I think it unlikely that bombing Syria once would lead to regional war.

[cthulu2016]

Last edited Sat Aug 31, 2013, 12:07 PM - Edit history (4)

Folks who live to respond only to headlines are already typing their furious replies. For those reading this, the statement in the headline is so obviously true as to hardly be worth stating, yet will be read by many as controversial.

This post is about how to think about SERIOUS issues. (As opposed to sporting events, TV shows, etc..) Of course our contemplated "kinetic military action" is not likely to lead to regional war.

It is also not likely that bombing Syria once would lead to anything meaningful, worthwhile, helpful, humanitarian, etc..

90%+ of the time, the contemplated action would result in nothing beyond the deaths of some hapless military personnel somewhere.


Sensible opposition to this thing is mostly driven by risk assessment, not by predictions.

Our contemplated action carries serious risks of the sort that, though unlikely, would require an astonishing potential upside to even put striking Syria on the table.

When the upside of something is negligible then the tolerable risk approaches zero.

"If I point what I reasonably think is an unloaded gun to my head and squeeze the trigger I am unlikely to shoot myself."

This is TRUE. The majority of guns people think are unloaded are, in fact, unloaded. However, what does squeezing the trigger on an unloaded gun held to your head do for you? What is the upside?

Since the upside is negligible the weight of the downside becomes overwhelming.

I do not think that us killing some soldiers to make a point about how serious we are will lead inexorably to a restart of the Lebanese civil war (and/or hezbollah war on Israel via Lebanon) or lead inexorably to jihadists launching Sarin laden rockets across the Syria-Israel border.

I don't think our contemplated "kinetic military action" will inexorably lead to much of anything. And if that is correct then the potential downsides balloon in their weight, though not their probability.


If there was NO potential catastrophic down-side then a purely symbolic, pathetic looking expression of our view of chemical weapons achieved by the homicide of a small number of persons might be worth talking about.

[Cooley Hurd]

1. I disagree. After 60+ years of imperialism, I think the world will finally stand up to the bully.

Hope I'm wrong, but this might be the Waterloo of the Empire.

[cali]

2. It may not be likely but it's hardly far fetched.

risk assessment by experts does include that btw.


Who knows what spark in a tinderbox will set things off?

Also it already has bled over into Lebanon and that started months ago.

The phrase unintended consequences comes to mind.

[cthulu2016]

7. The point is that we talk of "likely" and "unlikely" but those words

have little place in discussions of very serious things.

And the whole making a case for what *will happen* racket hampers thought. Everything is sliding scale probabilities.

For most serious life-and-death type purposes, there is no decisive difference between 33% (unlikely) and 66% (likely).

For instance, imagine if this were stipulated:

The likelihood of a symbolic US strike deterring Assad from future use of chemical weapons is twice as great as the odds that a symbolic US strike will create a dynamic ending in the thermonuclear destruction of Damascus by Israel.

Some people, perhaps many people, would read that as an endorsement of such a strike because we are so used to vapid binary framings.

The stipulated passage would, in the world of sense, be an absolute argument ender... a decisive argument against such a strike.

[cali]

13. sorry, I think you're taking this to the land of the absurd

you're over focusing on the words likely and unlikely which just isn't a big point.

focusing on what will happen is silly because we can't KNOW what will happen. Focusing on what MAY happen should be a vital part of thinking things through on something like a strike on Syria.

[cthulu2016]

15. The OP is entirely about "Focusing on what MAY happen"

as opposed to predicting what will happen (a fool's game)

That's the entire point of the OP.

Sorry it's absurd to you.

I would say we will agree to disagree, but since we are saying the same thing it wouldn't make sense.

Many (most?) readers of this OP's headline will read it as an argument in favor of missile strikes. And that is precisely the problem being addressed.

"We" think about these things like an infant capable only of two-state thinking... the lottery has binary outcomes (you either win the lottery or do not win the lottery) thus the lottery is a 50-50 proposition.

It is a bad way to think about the lottery, and a very bad way to think about blowing people up.

[riderinthestorm]

3. This is a civil war with many outsiders participating.

Exactly what the outcome will be when/if the US decides to get involved in this civil war is completely unknown.

Will Russia or Iran respond? Iran has already said that they will strike Israel if the US gets involved....

This is another chapter in a centuries long Sunni/Shia civil war that's going to engulf the region anyway. The largest superpower on the face of the planet getting involved, on one side, can't possibly be a good idea.

[Bluenorthwest]

4. And this is based on your on the ground experience in the regoin or on how things

work in your HOA?

[cthulu2016]

9. Do you always respond only to headlines?

[magical thyme]

5. it will kill more that a few military people. civilians will also die horribly.

The upside is zero. There is no upside.

It may or may not deter chemical weapons. It will not reduce in any way, shape or form the killing of civilians or the civil war. It will simply add to them.

There is no such thing as a "surgical strike." There are only bombs that destroy and kill, both immediately and in the aftermath of destroyed infrastructure.

Kerry claims that chemical attacks (by others, of course) are obscene. Personally, I think war is obscene. I think it is obscene that we provided Saddam with sarin gas to use against Iran. I think it is obscene that we dropped napalm and Agent Orange on Vietnam. I think it is obscene that we dropped white phosphorus and depleted uranium on Iraq. I think "daisy cutter" bombs are obscene.

