Syrian forces may have used gas without Assad's permission: paper

[ProSense]

Syrian forces may have used gas without Assad's permission: paper

(Reuters) - Syrian government forces may have carried out a chemical weapons attack close to Damascus without the personal permission of President Bashar al-Assad, Germany's Bild am Sonntag paper reported on Sunday, citing German intelligence.

Syrian brigade and division commanders had been asking the Presidential Palace to allow them to use chemical weapons for the last four-and-a-half months, according to radio messages intercepted by German spies, but permission had always been denied...This could mean Assad may not have personally approved the attack close to Damascus on August 21 in which more than 1,400 are estimated to have been killed, intelligence officers suggested.

<...>

Members of the foreign affairs committee present at the briefing told Reuters Schindler had said that although the BND did not have absolute proof Assad's government was responsible, it had much evidence to suggest it was.

This included a phone call German spies intercepted between a Hezbollah official and the Iranian Embassy in Damascus in which the official said Assad had ordered the attack.

- more -

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/08/us-syria-crisis-germany-idUSBRE98707B20130908

So much for the claims that the rebels did it. The scenario suggest that Assad disscussed the attack with his military, and there is evidence that pro-Assad Hezbollah stated that he "ordered the attack." Assad bears responsibility for his military, and this makes the situation even more precarious.

[cali]

1. which is what I've been saying since I read Juan Cole

saying it.

[VanillaRhapsody]

2. Me too...but it doesn't matter...

the buck stops with Assad. He is still responsible...

actually it is worse...it means that the chemicals are not being adequately protected from such an outcome...they are not being safely kept. This makes them even more dangerous to exist under such conditions.

[ProSense]

4. Exactly. n/t

[RetroLounge]

30. WARGASM!

RL

[ProSense]

32. NUTSPASM. n/t

[RetroLounge]

33. BOMBS! SURGICAL STRIKE! NO BOOTS (YET)!

BOMBS!!!!

WOO HOO!

RL

[ProSense]

34. BOO! n/t

[RetroLounge]

41. BOO(TS) ON THE GROUND

As soon as Obama says so...

Rah Rah!

RL

[cali]

9. No. fuck killing more civilians with our bombs.

[RetroLounge]

31. WARGASM!

RL

[reformist2]

3. If Assad is incompetent, in over his head, the appropriate response is negotiation, not bombing.

[VanillaRhapsody]

5. the appropriate response is to remove the chemicals from the equation....

[cali]

6. no one thinks that is possible without troops in country.

and fuck no, bombing is NOT the answer.

fuck the warmongers.

[ProSense]

7. That's not true. n/t

[cali]

12. bullshit. there is no way to remove those chemicals with bombs

or to wipe out all methods of delivery. And even your adored President and JK don't claim that.

[ProSense]

15. OK General cali, but the claim "no one thinks that is possible without troops in country"

is bullshit

[NuclearDem]

20. No, it's not.

Even the Pentagon admitted it would take 70,000 troops to secure the chemical weapons.

[ProSense]

22. Yes, it is: "no one thinks that is possible without troops in country"

...is not a fact. There are those who believe it's possible.

Clinton took out Saddam's chemical infrastructure without troops.

[NuclearDem]

24. There are people who believe unicorns fart Parmesan cheese and hot dogs.

Doesn't mean they're supported by evidence.

And Iraq wasn't in the middle of a civil war, hadn't placed launchers and artillery in civilian population, nor had the Russians or Iranians providing military equipment. Comparing the two is ridiculous.

[ProSense]

29. Insight into how your mind works. Thanks.

"Doesn't mean they're supported by evidence. "

Clinton took out Saddam's chemical infrastructure without troops.

"And Iraq wasn't in the middle of a civil war, hadn't placed launchers and artillery in civilian population, nor had the Russians or Iranians providing military equipment. Comparing the two is ridiculous."

No, making the claim that a similar operation can't be done is "ridiculous." Here you're offering rationalizations that have nothing to do with the claim that ""no one thinks that is possible without troops in country."

[AgingAmerican]

26. Clinton took it out with inspectors

nt

[cali]

23. here Loyalist Commander Pro:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/experts-bomb-chemical-weapon-sites-syria-20115062

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/09/06/destroying-syrian-chemical-stockpiles-won-t-be-easy-may-kill-civilians.html



Your turn.

[ProSense]

28. Strike to degrade Syrian forces would still be limited

Strike to degrade Syrian forces would still be limited

Tom Vanden Brook

The attack would involve launches of missiles solely from ships, according to the two senior officers familiar with the planning.

WASHINGTON — Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel's choice of the term "degrade" to describe an attack on Syria has been interpreted by Pentagon planners as guidance for a limited strike, according to senior military officials.

The weapon of choice is the Tomahawk cruise missile aboard four Navy destroyers in the eastern Mediterranean. Though powerful, the missiles alone would likely not be capable of crippling Bashar Assad's regime, which is accused of using chemical weapons. The targets selected for attack are meant to punish Assad, not swing the tide in favor of rebels seeking his ouster, said a senior officer familiar with the planning.

That officer, another officer with experience in the Middle East and two senior defense officials with knowledge of the planning told USA TODAY the type of weapons that would be used and the type of targets that would be hit. All spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about the planning.

The attack would involve launches of missiles solely from ships, according to the two senior officers familiar with the planning. The Air Force can fire missiles from outside Syrian air space but are not expected to take part in the mission, the officers said.

