Syria:- WMD "Found"

[Mega]

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-0...against-rebels

Now is this:-
1.Decoy from hacking story?
2.Nato strengthing up their hand before "Peace talks"
3.Real deal.........WAR BABY.

Mike

[ASH]

Re: Syria:- WMD "Found"

I wouldn't put quotes around "found" per se; more like "used by Assad". No one (including Assad, as far as I know) disputes that Assad's regime has a chemical weapon stockpile. The disputed point is whether the weapons have been used in the present conflict, and by whom. The Obama administration tried to deter their use by describing chemical weapons usage as a "red line" (thereby staking American credibility) and then hemmed and hawed quite a bit once physiological evidence of small-scale usage surfaced. It wasn't clear who had actually used the weapons, or on what scale, etc. The thing that changed today is the US announcing it had concluded the weapons were used by Assad's regime.

My opinion is that the US getting involved directly is unlikely, but that if we do involve ourselves directly, there is no plausible scenario that involves an Afghanistan-style invasion. I'm thinking air strikes and interdiction, and at most ground raids that don't last more than a few hours (and then only in the event of Assad's regime collapsing, to secure and destroy chemical weapons caches).

But I doubt we'll go that far. Russia is making moves to raise the barrier to Western intervention by offering up better anti-aircraft kit to Assad. That risks drawing in the Israelis more actively, but otherwise seems likely to have the intended effect of deterring us. I think we're far more likely to end up giving the Free Syrian Army weapons in addition to non-lethal supplies, training, and intel.

For that matter, if Assad wins, his chemical weapons stay "safe". Unfortunately, a victory for Assad would also make him cleave closer to his Iranian rescuers, but he was already in their corner -- we're talking more about the loss of our opportunity to disrupt Hezbollah's lines of communication to Iran and reduce Iran's regional influence than facing a significant improvement in Iran's position. On the other hand, if Assad loses, then we have a real problem, trying to secure those weapons. If we give the opposition potent weapons, we have a headache trying to make sure those don't get into the hands of folks who'd use them against Israel or the West. We'd like Assad to leave, but not as the result of a rout that leaves his chemical stockpile vulnerable. How likely is it we'd be able to calibrate our level of assistance so he's compelled to leave Syria through an orderly process?

So my vote is "halfhearted proxy war".

[ASH]

Re: Syria:- WMD "Found"

The administration's first statements on the matter seem to stress upping assistance to the rebels rather than direct intervention, but I guess we'll see. The spokesman Ben Rhodes is quoted as saying:

"The President has said that the use of chemical weapons would change his calculus, and it has. Our decision making has already been guided by the April intelligence assessment and by the regime’s escalation of horrific violence against its citizens. Following on the credible evidence that the regime has used chemical weapons against the Syrian people, the President has augmented the provision of non-lethal assistance to the civilian opposition, and also authorized the expansion of our assistance to the Supreme Military Council (SMC), and we will be consulting with Congress on these matters in the coming weeks. ...

Put simply, the Assad regime should know that its actions have led us to increase the scope and scale of assistance that we provide to the opposition, including direct support to the SMC. These efforts will increase going forward."

[GRG55]

Re: Syria:- WMD "Found"

I wouldn't put quotes around "found" per se; more like "used by Assad". No one (including Assad, as far as I know) disputes that Assad's regime has a chemical weapon stockpile. The disputed point is whether the weapons have been used in the present conflict, and by whom. The Obama administration tried to deter their use by describing chemical weapons usage as a "red line" (thereby staking American credibility) and then hemmed and hawed quite a bit once physiological evidence of small-scale usage surfaced. It wasn't clear who had actually used the weapons, or on what scale, etc. The thing that changed today is the US announcing it had concluded the weapons were used by Assad's regime.

My opinion is that the US getting involved directly is unlikely, but that if we do involve ourselves directly, there is no plausible scenario that involves an Afghanistan-style invasion. I'm thinking air strikes and interdiction, and at most ground raids that don't last more than a few hours (and then only in the event of Assad's regime collapsing, to secure and destroy chemical weapons caches).

But I doubt we'll go that far. Russia is making moves to raise the barrier to Western intervention by offering up better anti-aircraft kit to Assad. That risks drawing in the Israelis more actively, but otherwise seems likely to have the intended effect of deterring us. I think we're far more likely to end up giving the Free Syrian Army weapons in addition to non-lethal supplies, training, and intel.

