Evil versus Evil in Syria -- What Is in It for Us?

Here is my guess...  and it is just a guess.  There are many countries in the world who are concerned about how America will act on the international stage.  Some see themselves as our allies - at least to some tiny degree, and other don't like us much, and a few are out outright enemy. 

Imagine a large pack of dogs millng about sniffing each other, some growling, some with their hackles up, and most just watching.  Then one of the alpha dogs comes over.  Now, if this is the Obama dog, the rest of the pack already knows that he isn't going to demand territory or bite, and those who are his pack mates know that he also might not protect them (Doesn't matter if countries liked, and admired Obama the man, or his politics, they knew that his passions were mostly just in the area of domestic policies, with limited exceptions - like climate change). 

Now the Trump dog has trotted out to where the pack is.  The whole pack has stopped moving and are looking at him.  Will he bite?  Or, even bark?  What is the relationship between what he says and what he does?  There are so many nations that are ruled by as primitive a set of emotions as a pack of dogs.  When they say that the Middle Eastern culture is one that respects strength, they aren't just kidding.  Until one of them is quite sure you won't even hesitate to bite, and bite hard, they won't stop looking to see what way they can take advantage of you, or, at the least, simply ignore you no matter what you say.

My guess is that Trump's advisors wanted him to use this very limited military force, and to not announce it ahead of time, and to not warn the Russians, and to do it quickly.  And the purpose was not so much to deter Syria from using chemical weapons as it was to tell China, North Korea, Russia, Iran, and other nations that this dog may choose to bite, may be a bit unpredictable and doesn't hesitate.  Each new president gets tested.  I think his advisors chose a way to have some control over the test and get it over with.  The bombs hit that airport just as Trump was finishing dinner with the Communist Chinese dictator... that's a nice psychological lead-in to their talks today.

I don't believe that the evil in Syria rose to the level of compelling us to act.  We've seen evil every bit as bad, again and again, around the world.  And this makes me think that Trump's advisors have some other motives (plural) in play that relate to more than his being tested, but to establishing some precedent in the area where he is going to have go after ISIS.  He can't just work with others to eliminate them in Iraq and leave them to fester in Syria.  He has to show some disdain for Russia's presence in Syria or they will become bullies and get in the way in Syria.  He also doesn't want to do do the whole thing of getting rid of ISIS and then maintaining peace in the Middle East and do it all on our dime, and with the lives of our soldiers - he needs the Arab nations to join in.  Notice that three Arab leaders visited the president in this same week that ends with the bombing in Syria.  It will be good if Iran decides to be quiet for a while and see how crazy this new president is... that will help while we organize an allied block to remove ISIS.  Iran could cause huge problems in Iraq with their 100,000 plus troops in country.  They need a reason to play it safer and wait for a better time rather than think that they can be bold and seize some part of Iraq which they could have done if Obama were still in office.

He knows that getting rid of ISIS is just the first step.  The second has to be stable governments in charge of the area and strong enough to kill new terrorists that try to get started.  He isn't into nation building or making a crusade of transplanting democracy.  So, I think he wants to find stable, Arab partners, who can be the strong men that will oversee the territories reclaimed.  I have no idea if this is what his people are thinking, but it would make more sense than the alternatives.

North Korea and Iran are the biggest problems out there that will have to be dealt with.  Having those two at least slow down - for a while, and during that while, more rational nations can decide that lining up in a coalition with America might be okay in this post-Obama period... well, that gives us a bit of time, and a direction.   (At this point I don't see anything that would give a good shot at a real fix for those two problems and they are huge.)

Those are the thoughts that come to mind.

Conspiracy theories appear to have a psychological pull all their own

We have an abiding national interest in stopping Islamic fundamentalism. We didn't ask for it, but they are at war with us.  If we do nothing, things will continue to get worse.  It is a war that has an ideological base and isn't convieniently located in a single nation - but that doesn't mean it isn't a serious threat.  We know that it is only a matter of time till their use of technology results in massive American deaths.  And, the reaction to 911 has changed our world. 

But what, if anything, to do about that huge mess in Syria...?  One chain of reasoning goes like this: Because ISIS has its beginning of a Caliphate, it inspires and gives life to international Jihadi.  You can't stop the growth of Islamic fundamentalism without stopping ISIS.  You can't end ISIS while they are still in Syria.  Without presenting a very strong face towards Putin and Assad, you can't achieve anything in Syria.  To achieve desirable goals in Syria it would be best if there were some kind of coalition of peaceful Arab nations - a kind of Arab Nato and that would seem to be the way the US could start moving out of the middle east while leaving behind something that might work.  Seems like a very difficult, maybe impossible pipe dream, but I don't see ANY good alternatives being offered.  Lots of critics but few ideas - just carping.  I do know that the Obama years did nothing to help, a great deal to hurt, and represent a kind of nuanced set of excuses that locked us into helplessness.

