Syria - civil war incoming?

[Rip]

Mr. Obama sternly asserted again that he would punish Syria for using chemical weapons, although he did not say how.

I'm betting it will be decidedly explode-y.

Like Assad gives a crap. If he looses he will meet the same fate as his Libyan counterpart met. Just lucky it is all going down before Iran develops nukes and sells Syria some.

[AWS260]

Mr. Obama sternly asserted again that he would punish Syria for using chemical weapons, although he did not say how.

I'm betting it will be decidedly explode-y.

Like Assad gives a crap. If he looses he will meet the same fate as his Libyan counterpart met. Just lucky it is all going down before Iran develops nukes and sells Syria some.

He gives a crap, or at least someone in his power structure does. Right now, his best bet is to keep the Western powers on the outskirts of the war and work to defeat the rebellion militarily. A difficult task, but within the realm of possibility. Chemical weapons would give him a leg up militarily, but if using them activates the NATO war machine, any advantage would be very short-lived. Also, using chemical weapons would almost certainly mean losing the UN Security Council protection of Russia and China, which means that NATO powers could attack him without worrying about serious damage to relations with those nations.

Also, if he has any sense, his fallback in the event of military defeat is to flee the country and live in pampered exile, perhaps in Iran. If he uses chemical weapons, no country will take him (well, never count out Hugo Chavez), and he will undoubtedly be captured and tried for war crimes.

[Defiant]

Israel Asked Jordan for Approval to Bomb Syrian WMD Sites

Intelligence officials in two countries told me recently that the Israeli government has twice come to the Jordanian government with a plan to take out many of Syria's chemical weapons sites. According to these two officials, Israel has been seeking Jordan's "permission" to bomb these sites, but the Jordanians have so far declined to grant such permission.

[Smoove_B]

Uh oh...

Syria loads chemical weapons into bombs; military awaits Assad's order

It's about to get real.

[Unagi]

Here we go, eh? Damn.

If US officials are telling the news that, I assume (hope) that's the groundwork for telling us about some prophylactic airstrikes.

[Canuck]

Here we go, eh? Damn.

If US officials are telling the news that, I assume (hope) that's the groundwork for telling us about some prophylactic airstrikes.

I would love to see a huge condom bomb.

[tru1cy]

If Assad gives the go order on using biological weapons I'm assuming there is little NATO or the US could do to stop them. I'm wondering if Russia and China would still protect Assad from retribution from NATO forces

[Jag]

If Assad gives the go order on using biological weapons I'm assuming there is little NATO or the US could do to stop them. I'm wondering if Russia and China would still protect Assad from retribution from NATO forces

I think Russia and China go the way of the guy that tries to stop his drunk friend from attacking the bouncer and finally says "Dude, you're on your own."

I don't think NATO could stop them, but the world will be crying for intervention. It also increases worldwide insecurity about WMDs which I don't believe have been used in the internet age.

[GreenGoo]

I don't think NATO could stop them, but the world will be crying for intervention. It also increases worldwide insecurity about WMDs which I don't believe have been used in the internet age.

Right, you snuck in under the wire. I think it was mentioned in one of the articles in this thread or the other, but in 1988 Sadam Hussein did some ethnic cleansing the old fashioned way.

The Halabja poison gas attack , also known as Halabja massacre or Bloody Friday,[1] was a genocidal massacre against the Kurdish people that took place on March 16, 1988, during the closing days of the Iran–Iraq War, when chemical weapons were used by the Iraqi government forces in the Kurdish town of Halabja in Iraqi Kurdistan.

The attack killed between 3,200 and 5,000 people, and injured around 7,000 to 10,000 more, most of them civilians;[1][2] thousands more died of complications, diseases, and birth defects in the years after the attack.[3] The incident, which has been officially defined as an act of genocide against the Kurdish people in Iraq,[4] was and still remains the largest chemical weapons attack directed against a civilian-populated area in history.[5]
...
It is believed that Iraqi forces used multiple chemical agents during the attack, including mustard gas and the nerve agents sarin, tabun and VX;[3] some sources have also pointed to the blood agent hydrogen cyanide (most of the wounded taken to hospitals in the Iranian capital Tehran were suffering from mustard gas exposure).[1

