Posted on 08/31/2013 7:41:20 AM PDT by Former Fetus
The US strike against Syria has yet to begin, and doubts abound regarding the scope and effectiveness of any such attack.
Most pressing for Israel is the question of what happens in the hours and days after an American strike. But several other important questions have been left unanswered in all of the analyses and scholarly articles written in the nine days since the chemical attack on civilians in the suburbs of Damascus.
First, when will the US strike and how far will it go?
>>SNIP<<
Second, what will happen in Syria on the morning after the attack?
>>SNIP<<
The third question — and the most worrying from Israel’s perspective — is how Assad will react to the offensive. Will he attack Israel in response, or will he exercise restraint?
And, finally, what on Earth led the Assad regime to decide to launch a widespread chemical attack on civilian populations in the suburbs of Syria’s capital?
(Excerpt) Read more at timesofisrael.com ...
... Syrian strategic logic demands that all means shall be used to achieve the objective of a significant battle. ”If the goal is to purge a certain region of the rebels, and this can be achieved with chemical weapons, then that is exactly what they will use. It began a year ago with a small-scale attack launched by the regime. ....
....
In earlier incidents, nonconventional weapons were used on a much smaller scale. Regime forces fired shells with limited destructive capability rather than Scud or Fateh-110 missiles. ....
the objective in these incidents was to force local civilians out of areas critical for the regime. In other words, if civilians remained in their homes after a conventional attack, the sight of two or three people choking and writhing after a chemical attack was enough to invoke widespread panic and cause thousands to flee.
Last week, the weapons were different. This time, they fired lethal weapons instead of the low-impact shells used in previous cases.
....
senior official in the Syrian Defense Ministry made several urgent phone calls to the commander of the chemical warfare division in the hours immediately after the attack. The government official reportedly demanded information from the commander about the nerve gas attack that allegedly killed over 1,000 people.
....
It seems clear that Damascus gave those in charge of the chemical weapons arsenal permission to use those weapons tactically.
So what actually happened last Wednesday? The most likely scenario, based on Foreign Policy’s version of the events, is that one of the commanders in the field took the initiative of firing chemical missiles in order to achieve his objective: clearing the region east of the Syrian capital of civilians. It is likely that the missiles fell at the wrong place, at the wrong time, and in the wrong weather conditions. The combination of these factors caused more severe harm than anticipated to the local civilian population.
I’m not at all convinced that Assad launched that attack - he had nothing to gain by doing it.
Assad may be a lot of things but stupid ain’t one of them.
Doesn’t matter one way or the other in my opinion. Its not our problem no matter how many times our elected morons utter the words “Responsibility to protect”.
Anybody who wants in on that fight should hike of their panties, organize, and go fight on their own dime. Muzzies do it all the time and our armchair generals can put up or shut up.
Agreed. The Muslim fanatics who are leading the rebellion wouldn’t hesitate for a minute to kill convenient bystanders, including their own women and children. They do it all the time.
Under Just War Doctrine, there are three "just causes" for war: repel an attack, retake what was unjustly taken, or go to the defense of the victim of an unjust attack.
Clearly the first two do not apply to our involvement in Syria. We weren't attacked, nor do we have anything there to reclaim. So we need to look at the third "just cause."
To begin with, Just War Doctrine does not recognize any "responsibility to protect." That third "just cause" means you may go to war, not that you must. The Doctrine does not impose on anyone the requirement to go to war. No one has the "responsibility" to protect anyone else.
Beyond that, who is the victim of an unjust attack in Syria? To whose aid should we come? To me that's not clear at all. For better or worse, Assad is internationally recognized as the legitimate ruler of Syria. What claim to justice do the "rebels" have?
There are seven other requirements of the Doctrine, such as Proportionality, Right Intention, etc. Even if there were a just cause, the other requirements must be met as well. So far I haven't seen anyone attempt to use the full Just War criteria to decide whether U.S. intervention in a civil war among Muslims is justified.
after 0bama attacks, assad’s best response would be to hold and wait. 0bama wants an aggressive response, as he desperately needs the distraction
use the world press and social media outlets to get the story out. paint 0bama as deliberately planting any ‘evidence’ by killing syrians via the muslim brotherhood.
he should also expose any information on the type of weapon used... and let the world figure out where it came from.
especially considering the story today that the ‘attack’ was really the rebels mishandling a weapon
Importantly, this is not just about Syria.
If the US or other western powers attack Syria, Iran has said it will attack Israel, and Russia has said it will attack Saudi Arabia.
A serious missile attack against Israel will likely result in the launch of nuclear missiles by Israel, which may not be limited to the aggressor nation. The rationale is that with a major war, Israel may no longer be able to conventionally defend itself against hostile nations, therefore its only alternative is to neutralize them as a continuing threat.
Chinese involvement will be quick, because they get the vast majority of their oil from the Persian Gulf. If both Iran and Saudi Arabia, and possibly Iraq, have damaged oil assets, unless the UAE provides oil to China exclusively, they will almost have to involve themselves.
If Iran attacks Israel, they have made it clear that their prepositioned Al-Quds forces will launch attacks at all Israeli, and possibly American and European assets around the world.
If Obama orders an attack, he’ll be guilty of high treason - giving aid & comfort to Al Qaeda.
I don't think they did.
The rebels couldn’t happen in America; they would have to surrender by the 1st of the month so that they could get their checks.
oh I fully agree, its not our bidness
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.