For that matter, if Assad wins, his chemical weapons stay "safe". Unfortunately, a victory for Assad would also make him cleave closer to his Iranian rescuers, but he was already in their corner -- we're talking more about the loss of our opportunity to disrupt Hezbollah's lines of communication to Iran and reduce Iran's regional influence than facing a significant improvement in Iran's position. On the other hand, if Assad loses, then we have a real problem, trying to secure those weapons. If we give the opposition potent weapons, we have a headache trying to make sure those don't get into the hands of folks who'd use them against Israel or the West. We'd like Assad to leave, but not as the result of a rout that leaves his chemical stockpile vulnerable. How likely is it we'd be able to calibrate our level of assistance so he's compelled to leave Syria through an orderly process?

So my vote is "halfhearted proxy war".

1) Convenient time for a distraction from the scandals at home.
2) There's no such thing as an "orderly process" of succession in the Arab world.
3) Syria is a police state, run by the military. Assad is a figurehead who rules at their behest. That's why removing him doesn't really change anything.
4) What exactly is the "problem" that western military intervention is trying to solve here?
- Remove an odious leader and "liberate" the people of Syria?
- Prevent the spread of chemical WMOs?
- Run a blocking move on Iran and Hezbollah?
- Take a swipe at Russia (and China?)
- Prevent the spread of "radical" (read Shi'a) Islam (even though the 9/11 attacks were by Sunni Muslims)?
- All of the above?
- None of the above?
- Something else entirely?

P.S. The NSA approves this message...

[ASH]

Re: Syria:- WMD "Found"

1) Convenient time for a distraction from the scandals at home.

Indeed.

2) There's no such thing as an "orderly process" of succession in the Arab world.

Kind of makes regime change incompatible with keeping close tabs on those chemical weapons, then.

4) What exactly is the "problem" that western military intervention is trying to solve here?
- Remove an odious leader and "liberate" the people of Syria?
- Prevent the spread of chemical WMOs?
- Run a blocking move on Iran and Hezbollah?
- Take a swipe at Russia (and China?)
- Prevent the spread of "radical" (read Shi'a) Islam (even though the 9/11 attacks were by Sunni Muslims)?
- All of the above?
- None of the above?
- Something else entirely?

I don't see any way that Western intervention would prevent the spread of chemical weapons, since they'd be intervening against the central authority that is securing those weapons. Also, taking a swipe at Russia and China not only seems pointless to me; I believe those calling the shots in the West also see it as pointless, given their other behavior. We're not trying to prevent Shi'a Islam from spreading; we're trying to undermine the power of regimes which resist our influence. It's not about which sect produces more terrorists, but which regimes resist our hegemony; it just so happens that the least compliant regime is Shi'a and their regional allies are Shi'a because sect matters to them. I think the main interests served by intervention are the (very real) bleeding heart lobby and the (more potent) weaken-Iran-because-they-defy-us-(and are an actual threat to Israel) lobby. However, I tend to think the scope of any intervention is greatly constrained by financial and moral exhaustion, the lack of plausibly good options, and the general political climate in America. That's why I think halfhearted proxy war is most likely -- it's enough to claim we're doing something, but not so much that we take on commitments which exceed our present capacity.

[GRG55]

Re: Syria:- WMD "Found"

Indeed.


Kind of makes regime change incompatible with keeping close tabs on those chemical weapons, then.



I don't see any way that Western intervention would prevent the spread of chemical weapons, since they'd be intervening against the central authority that is securing those weapons. Also, taking a swipe at Russia and China not only seems pointless to me; I believe those calling the shots in the West also see it as pointless, given their other behavior. We're not trying to prevent Shi'a Islam from spreading; we're trying to undermine the power of regimes which resist our influence. It's not about which sect produces more terrorists, but which regimes resist our hegemony; it just so happens that the least compliant regime is Shi'a and their regional allies are Shi'a because sect matters to them. I think the main interests served by intervention are the (very real) bleeding heart lobby and the (more potent) weaken-Iran-because-they-defy-us-(and are an actual threat to Israel) lobby. However, I tend to think the scope of any intervention is greatly constrained by financial and moral exhaustion, the lack of plausibly good options, and the general political climate in America. That's why I think halfhearted proxy war is most likely -- it's enough to claim we're doing something, but not so much that we take on commitments which exceed our present capacity.

