I was just pointing at someone at random. I'm not saying one country should finance the whole operation. In fact, I think exactly the opposite. I think everyone should kick in and help. And tell Russia/China to fuck off.
I agree with those points, but I still take issue with the idea that the U.S. "can't afford it".
U.S. military prowess has given the rest of the western world the leeway to not focus on regional or national defense for the last 60 years. The reason why U.S. has been in so many interventions since WWII is because we do the rest of the world's dirty laundry.
Regarding Syria, there is absolutely no way to get involved and come out looking semi-clean. The FSA has been thoroughly radicalized and taken over by Al-Qaeda franchises and AQI via Jabhat al-Nusra. The Syrian army has strong ties to Russian and Iranian interests. Both sides target civilians because the lines are being drawn along ethnic lines. Alawites are flocking to the Syrian army, fearful of genocide from the majority Sunni rebels. Sunni extremists are pouring into Syria to defend against the Alawite regime.
BOTH sides have experimented with chemical weapons, not just the Syrian army. See the Khan al-Assal UN investigation for more information.
For those of you arguing for US intervention. Who do we intervene for? What strategic objectives should be accomplished within 30 days? What are the ramifications of such actions? It's too easy to hear these news stories and get riled up for action, but it's not as simple as "institute a no-fly zone".
Personally I'm not all that bothered by the idea of chemical weapons, but given the policy stances taken by the U.S. and the UN on chemical weapons it's clear that if they are actually being used, then either the policy needs to change, or action needs to be taken.
The reason why the major military powers are so against chemical weapons is because they are a very good counter against current military doctrine. Clamping down on them hard makes it more difficult for small to medium sized militaries to rival current western powers. It's exactly why the U.S. was so shit scared to go against a rusting Iraqi military in 1991.
The real question, is what do you if both sides of the conflict are utilizing chemical weapons?
It's possible that use of chemical weapons by either side is a ploy to elicit a response from the major powers. The current status of the war is a stalemate and without a larger military force making a deliberate response, it's likely to drag on much longer.
The Obama administration really fucked up when they drew an "red line" when it came to chemical weapons. The players in Syria called their bluff, and now Obama is stuck.
That was definitely a bad move. Chemical weapons usage would force the U.S. to either take direct action, or lose a lot of credibility (which is especially important w.r.t. chemical weapons).
U.S. military prowess has given the rest of the western world the leeway to not focus on regional or national defense for the last 60 years. The reason why U.S. has been in so many interventions since WWII is because we do the rest of the world's dirty laundry.
The US started out doing the laundry by choice because it kept pumping the US economy however the US has continued to the point where acts of war and the revenue earned can no longer prop up the US economy in down turns.
The reason why the major military powers are so against chemical weapons is because they are a very good counter against current military doctrine. Clamping down on them hard makes it more difficult for small to medium sized militaries to rival current western powers. It's exactly why the U.S. was so shit scared to go against a rusting Iraqi military in 1991.
Of course, the United States also unofficially leaked rumors that any chemical attacks against coalition forces in 1991 would result in nuclear retaliation. Whether a legitimate threat or just a case of trying to scare the shit out of Iraq to keep them from doing what we most feared, it certainly appeared to have worked.
Of course, I'm not quite so sure that the chemical weapons policy really have much of an impact on current military doctrine. The various chemical weapons treaties came into effect after WW1, where it was shown to be brutally effective against any sort of massive ground campaigns that lacked sufficient technical countermeasures to chemical warfare. Modern doctrine de-emphasizes those sorts of ground campaigns. Right now, the current doctrine appears to be (at least among more powerful militaries) "bomb them back to the stone age, then send the ground troops in to mop up." Mustard and nerve gas don't do squat when you're dropping GPS-guided munitions from 35,000 feet... or firing Maverick air-to-ground missiles from a remote-piloted drone. I'd also argue that modern mechanized infantry, whose equipment is always outfitted with advanced nuclear, chemical, and biological filtering technology, also isn't as vulnerable to chemical warfare. Of course, your ground-pounding, on-foot infantry (which still makes up a sizable portion of modern armies) certainly is vulnerable. Hence why you bomb the crap out of the enemy first to destroy their capability to use chemical weapons.
Going back to the 1991 Iraq War, that was the first war in history pretty much decided by modern air power doing the "bomb them to the stone age" thing. Before that war, no one knew if that strategy would work. No one even knew if we could bomb Iraq into the stone age as their air defenses were among the most sophisticated in the world outside of the superpowers. Once it had been established that we could pretty much bomb them with impunity, the whole chemical warfare on the battlefield fear became less of an issue. The one remaining issue was chemical ballistic missiles, but those apparently never came into play.
The real question, is what do you if both sides of the conflict are utilizing chemical weapons?
Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out? Alternately, assuming those chemical weapons are only being used against opposing forces and not innocents caught in the crossfire, just let them gas themselves silly. Of course, if innocents are being caught in the crossfire, the only option might be to kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out.
What we really should do is we should take all the Syrian citizens who don't want to be there anymore and all the Syrians in the other countries in refuge camps and take them to America. We would give them proper food and housing while teaching them and training them on how to lead Syria once everyone there is dead from killing each other. They'll eventually come to like the greatest nation on earth and land of the free so much that when they get back to Syria when the conflict is over, they'll apply to become an American state! This is called Underhanded Imperialism.
We might need to get rid of existing sentiments in America first though....
What we really should do is we should take all the Syrian citizens who don't want to be there anymore and all the Syrians in the other countries in refuge camps and take them to America. We would give them proper food and housing while teaching them and training them on how to lead Syria once everyone there is dead from killing each other. They'll eventually come to like the greatest nation on earth and land of the free so much that when they get back to Syria when the conflict is over, they'll apply to become an American state! This is called Underhanded Imperialism.
Not really it just sounds like making another politically retarded nation rather than a functioning one.
Well, the UN likely won't take real action. Several nations, however, are in talks to act unilaterally.
I am fine with a world where the major non-evil powers (looking at you China and Russia) act swiftly and with force against ANY actor using chemical or nuclear weapons in any context.
I haven't been following this story very closely (I mean, I've been following the politics, but not the war itself), so whenever people talk about the Syrian government using chemical weapons I'm just like "like, Mustard Gas? Was Syria annexed by the Second Reich? Is Assad working with The Kaiser?"
It's not really fair, but I've read so much more on WWI than any other use of chemical weapons that it's really all I associate the term with.
Comments
Go Star Trek Universe!
Regarding Syria, there is absolutely no way to get involved and come out looking semi-clean. The FSA has been thoroughly radicalized and taken over by Al-Qaeda franchises and AQI via Jabhat al-Nusra. The Syrian army has strong ties to Russian and Iranian interests. Both sides target civilians because the lines are being drawn along ethnic lines. Alawites are flocking to the Syrian army, fearful of genocide from the majority Sunni rebels. Sunni extremists are pouring into Syria to defend against the Alawite regime.
BOTH sides have experimented with chemical weapons, not just the Syrian army. See the Khan al-Assal UN investigation for more information.
For those of you arguing for US intervention. Who do we intervene for? What strategic objectives should be accomplished within 30 days? What are the ramifications of such actions? It's too easy to hear these news stories and get riled up for action, but it's not as simple as "institute a no-fly zone".
The real question, is what do you if both sides of the conflict are utilizing chemical weapons?
In any case, the appropriate thing to do right now is to investigate the situation.
The Obama administration really fucked up when they drew an "red line" when it came to chemical weapons. The players in Syria called their bluff, and now Obama is stuck.
Of course, I'm not quite so sure that the chemical weapons policy really have much of an impact on current military doctrine. The various chemical weapons treaties came into effect after WW1, where it was shown to be brutally effective against any sort of massive ground campaigns that lacked sufficient technical countermeasures to chemical warfare. Modern doctrine de-emphasizes those sorts of ground campaigns. Right now, the current doctrine appears to be (at least among more powerful militaries) "bomb them back to the stone age, then send the ground troops in to mop up." Mustard and nerve gas don't do squat when you're dropping GPS-guided munitions from 35,000 feet... or firing Maverick air-to-ground missiles from a remote-piloted drone. I'd also argue that modern mechanized infantry, whose equipment is always outfitted with advanced nuclear, chemical, and biological filtering technology, also isn't as vulnerable to chemical warfare. Of course, your ground-pounding, on-foot infantry (which still makes up a sizable portion of modern armies) certainly is vulnerable. Hence why you bomb the crap out of the enemy first to destroy their capability to use chemical weapons.
Going back to the 1991 Iraq War, that was the first war in history pretty much decided by modern air power doing the "bomb them to the stone age" thing. Before that war, no one knew if that strategy would work. No one even knew if we could bomb Iraq into the stone age as their air defenses were among the most sophisticated in the world outside of the superpowers. Once it had been established that we could pretty much bomb them with impunity, the whole chemical warfare on the battlefield fear became less of an issue. The one remaining issue was chemical ballistic missiles, but those apparently never came into play. Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out? Alternately, assuming those chemical weapons are only being used against opposing forces and not innocents caught in the crossfire, just let them gas themselves silly. Of course, if innocents are being caught in the crossfire, the only option might be to kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out.
We might need to get rid of existing sentiments in America first though....
I am fine with a world where the major non-evil powers (looking at you China and Russia) act swiftly and with force against ANY actor using chemical or nuclear weapons in any context.
It's not really fair, but I've read so much more on WWI than any other use of chemical weapons that it's really all I associate the term with.
Yeah that makes sense.