The reason why the major military powers are so against chemical weapons is because they are a very good counter against current military doctrine.
What makes them so effective?
They aren't effective against a modern military that has established air superiority and already destroyed an enemy's capability to manufacture and/or deploy chemical weapons. 40-50 years ago, they would've probably been effective as militaries had much more emphasis on "boots on the ground ASAP" strategic doctrines. The first Iraq war in 1991 established a new strategic doctrine of "bomb the crap out of them, then mop up with boots on the ground" that effectively neutered the effectiveness of chemical weapons against a modern military. However, they are still quite effective against insurgencies, more primitive armed forces that can't deliver the massive amounts of air power necessary to implement the "bomb the crap out of them" doctrine, terror weapons by a regime against "unpopular" unarmed civilians, etc.
They aren't effective against a modern military that has established air superiority and already destroyed an enemy's capability to manufacture and/or deploy chemical weapons. 40-50 years ago, they would've probably been effective as militaries had much more emphasis on "boots on the ground ASAP" strategic doctrines. The first Iraq war in 1991 established a new strategic doctrine of "bomb the crap out of them, then mop up with boots on the ground" that effectively neutered the effectiveness of chemical weapons against a modern military. However, they are still quite effective against insurgencies, more primitive armed forces that can't deliver the massive amounts of air power necessary to implement the "bomb the crap out of them" doctrine, terror weapons by a regime against "unpopular" unarmed civilians, etc.
I disagree. Look at the current systems allegedly deployed in Syria today, they are small, rocket launched devices that would be pretty difficult to eliminate via a pure air campaign. Just look at the Scud Hunting campaign during the first Gulf War. It was very difficult to track them due to their fire and maneuver tactics and it turns out our extended campaign didn't really do that much damage to begin with. While it's easy for the air campaigns to target static defenses, radar based installations with SEAD weaponry, and large clusters of armored columns, it's much more difficult to target small, roving bands of Katyusha-style launchers.
I really don't think you can argue that the conflict was really definitive regarding the use of the weapons.
What chemical weapons DO achieve against a modern military is provide an extremely easy and effective way for low-skilled troops to do a lot of damage against conventional ground forces. We've learned since the first Gulf War that regardless of how much damage you can do with an air campaign, it's still the boot on the ground that secure territory and objectives. Chemical weapons cause massive moral damage and really hinder the highly maneuver based warfare that the US likes to employ these days.
I suppose it isn't practical to give all the troops in full-body suits and respirators?
They pretty much equipped them to all the troops that invaded Iraq both times. It was standard equipment. Also, all the tanks, APCs, etc., have nuclear/biological/chemical filters installed on their air circulation systems so that they can still cruise around and be relatively safe from chemical attacks. There is the issue that the V-series nerve agents (VX and so on) and mustard blister agents tend to be persistent, so even if you're safe inside a tank cruising around in an area protected by your vehicles NBC filters, the outer skin of the tank is still contaminated with chemical agents and will need to be decontaminated, lest someone get too close to it without wearing proper protection. This is especially critical with respect to V-series nerve agents. Blister agents like mustard gas, while they can kill in high enough doses, typically are mostly used to wound/maim enemy soldiers as they aren't instant death attacks like nerve agents. The older G-series nerve agents (sarin, tabun, etc.), which I believe is what most lower tech militaries use as nerve agents (it's what Iraq used alongside mustard gas in its chemical arsenal), tend to disperse relatively quickly and are less of a threat provided you have proper protective equipment.
I am not OK with the US doing it unilaterally. This needs to be a NATO initiative led by Turkey and with the full support of a good portion of the Arab World.
In theory, the US is supposed to be locked down and in full mobile warfare mode, buttoned up in positive pressure vehicles at all times if chems are involved. In practice, dudes on foot and in trucks or humvees are pretty much the norm no matter what.
The thing that ultimately fucks this up, though, is that Syria's military isn't the incompetent mooks that Iraq's were, or basically a militia like Afghanistan. They are focused, competent and well-equipped by Russia. While obviously not on the same level as a first-world force, many of the obvious force multipliers that the Coalition had against the Iraqi military, such as "They won't act until every order has gone through the entire command chain", and "If orders are lacking, surrender immediately.", which crippled the Iraqi conventional forces, don't exist. Not to mention we'll be going in supporting a bunch of people who don't like us.
