US concludes Syria used chemical weapons
The Obama Administration arrived at the same conclusion the rest of the world had already reached months ago – Syria had used chemical weapons on the rebels. The red line has been crossed. The New York Times reports that, in response the US will be supplying the rebels with arms and ammunition.
But even with the decision to supply lethal aid, the Obama administration remains deeply divided about whether to take more forceful action to try to quell the fighting, which has killed more than 90,000 people over more than two years. Many in the American government believe that the military balance has tilted so far against the rebels in recent months that American shipments of arms to select groups may be too little, too late.
Some senior State Department officials have been pushing for a more aggressive military response, including airstrikes to hit the primary landing strips in Syria that the Assad government uses to launch the chemical weapons attacks, ferry troops around the country and receive shipments of arms from Iran.
Yeah, we’re using the European model now – too little and too late. I’m not particularly fond of supplying anyone in the region with weapons of any sort. As I mentioned the other day, anti-aircraft missiles which had been given to Libyan rebels have turned up in Mali in the hands of al Qaeda. I’m not fond of the idea of flying US aircraft over Syria either. Especially when we have drones in the region. The Obama Administration has diddled long enough that there’s no real good solution left these days.
Category: Terror War
I’m not in support of doing anything except protecting our bona fide, proven national security needs. Can someone tell me how Syrians killing other Syrians threatens this? One side doesn’t like us very much, and the other side has sworn loyalty to al Qaeda, a point that needs to be shown to that putz Senator from Arizona.
Having been “over there”, been shot at, lost a couple of comrades, my theory on the use of military power has morphed a bit. As good as our military is at defeating, disrupting, and destroying the enemy, they are not nation builders. That task still belongs to our inept State Department.
Our military should, when committed, use such overwhelming tactics, deliver such an awesome response as to make the world recoil in horror. And then we leave. No rebuilding, no peace keeping force, no contingency force “over the horizon”.
Let them hate. So long as they fear. We’d have fewer problem children displaying tantrum tactics.
I generally agree, Jonn. There’s no good solution now – except for us to stay the hell out of this one and let it play out however it may. Both sides in Syria are little more than organized groups of murderous, anti-American thugs with agendas that run counter to US interests. For the US, supporting either side is now a losing proposition.
I have to disagree in one minor point, though. I’m not sure there ever was a good opportunity here. IMO both options in Syria sucked from day one. Even early on, best I could tell al Qaeda’s fingerprints were all over the supposed Syrian “democratic” opposition. And Assad’s been a US enemy for years.
The weakest and most impotent CiC since Jimmy Carter.
@1: I have been saying the same thing for years.
I will add this, though: The only thing I can see us getting involved with is something where the genie is already out of the bottle; the chemical weapons. If they get mobile, they could end up in front of one of our compounds/embassies/military installations over in that part of the world and that would be bad. Unfortunately, as I stated; that genie is already out of the bottle and I don’t think we can guarantee that some of them haven’t grown legs and walked away, at this point.
Anyone who thinks that the administration has opted to arm the terrorist rebels as a result of the foregone conclusion that the regime used chem weapons is (to be kind) naive. This is nothing more than a construct to justify what obamaman wanted to do all along. Timing is everything. The gang decided this was the right time. I wonder if new Nat’l Security Adviser Rice had any input–other than to take coffee and danish orders, that is.
Oh, so the Syrians get free military-grade weaponry while so many needy Americans are forced to go without. Maybe we should take care of America first and then deal with the world’s problems.
I don’t think Obama believed Syria would ever use Chemical Weapons, and his “Red Line” reactions were based on that. He had nothing planned in response to their use of WMD, and has spent the past few months stumbling around hoping it would just go away..
@2 – Hondo, spot on!
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/04/11/syria-al-qaeda-connection/2075323/
Now our money is going to support al Qaida. Terrific. Just what I always dreamed of. :-\
Since the Syrian “rebels” have pledged allegiance to Al Queda, and have even been posing under the AQ black flags, that means they are aligned with a terrorist organization and thus supplying them with ANY form of assistance is illegal.
I’d like to see this administration’s justifying of that sort of action. It amounts to nothing less than treason, and should easily rise to the level of “high crimes & misdemeanors” needed for articles of impeachment to be drawn up.
There seems to be a pattern here – arm the Muslim Brotherhood et al is the choice consistently made. At this point, it doesn’t matter if that decision is made as part of a greater plan or by accident, but as the pattern is replicated it becomes more difficult to see it as accidental.
@9: You know that this will never rise to a level to get anyone interested in complaining, let alone getting articles of impeachment. If they are that fickle that they drop a real scandal (the IRS) in favor of the latest goings on of HoneyBooBoo, then there is nothing this President can do that will garner any attention from anyone. He could slaughter a baby seal on live tv and his dog washers will ignore it.
If we are going to lend assistance it should be to ourselves and we should arm both sides with deadly weapons to enable them to kill each other in ever increasing numbers. As soon as one side declares victory we go to war with that side and use an unrestricted bombing campaign to kill as many civilians, military, militia, plants, animals and bacteria as we can….as FistSFC said, better that most are dead, and those that remain are terrified we will return. It should be common knowledge that striking the US or harboring those that do will end in unsufferable misery….ignorant middle age serfdoms can’t be made into educated, affluent democracies with opportunity for all in 10-15 years. It takes 100 years and a massive occupation and re-education…
@4: Throughout most of the history of our country (most), the genie has always been out of the bottle before we have responded. That is the nature of not be the aggressor. We are attacked and we respond.