Which has been defined as separate from

The al-Anfal Campaign (Arabic: حملة الأنفال‎), also known as the Kurdish Genocide,[3] Operation Anfal or simply Anfal, was a genocidal[4] campaign against the Kurdish people (and other non-Arab populations) in Northern Iraq, led by the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein and headed by Ali Hassan al-Majid in the final stages of Iran-Iraq War. The campaign takes its name from Surat al-Anfal in the Qur'an, which was used as a code name by the former Iraqi Baathist regime for a series of systematic attacks against the Kurdish population of northern Iraq, conducted between 1986 and 1989 and culminating in 1988. The campaign also targeted other minority communities in Iraq including Assyrians, Shabaks, Iraqi Turkmens, Yazidis, Jews, Mandeans, and many villages belonging to these ethnic groups were also destroyed.[5] Writer Joost R. Hiltermann has said the United States government and US State Department was particularly important in helping their then ally the Saddam Hussein government in avoiding any serious censure for the campaign and in particular the attack on rebels and civilians in the city of Halabja. Hiltermann writes; "The deliberate American prevarication on Halabja was the logical, although probably undesired, outcome of a pronounced six-year tilt toward Iraq, seen as a bulwark against the perceived threat posed by Iran's zealous brand of politicized Islam."[6]

Not America's proudest moment, I guess.

[Isgrimnur]

When Russia admist that you're losing, it's time consider an exit strategy.

One of Syria's key allies admitted for the first time on Thursday that the Assad regime was losing the ground war, as rebels told the Guardian they were occupying more and more territory and besieging government troops in many parts of the country.

The deputy foreign minister of Russia – which has given Bashar al-Assad unstinting diplomatic and military support - said the regime faced possible defeat to the rebels, saying with unusual candour: "One must look facts in the face."

Mikhail Bogdanov said: "The tendency is that the regime and government of Syria is losing more and more control, and more and more territory. Unfortunately, the victory of the Syrian opposition cannot be ruled out."
...
Other key international players appear to have come to the same conclusion as Moscow. Speaking in Brussels , Nato's secretary-general, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, said: "I think the regime is approaching collapse." He said it was only a question of time before the Assad government imploded. Others in the region, however, cautioned that the final unravelling could be prolonged and bloody.

[LawBeefaroni]

Sept 6, 2012:

LONDON - Russian President Vladimir Putin has asserted that "some people want to use militants from al Qaeda... to accomplish their goals in Syria."

In a loosely veiled dig at the U.S. support for Syria's opposition, Putin argued, "in that case, one should unlock Guantanamo, arm all of its inmates and bring them to Syria to do the fighting."

Dec 10, 2012:

The presence of rebel fighters in Syria that were trained and supported by Al Qaeda poses a serious problem for the United States and Western allies. The Nusra Front, an offshoot of Al Qaeda in Iraq, has become one of the most effective forces fighting against President Bashar al-Assad.

Dec 12, 2012:

The Obama administration on Tuesday for the first time released intelligence directly tying a powerful Syrian rebel group to commanders of al Qaeda in Iraq. U.S. officials formally sanctioned the Syrian militia, called Jabhat al-Nusra—freezing any assets it may have in the U.S. and barring Americans from doing business with it—because of fears it is gaining disproportionate power among the rebel groups seeking to overthrow Mr. Assad.

The enemy of my enemy is...my sworn enemy.

[tru1cy]

AP is reporting that Hegel confirmed that Assad government has used Sarin in its conflict.

Does this mean that they crossed Red Line for US intervention?

[Rip]

AP is reporting that Hegel confirmed that Assad government has used Sarin in its conflict.

Does this mean that they crossed Red Line for US intervention?

Yes.

[Isgrimnur]

Details

The U.S. intelligence community has uncovered strong evidence that chemical weapons have been used in Syria. Several blood samples, taken from multiple people, have tested positive for the nerve agent sarin, an American intelligence source tells Danger Room.
...
In March, the Assad regime was accused of using chemical weapons during an attack on the city of Aleppo. The blood samples are taken by Syrian opposition groups from alleged victims of that strike. But American analysts can’t be entirely sure where exactly the blood came from, when the precisely exposure took place.
...
What’s clear is that the samples are authentic, and that the weapons were almost certainly employed by the Assad regime, which began months ago mixing up quantities of sarin’s chemical precursors for an potential attack, as Danger Room first reported.

“It would be very, very difficult for the opposition to fake this. Not only would they need the wherewithal to steal it or brew it up themselves. Then they’d need volunteers who would notionally agree to a possibly lethal exposure,” the source adds.
...
The White House official said it would be premature to declare that Obama’s red line has been crossed. “It’s precisely because we take the red line seriously that we feel like there needs to be clear, factual evidentiary bases for our decisions,” the official said. “Given our own history with intelligence assessments, including intelligence assessments related to weapons of mass destruction” — a reference to the infamous incorrect assertions that Saddam Hussein possessed stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons before the Iraq invasion — “it’s very important that we are able to establish this with certainty.”

