumping to ridiculous conclusions, you might just want to wait and see if any tests come back positive. All nerve gases essentially are just enhanced pesticides, EtO is also one.

edit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUhBrOEEZ2I
Interesting video I have run across a few times already now...

Pro-PRC Laowai fucked around with this message at 23:26 on Aug 28, 2013

# ? Aug 28, 2013 23:13

Rent-A-Cop: Oct 15, 2004; I posted my food for USPOL Thanksgiving!

Minarchist posted:

Option 4: Gross negligence/incompetence lead to chemical munitions being mixed in with standard ordnance.

_{Unless this was disproved already}

Based on the evidence we have that the delivery system is some kind of home-baked Syrian rocket launched off of improvised TELs and that both the conventional HE/frag and chemical variants seem to be painted the same flat grey with no obvious markings I'd say that it's certainly possible they were launched out of negligence. During the Libyan civil war loyalist army forces routinely launched all sorts of bizarre combinations of rockets at rebel areas, including the use of rockets containing landmines against the harbor in Misrata.

It's also likely that command and control within Assad loyalist forces is so totally FUBAR that nobody has any idea what anyone else is doing and that orders for the chemical attack came from somewhere other than the Ministry of Defense.

farraday posted:

It is highly unlikely the chemicals just sit in the warhead mixed. To maintain potency they're probably mixed shortly before being loaded/fired. It seems to me a little like arguing you accidentally threw a Molotov cocktail instead of a wine bottle.

My understanding of chemical weapons is that the agents are mixed during the weapon's terminal attack phase. This allows most agents to be stored over the long term in their projectiles and negates the need to handle large quantities of hazard agents in the field. The Syrians certainly have the technical and industrial ability to build unguided chemical rockets that mix binary agents in flight.

Rent-A-Cop fucked around with this message at 23:21 on Aug 28, 2013

# ? Aug 28, 2013 23:14

Cocoa Ninja: Mar 3, 2007

cremnob posted:

A good article in Foreign Affairs on how to implement regime change in Syria, which is the only sensible option. Anything short of that is just a waste of time and money.

Excellent article! Although I don't know whether to add or dock 1000 points for his use of the word, "recrudescence."

# ? Aug 28, 2013 23:50

Misandrist Duck: Oct 22, 2012

AP will have a story in a few minutes about the U.S. sending a second aircraft carrier to the Mediterranean. Besides the four destroyers (1 more on the way) and two (?) submarines there, this doesn't seem like it's going to be a very limited strike unless it's just major major major posturing.

Misandrist Duck fucked around with this message at 23:55 on Aug 28, 2013

# ? Aug 28, 2013 23:51

redscare: Aug 14, 2003

cremnob posted:

A good article in Foreign Affairs on how to implement regime change in Syria, which is the only sensible option. Anything short of that is just a waste of time and money.

Man that's almost as dreamy as Bush' vision for Iraq

# ? Aug 28, 2013 23:51

Aurubin: Mar 17, 2011

Christ I guess the only people in the West that want to strike at Syria are presidents and prime ministers:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/28/strike-assad-regime-british

quote:

Strike against Assad regime stalled by British political rows

Military response to alleged Syria chemical attack may be delayed until Tuesday as Obama warns Syria of 'international consequences'

Allied air strikes against the Syrian government over the alleged use of chemical weapons could be delayed until next week in the face of strong opposition in the UK parliament to British involvement in immediate military action.

The British prime minister, David Cameron, conceded that MPs would be given a second vote to approve military action to defuse a parliamentary revolt, ahead of a Commons debate on Syria on Thursday. Whitehall sources indicated that the US, which had planned to launch the strikes by the weekend, is prepared to revive a back-up plan to delay the strikes until Tuesday when Barack Obama is due to set out for the G20 summit in Russia.

Such a move by the Obama administration would effectively hand Cameron a political lifeline after the opposition Labour party threatened to inflict a defeat on the Conservative-led coalition in parliament.

In an effort to build support for punitive strikes, the US and UK will on Thursday publish a joint summary of the intelligence which they say points towards the Assad regime's responsibility for the poison gas attack of 21 August in Ghouta, eastern Damascus, that killed over 1,000 people.

Obama said in a television interview on Wednesday that he had not taken a final decision on air strikes, but that Syria needed to understand there were "international consequences" for its actions. "If in fact we make a choice to have repercussions for the use of chemcial weapons, then the Assad regime will have received a pretty strong signal that in fact it had better not do it again," Obama told PBS.

In a reflection of the different political pressures pulling the transatlantic allies in different directions, Downing Street undertook to return to the security council in a renewed effort to secure a UN mandate for military action after Russia blocked a British resolution at an informal meeting in New York. But the US state department meanwhile insisted it saw "no avenue forward" at the UN for finding an international consensus for armed action, because of Russian support for Bashar al-Assad's regime.