Who the fuck is Kerry or any other American to try to claim the high road by bombing?

[The Second Stone]

6. And shooting at Archduke Ferdinand wasn't thought to lead to the death of millions

and neither was the punitive war against Serbia.

A limited strike, which is what is being discussed, won't punish the supposed people who did it, and is only vanity for the people proposing the limited strike.

[Jackpine Radical]

8. To the military, missile attacks are like potato chips.

It's really hard to stop after just one.

[Motown_Johnny]

10. Israel hit Syria twice last year with no retaliation, much less regional war.

The Syrian government is barely holding their own against the rebels. I doubt very much if they would open up another front.


The other Arab nations did not respond after Israel attacked Syria last year. I don't see why they would respond now after a chemical weapons attack. Egypt is the strongest military power in the region (other than Israel) and it has issues of it's own right now. I doubt very much if Egypt would enter into a conflict at this point.

That pretty much leaves us with Iran, as far as major military might in the region goes. Maybe Iran wants to go one on one with Israel and maybe it doesn't. If it does then it will find an excuse sooner or later and if it doesn't then it won't respond to the US attacking Syria.


Regional war seems very unlikely in the short term no matter what we do (or don't do).


The potential upside in this calculation is deterring the use of chemical weapons. I know it is hard to see because you can't ever know if someone would have used a chemical weapon if not for the price Assad paid for doing so. It is a classic "dog that didn't bark" scenario.

Given the number of popular uprisings and/or civil wars that the Middle East has seen recently, I think that sending a message in regards to the use of chemical weapons could have a substantial upside. If killing 1400+ with a gas attack has no downside for the attacker then why not do it on a regular basis? Why not kill 2400 or 3400 at a time? There needs to be a downside to the use of chemical weapons and the risk of a US attack is a reasonable downside.


I'm not crazy about attacking Syria but I am less crazy about more chemical attacks. If we don't respond this time then the next time we would need to launch an even larger attack in order to make our point. If Pres. Obama makes this call then I will support it. At some point we need to have faith in our leadership even if Bush did just abuse that power and make us all "once bit, twice shy".

[DirkGently]

14. The premise that the U.S. will "fix" Syria with bombs

is the big problem here. We do not actually have the authority to launch military strikes because we claim a war is being conducted incorrectly. That is a premise and a justification, not a reality.

And what comes next? If the strike doesn't turn the tide against Assad, we'll just ... what?

Claim we punished the use of chemical weapons and sit back, satisfied?

And if the rebels begin to win, but carry out the ethnic atrocities that seem inevitable in this war -- we will then "let" that happen?

This entire premise is a fallacy. We cannot shape the Middle East to our liking by waging endless illegal wars in the region. We can kill a lot of people and continue to be seen as a bully, spend endless billions, and exhaust and abuse our military personnel, as we have been doing.

I find it hard to believe that Americans -- even if only a few so far -- actually believe we can and should embark on yet another claimed rescue mission in the ME, to be accomplished by war.

This is not a thing we can do, or should continue to claim the right to attempt.

[Motown_Johnny]

17. This isn't about Assad, it is about the next chemical attack

no matter where it might come from.

Nobody expects to "fix" anything with this attack. It is a deterrent.

[DirkGently]

18. So, you think we're going to dip a toe in, pull it out?

That's what's going to happen? Little missile strike here, little bombing run there, then nothing?

If it doesn't tilt the balance in the war, we're going to stop the strikes, stand back, see what happens?

This is is not about atrocities. There are atrocities going on all over, all the time, and on both sides of the conflict in Syria. Because of course there are.

Many of the refugees say they're fleeing because of the violence from the hard-line Islamist al Nusra Front, one of the main rebel groups opposing Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

(SOUNDBITE)(Arabic) FARIS SULAIMAN FROM QAMISHLI, SAYING:

"There are bodies without heads at the morgue today. Why? Which international norms and which doctrine that can justify their death? They are cutting heads. Heads of children are being cut. A group of al Nusra front has permitted the killing, the slaughtering of the Kurdish people."

http://www.trust.org/item/20130819095403-vmywc/

This is about intervening in the ME militarily. Again.

And at some point, but apparently not yet for a lot of people, we are going to stop for a moment, and realize that U.S. policy in the Middle East is not, was not, and likely never will be about being the World Police, or making anything safe for democracy, but rather jockeying for position and power, and attempting to manipulate a part of the world that is strategically significant, at whatever cost to whomever, including our own people, those making the decisions choose to force us to pay.

[Daninmo]

11. I don't think we should send missiles

If any country sent Cruise Missiles to one or more of our cities in the USA, some might consider that an act or declaration of war on us, why would any other country think differently if we launched missiles at them?

[dipsydoodle]

12. Slippery slope

If one seemed ok then might be worth a second............

[dkf]

16. You have the upside/downside relation exactly correct.

And strangely used the example I was thinking of when I read your title of playing Russian Roulette, except you think it's unloaded and I think there's one bullet.

Is this red line worth potential World War III? Does Obama want that legacy? First Black President, Nobel Peace Prize winner, unwitting naive starter of World War III. I shake my head.