Do you now support military action against Syria's government?

[youngian]

When Britain went along with Uncle Sam and France didn't, the French were called cheese-eating surrender monkeys. Now that France is willing to go along with Uncle Sam and Britain isn't, what are they going to call the British?

The Yellow Coats?

They just seem to be ignoring Britain's existence. This is fairly consistent adolescent sulking and arrogance from Washington toward an ally who has dared to take different perspective.

If you were to listen to the BBC, who have been deprived of using their ludicrous Jon Snow war maps, you would think this Syria affair was some kind cataclysmic break with the US. The fact is that even at the height of the Cold War, refusing to back American adventurism from time to time was not unusual. Less well remembered than Wilson's refusal to send troops to Vietnam was Heath banning the Americans from using British bases and intelligence during the Yom Kippur War (and hardly a Little Englander that the increasingly silly Paddy Ashdown has characterised our MPs).

If anything we maybe going back to the post Suez era when Britain decided to wind down imperial posturing. This was bought to an end by Thatcher's revival of Churchillian fantasies about British power in the world, a mantel enthuiastically taken up by Tony Blair in the guise of liberal interventionsim.

 

[kebabking]

We don't have a goal in place and if we've learned anything it should be that intervention ought to involve a specific outcome...

i think actually there was a goal, and you didn't have dig through the words too hard to find it - slap Assad on the wrist for using CW, but not so hard that you act as AQ's air force.

all the 'limited' and 'not regime change' wasn't just about exorcising the demons of Iraq, it was a message to Assad that if he took the medicine without spreading the conflict in retaliation, he would not find himself on the end of an air/stand-off campaign to degrade his forces so completely that they would lose the war with the various rebel groups, the most militarily effective of whom are far more unpleasant for UK/US interests than Assad is.

a two day campaign, almost entirely cruise missile based (cruise missiles are almost useless at destroying hardened, buried structures because of their construction and warhead) was never going to do really serious harm to the regime forces. it would break his fancy kit like his SAM systems and air force, but he doesn't really need them to beat the rebels, and allow the west to say that future use of CW had been detered, while not crippling Assad and his fight against the rebel groups.

 

[white rabbit]

I get the impression that all this comes from Israel. Syria is an ally of Iran and they're doing what they can to isolate and destabilise.

 

[nino_savatte]

Site is now down, presumably due to heavy traffic? Another copy of the text here

It was doing that a quite a bit yesterday.

 

[dylanredefined]

Shameless stolen from another website this was created by mithie from spacebattles
sums it up I think neatly.

 

[editor]

English mp's want to fight on the same side as Al-Qaeda so it seems judging by the vote, whats that all about then ?

So it's exclusively 'English MPs' who are backing the war (notwithstanding the fact that English MPs can come from all backgrounds), yes?

 

[Frumious B.]

Excellent article in the New York Times about the possible consequences of US bombing. It's a shame our media can't be arsed with this much analysis. Worth pasting in full I reckon, especially as NYT now has a paywall after your ten free articles per month:

Experts Fear U.S. Plan to Strike Syria Overlooks Risks​

BEIRUT, Lebanon — President Obama says he is considering a “limited, narrow” military strike against Syria — an aim that many Middle East experts fear overlooks the potential to worsen the violence in Syria and intensify a fight for regional influence between Iran and Saudi Arabia.

Supporters of the president’s proposal contend that a limited punitive strike can be carried out without inflaming an already volatile situation. But a number of diplomats and other experts say it fails to adequately plan for a range of unintended consequences, from a surge in anti-Americanism that could bolster Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad, to a wider regional conflict that could drag in other countries, including Israel and Turkey.

“Our biggest problem is ignorance; we’re pretty ignorant about Syria,” said Ryan C. Crocker, a former ambassador to Syria and Lebanon, who has served in Iraq and Afghanistan and is dean of the Bush School of Government and Public Service, Texas A&M University.

The American strike could hit President Assad’s military without fundamentally changing the dynamic in a stalemated civil war that has already left more than 100,000 people dead. At the same time, few expect that a barrage of cruise missiles would prompt either side to work in earnest for a political settlement. Given that, the skeptics say it may not be worth the risks. “I don’t see any advantage,” said a Western official who closely observes Syria.

