General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWe need troops on the ground to prevent chemical attacks on civilians in Syria in the future...
Last edited Sun Sep 1, 2013, 09:58 AM - Edit history (1)
period. Any strike that only involves missiles or bombs is just punitive, or a warning to Assad, assuming he ordered the attack.
It would do nothing to prevent him from using the weapons in the future, particularly if the missiles aren't effective in killing him, if they are, then whoever replaces him can then use them, because why not? What do they have to lose at this point?
We could target the factories and weapons themselves, the ones we know about, but we can't guarantee we can hit them all, nor can we guarantee that it won't contaminate the surrounding area and poison thousands. Not to mention helping to pin point the locations of these weapons for rebel groups, who themselves will be all too happy to use them against each other and against Assad's forces and any civilians that get in the way.
My question is simple, what is the use of bombing strikes without ground troops following up? What will it actually do that will have a positive outcome?
ON EDIT: Devil's advocate, I'm not pro-interventionist, I was hoping it would come off as obvious from the arguments above, but apparently not, my bad.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)WASHINGTON — The Pentagon has spent more than a decade trying to develop weapons to neutralize chemical weapons, the threat that has the United States poised to launch a missile strike on Syria, according to military planning documents and officials.
The weapons, which would be attached to a bomb dropped from an aircraft, are supposed to neutralize chemical weapons where they are produced or stored
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/08/29/syria-chemical-weapons-attack/2723251/
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)first off, I doubt that these "exotic" weapons work on anything but specific formulations they are tested for, and again, you have to be right on target, the neutralizing agent has to work good enough to contain any contaminants, and even then, you won't know if you got all the weapons or chemicals to make more.
The only way to be sure is to have troops on the ground that can seize what factories there are, have inspectors come in, and have an ability to inspect people at key checkpoints to make sure such weapons can't be used in the future, or smuggled out to be used by others. In other words, we must invade and occupy Syria, anything less than this is symbolic and useless in saving lives.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)but they will be quickly resupplied if someone isn't there to stop those supplies coming in.
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)The 37th Engineers were unaware that Chemical Weapons were present in 1991. They were exposed to the residue that was created when using conventional demolitions. So we know from experience that conventional explosives will release the weapons. We have very strict guidelines on how to dispose of toxic chemicals. Attaching a wonder additive to a bomb is not one of those ways.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)The seven plants we had that were set up for this belonged to the Army. http://www.cma.army.mil/
There, the chemical weapons would be diluted by mixing with other elements to negate the effects as much as possible. Then the weapons would be incinerated with the exhaust filtered to prevent the release of even microscopic amounts of the chemical/biological weapons. Now, how do you figure a huge chemical engineering plant was miniaturized into something that can be bolted to a bomb?
Perhaps the bombs contain millions of Star Trek nano bots that will tear the chemical weapons apart at the molecular level. I know, that sounds stupid, but no more so than something they can bolt onto a bomb.
We know how the Boston Bombers built their bombs because explosives don't disintegrate things, they tear them apart and fling the parts all over. We would release more chemical weapons than Assad did poisoning more people than he allegedly has. Now, when that happens, who punishes us for gassing innocent people in Syria? Wouldn't Russia be justified in attacking us by that standard?
There is no way this ends well. There is no chemical processing plant bolted to the nose of a bomb.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)foam
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)I thought you wanted to discuss this seriously.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Oh, my bad...I didn't know you were being serious...
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)just the places where the chemical weapons are located...AND the foam could be a substance known to neutralize...
Or are you just not opened minded enough to see the possibilities? Point is containment and neutralization.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Since they are chemical-proof, they are probably foam-proof.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)come on...use your imagination...
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Why the hell should I be bothered with your implausible fantasy?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)was laid out quite well. I never said by the way that THAT is how it will happen....just a response to one question about HOW that could occur.
We do know they have been working on a neutralizing plan for over a decade. So how is THAT an implausible fantasy?
daleo
(21,317 posts)So it would be for foam used for poison gas control.
Firemen use a lot of foam on chemical blazes, directing its use at close range in a peacetime environment and it is still extremely hazardous.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)I'll pay for the gas, AND lunch.
MH1
(17,600 posts)that without ground troops following up to do the actual decommissioning of the chemical weapons, there is nothing that strikes can accomplish.
I'm not sure I agree, but I'm not advocating for strikes either. I'm advocating for an intelligent discussion between people who have access to all the information necessary to make the right decision. From where I sit, it's very difficult to see how strikes would be the right decision, but I'm trying to keep an open mind.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)without some type of follow up, even assuming Assad is a rational actor in this, there's no reason to assume he wouldn't just buckle down and not change his actions in the future. If the U.S. doesn't demonstrate that it is willing to risk anything to either remove Assad or protect innocent civilians, then he is more likely to be emboldened. Missile strikes are, quite literally, the least we can do as a response to a treaty violation. It seems to me that these arguments for air strikes are pure morale building, for us, a way for us to pat ourselves on the back and claim we did something.
MH1
(17,600 posts)we could maybe really "hurt" Assad without destroying lots of innocent lives ... but what's the chance of that?
To me the equation looks a lot like this:
cost of failure: very high
chance of success: very low
undesired consequences of "success": indeterminate, but Russia, Iran, and Al-Qaeda are in there somewhere.
That's not an equation that I would tend to risk.
Meanwhile, costs of doing nothing? a political setback for the US in the world, perhaps. The potential that more insane dictators will see benefits to themselves of maintaining and using chemical weapons stockpiles. Some loss of US global influence for good. (and yes, there is some of that ). Potentially emboldening our true enemies on the world stage to do things that hurt our economy. Oh the list could go on but it is all knock on effects of backing off when our bluff is called. Still, refer back to the equation above.