Furthermore, Washington made it clear it saw no need to wait for a report by UN inspectors currently in Damascus investigating the gas attack, estimated to have killed more than 1,000 people.

"We are going to make our own decisions on our own timelines about our response," the state department spokeswoman Marie Harf said. She added that because of initial Syrian government obstruction of the UN investigation, it had "passed the point where it can be credible".

However, the UK is now committed to wait for the UN report. The House of Commons will be asked by the government on Thursday to approve a "strong humanitarian response", possibly including force in principle. Direct action would depend on a second vote which in turn would be held after the UN weapons inspectors had reported back.

UN officials said the report could take another week or more to produce. The inspectors will continue to collect samples at the Ghouta site for the next four days, bringing their presence to the two weeks agreed with Damascus. The samples would then have to be subjected to laboratory analysis.

If the wait for the UN report extends much beyond Tuesday, the transatlantic ties could fray further, putting the prime minister under intense pressure. Cameron had faced the prospect of a defeat, or a politically damaging narrow victory, when MPs vote on Thursday evening on a motion calling for a proportionate response.

Syria warned of "grave consequences" if US-led military action goes ahead. Bashar al-Jaafari, Syria's ambassador to the UN, told reporters outside the security council in New York on Wednesday that the effect could be felt across the Middle East. "We should keep in mind what happened in Iraq and Libya", the envoy said, adding that the toppling of Libya's Muammar Gaddafi by Nato-backed rebels in 2011 had "spread terrorists all over Africa".

Jaafari urged the US, UK and France to back off and allow UN weapons inspectors to complete their investigation into last week's chemical attack outside Damascus. The sole purpose of the threat of airstrikes was "undermining the inspection team." Jaafari added: "We are not war mongers, we are a peaceful nation seeking stability in the area. The Syrian government is against the use of chemical weapons by all means � this is a moral obscenity."

Speaking in London the British foreign secretary, William Hague, said it was time for the UN to act. "This is the first use of chemical warfare in the 21st century. It has to be unacceptable, we have to confront something that is a war crime, something that is a crime against humanity. If we don't do so, then we will have to confront even bigger war crimes in the future."

The state department also gave more details of its intended justification for military action. A spokeswoman said Assad's alleged use of chemical weapons violated "the general law of war" while the use and proliferation of such weapons represented a threat to America's core national interests.

In his interview with PBS, Obama said that it was in America's "core self-interest" to prevent chemical weapons being used in a volatile area, near allies such as Turkey and Israel.

With as many as 70 Tory MPs threatening to rebel, British opposition leader Ed Miliband announced just after 5pm BST that he would instruct his MPs to vote against the government motion if a separate Labour amendment � calling for any action to be delayed � was defeated.

Within two hours the British government announced, as it published its motion for the debate, that a second vote would have to be held before Britain joins any military action. The motion says: "Before any direct British involvement in such action a further vote of the House of Commons will take place."

Downing Street was furious with Miliband and accused him of having suffered a giant "wobble" after he had appeared to indicate on Tuesday night that he would be prepared to support military action, subject to legal approval. But Labour hit back and said that the prime minister had been resisting a second vote until Miliband tweeted his plan to table his own amendment.

A Labour source said: "We will continue to scrutinise this motion but at 5.15pm David Cameron totally ruled out a second vote, an hour and a half later he changed his mind. Ed was determined to do the right thing. It has taken Labour forcing a vote to force the government to do the right thing."

Downing Street said the prime minister offered a second vote because he wants to act in a consensual way. A spokesperson said: "The prime minister is acutely aware of the deep concerns in the country caused by what happened over Iraq. That's why we are committed to taking action to deal with this war crime � but taking action in the right way, proceeding on a consensual basis."

"So this motion endorses the government's consistent approach that we should take action in response to Assad's chemical weapons attack; reflects the need to proceed on a consensual basis, taking account of the work done by weapons inspectors; and reflects the prime minister's respect for the UN process � something he made clear to President Obama several days ago."

The No 10 move is likely to take the heat out of Thursday's parliamentary debate that will be opened by Cameron at 2.30pm and wound up by Nick Clegg, the deputy prime minister, at 10pm. The debate will be preceded by a meeting of the cabinet that will approve a recommendation from the National Security Council that Britain should join the military strikes. Dominic Grieve, the British attorney general, advised the NSC that such action would be legal under international law.

The National Security Council also agreed a specific plan for a British contribution to military action. This focused on a "limited one-off" operation and the measures that might have to be taken to protect British interests in the region, including the defence of the UK's sovereign base in Cyprus, which is thought to be potentially within range of President Assad's Scud missiles.

