.
(1)
There was apparently a use of Sarin gas in outskirts of Damascus, and the death toll among civilians mostly is claimed to be close to 1,500. All affected areas were either rebel areas or contested areas, and they were spaced enough to make a rogue false flag attack by a rebel group unlikely. It's likely that the Syrian government killed civilians with Sarin, albeit the figures are questionable.
Now let's assume there's going to be a second poison gas attack, this time 2,000 deaths, and all in loyalist quarters. Let's further assume we get to see some mobile phone camera videos on how the rebels did it with captured stocks.
Do the pro-war folks think this means 'the West' ought to bomb Syrian rebels then?
Or would they expose their hypocrisy / lies by not demanding such a strike against the culprit rebel group?
(2)
Let's say there's going to be a two-week bombing campaign to 'punish' (a.k.a. "bully") the Syrian regime for killing about 1,500 people with poison gas (or rather for being disrespectful).
A few days into the bombing spree rebel groups overrun some loyalist positions and besiege two enclaves of Christians. They assault and conquer one and massacre the population; 5,000. Then they move into position to assault the other one.
How would this make the 'punishment' campaign look like?
Would the bombing campaign leaders improvise some massacre-averting sorties against the besieging rebels à la Sarajevo?
(3)
Some people talk about a 1925 ban on poison gas and how ever since no employment of poison gas must be tolerated.
Do these very same people believe that the U.S. needs to ask Iran for pardon because it aided Iraq in the operational employment of poison gas against Iranian forces in the 1980's and shielded it against the UN at the time? Maybe they believe some finger pointing is overdue in the U.S. domestically before the country has a whole can claim to protect this generations-old ban? (Just kidding.)
(4)
Let's assume the Assad regime decides it needs to retreat and secede itself. The Alawites proclaim an independent country in the coastal region where they have a solid majority. The remainder of loyalists - including refugees of other faiths - move there and can defend the region against the rebels which take over Damascus and proclaim victory.
Would the Western World treat this Alawite secession the same as the Kosovo secession or would it behave hypocritically?
(5)
Do you believe that the people who stand in front of cameras and proclaim their support for an attack on Syria learned about such scenarios and have deliberated about them?
(6)
The apparently planned attacks are meant to punish, but not to overthrow the regime (or so say the talking points). Anyone care to elaborate how bombing Syrians is helpful after Syrians were killed?
(7)
Syrians are suffering. Well, that's war (a lesson many people are apparently unable to keep in mind longer than a few years). Could the suffering be reduced instead of increased?
Some countries believe in doing so by accepting war refugees. Those countries which pretend to be oh-so concerned about atrocities in Syria - would they be ready to harbour a couple hundred thousand Muslim, brownish war refugees?
(8)
Or maybe someone did a calculation and presented it publicly, so we all know how many humanitarian goods and individual counter-gas sets could be shipped to Syria at the same cost as a bombing campaign?
- - - - -
By the way; here is another, apparently excellent, map of the larger region.
S O
.
Where are the frontlines? I can only see a wikipedia map. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/88/Syrian_civil_war.png
ReplyDeleteThe situation might be more complicated with infighting among the different religious factions along tribal and other divides.
"frontlines" is a misleading concept in such a conflict. It's more about areas of varying degrees of control.
DeleteSO,
ReplyDeleteIt's a great set of questions to consider, I must say. I would take the -rather extreme- stance that the real issue at stake here is Syria's Russian connections, and showing the limits of Russian power; it can arm you but not serve as a military shield against NATO/US intervention.
Sme good questions here. I have answered them all (as far as i am able to at the link below on my tumblr. http://globalsecurityandrisk.tumblr.com/post/60450516068/a-response-to-questions-raised-by-defense-and-freedom
ReplyDeleteReally, this is kind of a FUD posts, working with uncertain what-if constructs.
ReplyDelete(1) "Now let's assume there's going to be a second poison gas attack, this time 2,000 deaths, and all in loyalist quarters"
If every usage of chemical wepaons will be punished, how great are chances that this will happen? How idiotic would the opposition be to even think of such an operation? Are they even capable to mount such an attack, which would require a missile or an air system and hence training? And is there a precedence case of the opposition actually using chemicals (with evidence, plz!)?
