Forget about taking out the chemical weapons cache

[boomerbust]

One Tomahawk lobbed at the Syrian White House. Message received.

[leveymg]

1. Nice shot, only thing is, there's no proof Assad knew about the attack before it happened

Direct link between Assad and gas attack elusive for U.S.

(Reuters) - With the United States threatening to attack Syria, U.S. and allied intelligence services are still trying to work out who ordered the poison gas attack on rebel-held neighborhoods near Damascus.

No direct link to President Bashar al-Assad or his inner circle has been publicly demonstrated, and some U.S. sources say intelligence experts are not sure whether the Syrian leader knew of the attack before it was launched or was only informed about it afterward.

While U.S. officials say Assad is responsible for the chemical weapons strike even if he did not directly order it, they have not been able to fully describe a chain of command for the August 21 attack in the Ghouta area east of the Syrian capital.

It is one of the biggest gaps in U.S. understanding of the incident, even as Congress debates whether to launch limited strikes on Assad's forces in retaliation.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/07/us-syria-crisis-attack-idUSBRE98603A20130907?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&dlvrit=992637

[Bolo Boffin]

2. So the head of the country didn't know his military was gassing his own citizens?

OK, but that doesn't sound very encouraging about the state of the Assad government. Either he's got a military quite compliant enough to launch chemical weapons or his military is doing it without his knowledge. I don't know which is more dangerous.

[leveymg]

5. Yes. There's no evidence he knew or ordered the 8/21 attack.

Both are dangerous. But, the facts determine what the appropriate response might be. A punative military attack on the regime would likely make the situation worse if the military is effectively operating on its own.

[Bolo Boffin]

10. Assad not in control of the WMDs argues for boots on the ground.

So that someone responsible does have control of them.

[Igel]

6. Not a place you want to go.

During active fighting lots of decisions are made and oversight becomes lax.

How's this:
A soldier leaves his camp, going through security checkpoints, in order to stage a raid on a village and kill a bunch of women and children. A good commander in chief would know such things or have secure ways to prevent such atrocities, and his "regime" would bear any consequence for it.

Hale. Happened a couple of years ago in Afghanistan.


A government agency acts in a blatantly illegal manner in handling firearms, which results in the death of civilians in two countries. When the executive in charge is told, his response is that he can't know everything and isn't responsible for decisions made by lower level or even senior level officials unless he's informed. This, in peacetime, happened a few years ago.


Another government agency seems to act in a partisan manner. A local branch implements it, but only in close coordination with supervisors in the capital. A good executive would be responsible for making sure such things didn't happen. But the one in charge claims not to be responsible because he can't know everything that everybody does--even if it goes on for a year. It's above his pay grade? Below his pay grade? Whatever.

In other words, the buck stops wherever it's convenient. When it's "my" ass on the line, the buck stops far, far below me. When it's somebody whom I want gone and want to take out, the buck must, out of absolute, eternal principles, stop with him because he's in charge.

[Bolo Boffin]

8. Oh, I'm comfortable going to the place where the executive power has lost control of the WMDs.

Because none of your examples approached that level of chaos and potential danger.

[leveymg]

11. Get UN authorization, and you can personally lead the first wave in.

Go get 'em, soldier.

Fightin' 101st!

[Bolo Boffin]

12. And since you've abandoned your point to hurl insults, good day. n/t

[leveymg]

13. Your position is even more extreme than the Administration's. Even Obama acknowledges the pos-

sibility that some military commander did this without consulting the political leadership. See, http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023611888

Nobody in this Administration is now talking about putting boots on the ground, except to estimate it would take at least 75,000 ground troups to secure the chemical weapons stocks in Syria.

[Bolo Boffin]

14. That isn't what Obama is suggesting.

He's saying that the generals giving Assad pushback on deploying chemical weapons is not a card we can play, not that the attack may have been done without Assad's knowledge. You've completely misread what Obama said.

I am telling you that if the military is doing this without Assad's knowledge, that is an argument for boots on the ground. Worse than WMDs in the firm control of the executive is WMDs loose and being used by anyone. If the military is doing this without Assad, then they could slip them to whoever they want. The possibility of losing track of them and Al-Qaeda rebels getting them is distinct in that case. But since no one is suggesting Assad's military is doing this without Assad, I'd suggest you drop the line yourself. You're paving the road to a full-out invasion.

[leveymg]

15. What it shows is the inevitable breakdown in command discipline in the advanced stages of a civil

war. I am not surprised that this has occurred, and the regime changers counted on it to justify US military intervention and a de facto no fly zone.

[Bolo Boffin]

16. Obama was not suggesting the military did it without Assad's knowledge. n/t

[RandiFan1290]

3. Yeah maaan

That would be awesome!

[GeorgeGist]

4. Why not make a trade?

Our clusterbombs for his chemical weapons.

Then he could kill his own people humanely, with blood and visible injuries.

[randome]

7. Easier on the environment, too!

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Birds are territorial creatures.
The lyrics to the songbird's melodious trill go something like this:
"Stay out of my territory or I'll PECK YOUR GODDAMNED EYES OUT!"[/center][/font][hr]

[Rex]

9. And then what?

nt.