General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWasn't Assad's Forces winning the civil war before the chemical attack?
Why would he risk doing such a thing knowing this could bring the U.S. into the war against him when he was already winning the war?
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
dkf
(37,305 posts)
Uncle Joe
(58,456 posts)I reminded of "Remember the Maine"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_American_War
At 21:40 on February 15, 1898, Maine sank in Havana Harbor after suffering a massive explosion. While McKinley preached patience, the news of the explosion and the deaths of 266 sailors stirred popular American opinion into demanding a swift belligerent response. McKinley asked Congress to appropriate $50 million for defense, and Congress unanimously obliged. Most American leaders took the position that the cause of the explosion was unknown, but public attention was now riveted on the situation and Spain could not find a diplomatic solution to avoid war. It appealed to the European powers, all of whom advised Spain to back down and avoid war.
The U.S. Navy’s investigation, made public on March 28, concluded that the ship’s powder magazines were ignited when an external explosion was set off under the ship’s hull. This report poured fuel on popular indignation in the U.S., making the war inevitable.[37] Spain’s investigation came to the opposite conclusion: the explosion originated within the ship. Other investigations in later years came to various contradictory conclusions, but had no bearing on the coming of the war. In 1974, Admiral Hyman George Rickover had his staff look at the documents and decided there was an internal explosion. A study commissioned by National Geographic magazine in 1999, using AME computer modelling, stated that the explosion could have been caused by a mine, but no definitive evidence was found.[38]
Uncle Joe
(58,456 posts)http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/09/02/syr2-s02.html
MPN published an article with interviews with opposition fighters on the ground in Ghouta. Its two authors are Jordanian freelance journalist Yahya Ababneh and Dale Gavlak, a longtime correspondent for the Associated Press, based in Amman, Jordan for more than two decades, who currently reports for AP and National Public Radio, as well as MPN.
Those interviewed included Abu Abdel-Moneim, whose son was among 13 opposition fighters killed in a tunnel used to store what were apparently chemical weapons.
Abdel-Moneim said the weapons were supplied by a Saudi named Abu Ayesha, who leads a rebel battalion. He described some of the weapons as having a “tube-like structure,” while others were like a “huge gas bottle.” They were stored in tunnels, while the opposition fighters themselves slept in nearby mosques and private homes.
(snip)
An opposition leader in Ghouta told MPN that the Al Nusra Front, one of the main Islamic fundamentalist militias operating in Syria, had custody of the chemical weapons. “They do not share secret information. They merely used some ordinary rebels to carry and operate this material,” he said. “We were very curious about these arms. And unfortunately, some of the fighters handled the weapons improperly and set off the explosions.”
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)snip
Yet, it is perhaps irrelevant who gave the order since the entire Syrian leadership is reportedly afraid that the defense lines will collapse. These fears have been fanned by a number of developments over the past few weeks: the unauthorized withdrawal of previously Assad-loyal militias to their Alawite villages; the feared rebel offensive; the declining morale of the regular troops; and the rising losses without military victories to show for them.
The poison gas attack was probably carried out by the 4th division of Assad's army. Experts and defectors agree that this is the only unit that possesses launching devices for chemical weapons. Immediately following the chemical attack, it shelled rebel positions with conventional artillery -- but was unable to take a single location.
Instead, the division lost at least seven tanks in the Damascus neighborhood of Harasta alone. A rebel video provides an insight into the lack of personnel among the elite division: Two crew members flee a burning tank -- but they are wearing no uniforms, no helmets and no radio gear. Shabiha militia members have apparently been forced to fill the gaps in the ranks of the army.
The images are highly significant and don't correspond with reports that Assad has strengthened his military position. Military experts and intelligence agents had been circulating this theory for months, ever since the battle for control of the small town of Qusayr in early summer. Under the leadership of over 1,000 fighters from the Shiite Hezbollah militia from Lebanon, Assad's troops were able to recapture Qusayr.
Snip
Nevertheless, the myth of a military turning point in the regime's favor has persisted since June. This has also hampered the search for motives for the poison gas attack: Many observers wondered why Assad should use chemical weapons if he is winning the war already. In actual fact, the situation has been difficult for the regime's troops for quite some time now. Since the spring of 2012, many of the army's positions have only been supplied from the air because all land routes are under the control the rebels.
leftstreet
(36,117 posts)Good question
DURec
Jesus Malverde
(10,274 posts)inspectors he invited in, show up.
The rockets themselves turn out to be US technology adopted by the Israeli's. The theory is that apparently the Syrians reverse engineered these rockets and modified them as a chemical munitions platform.
Were Syria’s Nerve Gas Rockets Based on an American Design?
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)snip
Yet, it is perhaps irrelevant who gave the order since the entire Syrian leadership is reportedly afraid that the defense lines will collapse. These fears have been fanned by a number of developments over the past few weeks: the unauthorized withdrawal of previously Assad-loyal militias to their Alawite villages; the feared rebel offensive; the declining morale of the regular troops; and the rising losses without military victories to show for them.
The poison gas attack was probably carried out by the 4th division of Assad's army. Experts and defectors agree that this is the only unit that possesses launching devices for chemical weapons. Immediately following the chemical attack, it shelled rebel positions with conventional artillery -- but was unable to take a single location.
Instead, the division lost at least seven tanks in the Damascus neighborhood of Harasta alone. A rebel video provides an insight into the lack of personnel among the elite division: Two crew members flee a burning tank -- but they are wearing no uniforms, no helmets and no radio gear. Shabiha militia members have apparently been forced to fill the gaps in the ranks of the army.