It's a bad fucking idea all around, the entire thing is stupid, and there is nothing the West can do. So of course we're gonna go charging in because the country is actually run by morons who see these conflicts in the same light Cold War era domino theory, because they are old and dumb, and because they aren't the ones who have to fight it.
I am not OK with the US doing it unilaterally. This needs to be a NATO initiative led by Turkey and with the full support of a good portion of the Arab World.
But also we're charging in because the Syrian army is murdering hundreds of their own civilians with chemical weapons and being seen to do nothing while that was going on would be bad.
But also we're charging in because the Syrian army is murdering hundreds of their own civilians with chemical weapons and being seen to do nothing while that was going on would be bad.
As much as I hate those reddit conspiracy fucks, it seems pretty possible to me that it was a false flag ops of sorts. Enough so that it's too much of a risk to jump in without a lot more deliberation. On top of the fact that absolutely nobody wants to go, and the US and UK are at least nominally democracies.
If we were gonna do it anyway, we should have intervened a year ago, when there was actually positive change to be affected.
Pro-Tip: If you think the US response is likely to be anything other than a few targeted cruise missile strikes and some bombing missions, you are mistaken. This is not going to be anything close to the Iraq invasion.
Turkey already wants to get into a scrap and would love to reduce the Shia/Iran influence in the region. France wants to get into the game because, well France loves to fuck with their old colonies. Italy and Germany are less interested, but are starting to join the bandwagon.
The most important aspect to understand is that a joint response by any coalition of nations is going to see the US as the majority player. We are the strong arm of NATO. During Libya, most of the other countries were actually pissed the US took such a back seat role.
In fact, pretty much all non-US countries have difficulty even supplying a semi-regular air campaign. Due to US hegemony of power, most European counties have decayed militarily, relying on the US to intervene militarily should any issues arise.
As much as I hate those reddit conspiracy fucks, it seems pretty possible to me that it was a false flag ops of sorts. Enough so that it's too much of a risk to jump in without a lot more deliberation. On top of the fact that absolutely nobody wants to go, and the US and UK are at least nominally democracies.
Please, don't bring that shit here. There is zero evidence to back this up and a growing pile of evidence that it's factually wrong. Most of the arguments for such a conspiracy is based upon some rational actor argument, which is weak.
It definitely seems like it would be pretty damn stupid for Assad to have deployed the chemical weaponry, given that the primary effect of doing so was to get international attention.
It definitely seems like it would be pretty damn stupid for Assad to have deployed the chemical weaponry, given that the primary effect of doing so was to get international attention.
Especially because he was already winning without it. Now, people are stupid as fuck so I have no trouble believing he did it anyway, but I find it hard to call it cut and dry. And to be frank, I don't really trust the media or government press releases on this one given the last, oh, I dunno, twelve years or so?
The most important aspect to understand is that a joint response by any coalition of nations is going to see the US as the majority player. We are the strong arm of NATO. During Libya, most of the other countries were actually pissed the US took such a back seat role.
In fact, pretty much all non-US countries have difficulty even supplying a semi-regular air campaign. Due to US hegemony of power, most European counties have decayed militarily, relying on the US to intervene militarily should any issues arise.
Exactly. We have more force projection capabilities than most of the rest of the world combined. Coalition backing is purely political: it will be our bombs and our logistics and our planes when anything happens.
As Nuri alluded to earlier, I also would like to see the US being more politically aggressive in pushing other nations to admit that they can't intervene without us, and further that they need to at least back us monetarily if they want to help send us to battle for them or effectively be their militaries for them.
Saudi Arabia funded a good chunk of the first Gulf War.
This may come to a surprise to some of you, but it's not guaranteed that Assad has 100% control of his forces. It could have been a rogue commander decided to say fuck it and launch a couple chemical rockets. Furthermore, it's possible Assad just doesn't give a fuck that the US will get involved. He knows he's already a dead man, just look at what happened to Ghaddafi. If he did order it, he's probably just wants to kill as many people as he can before he loses.