Though considered unlikely, sources said it was possible the US would act without British support � which would be a huge embarrassment for the prime minister. It would also be politically difficult for the White House. US officials have stressed that America would not act unilaterally, but in concert with partners.

France has pledged to take part in punitive action against the Assad regime, and its presidential system means that Francois Hollande, like Barack Obama is not obliged to consult the legislature.

However, British abstention would undermine Washington's claims of broad support.

Additional reporting by Ed Pilkington at the United Nations

# ? Aug 28, 2013 23:52

Subliminal Sauce: Apr 6, 2010; Spreading freedom and spreading it thick; that's just a thing us right-wing nutjobs do!

I'd call it more like a smoking sword. A smoking gun would be timestamped, high quality footage, of the exact rockets as the ones that were found, being launched. However that looks like a fairly high-budget operation that knows what they're doing. That red munitions truck must be one sweet ride!

Then it all gets buckled down, nice and tidy after the launch. I half expected them to sling on a Piggly Wiggly logo on the side and roll off, ala Close Encounters, but I suppose driving through Damascus in a truck with a huge pig on the side might be more of an American covert op.

Subliminal Sauce fucked around with this message at 00:01 on Aug 29, 2013

# ? Aug 28, 2013 23:55

Pegged Lamb: Nov 5, 2007; Can't post for 3 years!

Does Assad have any surface-to-ship missiles?

# ? Aug 28, 2013 23:56

cochise: Sep 11, 2011

wikipe tama posted:

Does Assad have any surface-to-ship missiles?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-800_Oniks

Per wikipedia:

quote:

The missiles location in Syria, the port city of Latakia, was reportedly targeted by Israel in an air attack early in July 2013 but it is never reported that the systems were destroyed.

# ? Aug 29, 2013 00:01

Raneman: Dec 24, 2010; by T. Finninho

cremnob posted:

A good article in Foreign Affairs on how to implement regime change in Syria, which is the only sensible option. Anything short of that is just a waste of time and money.

This article seems to ignore that a rebel victory would not be a good thing for anyone involved, or the U.S. really. Hasn't the US installed enough puppet regimes? It took the Iranians like what? 25 years? to throw theirs out, I'm guessing with the amount of personnel the rebel factions have in Syria the amount of peacetime should Assad fall would be closer to 25 minutes. Any regime change would just further destablilize the country as I can guarantee you whoever the rebels have in mind (that is, no one, since they are split among dozens of factions and nationalities) would end up being just as bad if not worse than Assad is right now, if only due to the consecutive civil war that would shortly follow, and maybe last even longer.

# ? Aug 29, 2013 00:03

Xandu: Feb 19, 2006; It's hard to be humble when you're as great as I am.

I'm looking for a fairly detailed and current-ish (last 1-4 months) heat map (or even just raw data that is mappable) of rebel-held vs government-held areas in Syria. Anyone know of something?

edit: Found one, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22798391 , but if anyone knows of others that'd be awesome.

Xandu fucked around with this message at 00:09 on Aug 29, 2013

# ? Aug 29, 2013 00:05

Pueidist: Jan 18, 2004; 8-bit retirement home

We don't even know who gave Brownmoses that video besides "some activist"?

# ? Aug 29, 2013 00:05

farraday: Jan 10, 2007; Lower those eyebrows, young man. And the other one.

Rent-A-Cop posted:

Based on the evidence we have that the delivery system is some kind of home-baked Syrian rocket launched off of improvised TELs and that both the conventional HE/frag and chemical variants seem to be painted the same flat grey with no obvious markings I'd say that it's certainly possible they were launched out of negligence. During the Libyan civil war loyalist army forces routinely launched all sorts of bizarre combinations of rockets at rebel areas, including the use of rockets containing landmines against the harbor in Misrata.

It's also likely that command and control within Assad loyalist forces is so totally FUBAR that nobody has any idea what anyone else is doing and that orders for the chemical attack came from somewhere other than the Ministry of Defense.

My understanding of chemical weapons is that the agents are mixed during the weapon's terminal attack phase. This allows most agents to be stored over the long term in their projectiles and negates the need to handle large quantities of hazard agents in the field. The Syrians certainly have the technical and industrial ability to build unguided chemical rockets that mix binary agents in flight.

They can be. In the Iraq war Iraq pre mixed agents on the ground. If these were pre existing munitions I'd give the idea of binary warheads more credence, as they are standardized but clearly not part of a normal weapon system I'd put the chance of the highly developed warhead as much lower. Were I to guess I'd say this cobbled together response is because of a limited of tactical delivery systems for their chemical stockpile which was intended as a strategic threat.
Compare another cobbled together weapon system, the barrel bombs with the external fuses that get lit before being pushed out the back of a helicopter. I see no reason to assume sophistication.

# ? Aug 29, 2013 00:07

Seizure Meat: Jul 23, 2008; by Smythe

Pueidist posted:

We don't even know who gave Brownmoses that video besides "some activist"?

