Posted on Apr 4, 2017
Now that chemical weapons have been used on civilians in Syria, and with boots on the ground with OIR, what should be our response?
11.7K
88
66
4
4
0
The previous administration called the use of chemical weapons by Syria a "Red Line" which was abandoned. Now that chemical weapons have been used on Civilians during the current administration and with boots on ground with OIR what do you think?
Foreign Policy
Operation Inherent Resolve (OIR)
War on Terror
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 18
10
10
0
I think that one thing people don't remember is that the after the "red line" was breached, the talk was that there would be US strikes against Syrian government targets. Sensing his ally was in danger, Vladimir Putin swooped in and brokered a deal where Russia would take possession of all Syrian chemical stockpiles and destroy them. President Obama was clearly relieved to not have to engage seriously on Syria at the time, although he did authorize some action later on.
Question is, if the Russians got rid of all the Syrian chemical weapons way back when, where is the Syrian government getting more to use against rebel and civilian targets? There are only a few possibilities:
1. The Syrians made more WMDs. Not terribly likely given the situation on the ground, but possible.
2. The Syrians hid some of their stockpile from their own friends, the Russians.
3. The Russians willingly allowed Syria to retain some of their stockpile.
4. The Russians are allowing the Syrians to utilize weapons that the Russians were holding onto for destruction.
I don't like any of those possibilities, because all of them mean that we were played for suckers. Of those, I'd put my money on choice number two, but since chemical attacks have occurred regularly since the "handover", this seems less and less likely as time goes by.
What ever the case may be, we need to find out. If the Russians are in cahoots with using chemical weapons on civilians, that needs to be widely publicized and potentially referred to The Hague for war crimes charges. Charges against Assad are overdue as it is.
Further, given our attention to the area and the significance of WMDs being employed, it is completely inexcusable if US Intelligence Services were not watching that handover very closely.
Question is, if the Russians got rid of all the Syrian chemical weapons way back when, where is the Syrian government getting more to use against rebel and civilian targets? There are only a few possibilities:
1. The Syrians made more WMDs. Not terribly likely given the situation on the ground, but possible.
2. The Syrians hid some of their stockpile from their own friends, the Russians.
3. The Russians willingly allowed Syria to retain some of their stockpile.
4. The Russians are allowing the Syrians to utilize weapons that the Russians were holding onto for destruction.
I don't like any of those possibilities, because all of them mean that we were played for suckers. Of those, I'd put my money on choice number two, but since chemical attacks have occurred regularly since the "handover", this seems less and less likely as time goes by.
What ever the case may be, we need to find out. If the Russians are in cahoots with using chemical weapons on civilians, that needs to be widely publicized and potentially referred to The Hague for war crimes charges. Charges against Assad are overdue as it is.
Further, given our attention to the area and the significance of WMDs being employed, it is completely inexcusable if US Intelligence Services were not watching that handover very closely.
(10)
(0)
CPT Lawrence Cable
1SG (Join to see) - First of all, Sarin does not have to be a binary agent. We produced it that way because it increases shelf life and makes the munitions safer to handle, most of the world did not or does not do that. OTOH, the explosion of the a binary chemical artillery shell was the mixing agent for them, so take the conventional explosion part with a large grain of salt.
(0)
(0)
SPC (Join to see)
1SG (Join to see) - I have to say you're arguments have been on point for this discussion Top, I'd love to have you around for a foreign operations brief.
As much as every part of me would love to see our military and allied assets crush the Assad Regime and establish full occupation that option probably starts a war with Russia. In addition we have no idea who to aid. The Free Syrian Army is dead or on the verge of dying, everything else is a known enemy or an unknown which means knife in the ribs down the road.
Best option, stay out of it and observe. Coordinate with regional allies to take in refugees, and maybe establish humanitarian aid drops for food, water, medicine, and basic clothing.
As much as every part of me would love to see our military and allied assets crush the Assad Regime and establish full occupation that option probably starts a war with Russia. In addition we have no idea who to aid. The Free Syrian Army is dead or on the verge of dying, everything else is a known enemy or an unknown which means knife in the ribs down the road.