In outlining its tentative plans, the Obama administration has left many questions unanswered. Diplomats familiar with Mr. Assad say there is no way to know how he would respond, and they question what the United States would do if he chose to order a chemical strike or other major retaliation against civilians.

That would leave the United States to choose between a loss of credibility and a more expansive — and unpopular — conflict, they said. “So he continues on in defiance — maybe he even launches another chemical attack to put a stick in our eye — and then what?” Mr. Crocker said. “Because once you start down this road, it’s pretty hard to get off it and maintain political credibility.”

For the United States, the challenge is to deliver the intended message to Mr. Assad without opening the door to a takeover by rebels linked to Al Qaeda, the collapse of state institutions, or a major escalation by Syria’s allies. Skeptics doubt that the United States — or anyone else — has the information to calibrate the attack that precisely.

That is partly because the United States is preparing to inject itself into a conflict that is no longer just about Syria, but has become a volatile regional morass that pits Iran and Hezbollah, the Shiite militant group in Lebanon, against Qaeda affiliates backed by Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf benefactors.

Iran’s and Syria’s defense ministers threatened on Friday to unleash attacks on Israel if Mr. Assad was in danger. While Hezbollah has said it would wait to see the scale and nature of the attacks before responding, in practice, analysts close to the organization said, it is probably prepared for any contingency.

There is also concern that Shiite-led Iraq could send thousands more militants to help Mr. Assad if it believed he was truly threatened, and that such a step would in turn further rally and embolden Sunni jihadists on both sides of its border with Syria.

Many diplomats and analysts consider retaliation unlikely, but the consequences could be grim. Israel has vowed that if Hezbollah attacks it again, it will respond forcefully, drawing Lebanon into war. And if Syria lobbed missiles into Israel and it responded with airstrikes through Lebanese airspace that threatened Mr. Assad further, Hezbollah would consider that further justification to attack Israel.

Even without such a direct entanglement, Lebanon could be very vulnerable. It has recently suffered its worst sectarian violence in years: a car bomb in Shiite Hezbollah territory in the Beirut suburbs, and two at Sunni mosques in the northern city of Tripoli. Lebanese authorities accused Syria on Friday of involvement in the Tripoli attacks, and intelligence officials fear such bombings could increase.

Within Syria, there is also the prospect of civilian casualties, either from errant American missiles or among people near the target sites. The Syrian government has put some military bases in populated areas, and thousands of political and other prisoners are held in security buildings. Although the strikes are said to be aimed at elite units involved in chemical weapons use, Reuters reported Friday that many Sunni conscripts have been effectively imprisoned on bases because they are not trusted, leaving them vulnerable, too. Significant casualties among the very people American officials say they are protecting could be exploited by the government. “That will completely empty any justification for this” in the eyes of many, the Western official said.

Some likely targets are in areas that up to now have remained relatively secure, including the corridor from western suburbs of Damascus to the Lebanese border. And in Damascus itself, a bubble of relative security, residents have expressed fear that in the aftermath, clashes could erupt. That could create a new humanitarian crisis and new refugee flows to Syria’s already burdened neighbors. American officials say they do not expect a refugee crisis because of the strikes’ limited nature, but Human Rights Watch has called on them to plan for the unexpected. “We haven’t received any indication that plans for beefed-up humanitarian response are under way,” said Lama Fakih, the group’s deputy director in Beirut.

Anger over American involvement could also undo one of the major benefits to American interests from the Arab uprisings by restoring the alliance against Israel that Iran, Syria and Hezbollah had with the Sunni Palestinian group Hamas. The conflict in Syria has sorely tested that alliance, with Hamas supporting the Sunni-led Syrian rebellion.

Verifying information in Syria is extraordinarily hard, and another risk, however remote it may seem to American officials, is that it turns out that the Assad government was not responsible for the chemical attack. In any case, in a region where many have their doubts after the faulty intelligence that led to war in Iraq, wide sectors of the public may remain convinced. That would allow Mr. Assad to paint himself as the victim of an unjust American intervention and draw more supporters back to his fold.