Members of Congress with access to intelligence immediately went further.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), the chairwoman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, issued a statement saying “It is clear that ‘red lines’ have been crossed and action must be taken to prevent larger scale use.” Feinstein appeared to mean military action to remove Assad from power: “I urge the United Nations Security Council — including Russia — to finally take strong and meaningful action to end this crisis in Syria.”

Her House counterpart, Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Mich.), did not go that far. “President Obama correctly said that Syria’s use of chemical weapons would be a red line for the United States,” Rogers said in his own statement this afternoon. “Now that we have confirmed their use, the question is what is our plan for transition to a post-Assad Syria? I have laid out several steps, short of boots on the ground. The world is waiting for American leadership.”

[El Guapo]

What does this mean in terms of U.S. action? Arming the opposition more openly and directly? No fly zone?

I'm guessing that we're not talking air strikes, at least not yet?

[Kraken]

Syria is a lose/lose situation for the US. The bad guys are aligned with Iran and Hezbollah, and the other bad buys are al Qaeda-affiliated militants. Humanitarian concerns aside, we're best off with a long, grinding stalemate.

The administration does appear backed into a corner. Hopefully they can cook up a visible response that doesn't tip the advantage to either side.

[Isgrimnur]

If we can demonstrate their use, maybe we can get the baby blues involved and not have to bear all of the brunt this time.

[AWS260]

If we can demonstrate their use, maybe we can get the baby blues involved and not have to bear all of the brunt this time.

That would be nice. Presumably that's why Obama is pressing for a UN investigation, because there's no way Russia would allow any kind of UN military action based solely on intelligence assessments from the U.S. and its allies.

[El Guapo]

Syria is a lose/lose situation for the US. The bad guys are aligned with Iran and Hezbollah, and the other bad buys are al Qaeda-affiliated militants. Humanitarian concerns aside, we're best off with a long, grinding stalemate.

The administration does appear backed into a corner. Hopefully they can cook up a visible response that doesn't tip the advantage to either side.

Not really - it's more like a neutral / win situation. Currently, Syria supports Hezbollah, dominates / oppresses Lebanon, supports Iran, supports terrorism, does not have a peace treaty with Israel. So it's not clear to me how the fall of Assad could be anything worse than neutral for the U.S. - what else could they do that's contrary to U.S. interests? Worst case scenario seems like Islamists take control in Syria and do the same things, only say meaner things about the U.S. Big whoop.

By contrast there's real room for gain, if the new government reverses any of the above policies. Plus any new government is going to owe some legitimacy to the initial democratic protests and the democratic language of the Arab Spring, and is likely to be under more domestic pressure to observe democratic norms.

The worst possible option is the grinding / stalemate possibility. The longer this goes on, the more damage and instability there will be to neighboring states - refugees, flows of militants. The longer it goes on the more completely it will annihilate Syrian civil society, such that whomever wins the military contest eventually will have more complete, uncontested control of the country. Longer conflict also tends to strengthen extremists at the expense of moderates.

[Kraken]

Syria is a lose/lose situation for the US. The bad guys are aligned with Iran and Hezbollah, and the other bad buys are al Qaeda-affiliated militants. Humanitarian concerns aside, we're best off with a long, grinding stalemate.

The administration does appear backed into a corner. Hopefully they can cook up a visible response that doesn't tip the advantage to either side.

Not really - it's more like a neutral / win situation. Currently, Syria supports Hezbollah, dominates / oppresses Lebanon, supports Iran, supports terrorism, does not have a peace treaty with Israel. So it's not clear to me how the fall of Assad could be anything worse than neutral for the U.S. - what else could they do that's contrary to U.S. interests? Worst case scenario seems like Islamists take control in Syria and do the same things, only say meaner things about the U.S. Big whoop.

Here's a more complete argument for prolonging the war.

Money quote:

The war is also becoming a sinkhole for America’s enemies. Iran and Hezbollah, the region’s most persistent irritants to the United States and Israel, have tied up considerable resources and manpower propping up Assad’s regime and establishing new militias. Russia remains a key guarantor of the government, costing Russia support throughout the rest of the Arab world. Gulf monarchies, which tend to be troublesome American allies, have invested small fortunes on the rebel side, sending weapons and establishing exile political organizations. The more the Syrian war sucks up the attention and resources of its entire neighborhood, the greater America’s relative influence in the Middle East.

If that makes Syria an unattractive target for intervention, so too do the politics and position of the combatants. For now, jihadist groups have established themselves as the most effective rebel fighters—and their distaste for Washington approaches their rage against Assad. Egos have fractured the rebellion, with new leaders emerging and falling every week, leaving no unified government-in-waiting for outsiders to support. The violent regime, meanwhile, is no friend to the West.

