US mulling Syrian emergency intervention?

[Skybird]

After reports that Syria has started to mix chemicals and produce Sarin, by doing so apparently preparing the use of chemical weapons soon, Obama and his speaker both delivered clear words and warnings of "consequences", apparently wanting them to be understood as an announcement that using chemical weapons would trigger a direct military intervention by the US immediately.

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/12/03/wo...war/index.html

A group of 150 US specialists already has been moved to Jordan earlier this year, to help both with refugee movements, intel and preparing the Jordanians for a possible chemical use in Syria.

Syria has practiced and live-fired chemical artillery shells already earlier this year and in the presence of high military commanders from Iran.

I assume war-tired Americans do not like the prospect of just another war to embark on, with a later war against Iran also within possible reach. I sympathise with that attitude.

[Jimbuna]

If chemical weapons are used in defiance of the Geneva Convention then something will have to be done militarily.

I'd like to see a joint effort with Russias direct involvement should this come about.

Syria has practiced and live-fired chemical artillery shells already earlier this year and in the presence of high military commanders from Iran.

But I thought you said Iran was backing the rebels

I assume war-tired Americans do not like the prospect of just another war to embark on, with a later war against Iran also within possible reach. I sympathise with that attitude.

You said you sympathised with the dictator and wanted him kept in power as the rebels are militant islamists who want to take over the world

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by jimbuna

I'd like to see a joint effort with Russias direct involvement should this come about.

I think that this is about the only feasible way that this can be done. Obviously it means that people that are in Russias court are going to 'escape' but at least it won't be a US/Allies only affair again.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Oberon

I think that this is about the only feasible way that this can be done. Obviously it means that people that are in Russias court are going to 'escape' but at least it won't be a US/Allies only affair again.

Aye...the joint efforts of the US and Russia (should it come about) would far outweigh abnything the Chinese could say or do on the matter.

[Skybird]

The Chinese will retaliate.

Financially, economically.

They have the means, and the will.

Tja, it sucks when you drown in your debts, and it makes you vulnerable to blackmailing.

The Russians - cannot be trusted on this.

Conclusion: if preparing for intervention in Syria, prepare for doing it against Russia and China, not with them.

[Jimbuna]

Not sure Obama would open up another war front without meaningful allies and I doubt the UK has the resources anymore so Russia would have to take a role.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Skybird

The Chinese will retaliate.

Why would they do so?

Assad is Russias ally, not Chinas. China has no strategic interests in the region, they have no reason to retaliate. China only backs Assad in the UN because Russia is doing so, and if Assad uses chemical weapons then he loses his viability as an ally, he becomes expendable. So he will probably find himself couped by his own generals while Russia and NATO make preparations to actively get involved in Syria. Then Russia will lean on the generals to make a couple of small concessions and present them to the world as people who the UN can do business with, and we'll be back to square one.

I would be more concerned with China retaliating over Iran, personally, if the US goes into Iran. Iran is a good source of oil for China, and if that supply is threatened then China will consider herself threatened and may seek retaliation. However, economic retaliation is a double edged sword for China, it is easier and better for the PRC to threaten retaliation than actually to do it, because if the US economy falls apart then the PRC will collapse shortly afterwards since their economies are very linked at the moment, a problem that Beijing is seeking desperately to fix before the American public realise it.

EDIT: A short research later and I've found that the PRC is a major player in Syrias oil industry, so there's a small chance of retaliation, but when you compare Syria and Irans outputs, there's quite a difference, and traditionally and strategically, Russia is more linked to Syria than the PRC. If you get Russia on board then the PRC will not offer any real complaints. Of course, if you get Russia on board then a lot of Assads staff will 'escape' and find housing, probably in China or another Russian ally. Assad himself though will probably be used as a sacrificial pawn, if he is dumb enough to use chemical weapons in a war that the world is focused on, and against the world opinion, then he is no longer a usable ally of Russia and will be discarded.

[Jimbuna]

^Saved me posting a very similar viewpoint.