False flags require a lot more planning and organization than the rebels are capable of. It's just not plausible that this is some sort of detailed attack to get the US involved.
Yes, I don't think that the "rational actor" argument is sufficient to establish anything of note. Ultimately it's a matter of hard evidence, and the hard evidence to date strongly suggests it was, indeed, Assad. That said, I do still want to see more data from the U.N. investigation.
Making up various stories isn't a good counter-argument, though. However, while we're going with stories, the one that seems the most plausible to me is the simplest one - Assad did it genuinely believing he would get away with it.
It was definitely a stupid move for Assad to make, as I said earlier, but stupid moves are hardly rare.
On the whole, though, if the intervention can actually save lives, the official reason for it isn't so important. In my view, how people are being killed isn't the primary concern, but rather how many are being killed.
Of course, that's very much dependent on what can be achieved with the intervention, and it's a much more difficult consideration than whether they are using chemical weapons or not. Also, if that's your objective, it's much harder to claim that you succeeded.
Comments
I really don't think you can argue that the conflict was really definitive regarding the use of the weapons.
What chemical weapons DO achieve against a modern military is provide an extremely easy and effective way for low-skilled troops to do a lot of damage against conventional ground forces. We've learned since the first Gulf War that regardless of how much damage you can do with an air campaign, it's still the boot on the ground that secure territory and objectives. Chemical weapons cause massive moral damage and really hinder the highly maneuver based warfare that the US likes to employ these days.
Here is a semi-realistic explanation of what happened in 2003 Iraq.
I am not OK with the US doing it unilaterally. This needs to be a NATO initiative led by Turkey and with the full support of a good portion of the Arab World.
The thing that ultimately fucks this up, though, is that Syria's military isn't the incompetent mooks that Iraq's were, or basically a militia like Afghanistan. They are focused, competent and well-equipped by Russia. While obviously not on the same level as a first-world force, many of the obvious force multipliers that the Coalition had against the Iraqi military, such as "They won't act until every order has gone through the entire command chain", and "If orders are lacking, surrender immediately.", which crippled the Iraqi conventional forces, don't exist. Not to mention we'll be going in supporting a bunch of people who don't like us.
It's a bad fucking idea all around, the entire thing is stupid, and there is nothing the West can do. So of course we're gonna go charging in because the country is actually run by morons who see these conflicts in the same light Cold War era domino theory, because they are old and dumb, and because they aren't the ones who have to fight it.
If we were gonna do it anyway, we should have intervened a year ago, when there was actually positive change to be affected.
Turkey already wants to get into a scrap and would love to reduce the Shia/Iran influence in the region. France wants to get into the game because, well France loves to fuck with their old colonies. Italy and Germany are less interested, but are starting to join the bandwagon.
The most important aspect to understand is that a joint response by any coalition of nations is going to see the US as the majority player. We are the strong arm of NATO. During Libya, most of the other countries were actually pissed the US took such a back seat role.
In fact, pretty much all non-US countries have difficulty even supplying a semi-regular air campaign. Due to US hegemony of power, most European counties have decayed militarily, relying on the US to intervene militarily should any issues arise.
As Nuri alluded to earlier, I also would like to see the US being more politically aggressive in pushing other nations to admit that they can't intervene without us, and further that they need to at least back us monetarily if they want to help send us to battle for them or effectively be their militaries for them.
Saudi Arabia funded a good chunk of the first Gulf War.
False flags require a lot more planning and organization than the rebels are capable of. It's just not plausible that this is some sort of detailed attack to get the US involved.
Making up various stories isn't a good counter-argument, though. However, while we're going with stories, the one that seems the most plausible to me is the simplest one - Assad did it genuinely believing he would get away with it.
It was definitely a stupid move for Assad to make, as I said earlier, but stupid moves are hardly rare.
On the whole, though, if the intervention can actually save lives, the official reason for it isn't so important. In my view, how people are being killed isn't the primary concern, but rather how many are being killed.
Of course, that's very much dependent on what can be achieved with the intervention, and it's a much more difficult consideration than whether they are using chemical weapons or not. Also, if that's your objective, it's much harder to claim that you succeeded.