(2) "A few days into the bombing spree rebel groups overrun some loyalist positions and besiege two enclaves of Christians. They assault and conquer one and massacre the population; 5,000. Then they move into position to assault the other one."
This reads very much as all rebel groups are jihadists, which is not the case.
Again, with the war ongoing, why should the opposition make such a mistake, when time and opinion are currently working in their favour?
The real question is, if the rebel side wins, how do the Christians - still being vastly in support of Assad - are expecting to live on with something like the Ghouta-incident in anyone's mind? I guess, it will be rather a Sudeten-solution than a second Srbrnica, with most Christians moving to Lebanon or Europe.
(3)
The US even used Agent Orange in Vietnam. Germany started with using chemical agents in WW1, Sarin is a German invention. Still, I cannot really see, how this makes the contemporary use of Sarin any better.
(4)
Impossible to answer. I would guess, that the US or NATO would not have any problem with this, as it would solve a lot of problems.
The question is, once independent, would the Alewite-state recognize the Baath-party as its overlords, once it's de-facto function of being protector of the Alewites is gone.
(5)
No, because the scenarios are quite improbable. Nothing indicates, that more than a renewed Libya 1986 is planned, so the time window makes it even less probable. But even if they materialize, bombing can and will halt, with the intended message still being delivered.
(6) "Anyone care to elaborate how bombing Syrians is helpful after Syrians were killed?"
As Syrians are dying by almost any thinkable variety of violence every day, how does this make a difference? Maybe it's crucial to finally make the Syrian elite feel some pressure?
(7)
Hypocrisy started, when the west CHOOSE not to part in the Syrian conflict, when there was no jihadist insurgency, but only a dictator shelling rebel towns by artillery, aircraft and missiles.
The current situation is the direct result of a failed policy of appeasement. Now, we scratch our heads, why oh, why do we have no influence on the situation?!
The refugees will certainly find their ways over the Mediterranean, which makes the western european stance on having no interest in the region a joke.
(8)
Chemical agents pollute a region for years. Sarin is an agent penetrating the human body by skin, so a simple gas protection will not suffice. You would also need to train the population on using a body-protection 24/7/365.
@McZ
ReplyDeleteyour points 7 and 8 lack logic:
7) The basic problem of a civil war is, that at the beginning the level of violence is so low, that a intervention is crazy. Only in retrospect such a decison makes sense or not.
You provide no argument that an intervention would have an positive net effect, Iraq would be a "nice" counter example.
8) Sarin in not (kinetically) stable and has high vapour pressure, no chance that sarin has long term effects. You confuse it with VX variants.
Ulenspiegel
"appeasement" is a code word in the U.S. for "non-aggressive policy which I dislike and want to smear" nowadays. I usually lose attention once I read it because experience tells me nothing good can be expected from the rest of a text after "appeasement" or "appease".
ReplyDeleteSarin can penetrate the skin and cause trouble this way, but the effect is far less than when inhaled or ingested:
A typical description: "Even a small drop of sarin on the skin can cause sweating and muscle twitching where sarin touched the skin."
A NBC mask is not perfect, but good enough for saving lives.
(concerning massacres)
"Again, with the war ongoing, why should the opposition make such a mistake, when time and opinion are currently working in their favour?"
Dunno, but they already did something along these lines in the coastal region recently: Massacred Alawite civilians.
"The US even used Agent Orange in Vietnam. Germany started with using chemical agents in WW1, Sarin is a German invention. Still, I cannot really see, how this makes the contemporary use of Sarin any better."
It doesn't, but it erodes the alleged moral high ground of the warmongers.
"As Syrians are dying by almost any thinkable variety of violence every day, how does this make a difference?"
Well, take their place; die additionally to those who die anyway and pretend it makes no difference.
"(...)renewed Libya 1986(...)"
We know today that this 'punishment' created backlash, not obedience. It's a historical analogy which says "no" to the current plans.