Trump isn't saying what his long term plans are.  I don't believe that it was the images of dead babies that caused him to take that action.  I think that he does have some kind of long term plan.  But I don't think he will reveal it, and I have no idea how detailed it is or what the principles are that it rests on.

From the article: 

"Donald Trump campaigned on a promise of no more wars of choice: no military interventions to liberate other countries, to intervene in so-called “humanitarian” crusades, to force regime change, to coercively spread democracy, or to take sides in other people’s wars or civil wars.  In summation, our military would be used only in the defense of our own country or our closest allies."

I agree with the article... BUT, can we ignore the fact that Islamists are at war with us?  If not, can we leave ISIS in Syria as a safe haven to work from?  If not, can we treat Syria as if it were a soveriegn nation and not a battle field, and can we act as if upsetting the Russians about Syria takes precedence over dealing with ISIS? 

And, what is Trump's real plan?  Is he trying to liberate Syria.  I don't think so.  Is his main purpose humanitarian?  I don't think so.  Is he trying for regime change (because this is a 'bad' regime)?  I don't think so.  Is his motive to spread democracy?  I don't think so.  I suspect that his motive is to 'make room' in Syria (establish a precedent) to go after ISIS and get a working coalition with some stable Arab nations.  That's just a guess on my part.  The big problem is that we really don't know what Trump's real plan is, and I don't think he is going to tell us.  It could be sensible, or it could be totally stupid.

I onle see two rational choices:

1.) Get out of the middle east all together and announce to the world that we will no longer send any troops or aid or anything there, but we will declare war and then destroy any nation that harbors any terrorists that attack our country.   (This assumes either that we are not defacto in a state of war now, and that the threat of future terrorists acts is not significant on an national level, or that leaving the middle east will cause Islamists to not launch any significant future attacks)

2.) Try to kill most of the ISIS warriors and destroy their organizations, help put together an Arab coalition to rule the current failed states in the middle east so that we can get out, and lead a long term campaign against anyone or any organizations that provide economic aid or support to Islamists and work to combat that ideology.  (The major assumptions here are that this has any chance of working, that our legal system would support this plan, and that there is a rational justification for this kind of plan).

I don't think either of those choices are going to work out well.  But I can't think of any others that make sense.

Objectivism calls for the government to engage in protective use of force for self-defense, and for retaliatory use of force against those that violate individual rights.  Terrorists, and their supporters are certainly in the category of rights-violators.  But policies specifying how to go after them and how to protect against them are not obvious or self-evident.

In a number of areas we are in a strange position.  The progressives have, for decades, worked to make a regulatory state (it may be immoral, but much of it is legal under the laws they have passed).  Now what if a president used illegal (but moral) means of repealing those regulations?  If Trump begins to act outside of the law, we have a kind of totalitarianism.  If his acts are needed to protect liberty, is it still dictatorial?  The best of both worlds is simple: Change the bad laws, then legally repeal the regulations.  If we are under attack, then ask the House for a declaration for war.  But what if the House is a bunch of potted plants that don't do anything but pontificate on partisan talking points and raise reelection funds from special interests?  We are in a strange position and with an unknown president - but the threats from terrorists abroad and progressives at home are both real.  The progressives are declaring a kind of coup.  They have declared that the sitting president is not the legitimate president and advocate selective civil disobedience and now they are saying that the new Supreme Court justice is not legitimate either.

I think Trump is a weak man, despite his bluster and swagger. He lacks a moral anchor, because he is anti-intellectual. His moral outlook is incoherent, and so he goes with his feelings.

He wanted to make peace with Russia, which I regarded as sane. When he became president, he was immediately subjected to unrelenting attacks by the establishment, including its false narrative about Trump consorting with Putin. Since trump is a weak man, he wanted desperately to change the Trump-Russia narrative spun by his enemies, so he could survive as president (and avoid jail on trumped up charges when the Dems take over the Senate or Congress.)

Meanwhile, in Syria, the gas tragedy is a false flag event, probably an accidental bombing of a depot in territory controlled by the insurgents, where both gas and other munitions were stored. There is good evidence that this was the case. Go to Zerohedge. 

