[Syria] Cluster bombs being used against civilians

[Eleas]

Dagens Nyheter has exclusive footage and facts proving that the Syrian regime is using banned cluster bombs against civilian targets.

Manal al Younes could hear the roar of a jet engine overhead as she raced to the store on the outskirts of Marea near the Turkish border last week to buy salt for her mother.

For months, eight-year-old Younes had heard the familiar sound as Syrian rebels and government forces clashed nearby. Manal al Younes was completing her purchase at the store a week ago when she heard an explosion. She froze just as sharp metal fragments sliced through the shop door. Shrapnel tore through Manal al Younes' thigh shredding tissue and muscle and lodging into her femur.

Younes was injured by a cluster bomb, a projectile that explodes in mid-air and spreads several smaller bomblets over a large geographical area. Some of the bomblets detonate immediately, showering the target with shrapnel. Others detonate when someone touches them.

The attack on the outskirts of Marea Dec. 12 that injured Younes is one of the first documented incidents that the Syrian regime is using banned cluster bombs against civilians. DN correspondents in Syria have interviewed victims and examined evidence of the damage. The bombs have killed four people in Marea since and injured about 10 others.

“We neither have the equipment nor the knowledge on how to handle these bombs,” said Khalil al-Younes, Manal al-Younes’s father.

Manal al Younes survived the attack. Lying on the sofa bed at her home Wednesday, the bandage on her leg was discolored with dried blood and pus. Her eyes were glassy from the strong pain medication.

“Manal is petrified of new attacks," Khalil al-Younes said. "Her wound is not looking good, but we were sent home from the infirmary. ‘Wait a week and see if it gets better, otherwise you have to go to Turkey,’ was all the doctor said.”

Human Rights Watch (HRW), a USA-based human rights organization, has documented more than 30 attacks with cluster bomb. HRW relies on video clips sent by opposition activists. The origin of this material has often been difficult to verify.

In Marea, evidence of the attacks is everywhere. The area around the crater on where the cluster bombs hit south of town was littered with small bomblets. Shrapnel was spread over a several thousand square-meter area. Shrapnel hit a two-story residential structure and metal fragments pierced parked cars, smashed windows and destroyed water tanks. A bottle of liquefied petroleum gas, sitting in the backyard of a house, exploded and caused a smaller fire.

All of the damage was far from any military targets. A smaller Free Syrian Army post, located a few miles away, was not affected at all by the attack.

The Free Syrian Army has partly cut off the government supply lines, according to an Oct. 14 HRW report. The cluster bomb attacks are part of the government's attempt to take control of the highway connecting central Syria (where the capital, Damascus, is located) to the north of Syria and the country’s commercial capital, Aleppo.

Marea is located in northern Syria’s agricultural area, about 19 miles from the Turkish border. Before the war about 25,000 people call Marea home, but during the ongoing civil war at least 80 percent of the population have fled their homes and into refugee camps close to the border or to Turkey.

Journalist Yassir Elhaji's car was destroyed and all the windows in his house shattered.

“I do not dare to let my family stay here,” he said.

Despite overwhelming evidence, the Syrian regime continues to deny that cluster bombs are used in the civil war directed toward civilian targets.

The bombs found near Marea were manufactured in the former the Soviet Union in 1978. Russia is a major supplier of weapons to the Syrian Army. Both Syria and Russia deny that cluster munitions have been used in the civil war.

“The Syrian Army does not have access to this type of bomb," the government said in a statement after the HRW report. "The report is without substance and part of a disinformation campaign.”

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov also denied that the Syrian regime received cluster bombs from Russia, but didn't deny the government was using the bombs.

“There is a lot of weapons in the region... much of which and in large quantities have been acquired illegally," Lavrov said.

Because of the large number of civilians injured, many countries have banned the use of cluster bombs. The 2008 Convention on Cluster Munitions prohibits the use, transfer and stockpile of cluster bombs. It was adopted by 111 nations, but Syria declined, as has Russia, the regime's closest ally, China and the United States.