All that said, no one is suggesting that the United States or other countries should turn a blind eye to the use of chemical weapons or the suffering of civilians. The problem, Mr. Crocker said, is to figure out a response that leaves the Syrians, the region and the United States in a better position rather than entangled in another messy conflict with an uncertain outcome.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/31/w...-to-strike-syria-overlooks-risks.html?hp&_r=0

 

[teqniq]

Interesting observation which I had wondered about myself:

ibnezra: This is starting to feel like a 'wag the dog' situation. Obama is diverting attention from the NSA issue deftly. #Syria

 

[TomUS]

Obama will ask congress to OK it. They come back into session 9/9 & will debate it. They very well may vote it down......a repeat of the British vote.

 

[Quartz]

Obama will ask congress to OK it. They come back into session 9/9 & will debate it. They very well may vote it down......a repeat of the British vote.

Yes, it's going to be his excuse.

 

[Pickman's model]

Yes, it's going to be his excuse.

'the cameron gambit'

 

[Quartz]

'the cameron gambit'

ITYM 'The Cameron Gambit Declined'

 

[Tankus]

So Obamas done a Cameron and looked to congress to decide , I wonder if he's as sure as Cameron was of the result , or looking for a way out and a target of blame, nothing to happen until the second week of sept.( no recall). No rush then. prez Hollande's probably rather concerned ...heh?...long lonely road to Damascus perhaps!

 

[Pickman's model]

So Obamas done a Cameron and looked to congress to decide , I wonder if he's as sure as Cameron was of the result , or looking for a way out and a target of blame, nothing to happen until the second week of sept.( no recall). No rush then. prez Hollande's probably rather concerned ...heh?...long lonely road to Damascus perhaps!

he might have one of those damascene conversions of course

 

[TomUS]

So Obamas done a Cameron and looked to congress to decide , I wonder if he's as sure as Cameron was of the result , or looking for a way out and a target of blame, nothing to happen until the second week of sept.( no recall). No rush then. prez Hollande's probably rather concerned ...heh?...long lonely road to Damascus perhaps!

I don't think he's sure at all. I'm pretty sure congress will Cameron him.

 

[Tankus]

Heh was going to 'delete that as there are several posts before stating the same thing , got some weird lag going on ...and pop ups for money and stuff.......

 

[Tankus]

I don't think he's sure at all. I'm pretty sure congress will Cameron him.

Or Miliband him , yes to face , then Brutus him between the shoulderblades on prime time

 

[Barking_Mad]

If we entertain the idea that another country supplied the chemical weapons in the hope of provoking a response from the US, what will be their reaction of the US fail to act? More of the same? "Look, you didn't stop Assad he did it again!"?

 

[gosub]

Think it was his first smart move, buys time for UN to report, thus keeping the Arab league on side and coupled with smoking gun (assuming they have it) enough to build a consensus Russia would be weary of getting to upset about if it side steps them. Iran is a different story but that plays in favour of Obama

 

[likesfish]

Syria had a vast stockpile of nerve agent a poor mans nuke to deter israel so no problem for rebels or CIA or anyone to gain access to chemical weapons in Syria.

 

[ska invita]

Obama will ask congress to OK it. They come back into session 9/9 & will debate it. They very well may vote it down......a repeat of the British vote.

Congress will be certain to vote for it. Just think what it would do to the special relationship with France if they didn't

 

[ska invita]

"In a sign of the looming battle, the Republican senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham, both hawks who have urged strikes on Syria, said they would use the vote to push for a more significant intervention than that proposed by Obama, who said that it should be "limited in duration and scope".

"We cannot in good conscience support isolated military strikes in Syria that are not part of an overall strategy that can change the momentum on the battlefield, achieve the president's stated goal of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad's removal from power, and bring an end to this conflict, which is a growing threat to our national security interests," they said in a statement.."

So not only will they almost certainly vote for it, but they might even vote for even more carnage

 

[TomUS]

"In a sign of the looming battle, the Republican senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham, both hawks who have urged strikes on Syria, said they would use the vote to push for a more significant intervention than that proposed by Obama, who said that it should be "limited in duration and scope".

"We cannot in good conscience support isolated military strikes in Syria that are not part of an overall strategy that can change the momentum on the battlefield, achieve the president's stated goal of Syrian president Bashar al-Assad's removal from power, and bring an end to this conflict, which is a growing threat to our national security interests," they said in a statement.."