We changed tactics by going into Iraq in 2003 with the implementation of Bush’s preemptive doctrine. That lasted until he was out of office and the apologist-in-chief took the reins (and reigns).
Our response to 9/11 was one brought on from a loose genie attacking our soil. If and when the nukes and chemical weapons find their way here, again our response will be to catch the smoky wisp left by a loose genie.
As a country we no longer possess or inculcate our people with the mindset and resolve to protect preemptively. We’ve always reacted. Now we dither in doing even that.
My point comes back to letting them kill each other. Their life, and life in general means nothing to them. Their society and culture offers little that we absolutely need. This is a fight we should have no dog in…unless they attack our kennel. Then we unleash the hounds.
I thought guns were bad… mkay.
Oh wait… not when the US taxpayer is providing them to Mexican druglords or the Obama Brotherhood.
But it’s not hypocritical, because anything those tolerant liberals do is good by definition.
“Any future action we take will be consistent with our national interest, and must advance our objectives, which include achieving a negotiated political settlement to establish an authority that can provide basic stability and administer state institutions; protecting the rights of all Syrians; securing unconventional and advanced conventional weapons; and countering terrorist activity.”
First, there is no national interest in the Syrian revolution significant enough to risk American lives. Secondly, establishing an authority to provide basic stability, administer state institutions, and protecting Syrian rights sounds very familiar and very flawed. Thirdly, if part of the desired end state is the providing basic stability, administering state institutions, protecting all Syrian’s rights, securing WMDs, and countering terrorist activities, I’m guessing that enabling and strengthening an organization with known Al-Qaeda ties that is based primarily on Sunni tribes is not the best way to that end. All in all, this will not work out well for the non-Sunnis in Syria or for the US. The same bad ideas that brought us the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and rising unrest in Libya are being perpetuated again in Syria.
“Tolerant liberal” should be redundant, but notice that it’s not.
Not one American’s life is worth that dusty shithole. 8000 years of history of them killing each other over the most petty shit should tell us that if nothing else.
I am torn on this. Part of me thinks this is coming out to draw attention away from the whole NSA spy scandal. The other part of me thinks it is just further bumbling on the part of the adminstration.
Either way, WE DON’T NEED TO GET INVOLVED!
Brer’ Barack is fix’n to grab this Tar Baby with both hands. This is going to go pear shaped very quickly and surely end in tears. So Assad kills 150 with gas and now we get involved. This fight has killed over 90,000 so far without us taking any interest. The trick to dealing with civil wars is to keep them from spilling out into the larger region. Our intervention will ensure that this conflict broadens to other areas.
The only good solution is the one we’ll never use.
Nukes.
@13. I agree, we don’t have a dog in this fight. Screw em, let them kill each other til there’s about 50 of them left, then kill the ones who are left.
Agree that getting involved in Syria is a fool’s game. IMHO, that just ramps up the chances of more WMDs getting flung around the region. Luckily, we have the fools needed already elected. (sarcasm)
@22 You are more than right. Let those fuckers do what they want to each other. But as you wrote sarcastically we have the dick heads in office to pull out the WMD trump card if they choose. Again I say to Obama, take care of your domestic fuck ups first and leave Syria to the Syrians. They are not worth a drop of American blood!
Well, now that the U.S. will be providing funds to Al Quaeda backed Syrian Rebel fighters, doesn’t that translate to the U.S. calling for economic sanctions on itself for supporting terrorism?
Wait. What?!
@14: Obama brotherhood. That’s a good one. I’m going to start using that myself.
Sadly these weapons will eventually kill Americans it’s only a matter of time. The Obama brotherhood is obviously hoping it’s not during their reign, but then again even if it is who cares? They’ve gotten away with it before.
Whether we help or not, somebody is going to win. If we were going to help the rebels, the time to do it was as soon as this thing started. Since then nearly 100,000 people have been killed, chemical weapons have been deployed, and Al Qaeda has taken over the rebellion. We’ve passed the point of doing anything that would benefit us. Calling the “red line” and weeks later still trying to figure out what the hell that means makes us look horribly incompetent. There is no way we can gain favor with either side by showing up so late to this party.
You didn’t think that Obama would let some Muslim Brotherhood’s finest go without aid did you? Even if he had to come up with something to send them arms that they will turn around and attack Israel with?
This reminds me of the old joke:
One guy asked another old mid-east hand how to solve the Palestinian problem and he said “build a wall around all of them and put up a ladder once a year. When only one is left standing, shoot the bastard”
NATO could establish layered air over Syria and instead of ground-based weapons, just drop laser designators which are useless once NATO goes home, not like Stingers. Worked really well in Libya:
http://exiledonline.com/libya-the-berb-burb-alliance/
When the State Department is pushing for a more agressive response, you know we’re jacking something up.
@30 When John Kerry is running the State Department, we’re f@cked as far as Syria goes. He and the Admin will not stop until we have boots on the ground. I am sad to say but I fear it is coming. Leave and I mean LEAVE those f@ckers to kill each other as often and as many as they can. And tell Europe to get involved or shut the f@ck up about anything the US decides to do. It is Europe’s back yard not ours. But as I have written before the European response in much like that of France. Which is “we promise to export only our most inferior table wines to Syria”.