International law expert Ove Bring said there is no way for the world to stop the use of cluster munitions, especially since countries on the UN Security Council haven't adopted the convention.

“We cannot do anything but to condemn this,” Bring said. “There is no resource to go in militarily to take care of these weapons or even agreeing on further sanctions in the UN Security Council. Of course you can always try to get China and Russia to support at special decision by the Security Council, but unfortunately that will not work. The problem is that USA, China and Russia have not signed the agreement. It is only the states with a humanitarian interest that have backed the ban.”

(Source, with pictures.)

[Thanas]

Can you really say a weapon is banned if the biggest arms users refuse to follow such a ban?

Syria: Proudly following in the US footsteps.

[K. A. Pital]

Yeah, the cluster bomb ban hasn't really been enforced or followed and all the recent civil and local wars saw the use of such munitions (Sea Skimmer might provide some insight on conflicts which didn't - I'd be interested to know if there were any).

[Broomstick]

Can you really say a weapon is banned if the biggest arms users refuse to follow such a ban?

Syria: Proudly following in the US footsteps.

Yes, nice how you ignore Russia and China are acting exactly the same on this issue, and that the cluster bombs in question here almost certainly came from the USSR, not the US. Unless you're maintaining the USSR bought cluster bombs from the US back in the '70's (or whenever) specifically to sell to Syria?

[Iron Bridge]

There is no such ban, as if countries can force one another to not use certain weapons even without treaty agreement. A number of countries have agreed voluntarily to not produce these weapons. Syria is not one of them. Nor is USA, Russia, China, India, Iran, Turkey, Brazil, Cuba, North or South Korea, or basically any country that actually expects to fight a war.

[Losonti Tokash]

He was clearly referring to all three countries when he said "users."

[Broomstick]

Yes, then he said Syria, a country that is having an internal melt-down where the government is using Soviet provided weapons against a civilian population as somehow "following in the US footsteps". In other words, when something bad happens it's automatically the US's fault even if they are in no way connected to the guilty regime, nor did they supply the weapons involved. It's America bashing.

Syria wants to play like the big boys, without restriction on what weapons they are and are not allowed to have. They're emulating all the major powers, not one specifically, so why lay the blame at one specifically?

[Thanas]

Yes, then he said Syria, a country that is having an internal melt-down where the government is using Soviet provided weapons against a civilian population as somehow "following in the US footsteps".

The US used cluster bombs against Afghani, Yemeni and Iraqi civilian populations under Obama - oh sorry, "insurrectionists hiding among civilian populations".

In other words, when something bad happens it's automatically the US's fault even if they are in no way connected to the guilty regime, nor did they supply the weapons involved.

No, it actually means they are on the same level as the US, yet you do not see Clinton and others complain when they are the ones doing the bombing. I was pointing out hypocrisy. Heck, even the explanations are the same. The USA is fighting terrorists. Syria is fighting terrorists. That both terrorists just happen to oppose the central power they deem to be the best is of course just a coincidence.

It's America bashing.

The truth cannot bash.

Syria wants to play like the big boys, without restriction on what weapons they are and are not allowed to have. They're emulating all the major powers, not one specifically, so why lay the blame at one specifically?

Russia and China are heartless bastards who provide Syria with the weapons to slaughter its own population, the USA used (and uses) similar weapons. Only one of the three is currently engaged in a propaganda push to show the world how horrible the Syrians are while committing much more horrible things on a vastly larger scale a few years ago. The USA cannot claim the moral high ground here. Especially not because the same US politicians themselves ordered the use of cluster bombs against civilian targets.

Would I prefer it if the USA got their way in Syria? Yes, I would because Assad is a monster. Do I like how they are currently doing it? No. They should handle your own dirt first and actually make sure there is a viable peace plan in place. Otherwise you are just replacing one set of strongmen with another set, like in Libya.

[Sephirius]

Can you really say a weapon is banned if the biggest arms users refuse to follow such a ban?

Syria: Proudly following in the US footsteps.

Yes, nice how you ignore Russia and China are acting exactly the same on this issue, and that the cluster bombs in question here almost certainly came from the USSR, not the US. Unless you're maintaining the USSR bought cluster bombs from the US back in the '70's (or whenever) specifically to sell to Syria?