The "halfhearted" proxy war starts to sound like Vietnam all over again. Regardless of what one might think about the objective, the USA does best when it finally gets serious about something, no matter what that might be.

One serious question...if the USA is concerned about improved anti-aircraft capability why don't they just "drown 'em in drones"?

A couple of decades ago, at the EAA convention in Oshkosh, I attended a really interesting lecture by Burt Rutan where he was advocating the US Air Force abandon manned fighters and bombers and use a fraction of the money to build massive fleets of cheap unmanned weapon carrying airplanes that would simply overwhelm any enemy with their sheer numbers when launching an attack. This wasn't long after Gulf War I where the US used cruise missile attacks at the outset in combination with the B-52s, stealth bombers and conventional attack aircraft such as the McDonnell Douglas F-18 Hornet (one of which was lost along with the pilot on day one).

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Syria:- WMD "Found"

The "halfhearted" proxy war starts to sound like Vietnam all over again. Regardless of what one might think about the objective, the USA does best when it finally gets serious about something, no matter what that might be.

One serious question...if the USA is concerned about improved anti-aircraft capability why don't they just "drown 'em in drones"?

A couple of decades ago, at the EAA convention in Oshkosh, I attended a lecture by Burt Rutan where he was advocating the US Air Force abandon manned fighters and bombers and use a fraction of the money to build massive fleets of cheap unmanned weapon carrying airplanes that would simply overwhelm any enemy with their sheer numbers when launching an attack. This wasn't long after Gulf War I where the US used cruise missile attacks at the outset in combination with the B-52s, stealth bombers and conventional attack aircraft such as the McDonnell Douglas F-18 Hornet (one of which was lost along with the pilot on day one).

UCAVs are well under way developmentally.

I suspect two of the bigger reasons for the shift moving slower than it might otherwise are:
1)"Fighter Pilot Mafia" in USAF senior leadership
2)Fear of UCAV compromise or countermeasure risk against a peer threat

Interestingly enough, even though drones were used prior(including over Vietnam), Israel is credited with the first fully integrated use of UAVs/drones in a war campaign when it used it's earlier generation UAV/drones as a key component of their SEAD(surpression of enemy air defenses) mission to destroy approximately 19 Syrian SAM batteries in Lebanon in 1982 for no losses, less than 10 years after the IAF was hit pretty hard by then new generation SAM6 and the rest of the integrated Syrian Air Defense systems.

The IAF was(and I assume still is) a learning/adaptive institution where someone like Burt Rutan would probably be extremely well respected for his long history of innovative problem solving.

Back in the Vietnam era, the F4 Phantom was originally built without an onboard gun because the thought at the time was the Sidewinder/Sparrow missile combination was all that was needed in the future battlespace and that unmanned aircraft would probably replace the F4.

What they found was that technology had not developed nearly enough to provide much more than target drones and fairly simple(but fairly high performance) recce drones. And pilots were soon screaming for an onboard gun system(F4-E model) and better dissimilar air combat training since the missiles sucked.

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Syria:- WMD "Found"

Good to see you back ASH!

I don't see any way that Western intervention would prevent the spread of chemical weapons, since they'd be intervening against the central authority that is securing those weapons.

The US possesses the capability to seize Syrian WMD stockpiles.

The 75th and SMUs could do it with a high probability of success assuming the political will to go full noise.

But from a Machiavellian "economy of effort" perspective, is there really a political need?

Heck no in my opinion.

What's the easiest way to ensure those WMDs aren't compromised?

Maybe a Machiavellian deal with the son that would probably entail a social media mitigated/optimized sacking of Hama 1982 by the father all over again.

But it would appear the time for that distasteful option is well and truly behind us.

Also, taking a swipe at Russia and China not only seems pointless to me;

To me, the US State Department and Executive Branch are looking like a pack of amateurs when it comes to Russia.

SecState Kerry left waiting for 3 hours and no joy?

For the most part, Russia is a former major player, while the US is a fading major player.

There are levers that can be used against Russia that the US government seems unwilling or unable to use.


I believe those calling the shots in the West also see it as pointless, given their other behavior. We're not trying to prevent Shi'a Islam from spreading; we're trying to undermine the power of regimes which resist our influence. It's not about which sect produces more terrorists, but which regimes resist our hegemony; it just so happens that the least compliant regime is Shi'a and their regional allies are Shi'a because sect matters to them. I think the main interests served by intervention are the (very real) bleeding heart lobby and the (more potent) weaken-Iran-because-they-defy-us-(and are an actual threat to Israel) lobby.

