Gas Attack in Syria

[Siege]

The labour amendment was also rejected.

The amendment was rejected before the main vote.

This is bizarre, as the way the vote went it means that mp s oppose on principle waiting for evidence before acting and still opposed action anyway. If you were going to vote to not attack anyway why would you vote against getting evidence?

It isn't bizarre though, it's a very simple and very commong way of political manoevring. If you don't want an intervention no matter what you vote against the amendment, because passing the amendment makes voting in favor of the motion to intervene more palatable. Passing the amendment increases the risk that the motion itself will pass, thus if you don't want the motion to pass you vote against the amendment as well.

It can be a little risky if you don't know where every party stands with regards to the unamended motion (you could be risking the motion to pass anyway, so that's a risk you have to weigh), but I would suspect that at this level of politics and with this much time to prepare you'd know which way your opposition is leaning before any MP even enters the Commons.

[LaCroix]

The Nazis didn't use poison gas on the battlefield – they certainly did use it, but in the context of executing civilian prisoners in fake shower rooms and the like.

Nitpick - they used a Pesticide used to fog barracks and homes to get rid of lice, and just dosed it high enough to kill people. That pesticide is not on the list of chemical weapons (it's basically cyanide), and the same compound was still sold by germany until late in the sixties, under a different name. It's not a chemical weapon per se - it's the same as filling a room with exhaust fumes to kill people. Which they originally did, they just found out that this readily available stuff they already used to de-lice their uniforms is doing that job faster and cheaper...

[NettiWelho]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_w ... macht_1942

Probable use of poison gas in Crimea by the German Wehrmacht 1942

One reported incident indicates the German army eventually used poison gas on survivors of the Battle of Kerch on the Eastern Crimean peninsula. After the battle in mid-May 1942, roughly 3000 soldiers and civilians not evacuated by sea were besieged in a series of caves and tunnels in the nearby Adzhimuskai quarry. After holding out for approximately three months, "poison gas was released into the tunnels, killing all but a few score of the Soviet defenders."

[cosmicalstorm]

The Germans never deployed chemical weapon en masse in serious warfare.

So in the news, my initial suspicion is revitalized.

A U.S. State Department spokesman admitted yesterday that the U.S. doesn’t know whether a low-level, rogue Syrian official is responsible for the chemical weapons attacks.

Today, the wheels came off the war wagon altogether.

AP reports:

An intercept of Syrian military officials discussing the strike was among low-level staff, with no direct evidence tying the attack back to an Assad insider or even a senior Syrian commander, the officials said.



So while Secretary of State John Kerry said Monday that links between the attack and the Assad government are “undeniable,” U.S. intelligence officials are not so certain that the suspected chemical attack was carried out on Assad’s orders, or even completely sure it was carried out by government forces, the officials said.

**

Another possibility that officials would hope to rule out: that stocks had fallen out of the government’s control and were deployed by rebels in a callous and calculated attempt to draw the West into the war.

In other words, the U.S. hasn’t yet ruled out that possibility … but only hopes to.

The New York Times writes:

American officials said Wednesday there was no “smoking gun” that directly links President Bashar al-Assad to the attack

***
It appears that the public presentation of the Syria evidence will be limited. Instead of the theater of Mr. Powell’s 2003 speech — which included satellite photographs, scratchy recordings of conversations between Iraqi officials and a vial of white powder meant to symbolize anthrax — American officials said the intelligence assessment they are preparing to make public will be similar to a modest news release that the White House issued in June to announce that the Assad government had used chemical weapons “on a small scale against the opposition multiple times in the last year.”

Except that – last time there was a chemical weapons attack in Syria – it turned out to have been the rebels who launched the attack.

Similarly, the Guardian notes that British officials say there is not 100% certainty of who carried out the attacks, and that the conclusion of government culpability is not based on hard evidence, but a series of assumptions.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

I'm glad we're not getting stuck in another Middle East mess. According to the news, the Syrians they spoke to said they were glad the UK isn't going to involve itself. Apparently it was 9 Lib Dem and 30 Cons who voted against the motion, along with most of Labour. It was defeated by just 13 votes.

[Ace Pace]

Kerry laws out the U.S. case

US Secretary of State John Kerry has said Syrian government forces killed 1,429 people in a chemical weapons attack in Damascus last week.

Mr Kerry said the dead included 426 children, and described the attack as an "inconceivable horror".

He did not mention military strikes, and said the government would consult Congress leaders over the next step.

The government of President Bashar al-Assad has denied carrying out the attack and blames rebel forces.

UN chemical weapons inspectors are investigating evidence for the chemical attacks.

But Mr Kerry said the US now had the facts, which the government has published in a four-page assessment.

He said the evidence showed 1,429 people had been killed. and that regime forces had prepared for the attack three days earlier.

"We know rockets came only from regime-controlled areas and landed only in opposition-held areas," he said.

"All of these things we know, the American intelligence community has high confidence."

The US is pushing for intervention to stop the Syrian government from using chemical weapons.

But the UN Security Council is unlikely to approve any military intervention because permanent member Russia is a close ally of the Syrian government, and has vetoed two previous draft resolutions.

The US was also dealt a blow on Thursday when the UK parliament rejected a motion supporting the principle of military intervention.

The vote rules the UK out of any potential alliance.

However, US officials said they would continue to push for a coalition, and France said it would support the US.

[Ace Pace]

White house report

Quoting relevant portions for the lazy.

Our high confidence assessment is the strongest position that the U.S. Intelligence Community can take short of confirmation.

