What's everyone's opinion on the current conflict in Syria?

[Gremlin29]

To me the whole thing seems a farse. Secretary of State Kerry has said that we are talking about a very limited, incredibly small response. Why would Assad or anyone else for that matter take that sort of "threat" seriously. I think some serious questions need to be answered even if and when they can actually prove Assad used chemical weapons. What would a limited air campaign achieve? What is the end goal, and can it be achieved by a limited aerial campaign?

The Russians meanwhile may have outmaneuvered the west and seem to be near making a deal that puts Syria's chemical weapons into UN custody immediately, for future destruction. This seems to me to be the best option for all parties.

The US is so unprepared for any of this it's shocking. No plan, no idea on what will happen nor have they identified the desired end state. We are now in the world where doing something wrong, is preferable to doing it right or not at all.

 

[Feanor]

To me the whole thing seems a farse. Secretary of State Kerry has said that we are talking about a very limited, incredibly small response. Why would Assad or anyone else for that matter take that sort of "threat" seriously. I think some serious questions need to be answered even if and when they can actually prove Assad used chemical weapons. What would a limited air campaign achieve? What is the end goal, and can it be achieved by a limited aerial campaign?

The Russians meanwhile may have outmaneuvered the west and seem to be near making a deal that puts Syria's chemical weapons into UN custody immediately, for future destruction. This seems to me to be the best option for all parties.

The US is so unprepared for any of this it's shocking. No plan, no idea on what will happen nor have they identified the desired end state. We are now in the world where doing something wrong, is preferable to doing it right or not at all.

Assad just agreed to transfer control of the chemical weapons to the UN.

Á. Àñàä ñîãëàñèëñÿ íà ïðåäëîæåíèå Ðîññèè ââåñòè êîíòðîëü íàä õèìîðóæèåì :: Ïîëèòèêà :: Top.rbc.ru

Russian sources claim that the attack on Syria by the US will last 72 hours. I don't follow US media too closely, so is there any truth in these claims? Was something leaked?

 

[Gremlin29]

Assad just agreed to transfer control of the chemical weapons to the UN.

Á. Àñàä ñîãëàñèëñÿ íà ïðåäëîæåíèå Ðîññèè ââåñòè êîíòðîëü íàä õèìîðóæèåì :: Ïîëèòèêà :: Top.rbc.ru

Russian sources claim that the attack on Syria by the US will last 72 hours. I don't follow US media too closely, so is there any truth in these claims? Was something leaked?

US news sources were saying the attack would last 72 hours (or less) last week. Kerry was in the UK today saying that the attack would be incredibly limited and short. How true is this? I can't say however this seems to be accepted as fact. The WH has a track record of leaking actual information so I am pretty sure that there is some merit in the 72 hours or less.

If I were in the WH right now I would feel extremely foolish that the Russians were able to neutralize the problem without the use of force. Even though I am a patriotic American I must say, well played Mr. Putin!!

 

[Feanor]

US news sources were saying the attack would last 72 hours (or less) last week. Kerry was in the UK today saying that the attack would be incredibly limited and short. How true is this? I can't say however this seems to be accepted as fact. The WH has a track record of leaking actual information so I am pretty sure that there is some merit in the 72 hours or less.

If I were in the WH right now I would feel extremely foolish that the Russians were able to neutralize the problem without the use of force. Even though I am a patriotic American I must say, well played Mr. Putin!!

To be honest this is remarkable. It's a brilliant foreign policy move completely unlike the idiocy and straight forward power play they often display. I'm honestly surprised they came up with such an elegant solution. From the Russian perspective anyway. If they get their way, Assad will probably win, and the people of Syria will end up right where they started, except the country will also be in ruins.

 

[CavScout]

If I were in the WH right now I would feel extremely foolish that the Russians were able to neutralize the problem without the use of force. Even though I am a patriotic American I must say, well played Mr. Putin!!

However, the Russians are using an off the cuff remark made by Kerry in response to a journalist's question;
"What could Assad do to mitigate any strikes?" Kerry's resposnse was
"Hand all his weapons over to international inspectors by the end of the week".

Now the Russians have proposed this to Assad and he is seriously considering it by all reports. Now, it was either a great foreign policy play by Kerry, or the Russians are capitalising on the idea and running with it.

Also, do you think Assad is more inclined to agree to it as it was coming from the Russians and not the US?

 

[Gremlin29]

However, the Russians are using an off the cuff remark made by Kerry in response to a journalist's question;
"What could Assad do to mitigate any strikes?" Kerry's resposnse was
"Hand all his weapons over to international inspectors by the end of the week".

Now the Russians have proposed this to Assad and he is seriously considering it by all reports. Now, it was either a great foreign policy play by Kerry, or the Russians are capitalising on the idea and running with it.

Also, do you think Assad is more inclined to agree to it as it was coming from the Russians and not the US?

To be frank Kerry hasn't done or said anything that would leave me to believe this was a calculated in any way at all. I agree the Russians grabbed the ball and ran. I also believe world perception will be that the Russians solved our problem and perception, is reallity.