The munition they show in the pic appears to be an RBK-250 tail cone, with the submunition being AO-1SCh Anti-Personnel fragmentation bomblets. The submunition in the picture was made in 1978, batch number 85, and the production factory code of 80, which almost certainly means this is PRC made.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

There's nothing special about what cluster bombs do, it's no different than iron bombing civilians, the reason they're under an attempt to be banned is that the high dud rate results in a functional equivalent of a minefield in the area where they've been heavily used. But in terms of their actual physical impact on people when they go off, there's nothing special.

[Aaron MkII]

And we wound up banning mines as well, well some of us did.

But hey, at least they haven't started flinging WP around.

[Broomstick]

Yes, then he said Syria, a country that is having an internal melt-down where the government is using Soviet provided weapons against a civilian population as somehow "following in the US footsteps".

The US used cluster bombs against Afghani, Yemeni and Iraqi civilian populations under Obama

Yes, and the Soviets/Russians and Chinese are equally guilty of such atrocities, and probably supplied the munitions used by the Syrians, but they get a clean pass by you. Why is that?

In other words, when something bad happens it's automatically the US's fault even if they are in no way connected to the guilty regime, nor did they supply the weapons involved.

No, it actually means they are on the same level as the US, yet you do not see Clinton and others complain when they are the ones doing the bombing. I was pointing out hypocrisy.

And the Russians and Chinese are remaining silent when their Syrian allies commit atrocities, again, the exact same behavior as the US does, yet you do not call them on that. Why not? The US is not the only guilty party in these matters, but they are the only one you point out. Why is that?

It's America bashing.

The truth cannot bash.

The truth is that you are blaming the atrocities of Syria on the US when the US is in no way culpable for this particular atrocity but rather the Soviets/Russians/Chinese supplied the weapons and are remaining silent at the butchery of civilians. If the nations slaughtering innocents was an ally of the US or the weapons were US supplied your argument would be valid but neither of those conditions are true in this instance. Hence, you are bashing the US by blaming them for the actions of others.

Russia and China are heartless bastards who provide Syria with the weapons to slaughter its own population, the USA used (and uses) similar weapons.

Yes, that statement is true. Which means in this case Russia and China bear some of the responsibility for the killing... but the US does not. The US is hypocritical for using the shaming finger at the Assad regime over this, but saying Syria is "following in the footsteps of the US" is a mischaracterization. The US is not the only nation that does these things in war.

Would I prefer it if the USA got their way in Syria? Yes, I would because Assad is a monster. Do I like how they are currently doing it? No. They should handle your own dirt first and actually make sure there is a viable peace plan in place. Otherwise you are just replacing one set of strongmen with another set, like in Libya.

Funny, if I recall one of the complaints in Libya was how long it took to get others involved, and weren't the Europeans leading on that one?

I would prefer if the Russians and Chinese who have their finger in the Syrian pie would straighten this shit out instead of once again dumping the problem on the US. If you don't like the US being the world's policeman then someone else is going to have to step up to the role on occasion. You want the US to replace Assad because he's a "monster", even though you don't like the way the US does such things? Why don't you suggest someone else who will fulfill that role more to your liking? Or is the US the least of possible evils in that regard?

[Sea Skimmer]

Can you really say a weapon is banned if the biggest arms users refuse to follow such a ban?

Syria: Proudly following in the US footsteps.

Go ignorance. The US never did and never will follow the cluster bomb treaty because it would ban even our smart guided anti tank weapon; having been more or less written to intentionally do so while just barely keeping several European weapons legal by fractions of a pound. Now eanwhile the US's self imposed ban is completely based on dud rates, and has been extended to all weapons, not just cluster bombs, and ceased production around 2004, that's four years before the cluster bomb treaty even existed. Of course Europe won't do such a thing because it would force a time table to replace most Cold War ammunition and fuses which would cost actual money. The US also set a date on phase out of almost all remaining cluster weapons, 2018, before that treaty was ever written, and ceased using them in advance of that date. Unlike Europe the US won't just disarm itself, and then realize it can't even keep fucking Qaddafi from slaughtering everyone without running out of ammo, it actually has reasonable plans.