“I’ll come out and say it,” wrote the American historian and polemicist Daniel Pipes, in an e-mail. “Western powers should guide the conflict to stalemate by helping whichever side is losing. The danger of evil forces lessens when they make war on each other.”

As for worst-case scenario: After Assad's government collapses the various Islamist factions duke it out for supremacy, leading to a prolonged anarchy or patchwork of fiefs where terror groups can flourish -- another Afghanistan, that is. The Americans back some of these groups, the Russians and Iranians back others, and other actors in the region have their own horses in the race. (Ultimately, Iran probably emerges as the winner, but "ultimately" could take a very long time.)

The best-case scenario is a negotiated settlement that includes all of the major players...for which you need roughly equal, stalemated combatants who are motivated to compromise. This removes Assad without destroying Syria's institutions and raises at least the possibility of stability.

[Pyperkub]

No oil. Off course we're not doing anything... the cynic in me thinks that if Cheney were still vp, we'd have found a way to invade Iran by now

tapatalkin'

[Anonymous Bosch]

Some additional perspective on Syria, courtesy of the NYT:

CAIRO — In Syria’s largest city, Aleppo, rebels aligned with Al Qaeda control the power plant, run the bakeries and head a court that applies Islamic law. Elsewhere, they have seized government oil fields, put employees back to work and now profit from the crude they produce.

Across Syria, rebel-held areas are dotted with Islamic courts staffed by lawyers and clerics, and by fighting brigades led by extremists. Even the Supreme Military Council, the umbrella rebel organization whose formation the West had hoped would sideline radical groups, is stocked with commanders who want to infuse Islamic law into a future Syrian government.

Nowhere in rebel-controlled Syria is there a secular fighting force to speak of.

Meanwhile, if/when Assad's regime topples, these are the kind of goodies the new government is likely to possess:

Over the past four decades, Syria has amassed huge supplies of mustard gas, sarin nerve agent and cyanide, according to unclassified reports by the Central Intelligence Agency.

In a report to Congress covering last year, the C.I.A., referring to chemical weapons, said, “Syria has had a C.W. program for many years and has a stockpile of C.W. agents, which can be delivered by aerial bombs, ballistic missiles, and artillery rockets. We assess that Syria remains dependent on foreign sources for key elements of its C.W. program, including precursor chemicals.”

In a similar report for 2006, the C.I.A. said Syria’s arsenal included “the nerve agent sarin, which can be delivered by aircraft or ballistic missile.” The report also said that Syria “is developing the more toxic and persistent nerve agent VX.”

[Isgrimnur]

So we have that whole issue on Israel striking Iran. How do we feel about them striking Syria?

U.S. and Western intelligence agencies are reviewing classified data showing Israel most likely conducted a strike in the Thursday-Friday time frame, according to both officials. This is the same time frame that the U.S. collected additional data showing Israel was flying a high number of warplanes over Lebanon.
...
Based on initial indications, the U.S. does not believe Israeli warplanes entered Syrian airspace to conduct the strikes.

Both officials said there is no reason to believe Israel struck at a chemical weapons storage facilities. The Israelis have long said they would strike at any targets that prove to be the transfer of any kinds of weapons to Hezbollah or other terrorist groups, as well as at any effort to smuggle Syrian weapons into Lebanon that could threaten Israel.

[Kraken]

Based on this early report...Israel isn't intervening in the civil war. Striking Syrian convoys isn't the same as striking Syria. Syria might not see it the same way, but it's not like there's a helluva lot they can do about that...even if Israel's just taking advantage of the fog of war to soften up Hezbollah.

More info needed to say more about that.

[Rip]

Surface missles headed to Hezbollah. They have red lines and they enforce them AS you cross them rather than spend a few months arguing over IF you crossed them. I like their approach better.

The airstrike that Israeli warplanes carried out in Syria was directed at a shipment of advanced surface-to-surface missiles from Iran that Israel believed was intended for Hezbollah, the militant Lebanese organization, American officials said Saturday.

Israel, for its part, has repeatedly cautioned that it will not allow Hezbollah to receive “game changing” weapons that could threaten the Israeli heartland after a post-Assad government took power.

And as Washington considers how to handle evidence of chemical weapons use by the Syrian government, a development it has described as a “red line,” Israel is clearly showing that it will stand behind the red lines it sets.

“The Israelis are saying, ‘O.K., whichever way the civil war is going, we are going to keep our red lines, which are different from Obama’s,’ ” said Ehud Yaari, an Israel-based fellow of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/05/world ... ted=1&_r=0

[Daehawk]

Sue me, I like Israel.