My open-mindedness is based only on that I really do not know the parameter values, I am only guessing based on my very limited knowledge of the situation and what is presented in the media. Who knows, maybe there is an option for some kind of raid like taking out bin Laden (although that involved "boots on the ground" if only briefly).
Edit to add: I left out Israel. Israel will be pissed if we do nothing. It may hamper efforts to broker peace between Israel and Palestine, which had looked somewhat more hopeful than usual until this Syria stuff changed the subject. Since the Israel/Palestine situation is the festering sore behind a lot of the violence directed at the US, it would be in our interests to do things that advance those negotiations, and against our interests to do things - or fail to act - so as to hamper those negotiations.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)People are forgetting that we bombed the fuck out of Khadaffi's residential compound, and he retaliated by bombing an airliner over Lockerbie Scotland, killing hundreds.
There is no reason to believe a strike on Assad will cause him to tuck his tail between his legs and meekly learn his lesson. No....more than likely he is defiant, and launches a chemical weapon attack on Jordan, Israel, or Turkey in retaliation.
AnotherMcIntosh
(11,064 posts)
jazzimov
(1,456 posts)I think there's a lot we can do without putting boots on the ground.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)Without putting boots to the ground, is there anything we can do for the civilian population that won't make their lives worse?
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)but 'boots under the bed, boots on the ground' sounds so very Hagel charming....those who wish to send kids to die need to avoid the truth so they say 'boots' as if those boots were not attached to 20 year olds from Des Moines.
BillyRibs
(787 posts)We need them to prop up the petro dollar.
SammyWinstonJack
(44,130 posts)
ocpagu
(1,954 posts)... is forgetting about Middle East and start paying more attention to its own domestic issues.
fujiyama
(15,185 posts)You have proven exactly why it's a mistake getting involved over there in the first place. Lobbing some cruise missiles will do nothing except drive up the share prices of Raytheon and Lockheed Martin.
And you know as well as I do that most of us (myself included) have no interest in sending more American troops to another shit hole country to get killed and maimed. The last thing we need is to get stuck in ANOTHER quagmire.
But if you're interested, I'd recommend taking up Cherokee's offer. Maybe you can write to McCain and Graham's office in support of an expanded war. They'll be happy to receive the support, because I'm sure most of the calls and mails they're getting are heavily against it.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)about the civilian population. This is just a feel good, "We have to do something!" response to mollify our own consciences. No more, no less.
spanone
(135,830 posts)Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)Read it again, perhaps my purpose is unclear.
Harmony Blue
(3,978 posts)I am against any military intervention in Syria. But the reality is to secure the chemical weapon sites troops have to be on the ground or else these punitive strikes will be an uttter waste of time and tax payer money.
In the even the U.S. tries to dismember the command and control of Syrian forces, this leaves it open for AQ to waltz right in and pick up chemical weapons.
Carolina
(6,960 posts)you lead the way and put your ass on the line; let your actions match your words.
What have you learned from the past 10 years? What has US military intervention and yes, aggression, wrought?
More dead children, more hatred, more death, more destruction... but you go ahead. Guns and bombs... America's answer to everything. Any wonder, we're rotting from within and the world either hates us or mocks us.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)I was talking about what would need to be done for pro-interventionists to get what their goal is(protecting civilians). They aren't willing to pay the price, what is be advocated for is symbolic drivel.
Downwinder
(12,869 posts)Just remember you become a target for both sides in a domestic dispute. in Syria there are at least ten sides.
Shias
Sunnis
Alawites
Christians
Druze
Kurds
Armenians
Assyrians
Turks
Arabs
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)Downwinder
(12,869 posts)Any foreigner on the ground becomes an intervention.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)Here's the TL;DR version. If YOU are for intervention to save civilian lives, you would have to advocate for having troops on the ground, otherwise it is symbolic and unproductive, if not counterproductive to be involved in any intervention.
Downwinder
(12,869 posts)It is a domestic dispute. There are already too many outsiders involved.
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)Then get back to me.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)"We need troops on the ground . . . "
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)Useless to engage in airstrikes if we're not going to support strikes with ground troops. Not a new concept, there, ace. Been stated in a myriad of ways all over the intertubes.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)A couple of posters here got it, but perhaps some require more assistance than others, and for that, its my fault. OK, here goes, a lot of the argument here that is pro-interventionist is that it will do "good" as in, somehow, will protect civilians by bombing Assad, I'm just pointing out that this is stupid. No where did I say that I was pro-interventionist.
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)to mask bad writing and a misleading headline. How cliche'.
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)my only mistake, that I'm going to change now, is putting a disclaimer saying I'm NOT for intervention, chances are most people aren't going to read it, or misunderstand that as well.
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)I'm done here. <flush>
Humanist_Activist
(7,670 posts)on the internet.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)
1awake
(1,494 posts)
Buns_of_Fire
(17,175 posts)The first missile that crosses their borders, fired by us, is an act of war -- I don't care how many "punitive" adjectives get attached to it. And if a country is willing to wage war, they'd better be willing to commit to it.
Fortunately, a large part of the US population is making it known that this is a fight we don't really need to be engaged in. Unfortunately, we may be dragged, kicking and screaming, into it whether we like it or not, while countries like Israel are saying "Yeah! Let's you and him fight!"
Assad is a complete and total prick, and deserves to be strung up by his genitals in the center of Damascus -- but it's going to have to be the Syrians who do it, not us. Not unilaterally.
daleo
(21,317 posts)Exposure caused by western forces bombing Iraqi stores of poison gas, causing them to disperse and poison people at low doses?
grasswire
(50,130 posts)Perhaps that is their destination.