This article meanwhile, someone trying to make a name for himself given the phrasing. We already have piles of photographs and several impact videos proving cluster bombs were being used in Syria months ago. Nobody really cares, and complaining about this, as if it is somehow really any more horrible then everything else going on is just absurdity. If anyone really gives a damn, advocate giving the rebels mortars and ammunition to attack Syrian airfields and anti tank missiles to destroy the tanks defending them.

[Alyeska]

Calling cluster bombs banned is a fucking joke. The UK signed the treaty and still uses them. The treaty does ban cluster bombs. It reduces the number of bomblets per weapon. When a British Colonel was asked about the ban his response was something along the lines of "Its pointless. I will just fire more missiles to achieve the same effect."

If you don't ban submunitions entirely, then cluster bombs are legal and in use. Restricting the number of submunitions per missile or bomb just means you use more missiles or bombs to achieve the desired effect.

Soldiers will use what is available. The Canadian military issued Javelin missiles to its soldiers in Afganistan. Then told them not to use them except in very specific scenarios because of how expensive they are. The soldiers ignored the instructions and simply fired Javelin missiles at caves rather than risk infantry going in on foot.

[Thanas]

Yes, and the Soviets/Russians and Chinese are equally guilty of such atrocities, and probably supplied the munitions used by the Syrians, but they get a clean pass by you. Why is that?

They don't get a pass. They are not mentioned in the above paragraph because they did not use the weapons against terrorists while decrying the use of cluster bombs against other terrorists by another country.

And the Russians and Chinese are remaining silent when their Syrian allies commit atrocities, again, the exact same behavior as the US does, yet you do not call them on that. Why not? The US is not the only guilty party in these matters, but they are the only one you point out. Why is that?

It is not the same behavior. The US used and is still using their weapons. There is a difference between selling weapons and actually using them.

The truth is that you are blaming the atrocities of Syria on the US

Prove where I said that I blame the USA for Syria.

Yes, that statement is true. Which means in this case Russia and China bear some of the responsibility for the killing... but the US does not. The US is hypocritical for using the shaming finger at the Assad regime over this, but saying Syria is "following in the footsteps of the US" is a mischaracterization.

US is using the weapons and blaming terrorists.
Syria is using the weapons and blaming terrorists.

See a pattern? (And no, following in the footsteps does not mean "A follows B therefore A is responsible for B"). The US has merely provided the model the Syrians are following.

Funny, if I recall one of the complaints in Libya was how long it took to get others involved, and weren't the Europeans leading on that one?

The Europeans were, with the most powerful country being noticeably absent. And how is this related to anything?

I would prefer if the Russians and Chinese who have their finger in the Syrian pie would straighten this shit out instead of once again dumping the problem on the US. If you don't like the US being the world's policeman then someone else is going to have to step up to the role on occasion.

The US has pretty much failed in its role as a policeman since the Kosovo. And nobody is dumping the problem on the US. We got one side in a civil war appealing to the US for help. The US chose to back this particular side (with CIA arms smuggling via Quatar and Saudi-Arabia) because it hates the other.

You want the US to replace Assad because he's a "monster", even though you don't like the way the US does such things? Why don't you suggest someone else who will fulfill that role more to your liking? Or is the US the least of possible evils in that regard?

I do not want the US to replace Assad. Mostly because right now the US is too weak to go through another invasion/insurrection and because the US has utterly failed to produce anything resembling order in Iraq and Afghanistan. Going by the last track record the US is utterly inept at running an occupation/rebuilding process. What I want is one side scoring a quick victory - preferably by diplomatic means - in the civil war without causing too many civilian casualties. I harbor no illusions that one side wants democracy over there.

[dragon]

the biggest difference between US use of cluster bombs and Syria is that for the most part we only use them on military targets. Yes there's been a few cases where we used them on civilian targets but that was mostly because of bad intel. It's like the British officer said it's a waste of time as we'll just use more regular missiles.