So not only will they almost certainly vote for it, but they might even vote for even more carnage

They'll & other Repubs will vote against Obama's plan because it's not hawkish enough, others because it is too hawkish. So Obama will lose. Then the hawks will propose a Libya type regime change strike. I think that'll fail too. I would have been for it a couple yrs ago but it's way too late.....no good options. Assad can relax & keep up the butchery....just may try to do a better PR job.

 

[white rabbit]

It's been a while since I've see such overt propaganda broadcast by the BBC, but the coverage of the situation in Syria has been to consistently reinforce the government position that to not engage militarily would be to effectively sanction mass murder (war is peace, freedom is slavery ...). To me, the vote in parliament came out of nowhere. I'm pleased that MPs had the balls to make a stand against war, but it's remarkable how much air time has been given to belligerent Syrian figures pressing for the use of force. I have no hesitation in rejecting that approach and it seems the shadow of Iraq is long enough to give most others pause.

 

[nino_savatte]

Blimey! Peter Hitchens writes something that I actually agree with!

The Good Samaritan did not have a gun. I make this simple point to deal with those who seem to think that you can show mercy and pity by lobbing cruise missiles into war zones.

I make no claims to be a good person, but I am more and more annoyed by warmongers who dress up their simple-minded, vainglorious desire to bomb foreigners as moral.

Take Lord Ashdown, who moaned on Friday, after MPs voted against an attack on Syria, that he had never felt so ashamed. Really? Many of us can remember at least one occasion when Lord Ashdown certainly ought to have felt more ashamed.

But these days, our moral worth is not judged by such things as constancy and trust close to home, but by our noisy readiness to bomb people for their own good.

The moral bomber is one of the scourges of our age. He gets it into his head that he is so good that he is allowed to kill people (accidentally of course) in a noble cause.

This stupid conceit was – at long last – challenged last week in the House of Commons. MPs, many of them rightly prompted by the fears and concerns of their constituents, refused to be stampeded by emotional horror propaganda. They kept their heads.

The response of the moral bombers was typical of them. There was twaddle about ‘appeasement’. There was piffle about how our world status has suffered (don’t these people know what the rest of the planet has thought of us since the Iraq War?).

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/a...glorious-fantasist-He-quit.html#ixzz2ddBSRo4d

And

In some ways, most shocking has been the behaviour of the BBC. It uncritically promoted atrocity propaganda from the beginning, making no effort to be objective. It frequently treated opponents of the rush to war with nasty contempt. If the BBC Trust is to justify its large budget and fancy offices, it would do well to investigate this grave failure to be impartial.

 

[elbows]

Interesting observation which I had wondered about myself:

ibnezra: This is starting to feel like a 'wag the dog' situation. Obama is diverting attention from the NSA issue deftly. #Syria

Well it's not just NSA stuff which could be placed in that category. Some have assumed this is also about hiding the USA's inaction over Egypt. And we know that the response to events in Syria is also seen as having implications for the likes of Iran.

I tend to feel that its not a good idea to go too far with such things, can certainly question the timing but it does a disservice to a range of issues when people claim 'this is all about xxx' rather than the issues and geopolitics of attacking the country in question. I am more inclined to view interesting timing stuff as being about killing two or three birds with one stone.

Plus in regards to Syria there are continuing questions about quite how eager to act the US really is. There have been mixed messages for a long time and so I am not shocked that the buildup to action hasn't followed the most straightforward model for this sort of thing.

What a contrast to Libya, the main lesson of which was 'do the buildup & propaganda very quickly'. But Libya was easy for other reasons such as Gaddafi lacking friends, making UN-mandated action possible. Plus they knew they could actually win that one via a combination of bombing and Qatari etc training of rebels.

 

[elbows]

Ha, I don't think the BBC trust will be investigating the propaganda wing of the BBC somehow.

 

[SikhWarrioR]

So on callmedave cameron's enthusiasm for the support of syrian rebels and removal of assad's chemical WMD's. When is the task force being dispatched to bang India and Pakistan's heads together over Kashmir or China informed that Peking will be targeted by trident in support of Tibeten independance and i am sure that the copts in Egypt would like some helecopter gunship support to protect their chuches and bussinesses from muslim brotherhood thugs??

 

[Mr.Bishie]

Who was the Eric Pickles look-a-like talking shit on SML a moment ago?

Jesus fucking wept!

 

[Pingu]

have I mentioned my "glass desert" solution for the whole region on this thread?