 

[Feanor]

To be frank Kerry hasn't done or said anything that would leave me to believe this was a calculated in any way at all. I agree the Russians grabbed the ball and ran. I also believe world perception will be that the Russians solved our problem and perception, is reallity.

It was a manufactured problem to begin with. Obama took a stance that was unwarranted, and backed himself into a corner. Meanwhile Obama says he'll put the strikes against Syria on pause, if they do hand over their chemical weapons to international inspectors.

Íîâîñòè NEWSru.com :: Îáàìà: åñëè Àñàä îòêàæåòñÿ îò õèìîðóæèÿ, óäàð ïî Ñèðèè áóäåò ïîñòàâëåí íà íåîïðåäåëåííî äîëãóþ "ïàóçó"

Well hopefully this will be the end of it. And hopefully Assad will get (and take) some hints from Moscow to behave like a civilized person, following this.

 

[Jonton]

In my opinion it is the right way to do that chemical weapons deal after Russia suggested that. I would still say the the risk to intervene is too high since the other countries could react in some unexspected way.

 

[colay]

If realized, the best possible outcome IMO. Russia's big fear is WMDs reaching Muslim insurgents within it's own borders. A deal will be a major diplomatic coup. Even the US can spin any deal as the result of it's threat to use force. The end result is what matters, the chemical weapons are secured under international control.

If the deal does not materialize or it is perceived to be taking too long, I think Obama will strike, whether he has the approval of Congress or not. Preserving presidential credibility will demand it.

 

[Feanor]

The Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs says that evidence of the chemical weapons attack in Eastern Guta were manufactured, and the UN investigators have received many witness reports that say rebels were using the chemical weapons. They mention that this information was received during a briefing, on Sep. 9th, given by international experts, and Russian journalists that were in the country. This information was compiled by independent sources, and has been passed on to the UN investigators.

 

Meanwhile, in the US, opposition to the intervention is growing, and Obama has decided to give two weeks delay, to see the viability of the Russian suggestion. The Syrian Minister of Foreign Affairs re-affirmed their desire to take up the Russian offer, hand their chemical weapons over to international control for the purpose of their destruction, and join the anti-chemical weapons convention. He added that this was being done to save lives of Syrians.

 

 

[the road runner]

If the deal does not materialize or it is perceived to be taking too long, I think Obama will strike, whether he has the approval of Congress or not. Preserving presidential credibility will demand it.

I have heard on the news today,that if Syria is attacked , a number of faction's in the middle east have stated they will attack the west main allie Israel.It seems that if Syria is attacked ,this could escalate and Israel would be the target.

 

[My2Cents]

I have heard on the news today,that if Syria is attacked , a number of faction's in the middle east have stated they will attack the west main allie Israel.It seems that if Syria is attacked ,this could escalate and Israel would be the target.

Would that be much different from what those factions are trying to do already?

This could be an optimal outcome from the point of view the west politicians, as Israel has the best developed capability to deal with attacks from these sources, and isn't their country.

 

[STURM]

Irrespective of whether a strike is actually launched or how long it lasts, I very much doubt that it will severely degrade the ability of the Syrian government to continue the fight against the rebels/insurgents/extremists/freedom figthers/terrorists. Some hope that a strike will convince Assad to comprise, to agree to leave for a Russian dacha, in return for a power sharing deal with his opponents - I doubt it. Some also hope that strikes will convince high ranking Alawite officials that an agreement has to be reached but first, they have to get rid of Assad.

There is no doubt that chemicals were used and that non-combatants, very unfortunately, were killed. The key questions however remain un-answered -

[1]. Did Assad actually authorise it?

[2]. If not, was it a spur of the moment thing by a local commander who was desperate, or was it done by a commander or someone in the government who wanted to increase the pressure on Assad to raise the stakes against the opposition?

[3] If strikes happen and again, chemicals are used, what next? More strikes?

[4] This is my favourite - if evidence is presented to show that Assad's chaps were not behind the attack or if at some time in the future, the rebels/insurgents/extremists/freedom fighters/terrorists use chemicals, will Obama still talk about his ''red line'' that has been crossed and the need for accountability?

[5] Why would Assad want to use chemicals in the knowledge that this would provide an excuse to countries who want him go, to initiate a strike or a response? Assad is also aware that the use of chemicals not only further isolates him politically but will also result in Sunni Arab states increasing the amount of lethal aid going into Syria.

[6] From a Western and Sunni Arab perspective, both have slightly different ideas as to the kind of post-Assad Syria they want. Has the Pentagon, State Department, Foreign Ministry, etc, any plans in place to deal with a post-Assad Syria? Any plans to draw the UN in or will that only happen after thing start to go rat-shit like in Afghanistan and Iraq? One thing's for sure, despite all the big talk, the Arab League will be looking towards the West and the UN with regards to dealing with the immense problems of a post-Assad Syria.

