There's no one fight for in Syria

[Nuclear Unicorn]

I'm not going to call President Obama a liar and say he's fabricating the intelligence information that leads him to believe chemical weapons have been employed. I will say up front I believe Assad does have chemical weapons and has employed them. I readily acknowledge the horror of all that it entails. Innocent people are dying.

But my hesitation for getting involved is this: the people fighting Assad are not the sort of people we want to see win. We do not want them to replace Assad because they will inherit those very same chemical weapons we are fighting against. We cannot trust them as they are Al Qaeda affiliates and they have nothing but revenge against the West on their minds.

They cannot be allowed to assume control of those weapons and we cannot put forth the effort required to secure those weapons to prevent that. If Assad we to win at least the Russians have a vested interest in keeping their client in check and insuring he does nothing to antagonize the West.

Perhaps there are more sympathetic elements within the rebellion but they are so under-powered as to almost not be worth comment. Whatever it would take to make them the heirs to Assad is a price we may not be prepared to pay, especially since that would put us in conflict with a regime that has already employed chemical weapons.

[JayhawkSD]

1. We are engineering the downfall of the side...

...that is defending a large population of Syrian Christians. If Assad loses every one of these Christians will be dead or will become a refugee in a foreign country. We do this in the name of the "Responsibility to Protect" doctrine.

We are supporting the side that will slaughter Christians and drive them from their homes. We do this in the name of the "Responsibility to Protect" doctrine.

We can prove that Assad used the chemical weapons, but are not offering to display any evidence of such proof. If we display the evidence we will "reveal oru sources" so our evidence of proof must remain secret.

Russia can prove that the rebels used the gas and have delivered their evidence of proof to an international body which is in Syria for the purpose of investigating the use of gas. The Russians are liars.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

3. I hadn't heard this before.

As far as I'm concerned Assad is not worthy of any sympathy but this should not be ignored.

[LukeFL]

2. I agree. That country is infested with

Al Qada sympathizers- but we are in a very difficult situation. Honestly, I can't believe what Ian going to say because I was agAinst the invasion of Iraq, in this case we should take over the entire country.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

4. My husband despises Assad.

He maintains that when he was in Iraq many of the AQI came from Syria but even he says Assad is better than AQ with chemical weapons.

[dkf]

5. That's how stupid we are, we would make sure AQ has chemical weapons for use against us.

Agh the stupidity!!! It burns!!!!!!!!

[Nuclear Unicorn]

8. "Agh the stupidity!!! It burns!!!!!!!!"

And blisters, and chokes, and causes convulsions...

[KharmaTrain]

6. Basically It's A Tribal War...

...our government...and especially the corporate media...try to think of the world as some big Risk board with big armies and good guys and bad guys. Today's conflicts just don't fit those molds and thus lots of assumptions are made rather than looking closely at the situation. In many cases it's hard...especially in Syria...where the U.S. has had minimal relations for decades. The media loves to interject every civil war or uprising with a myopic view of "how it affects the U.S." that unfortunately leads to misinformation about what's really going on.

The question here is does the U.S. participate in an "international effort" to stop the use of chemical weapons in what is a very tribal civil war. Syria, like Iraq, is a manufactured country...drawn up by European powers that ignored generations of tribal boundries. Assad is an Alawite...a minority tribe that has long subjugated other groups and this war has these various factions not only fighting to oust Assad but among themselves as well. Even if we march into Damascus and do another Iraqi style occupation, peace won't be any easier to achieve here as it was in Baghdad. And I'm not seeing that action coming (despite McCain's wet dreams). I do see some "surgical" strikes that will have little affect but make a "statement". The only way to have a real affect on the carnage is by putting pressure on the Russians who are bankrolling Assad and have the influence to talk him into a Snowden-type refuge...

[pampango]

7. Obama 'opposed to intervention in Syria' (because there is no side to support) - 8/21/13

(This article was written before the chemical attack last week.)

The Obama administration is opposed to even limited US military intervention in Syria because it believes rebels would not support American interests.

The revelation was made in a letter to member of Congress from General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staffs.

Effectively ruling out US cruise missile attacks and other options that would not require US troops on the ground, Gen Dempsey said the military is clearly capable of taking out Bashar Al Assad's air force and shifting the balance of the the war back towards the armed opposition. But he said such an approach would plunge the United States deep into another war in the Arab world and offer no strategy for peace in a nation plagued by ethnic rivalries.

"Syria today is not about choosing between two sides but rather about choosing one among many sides," Gen Dempsey said. " It is my belief that the side we choose must be ready to promote their interests and ours when the balance shifts in their favour. Today, they are not."

http://www.thenational.ae/news/world/middle-east/obama-opposed-to-intervention-in-syria

Wise or not, the reasoning seems to have switched from whom to support to whom to punish. I'm not sure how they think they can separate "punishment" for one side from "support" for the other.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

9. "I'm not sure how they ... separate "punishment" for one side from "support" for the other."

AQ-Syria will never view punishment of Assad as support for them. They will still attack us any chance they get and if they gain Assad's chemicals they will do so all the more gleefully.

[pampango]

10. Sorry for being unclear. I meant that "punishing" one side will have the effect of "supporting"

the other side whether the latter appreciates the "support" or not. Hence, statement that "I'm not sure how they ... separate "punishment" for one side from "support" for the other."

Helping or harming one side in any war, civil or foreign, automatically does the opposite to the other side. You cannot separate the two.

I agree that terrorists are not going to "appreciate" any support we give them no matter how inadvertent it is.

Obama seems to think, or perhaps just hope, that there are "many sides" (according to the Demsey quote) in this civil war - not just dictator versus terrorists. Their strategy seems to be to wait until one of these sides (not dictator, not terrorist) sees the "balance shift in their favor" then support them. Seems like a risky strategy to me, but the immediate alternatives - support the dictator or support the terrorists or just ignore the slaughter - are not very appealing either.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

11. Actually, it seems I am the one who was unclear.

I understood your post exactly as you expounded upon it -- and I agreed with every point.