The CIA and other intelligence agencies are not staffed by gods descended from Mt Olympus. They are run  by bureaucrats who want very badly to bomb Syria and Iran. After all, they're political operators who did not accidentally wander into those agencies; they made careers there, because they like wielding power. They're proper war hawks, as evidenced by the fact that 1) They all, 17 agencies, signed off on the idea that Russia "hacked" the DNC and Podesta emails (despite denials by Russia and Wikileaks, and cogent analysis from people like John McGafee, who says the charges of Russian hacking are crazy). Despite the fact that they offered no evidence, only their "assessments". 2) They all want to overturn Trump--see 1 above--because he wanted to back away from foreign wars in the Middle East and elsewhere. "Dangerous". 3) They have been trying to nail Trump in any way possible, except that retired CIA and other intelligence operatives do  not like the ongoing campign of lies, so they go public with analysis that disputes the official intelligence findings, not in the big press, but alternative media. Mainstream press ignores them, for obvious reasons. There is no other outlet for their staements and arguments about all this, except zerohedge and infowars, etc. 4) It does not make sense that the Syrian governmenmt would purposefully use gas weapons, because they have been winning, pushing back the rebels; and a peace accord was about to be implemented, to Assad's advantage. Assad is a bad character, but he can calculate: Using gas would invoke outrage from the United States, as it did before (when he was set up by rebels hoping to incitre American involvement in tossing out Assad.) 5) Trump is capable of discerning all this, but chose to go with the Correct Narrative, to get the establishment to back off and let him be a happy important president. It is working; they've won the foreign policy contest for power and control. 

"Assad is a bad character, but he can calculate: Using gas would invoke outrage from the United States, as it did before (when he was set up by rebels hoping to incitre American involvement in tossing out Assad."

As Michael Marotta said, Assad (an Alawite) is an Ophthalmologist and was not groomed to replace his father (who sent troops to Iraq I to fight on our side). His succession was approved (overwhelmingly) in a plebiscite in 2000. He won a multi-party election in 2014 and his party won a majority in Syria's parliament in April of last year. He has always said he would step down if he lost an election.

Assad's wife (a Sunni) is British and highly educated with degrees in computer science and French literature. She has worked as an investment banker and had been accepted in an MBA program at Harvard before marrying Assad. The Assads could live comfortably in many countries as both speak several languages. Assad does not fit the mold of a dictator clinging to power as advocates for his ouster claim.  Were the Assads to step down under pressure and go into exile, not only would that be seen as abandoning his supporters (many of whom would be massacred), but there is every reason to believe the carnage would get worse and the Assads would still be blamed for it.

In 2014, ISIS captured an old sarin facility in Iraq.  It is 'safe' to conclude that at least some of the insurgents do have access to CWs.  I think the Russians have a good case for saying this was a conventional warhead dropped on a weapons facility that included CWs and this is a rush to judgement.  Using CWs when you are winning with legal weapons makes no sense.

Nuts going nuts...  that is what I see in the comments section of nearly all political forums. 

I love the Internet, but you couldn't have invented a more efficient mechanism for giving voice to the absolute nuttiest among us.

These long drawn out "war on terror" campaigns...

There is no question that these long drawn out campaigns have not been effective in ending Islamic fundamentalist terrorism.  Nation building will forever be a failure.  A military-only approach doesn't seem like it could win. 

Islamists are at war with us.  There are so many of them now, and it seems that there will be no end of them in the future - each generation looks like it may have more, not less.  And there isn't anything happening now to lead us to expect their desire to destroy America will diminish.  They are at war with us and we should be at war with them.... but how?  If we don't do it differently, they will eventually have a massive success by using some advanced techology.

Going into Syria, or not going in, should be part of an overall strategy to win a war against Islamists.   How insane is it that all of western civilization is actually threatened - long term - by these barbarians.

I'd caution Objectivish folks here to more deeply examine evidence both for and against the use of Sarin in April (as well as in August 2013) -- before concluding.

It is a little bit disturbing to me how swiftly the #Syriahoax narrative was accepted on the alt-right side of things -- without deliberative and exacting weighting of claims, without comparison of stories told (by Russia, by the Syrian government, by the people and emergency services in the city hit).  There is a broad not-so-technical corpus of open-source investigations and investigators who have done a lot of work to identify arms and atrocities in Syria -- including the Khan Sheikoun attack among other nerve agent incidents and more conventional massacres. I can suggest some analyses for interested readers ... 

The work of those at Bellingcat stands out,  alongside the actual reports by the international body that Syria reported to, the Organization for the Prevention of Chemical Warfare (OPCW), as well as additional commentary by folks with deep expertise in chemical weapons.

An easier way to demonstrate why I suggest caution is the story about 'hitting a chemical depot.'  If you accept this explanation you will be able to explain why you set aside evidence against it, or failed to consider such extant evidence.You will be able to fairly articulate the 'argument against' that explanatory claim.