We assess that the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons over the last year primarily to gain the upper hand or break a stalemate in areas where it has struggled to seize and hold strategically valuable territory. In this regard, we continue to judge that the Syrian regime views chemical weapons as one of many tools in its arsenal, including air power and ballistic missiles, which they indiscriminately use against the opposition.

Multiple streams of intelligence indicate that the regime executed a rocket and artillery attack against the Damascus suburbs in the early hours of August 21. Satellite detections corroborate that attacks from a regime-controlled area struck neighborhoods where the chemical attacks reportedly occurred – including Kafr Batna, Jawbar, ‘Ayn Tarma, Darayya, and Mu’addamiyah. This includes the detection of rocket launches from regime controlled territory early in the morning, approximately 90 minutes before the first report of a chemical attack appeared in social media.

We intercepted communications involving a senior official intimately familiar with the offensive who confirmed that chemical weapons were used by the regime on August 21 and was concerned with the U.N. inspectors obtaining evidence. On the afternoon of August 21, we have intelligence that Syrian chemical weapons personnel were directed to cease operations. At the same time, the regime intensified the artillery barrage targeting many of the neighborhoods where chemical attacks occurred.

Personally, I think it's a sure thing that the Syrians used CW. This totally ignoring the question of whether the U.S. should intervene or whether there is any actual moral right of intervention.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Personally, I think it's a sure thing that the Syrians used CW. This totally ignoring the question of whether the U.S. should intervene or whether there is any actual moral right of intervention.

Assuming chemical weapons were used, the intention of the air strikes are probably just a punitive measure for using them. There isn't really any other reasonable purpose or objective that can be sought with firing a barrage of cruise missiles.

[Jerry the Vampire]

Obama is taking it to congress to decide.

[Broomstick]

That gives Obama a face-saving out "Oh, I was so ready to bomb them, but Congress wouldn't let me do it". Hey, it worked in the UK...

[cosmicalstorm]

Obama lost a lot of face in this mess.

[Broomstick]

So what if he did?

[The Romulan Republic]

Is it a given that Congress will vote against an attack?

[Rogue 9]

That depends on whether or not the House majority wants to embarrass the President more than it wants to bomb Assad.

[Broomstick]

It also depends on how loudly the constitutes make their feelings known - a sufficient groundswell of pro- or anti-involvement citizens contacting their representatives could sway the vote.

[Zaune]

Obama lost a lot of face in this mess.

Not as much as he would have lost by ham-fistedly wading in without thought for the consequences, creating as many problems as he solved and then leaving someone else to sort out the mess.

[cosmicalstorm]

Yes that was better. I did not like the idea of a US intervention. When I say he lost face in this I'm referring to the fact that he should have stayed away from talks about red lines in the first place.
The way I see it right now, he made some threats about there being a red line. Now that it's crossed he does nothing = loss of credibility.

[Broomstick]

The PotUS acting like an elected official answerable to the public and Congress is an improvement over the PotUS acting like a dictator. It might be a small loss for Obama but a larger win for many of the rest of us.

There is no point in bombing Syria unless it will actually make things better. I see no indication that it will, either it will do nothing or make things worse. If the rest of the world was on board with action (like in 1991 against Saddam's invasion of Kuwait) it might be different but right now no one seems willing to do anything, possibly because this is a problem internal to Syria in regards to the types of weapons being used or possibly because no one seems to think intervening will make a difference.

So - how about the recent apparent incendiary attack in Aleppo? Dropping fire on a school yard, very classy (not). Should the world be as outraged by that as by a gas attack? Why or why not? Is there a faction (or more than one) that is attempting to draw the rest of the world into this conflict, and if so, why? Or is it just a convenient way for a desperate regime to dispose of people it considers a threat?

[Ace Pace]

So - how about the recent apparent incendiary attack in Aleppo? Dropping fire on a school yard, very classy (not). Should the world be as outraged by that as by a gas attack? Why or why not? Is there a faction (or more than one) that is attempting to draw the rest of the world into this conflict, and if so, why? Or is it just a convenient way for a desperate regime to dispose of people it considers a threat?

What Assad is doing is very deliberately pushing the line of what is acceptable to do further and further. Random shooting or protesters was obviously fine. Full out civil war with no consequences? Why not. Rocket attacks on his own population started late last year. Chemical and napalm attacks were just the next step and here Syria used the same MO of doing small targeted attacks then slowly ramping up until they can go "so what?"

This has repeated itself with multiple different operations and I see no reason why this is the last stage (yes, you can escalate beyond CW).

[Dr. Trainwreck]

Perhaps he thinks that, if he can kill all his opposition fast enough, the whole issue will become moot as far as the world is concerned and they'll stop bothering him. The plausibility of this outcome is slight, but absolute leaders have thought of stupider things in the past.

[Broomstick]

On the contrary, the world community (if there is such) values stability highly. If a government can swiftly and decisively put down a rebellion then the rest of the world will shrug and move on to the next crisis.

[Jerry the Vampire]

Who would have thought the UK could have affected things in the US.

[cosmicalstorm]

But if he did begin to deploy chems on a wide-scale, wide enough to give him an edge, maybe that would provoke an outside attack? Maybe Obama did the right thing in making some noise but nothing more. Maybe the people saying that this will embolden Assad are all wrong.

I wonder if conventional warfare will ever allow him to kill enough of the opposing ethnic groups for it to make it possible to set up an Alawite enclave.

[Thanas]

This has repeated itself with multiple different operations and I see no reason why this is the last stage (yes, you can escalate beyond CW).

with what?

[The Romulan Republic]

Genocide?

Using nuclear weapons is another way, but fortunately that's not an option for Assad.