He should probably post the guys name and address on his blog so we can contact and vet him for ourselves. :colbert:

# ? Aug 29, 2013 00:08

LP97S: Apr 25, 2008

cremnob posted:

A good article in Foreign Affairs on how to implement regime change in Syria, which is the only sensible option. Anything short of that is just a waste of time and money.

I'm amazed at how loving naive that is, especially given the last 60 years of history. Of course a good rebuttal to that shitpost (the article) is this one.

The Onion posted:

Experts Point To Long, Glorious History Of Successful U.S. Bombing Campaigns

WASHINGTON�In light of increased pressure on President Obama to order a military strike on Syria, leading historians and military experts on Tuesday simply pointed to the United States� longstanding and absolutely impeccable record of successful bombing campaigns over the past 60 years. �The record clearly shows that, in every instance since the Second World War in which the U.S. government has launched strategic missile attacks on foreign soil, our military forces easily targeted enemy assailants with total precision, leaving no civilian casualties, collateral damage, or any long-term negative consequences for the affected country or region, American foreign policy, or international relations as a whole,� said Harvard University historian Dr. Michael Carmona, adding that such past U.S. bombing operations have gone particularly well in Middle Eastern countries over the last century. �Just look at the 1954 bombings in Guatemala, the 1965-to-1973 bombings in Laos and Cambodia, the 1982 bombings in Beirut, the 1986 bombings in Libya, the 1987 bombings in Iran, the 1998 bombings in Iraq, the 1998 bombings in Sudan, the 1998 bombings in Afghanistan, routine airstrikes in Pakistan since 2005, the 2007 bombings in Somalia, the 2011 bombings in Somalia, and essentially the entire American military effort in Vietnam from 1960 to 1975. Those were all executed perfectly, and led, in the long run, to the most desirable possible outcome.� All experts on the subject then agreed unanimously that, if you want to create positive and lasting change in a troubled region, change that you will one day look back on with a deep sense of confidence, pride, and assurance that you did the right thing, then bombing campaigns are almost always the way to go.

# ? Aug 29, 2013 00:13

Aurubin: Mar 17, 2011

Xandu posted:

I'm looking for a fairly detailed and current-ish (last 1-4 months) heat map (or even just raw data that is mappable) of rebel-held vs government-held areas in Syria. Anyone know of something?

edit: Found one, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22798391 , but if anyone knows of others that'd be awesome.

The Wikipedia one is updated fairly regularly, dunno about it's accuracy however:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Syrian_civil_war_detailed_map

# ? Aug 29, 2013 00:14

New Division: Jun 23, 2004; I beg to present to you as a Christmas gift, Mr. Lombardi, the city of Detroit.

Raneman posted:

This article seems to ignore that a rebel victory would not be a good thing for anyone involved, or the U.S. really. Hasn't the US installed enough puppet regimes? It took the Iranians like what? 25 years? to throw theirs out, I'm guessing with the amount of personnel the rebel factions have in Syria the amount of peacetime should Assad fall would be closer to 25 minutes. Any regime change would just further destablilize the country as I can guarantee you whoever the rebels have in mind (that is, no one, since they are split among dozens of factions and nationalities) would end up being just as bad if not worse than Assad is right now, if only due to the consecutive civil war that would shortly follow, and maybe last even longer.

I wasn't that impressed with the article, though I would agree that there's not really much point in a mere punitive expedition. I just think that the US and its allies would have to commit more to the aftermath if they go for regime change. It can't count on the rebels to suddenly unify, kick out al Qadea and be able to reconcile former government supporters without heavy handed use of retributive violence. That's basically just counting on things to turn out perfect, which is stupid if you're undertaking a campaign (though it would be in keeping with recent Western foreign policy practice) I also think Western troops will need to be involved in securing and disposing of what's left of the chemical stockpiles. There's too good a chance that even "good rebels" will sell chemical munitions to make a nice profit if someone comes up to them with a nice suitcase full of money, goods, etc.

New Division fucked around with this message at 00:18 on Aug 29, 2013

# ? Aug 29, 2013 00:15

Xandu: Feb 19, 2006; It's hard to be humble when you're as great as I am.

Aurubin posted:

The Wikipedia one is updated fairly regularly, dunno about it's accuracy however:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Syrian_civil_war_detailed_map

Yeah it's fairly interesting, but I'm a little worried about the sourcing.

# ? Aug 29, 2013 00:20

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 7, 2024 04:09

Gen. Ripper: Jan 12, 2013

AJE posted:

President Obama says US has 'concluded' that Syrian government carried out chemical weapons attack near Damascus...

# ? Aug 29, 2013 00:20

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Middle East Thread of Despair: More Broken Than Syria

«‹›3125 »