I'll leave folks to do their own verifying and checking and testing by their usual means. I don't mean to attack conclusions or posters, but to underline that there is as always 'the other sides of the story.'  And sometimes  much better and more probing analysis than in mainstream and 'truth' media. Such is the nature of 'clicks' ...

I give a link to a couple of documents from the OSINT site Bellingcat, not to assert they alone debunk the claims made about 'hit the depot' ... but in case some of you here sought published analyses more  skeptical of the RebblesDiddit argument, or in case folks here may not be aware of the work of Bellingcat  ...

https://www.bellingcat.com/resources/articles/2017/04/13/anatomy-sarin-bomb-explosion-part/

https://www.bellingcat.com/news/mena/2017/04/20/anatomy-sarin-bomb-explosion-part-ii/

https://www.bellingcat.com/news/mena/2017/04/05/chemical-realities-russias-khan-sheikhoun-chemical-warehouse-attack-claims/

-- TL;DR: "Manufacturing Sarin: It's complicated, dangerous and expensive." "Syria's Sarin has a chemical signature." "Russian-Syrian claims cannot be substantiated."

[ The articles might be dense for those not too informed about Sarin, but Dan Kazseta is a decent writer who can explain technical subjects without boredom. This quote is from part two of the "Anatomy of a Sarin Bomb Explosion,"

...

How does Sarin Work?

Sarin, also commonly known by its old NATO nickname GB, is one of a family of chemical warfare agents known as nerve agents.   It was invented by German scientists in 1938-1939 who were performing research on organophosphorous pesticides led by Dr. Gerhard Schrader. Sarin was named by the team of researchers who invented it. It is in a family of chemicals known as organophosphates. There are other chemicals within this family, including the chemical warfare agents Tabun, Soman, VX, and the pesticides Malathion, Parathion, and Amiton.

All of the nerve agents affect the human body’s nervous system. The human nervous system requires a delicate balance of chemicals to regulate itself. Nerve agents bind to a chemical known as acetylcholinesterase and, in doing so, disrupt the electrochemical reactions required for the body to operate properly. The binding of acetylcholinesterase leads to a build-up of acetylcholine, which then in turn leads to a syndrome called a “cholinergic crisis”. In effect, the nervous system starts to over-act and muscles and glands start to work over-time and cause serious problems. The signs and symptoms will vary in severity and timeline depending on the route of exposure and dose (i.e. the amount of Sarin absorbed). This will be discussed at length below.

Routes of Exposure: How can Sarin enter the human body?

There are several ways Sarin can enter the human body. These are called “routes of exposure” and are as follows:

• Respiratory: Sarin in vapour or aerosol form can be inhaled.
• Ocular: Sarin can be absorbed by the eyes.
• Dermal: Sarin in liquid form, or a very high concentration of aerosol or vapour (many times higher than that which is lethal through inhalation).
• Via Wound: Through a disruption in the skin. This would generally only occur if Sarin in liquid form was on a fragment or sharp object and it entered into the human body. This is a rare scenario.
• Gastrointestinal: Sarin can enter the body if ingested. This would happen if it was in food or drink, for example. However, Sarin rapidly degrades in the presence of water and moisture, so this is also a fairly exotic scenario.

Sarin acts very quickly through respiratory and ocular exposure, with onset of adverse effects within seconds to a few minutes depending on dose. Absorption through the skin is slower, i.e. minutes to hours, depending on dose. Rate of action for wound exposure is believed to be intermediate in speed between respiratory and dermal absorption. Gastrointestinal absorption is not well documented but is likely to be fast.

Sarin, as it is less persistent and evaporates at a faster rate relative to the other nerve agents, is foremost an inhalation hazard. Absorption through skin takes time, and even someone with liquid Sarin on their skin is extremely likely to suffer inhalation effects from the Sarin evaporating off of their clothing and skin, except in very cold weather. In moderate or warm temperature situations, the only realistic exposure scenarios for a “liquid Sarin only, through skin absorption” are for partially protected troops already wearing protective masks or donning them very quickly at the onset of a chemical attack. So, with unprotected target populations, the route of exposure of most significance is inhalation of aerosol and vapour.

...

--  I have been corresponding with Dan since the August 2013 Sarin massacre in the Damascus suburb. He is an ex-Secret Service and veteran with expertise in CBRN (chemical, biological and radioactive weapons). I was lucky to meet him during a trip to London. We talked about epistemology and, er, Syria chemical weapons. Full disclosure: he bought the beers. ]

(Edited by William Scott Scherk on 5/09, 6:39pm)