What I can't fathom is the lack of Machiavellian desire to avoid intervention and stick with just quiet arms length support for weak totalitarian states.

Syria circa 2000 wasn't a conventional threat to Israel or anyone(well, Lebanon maybe) even if it was(and remains) the conduit for Iran's Hezbullah unconventional proxy war with Iran.

Syria 2000 was a Groundhog Day dictatorship that was fairly benign(unless you were Syrian/Lebanese or an Israeli that won the Hez rocket "lottery")

I know that's no long-term solution.

But we're lying when we say we support and promote democracy as we only have one aligned interest in the region who qualifies as one.

If I was setting policy for the region it would be to align with strongmen that we put the screws on to promote better quality of life and standard of living metrics and mitigate Arab Spring type risk.

However, I tend to think the scope of any intervention is greatly constrained by financial and moral exhaustion,

agreed...PLUS the guys and girls downrange are getting pretty tired too, even if the spear is razor sharp

the lack of plausibly good options, and the general political climate in America. That's why I think halfhearted proxy war is most likely -- it's enough to claim we're doing something, but not so much that we take on commitments which exceed our present capacity.

The effort looks like Dog and Pony Show busywork. We're pretending to do something.

I was never a fan of Senator McCain from the days of his efforts to "help" campaign finance reform.

Now with his aggressive and off message visit to Syria I look forward to celebrating the day he leaves office.

It's worth watching the fairly new State Department Bureau of Conflict and Stabilization Operations.

They're piping the non-lethal aid to Syrian opposition groups to the tune of approx $250-500 million so far.

It's also worth keeping an eye on the story of flights between the former Yugoslavia and Jordan. Sounds like up to an air bridge of a couple thousands tons of small arms as reported in the regional Balkan media. Who's running it? US OGA? Qatari? Saudi?

And there have been reports for at least a few months of western training teams in Jordan instructing on anti-armour tools and probably other stuff too. OGA? .MIL? PMC?

----------

I reckon we simply cannot have our cake and eat it too(particularly Israel)

If we try, we're at great risk of burning the kitchen to the ground.

But I think it may require eliminating the phrase "promoting democracy" from regional goals.


----------

Is it just me, or do Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Egypt, etc all seem like neglected infrastructure projects in the US like the odd bridge collapsing due to corruption/neglect/incompetence?

What's the downside to supporting totalitarian states that are pushed hard by the west to promote improved quality of life and standard of living while smashing dissent?

Is it the risk of increasing domestic/regional energy use leaving less for us?

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Syria:- WMD "Found"

Almost forgot, we just passed the 4th Anniversary of President Obama's speech in Cairo, Egypt.

In 3 days, it will be 3.5 years since Mohammed Bouazizi lit himself on fire in Tunisia.

A whole LOT has changed in the last 3.5 years.

[c1ue]

Re: Syria:- WMD "Found"

Is it just me, or do Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Egypt, etc all seem like neglected infrastructure projects in the US like the odd bridge collapsing due to corruption/neglect/incompetence?

What's the downside to supporting totalitarian states that are pushed hard by the west to promote improved quality of life and standard of living while smashing dissent?

Is it the risk of increasing domestic/regional energy use leaving less for us?

Maybe the missing link is that you've been assuming the US is calling the shots, as opposed to foreign special interests manipulating US politicians via US corporations to achieve their own ends.

After all, just how hard has the US pushed Saudi Arabia - despite all manner of Saudi nationals' involvement in anti-US terror operations around the world?

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Syria:- WMD "Found"

Maybe the missing link is that you've been assuming the US is calling the shots, as opposed to foreign special interests manipulating US politicians via US corporations to achieve their own ends.

After all, just how hard has the US pushed Saudi Arabia - despite all manner of Saudi nationals' involvement in anti-US terror operations around the world?

While I also believe Saudi has considerable influence in Washington, I don't think it always works perfectly.

It's a well known fact the Saudis out/off-source pretty much all of their dirty work wherever possible.

They hate getting their hands dirty literally and figuratively.....Yemen was a military debacle for an organization used to easy stuff like regime continuity-lite. They got their asses handed to them. It was a big embarrassment on the Kingdom's doorstep.