The images are highly significant and don't correspond with reports that Assad has strengthened his military position. Military experts and intelligence agents had been circulating this theory for months, ever since the battle for control of the small town of Qusayr in early summer. Under the leadership of over 1,000 fighters from the Shiite Hezbollah militia from Lebanon, Assad's troops were able to recapture Qusayr.
Snip
Nevertheless, the myth of a military turning point in the regime's favor has persisted since June. This has also hampered the search for motives for the poison gas attack: Many observers wondered why Assad should use chemical weapons if he is winning the war already. In actual fact, the situation has been difficult for the regime's troops for quite some time now. Since the spring of 2012, many of the army's positions have only been supplied from the air because all land routes are under the control the rebels.
cali
(114,904 posts)and I do think the evidence points to Assad's forces.
But so what? Are you saying that if it was proven 100% that Assad perpetrated the gas attack, you'd support a military strike?
I don't get people working so hard to pin it on rebel forces, or trying to make sense out of motivations in this context.
Whichever side did it, I'm against a military strike.
Uncle Joe
(58,456 posts)and setbacks on the battlefield prior to the chemical attack, they were on their heels.
I'm not trying to pin it on anyone, just to determine the truth of the matter.
Logic dictates that Assad would have no motivation to launch such an attack especially shortly after President Obama drew his red line of what it would take to bring the U.S. in to the war.
As I posted up thread, I'm wondering if this tragedy may have been an accident, that would make the most sense to me.
cali
(114,904 posts)significant parts of the north.
Here's an article from August 6th:
BEIRUT — Syrian rebels claimed Tuesday that they captured a long-contested military air base near the northern city of Aleppo and advanced in the loyalist heartland of Latakia, capping a day of setbacks for the government that underscored the see-saw nature of the Syrian civil war.
Rebels overran the Menagh air base after carrying out a suicide bombing Monday near its main building, which had become a last refuge for government troops penned inside the compound, opposition activists said. In videos posted online, rebels showed off their spoils of ammunition and weapons.
Although President Bashar al-Assad’s forces have gained ground in central Syria, the reported capture of Menagh indicated the strength of rebel forces in the north, where they control swaths of territory with direct supply routes from Turkey.
<snip>
http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-08-06/world/41104813_1_syrian-rebels-air-base-aleppo
Applying what you think of as logic, in this context, is a mistake.
btw, Juan Cole agrees with you; he thinks it may well have been an accident as well- on the part regime forces.
Catherina
(35,568 posts)start making a bunch of noise about the poor people we need to *save* from whichever leader we want out.
The world has seen this script too many times before.
Barack_America
(28,876 posts)Maybe he figured that with allies such as Russia, Iran and China he could get away with it? (Working so far!)
Uncle Joe
(58,456 posts)why would the Capital be any different, furthermore the risks of using chemical weapons so close to "home" would greatly increase the chances of killing your own people.
Surely he knows the U.S. has a long memory ie: Saddam gassing the Kurds and that our politics are transitory, even if Obama didn't push for war, a future President would.
Perhaps you're correct about Assad counting on his allies but the risk vs reward equation is still greatly skewed from what he had to gain for doing such an action to what he could lose.
pampango
(24,692 posts)Likewise, the regime clearly is seeking to terrify the population into submission. Again, Saddam Hussein tried that with the Kurds and Shiites. Mass killings of restive populations by a regime raise the cost of insurgency, the regime hopes to unacceptably high levels. Could the Baath have done this? This is the regime that slaughtered at least 10,000 at Hama in 1982, so sure.
Did they do it? Hard to tell this morning.. But if they did, it will increase pressure on a reluctant Obama to speed up promised shipments of weapons to the rebels. If Damascus is playing it this way, it is clearly calling Obama’s bluff. Lesson to Mr. Obama: don’t bluff and don’t set red lines unless you’re really committted to reacting if they are crossed.
http://www.juancole.com/2013/08/killing-hundreds-obamas.html
Uncle Joe
(58,456 posts)that air base?
Do the rebels still hold it?
pampango
(24,692 posts)Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)Those impressive victories in Qusayr and Homs were designed to do just that: secure a contiguous corridor from Damascus and the south to the Syrian coast and the Alawite heartland in the mountains near the coast.
At the same time, it has lost control of most of the north, either to the rebels or to Kurds. I think the regime controls parts of the cities of Aleppo and Idlib, and little else up there.
They may be forced to cede control of the north. For the regime, that would be unfortunate, but not key to its survival. Damascus is a different story. They will fight to the death there.
I was one of the first to be skeptical of the origin of the gas attacks, because it just seemed to be too good to be true for the opposition, but I have to say that the preponderance of the evidence now appears to support that it was the regime. Just who in the regime--top echelons or low-level field commanders--may have ordered attacks is unclear.
But I gotta tell ya: I don't know who to believe anymore. The credibility of the West is in tatters after Iraq and all the other bullshit, and it just seems so convenient for all these countries that have been dying to overthrow Assad anyway.
eissa
(4,238 posts)I found an interview on CNN with a former Israeli diplomat to be interesting. I'm paraphrasing here, but he said they viewed the conflict as a "playoff game where we want both sides to lose." That ideally, the longer the conflict drew out, the better for them because it kept both their adversaries pre-occupied with each other, and thus not focused on them.
Maybe that's our strategy?