Best option, stay out of it and observe. Coordinate with regional allies to take in refugees, and maybe establish humanitarian aid drops for food, water, medicine, and basic clothing.
(1)
(0)
(0)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
SSG Edward Tilton - While I don't advocate for invasion... because well, duh.
I don't think that there is any great mystery where the Sarin came from.
By all accounts, it was delivered by aircraft. There are three entities flying combat missions striking targets in Syria: the US (and partners to a MUCH smaller extent), Russia, and the Syrian Air Force.
Of these, only the Syrians have employed chemical weapons. They have a willingness to do so and have demonstrated as much.
ISIS, while rumored to have employed crude chemical devices and employing chlorine in the past, neither has aircraft nor are they present in that area of Syria.
Additionally reports from international humanitarian groups report that the attack was sustained over hours, not that is was the result of chemical munitions blowing up in an airstrike on a weapons dump. Further, that subsequent sorties targeted the hospitals where victims were being treated - which also has been a recurring theme for the regime.
This supports only one logical conclusion on who is responsible, and that is the Syrian government. Having watched now 58 documented chemical attacks, I think it is safe to say that this is not a one-off or the result of rogue commanders.
Since Russia hypothetically took control of Syria's bio/chem munitions stockpile in 2013 after the Gouta attack, they share some responsibility.
Now I'm just an E-8, so I don't make policy. But from where I sit, Assad has calculated that he can do whatever he wants with minimal consequence as everyone focuses on the bigger a-holes in ISIS. If I were in charge, we'd spend some ordinance breaking some of his aircraft, and if he gets froggy, all of his aircraft. We are good at this, and he'd be a damned fool to attempt to shoot back.
Let the Russians know to stay out of the way.
I don't think that there is any great mystery where the Sarin came from.
By all accounts, it was delivered by aircraft. There are three entities flying combat missions striking targets in Syria: the US (and partners to a MUCH smaller extent), Russia, and the Syrian Air Force.
Of these, only the Syrians have employed chemical weapons. They have a willingness to do so and have demonstrated as much.
ISIS, while rumored to have employed crude chemical devices and employing chlorine in the past, neither has aircraft nor are they present in that area of Syria.
Additionally reports from international humanitarian groups report that the attack was sustained over hours, not that is was the result of chemical munitions blowing up in an airstrike on a weapons dump. Further, that subsequent sorties targeted the hospitals where victims were being treated - which also has been a recurring theme for the regime.
This supports only one logical conclusion on who is responsible, and that is the Syrian government. Having watched now 58 documented chemical attacks, I think it is safe to say that this is not a one-off or the result of rogue commanders.
Since Russia hypothetically took control of Syria's bio/chem munitions stockpile in 2013 after the Gouta attack, they share some responsibility.
Now I'm just an E-8, so I don't make policy. But from where I sit, Assad has calculated that he can do whatever he wants with minimal consequence as everyone focuses on the bigger a-holes in ISIS. If I were in charge, we'd spend some ordinance breaking some of his aircraft, and if he gets froggy, all of his aircraft. We are good at this, and he'd be a damned fool to attempt to shoot back.
Let the Russians know to stay out of the way.
(1)
(0)
I would gather to guess that until the CBRN is used on US troops, our response will be to: Remember ROE, Do Not Engage, Render Assistance if and when requested for medical aide
(6)
(0)
SSG Edward Tilton
Why would there be US troops in Syria, are we at war? did congress authorize this?
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
This might be an unpopular answer but it's not our problem. Syria is in the throes of civil war. Civil wars are always the most brutal type of wars. As far as the dead are concerned, does it make any difference if they were killed by gas or by death squads shooting indiscriminately? Not really. Innocent people are going to die no matter how much we limit the weapons used. By the way how did the last time we meddled in this civil war go again? Oh yeah, we ended up sending weapons to an extremist group bent on creating a caliphate.
(3)
(0)
SSG(P) (Join to see)
True. Add Russia (who is already there and firmly ensconced with naval, air, and ground forces) to the mix and things get REALLY interesting.
(1)
(0)
SPC (Join to see)
As much as I'd love to see the regime crushed it's honestly our best option. Stay out of it and observe. Maybe coordinate humanitarian relief with regional allies.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google