 

[Blackshoe]

One note about the attack itself: this blog has a pretty good and unbiased analysis of open-source material on the ordnance linked to the 21Aug attack. The short answer is that it appears to be a converted fuel-air explosive freefall rocket.

He even discusses the gun depicted on the earlier video (which is a rebel weapon, called the Hell Cannon; it's a home-made mortar that fires home-made shells made from propane tanks filled with home-made fertilizer-based explosives; I'm sure it's highly safe).

 

[colay]

Would that be much different from what those factions are trying to do already?...

Exactly. Attack by proxies have been anticipated and will be dealt with. I seriously doubt Iran will directly attack Israel, that would just be the pretext for the US and Is call to go after the Mullahs's nuke infrastructure.

 

[STURM]

that would just be the pretext for the US and Is call to go after the Mullahs's nuke infrastructure.

Yes, and a whole lot of good that will do.

My take is that a strike on Syria [which itself might not accomplish much militarily] is unlikely to lead to Iran, or Hezbollah, deciding to strike Israel; there's just nothing to gain from it.

No doubt that behind the scenes, Assad is under a lot of Russian pressure to make some concessions and it appears he has - http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...hemical-arsenal--with-conditions-8812224.html

Syria intervention: Would Operation Biffing Arabs be the best name for it? - Comment - Voices - The Independent

Robert Fisk - The Independent

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...clichs-shows-no-sign-of-stopping-8798719.html

 

[Feanor]

One note about the attack itself: this blog has a pretty good and unbiased analysis of open-source material on the ordnance linked to the 21Aug attack. The short answer is that it appears to be a converted fuel-air explosive freefall rocket.

He even discusses the gun depicted on the earlier video (which is a rebel weapon, called the Hell Cannon; it's a home-made mortar that fires home-made shells made from propane tanks filled with home-made fertilizer-based explosives; I'm sure it's highly safe).

Fascinating stuff. If this blogger is correct, then it seems that the weapons were used by the loyalist forces. Either an insane level of stupidity on Assad's part, or a decisive loss of control (probably the latter, given German claims about intercepted comms). If it is loss of control this could resolve the seeming contradiction between loyalist use of chemical weapons, and Assad's public willingness to hand his arsenal over to international inspectors. Of course it is possible that Assad is playing it both ways.

 

[SolarWind]

Fascinating stuff. If this blogger is correct, then it seems that the weapons were used by the loyalist forces. Either an insane level of stupidity on Assad's part, or a decisive loss of control (probably the latter, given German claims about intercepted comms). If it is loss of control this could resolve the seeming contradiction between loyalist use of chemical weapons, and Assad's public willingness to hand his arsenal over to international inspectors. Of course it is possible that Assad is playing it both ways.

Are they using home-made chemicals or ones made in state factories? If they are home-made they could also have been used by the opposition. In the blog, is there backing for the claim that the party using these weapons are the loyalist forces?

If the chemicals are home-made, and were used by loyalists, then the Russian experts' report from earlier this year is inconclusive. The only indication of who used the weapons in the report was that the chemicals were home-made.

 

[Feanor]

Are they using home-made chemicals or ones made in state factories? If they are home-made they could also have been used by the opposition. In the blog, is there backing for the claim that the party using these weapons are the loyalist forces?

If the chemicals are home-made, and were used by loyalists, then the Russian experts' report from earlier this year is inconclusive. The only indication of who used the weapons in the report was that the chemicals were home-made.

The report also mentioned that the explosives used included RDX I think (гексоген). I'm not sure what the proper name is in english. The formula is C3H6N6O6. The report claimed that this would not be found in the quantities it was found in, in the government's munitions, and therefore the munitions were home made.

 

[colay]

Well, apparently a deal has been struck and the devil is in the details. Russia is now actively engaged in a constructive manner. Putin can score even more points and prestige by committing substantial Russian manpower under UN aegis, perhaps including security forces and technical expertise in chemical weapons.

Reports are that the US has started delivering weaponry to the insurgents and this is really what can achieve the final desired solution of evicting Assad. I'm anticipating that Assad will try to link his cooperation on the WMD issue to a demand that such US aid be ceased. The US will continue to hold the threat of strikes over his head but now that Putin has a personal stake, he has the greatest ability to ensure Assad's cooperation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/15/world/middleeast/syria-talks.html?pagewanted=all

U.S. and Russia Reach Deal to Destroy Syria’s Chemical Arms

GENEVA — The United States and Russia reached a sweeping agreement on Saturday that called for Syria’s arsenal of chemical weapons to be removed or destroyed by the middle of 2014 and indefinitely stalled the prospect of American airstrikes.

The joint announcement, on the third day of intensive talks
in Geneva, also set the stage for one of the most challenging undertakings in the history of arms control.

“This situation has no precedent,” said Amy E. Smithson, an expert on chemical weapons at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies. “They are cramming what would probably be five or six years’ worth of work into a period of several months, and they are undertaking this in an extremely difficult security environment due to the ongoing civil war.”