And then the US and an all-star global rockstar cast showed in Yemen to try and sort out what the Saudi could not.

So if the Saudis have THAT much influence in Washington....

....what happened with the Saudi National Guard having to crack skulls in Bahrain?

[ASH]

Re: Syria:- WMD "Found"

One serious question...if the USA is concerned about improved anti-aircraft capability why don't they just "drown 'em in drones"?

My take is that if Russia really does export the S-300 to Syria -- and if the Syrians manage to set up a number of S-300 batteries before Israel takes them out -- then it's an incremental question of level of effort, risk and commitment rather than one of fundamental capability. It seems evident to me that Obama is/was reluctant to get involved in the fighting directly, as is the majority of American public opinion, so this isn't something we're likely to task major resources to -- or, more importantly -- accept American losses for. A few S-300 batteries can therefore be a major threat to fragile American commitment while being no more than a minor incremental threat to American hardware and lives.

From what I understand, our surveillance drones crash in embarrassingly large numbers, and right now the armed drones are better at sniping targets on the ground with no means of fighting back. I think "drown 'em in drones" is a capability being sought, but not yet an option. Your example of "drown 'em in cruise missiles" seems like an avenue we might indeed take. McCain recently said we needn't risk pilots' lives over Syria anyway, since cruise missiles would suffice to crater runways and destroy important Syrian command infrastructure. I have to admit that better anti-aircraft capability mainly deters us from giving the Syrian rebels close air support -- not from attacking fixed targets.

[ASH]

Re: Syria:- WMD "Found"

I reckon we simply cannot have our cake and eat it too(particularly Israel)

If we try, we're at great risk of burning the kitchen to the ground.

But I think it may require eliminating the phrase "promoting democracy" from regional goals.

...

What's the downside to supporting totalitarian states that are pushed hard by the west to promote improved quality of life and standard of living while smashing dissent?

Is it the risk of increasing domestic/regional energy use leaving less for us?

I assume we lack the leverage to significantly influence totalitarian allies to improve the quality of life of their citizens. For one thing, the stability of totalitarian states often rests on the ability of the leadership to distribute patronage to its elites, and civil routes to prosperity that don't run through the regime are inimical to that basic structure of power and reward. I guess a merely "authoritarian" state run by technocrats, such as Singapore under Lee, would be easier to work with -- but there aren't any such in the Middle East to work with. Another problem is that relationships with totalitarian allies are transactional, and we don't hold all the cards. I think we use up all our chits getting our "friends" to make nice with Israel and moderate the oil supply, with no leverage left over for quality of life. Anyway, getting a country to adjust its foreign policy is probably easier than getting it to adjust its internal power structure or culture.

I don't think we're worried about these countries becoming wealthy and having less oil to export; I think we simply don't have the leverage.

[flintlock]

Re: Syria:- WMD "Found"

Seems like just more foreign entanglements to me. I don't really see a winning role here for the US. Not sure where the "pressure" to get involved at all is coming from. The Assad regime was in power for decades. What has changed that makes an unpredictable and tenuous alliance of Islamic Rebels preferable? To whom is our governments loyalty owed first? The poor suffering people of Syria or Americans? Because I can certainly see it from Syrian's viewpoint. Not so sure about US best interest. And who's next? Turkey? Its getting all too Team America for me.

Caution language!

[c1ue]

Re: Syria:- WMD "Found"

While I also believe Saudi has considerable influence in Washington, I don't think it always works perfectly.

It's a well known fact the Saudis out/off-source pretty much all of their dirty work wherever possible.

Given that those who work with/for the Saudis don't do so as employees, but more likely as interested (and beneficiary) allies, this isn't surprising.

They hate getting their hands dirty literally and figuratively.....Yemen was a military debacle for an organization used to easy stuff like regime continuity-lite. They got their asses handed to them. It was a big embarrassment on the Kingdom's doorstep.

And then the US and an all-star global rockstar cast showed in Yemen to try and sort out what the Saudi could not.

So if the Saudis have THAT much influence in Washington....

....what happened with the Saudi National Guard having to crack skulls in Bahrain?

I'd say that the worst possible thing for Saudi Arabia in Bahrain is to have US troops come in and shoot Muslims. This would validate the allegations that Osama and others have been making for years - that the ruling regime in Saudi Arabia is a US puppet. Much like having US troops maintain order in the KSA would do the same thing.