[Oberon]

Furthermore, out of the three blocs involved in any intervention (NATO, China, Russia) only NATO will lose out if Assad is removed and the opposition put in, because NATO nations struggle to work with nations who go into Islamic law because of their notions of freedoms. China and Russia have no such qualms, and will gleefully supply arms for oil. So it'll be just a change of faces really, although it'll have to be skilfully manoeuvred so that they are seen to be turning their backs on Assad after his chemical usage, so that the new opposition government doesn't see them as friends of Assad.
Although, honestly, money speaks louder than loyalties, and weapons speak even louder, so I think any old ties would be forgotten as soon as the first shipment of AK-74s and T-72s landed.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Oberon

because NATO nations struggle to work with nations who go into Islamic law because of their notions of freedoms. China and Russia have no such qualms, and will gleefully supply arms for oil.

Wha wanted to deliver Milans and Tiger helicpters and huke tech to Libya? France. Who has armed Saudi arabia and Kuwait and others up the the teeth despite their dictatorships and violation of human rights and records of supressing freedom? America, Germany, Britain, France, Italy. The Saudis have just asked for several hundreds of German Boxer APCs - and Berlin is considering it. This after the yjust have askewd for several hundred Leopard-2A7PSO, which berlin was or is still considering. Egypt has asked for German submarines, with Berlin considering it. The Americans have sold them even more arms.

Western nations have never struggled to make business with polcie states and supressive regimes, not in the ME, no in South America, not in Africa. German arms sales have significantly exploded in the past 12 months, Merkelianism means that regulations and limitations get seriously toned down. That is to protect the German military industry, which is sufferign to the shrunk demand in weapons in germany and in NATO countries: political changes, shrinking budgets, etc.

The Chinese: Syria is important fore them, in a potential menaing. They act by accumulating small shares of influence all over Africa, the ME, South American and in Europe as well. They use their enormous financial resources to buy themselves an entry gate that they then can widen to a parade alley. Onc they have a foot in the door, they become stronger and stronger, and demand more and more. A less militant pratcice than the Wetsenr era of Imperislaim and colonialism maybe, but not any less mercyless: you can see the desastrous results of their policies and the terrifying human cost in Africa. - Now, Syria is their big opportunity to get a strong foothold in that region. I'm sure they will hate to let that opportunity pass by unused.

[Skybird]

Various German newspaper report that 75,000 American troops are readying and preparing for Syria. No word on where they come from. This news is making the round over here since all this day.

Furthermore, out of the three blocs involved in any intervention (NATO, China, Russia) only NATO will lose out if Assad is removed and the opposition put in, because NATO nations struggle to work with nations who go into Islamic law because of their notions of freedoms. China and Russia have no such qualms, and will gleefully supply arms for oil.

If that were the case why do NATO contries beg for arms deals with the Gulf states including the extreme fundamentalists in Saudi?
Now in fairness there was some voices raised in opposition in your country when Bahrain started rounding up doctors and nurses as "revolutionaries" because they treated wounded protesters that were brought to hospital, but your governments response was to send a delegation to secure more arms deals.

As for Syria "going into islamic law". Article 3.2 of their constitution...islamic jurisprudence doctrine is a primary source of legislation

[Oberon]

Wait...wait...wait...

Did Tribesman and Skybird both just say the same thing?




In all seriousness, you both make good points that I had overlooked, however I would say that Syria is probably not particularly high on Chinas foot-in-the-door list. It's a good wedge in the region, I don't deny, but I don't think that they'd deploy their currency bomb over it. Personally, I think that they'd only do something like that over something a lot closer to home, like Taiwan or Tibet, and it'd have to be a real last ditch reason because the currency bomb is a kamikaze attack.

[Oberon]

Originally Posted by Skybird

Various German newspaper report that 75,000 American troops are readying and preparing for Syria. No word on where they come from. This news is making the round over here since all this day.

Didn't the same sort of rumours start up over Libya?