[Rip]

So now Syria says the strikes are a declaration of war by Israel.

Any predictions on how nasty it is about to get?

[Kraken]

I think Syria kinda has its hands full already. But if Assad sees value in spreading the war, declaring war on Israel -- which is the same thing as saying Israel declared war on him -- is a good way to do it. So the question would be, how does that enhance the odds of Assad's survival?

It's hard to sort these things out in a region where everybody hates everybody else.

[Blackhawk]

Israel would wipe the floor with them if they got involved, assuming there were no other factors. Other factors, can be scary. Worst case scenario is that Iran sees it as an opportunity to play games with Israel. Iran and Syria have an up and down history, but have been allies more than once.

[Daehawk]

With US support Israel could probably take care of them all and solve our problems while at it.

As is right now since he has said it's war Im surprised Israel hasn't taken all their land already

[Kraken]

UN suspects Syrian rebels have used Sarin gas

So much for red lines.

[Arcanis]

I think Syria kinda has its hands full already. But if Assad sees value in spreading the war, declaring war on Israel -- which is the same thing as saying Israel declared war on him -- is a good way to do it. So the question would be, how does that enhance the odds of Assad's survival?

It doesn't, but that doesn't mean he won't decide to try and take everyone with him if he feels he may lose. That is probably the scariest scenario, if he just doesn't care or thinks he is already dead and wants to take others with him.

[El Guapo]

Even if Syria does declare war on Israel, effectively nothing would come of it. There's no way that Assad is going to divert military forces from the existential threat to him (the rebels) to conduct an unnecessary fight against a more capable foe.

Assad's certainly going to trash talk, of course, in an effort to be seen as a heroic, besieged enemy of Zionism, and to try to make the rebels look like Zionist agents, and the like. It's also possible that he could lob some missiles / rockets at Israel a la Saddam in 1991. He could also - and this is probably the most serious threat - try to get Hezbollah to attack Israel. But there's no way that he's going to voluntarily engage Israel in conventional combat.

[Rip]

CNN Headline just popped up saying.

Congressional sources: The U.S. says Syria has used chemical weapons multiple times and a "red line" has been crossed.

So it seems the shit is about to hit the fan, no?

[El Guapo]

I hope so. The Obama administration seems to have no desire to intervene, though, so I'm skeptical that much will change.

[El Guapo]

Here's a NYT article on the subject:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/14/world ... U_20130613" target="_blank

According to an internal memorandum circulating inside the government on Thursday, the “intelligence community assesses that the Assad regime has used chemical weapons on a small scale against the opposition multiple times in the last year.” President Obama said in April that the United States had physiological evidence that the nerve gas sarin had been used in Syria, but lacked proof of who used it and under what circumstances. He now believes that the proof is definitive, according to American officials.

But a flurry of high-level meetings in Washington this week only underscored the splits within the Obama administration about what actions to take to quell the fighting, which has claimed more than 90,000 people. The meetings were hastily arranged after Mr. Assad’s troops — joined by fighters from the militant group Hezbollah — claimed the strategic city of Qusayr and raised fears in Washington that large parts of the rebellion could be on the verge of collapse.

[Isgrimnur]

Seems like this would be the perfect thing to take before the UN. Syria may not have signed the Chemical Weapons Convention, but pretty much everyone else has signed it. Seems like getting together a multinational coalition together on the topic shouldn't be that difficult.

[El Guapo]

Seems like this would be the perfect thing to take before the UN. Syria may not have signed the Chemical Weapons Convention, but pretty much everyone else has signed it. Seems like getting together a multinational coalition together on the topic shouldn't be that difficult.

A multinational coalition to do what, exactly? Any direct military intervention is going to be the U.S. / NATO. If they attempt to cut off arms to the government, Russia's not going to comply, and they're the only one that matters there.

[Isgrimnur]

Pretty much. I'm just spitballing that these multinational organizations might be able to actually, y'know, do something productive for a change.

[Kraken]

The momentum has shifted to Assad over the past couple of weeks. While getting directly involved in Syria's civil war would be an epic mistake for the US, I don't think we can simply watch Iran-Syria-Russia win, either. Keeping the rebellion alive is...necessary...and this chemical weapon finding is the fig leaf we needed to justify doing that.

It's a no-win situation for US interests, I fear, and it's going to get worse before it gets any better. Iraq is on the brink of sectarian civil war again, too. Ultimately the various sects and tribes throughout the region are going to have to sort it out for themselves, and the odds for secular government are just about nil.