[CaptHawkeye]

I do not want the US to replace Assad. Mostly because right now the US is too weak to go through another invasion/insurrection and because the US has utterly failed to produce anything resembling order in Iraq and Afghanistan. Going by the last track record the US is utterly inept at running an occupation/rebuilding process. What I want is one side scoring a quick victory - preferably by diplomatic means - in the civil war without causing too many civilian casualties. I harbor no illusions that one side wants democracy over there.

Nitpicking but I would say the process has improved substantially since Vietnam. Iraq has yet to result in total failure and Afghanistan well, at least it can be said the military held up its end this time.

Though the concept of occupying third world countries is not something I necessarily hoped would succeed. Since it implies that since the US can do it, that they *should* do it. That it's become a "reasonable" option on the table instead of better diplomacy.

[Thanas]

To be honest, I think it has to be a reasonable option because of Ruanda, Burundi and Somalia. Somebody has to be able to restore order in total anarchic genocides.

Iraq is a total failure. Suicide bombings already went up this year, Government control is only as strong as the mercenaries/Government terror squads are. The only ones who seem to be somewhat better off are the kurds.

Afghanistan meanwhile is a total nutcase, in no small part because the US pulled substantial resources away from that fight to invade Iraq and kinda lost focus on it.

[CaptHawkeye]

In those nations it would probably be met with more success too because the populace has almost no loyalty to the ruling class. If their even is a ruling class. Virtually any upset to the status quo in those areas would be better. Like I said i'm not totally opposed to the option, but I don't want success or at least the perception of success to make it seem like an option we should hold equal to just talking or compromising.

[Thanas]

That is a fair point and I agree.

[Broken]

Nitpicking but I would say the process has improved substantially since Vietnam. Iraq has yet to result in total failure and Afghanistan well, at least it can be said the military held up its end this time.

Not very well, since the US military went into Iraq with basically no "Phase IV" part of the warplan, which details what to do as soon as the shooting stops, except for the political decision to hand control over to the Iraqi's that will greet us with flowers and candy. That massive failure helped lead to the massive looting and destruction and let the chaos and anarchy in Iraq build up to a full-head of steam. Or at least that's the general grist I got from Fiasco by Thomas Ricks which I read several years ago, so if that source is wrong then so would that critique.

[CaptHawkeye]

I mean the process has improved, not that it's reached a point of true success. At least it can be said that US forces aren't suffering the same rate of casualties or losses. The Iraqi insurgency's heavy use of IEDs was not out of some "ideal strategy" thinking, but more the result of being reduced to the use of bombs. Bombs don't take and hold territory after all.

In Afghanistan this has been somewhat different, with Afghan resistance still carrying out minor attacks on US bases but usually limiting these attacks to harassment. Neither front has come near the kind of Tet-Offensive style mass assaults the Vietcong were notorious for. Not in years.

Ultimately Donald Rumsfeld proved himself to be an utter dolt as SecDefense and the Bush Administration's handling of both invasions ended up being so ridiculous that Colin Powell jumped ship. The US military's improvements of equipment and tactical doctrine were the key to success in its area this time. What limited success that can be considered anyway. Just goes to show war is no replacement for politics.

[Block]

Broken, I wouldn't say that the military itself had no after combat planning, as we most certainly did, my branch being a large part of that. As Hawkeye said the real failure was one of policy, appointing that clown Bremer to oversee the Reconstruction may have been the single most damaging act of the entire war/reconstruction. He made so many bad and counterproductive decisions that caused the insurgency to grow at the rate it did that I can't believe he was never charged with anything. The Army was far from perfect of course, but it has gotten a lot better at the after the open war phase.

[Broomstick]

Has there ever been a "successful" (define that as you will) reconstruction of a nation after another party came in an conquered?

[Iron Bridge]

Germany, Austria, Italy, Japan. CSA?

That said the most important thing has been to transplant anglo-saxon institutions, not to use government money to try to centrally redevelop an economy. The latter is just like development aid, almost entirely worthless.