- more -

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/09/08/syria-tomahawk-missiles-chemical-weapons/2770949/

Not a single mention of "troops in country."

[Igel]

36. Precious little on destroying all the chemical weapons, as well.

Mostly just "degrading the regime".

How you do that without (1) helping the rebels and (2) degrading the command and control of still-existing chemical stockpiles is a mystery.

But it will certainly make some people feel like they're doing something good.

[VanillaRhapsody]

13. I do!

For years the United States has been seeking to develop warheads that could be used to destroy chemical weapons stocks without the dangers described above.

So-called "Agent Defeat Weapons" are probably available to US commanders. They operate in various ways but the essential feature is intense heat - it is like a super-incendiary bomb - that destroys the chemical or biological agent in situ.

[cali]

17. the admin doesn't agree with you. The pentagon makes no such claims

but armchair generals like you? Oh, yes you know more than they do. How could I be so remiss as to not bow to your brilliance?

[Johonny]

35. It may be possible without troops on the ground

ultimately you need some consequence for the action and you can't give the countries leader a time out. All the facts seem to suggest Obama is planning very hardball in order to force Russia to act. You imagine the hopeful end game to this is Russia ends up accepting either Assad or at least the chemical weapons and then Obama can back down. The least hopeful end game is Obama feels he must bomb.

The bluff of the crazy American is pretty much old hat from the cold war. The problem as I'm sure you know is sometimes we actually did bomb. The positive is many times the bluff of action worked.

As long as there are weapons than war will be part of international politics and the president will have to weigh that option. So far no option that doesn't include war has presented itself as both China and Russia have stalled the UN and many NATO members are unwilling to aid. I have no idea how the scenario will work out and likely if Obama does eventually bomb I will agree with you that he has become a warmonger. Until then I am willing to let whatever cards he is playing play out because I think he has more potential hands to play than the obvious hand everyone hates.

[reformist2]

11. No, that's the pie-in-the-sky response. Bombing a country in chaos will not help at all.

[VanillaRhapsody]

16. who is discussing "bombing a country in chaos"

its not about indiscriminate bombing...its about taking out the chem weapons...

[alberto99]

40. Reremove the chemicals

Oh that to bad to hear about that. but i will do something about that.please let me work on it, and get back to u/

[HardTimes99]

8. "Here's what I don't understand about the attempts to absolve Assad":

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023617601



AKA: Having one's cake and eating it too.

[ProSense]

10. ? The OP doesn't absolve Assad. n/t

[reformist2]

14. See how people misinterpreted your post? I wonder if the 'bombing for peace' plan will be misinterpr

[ProSense]

18. There is always room for everything to be "misinterpreted"

All military actions can be framed as "bombing for peace."

[HardTimes99]

19. Okey-dokie. If you say so - nt

[Logical]

21. Wait, your stance before was that Assad ordered the attacks? WTF? n-t

[arely staircase]

25. I have wondered if this was the case.

FWIW - I don't think anybody credible is claiming this wasn't done by government forces, regardless of their position on what the US response should be.

[Igel]

38. There are still some.

Just not Americans.

That's if we set the bar for "credible" at the same height for everybody, Americans and others.

[Igel]

37. Interestingly, we assume that some people have accurate information and others don't.

Mostly based on what we want to believe.

So we have the main gist of the article being that Assad didn't order it. The takeaway message is what Hezbollah said, that he did. Both are accurate?

If the analyses come back that it's very unlikely that it was Assad's chemical stockpile in play, then the Hezbollah official will just be wrong. Perhaps because he was relying on hearsay or even media reports and conclusions instead of first-hand knowledge. The Iranians said that Assad ordered the attack, and the assumption was that since they were in contact with Assad they should know. Perhaps they relied on this Hezbollah report. Or on 3rd hand reports.

If the analyses come back that it's very likely it was Assad's stockpile in play, then that doesn't rule out a rogue commander. Either one who panicked and decided to take matters into his own hands to protect the regime. Or a commander who's been looking for a chance to get Obama to intervene on the side of the forces he'd like to defect to but can't out of fears for his family--or maybe he just wants to be a kind of hero. Better to sacrifice 1400 innocents instead of letting the war drag on so 100k more die.

Strike the wrong place and you enable the rebels who you may not want to. You might weaken control and enable more rogue commanders. You might just unleash chaos that leads to more deaths. The urge to "just do something" has to be countered by the wisdom to "do what is best, having weighed all the facts and considered all the possibilities." The reptilian brain wants to do something now. Let's at least be mammals.

[ProSense]

39. "then that doesn't rule out a rogue commander"

If the analyses come back that it's very likely it was Assad's stockpile in play, then that doesn't rule out a rogue commander. Either one who panicked and decided to take matters into his own hands to protect the regime. Or a commander who's been looking for a chance to get Obama to intervene on the side of the forces he'd like to defect to but can't out of fears for his family--or maybe he just wants to be a kind of hero. Better to sacrifice 1400 innocents instead of letting the war drag on so 100k more die.

As I said, the scenario suggests that Assad disscussed the attack with his military, and there is evidence that pro-Assad Hezbollah stated that he "ordered the attack." Assad bears responsibility for his military, and this makes the situation even more precarious.

[Live and Learn]

42. Assad bears responsibility for his military?

So you think Obama is guilty of the murders our rogue soldiers have committed?

Obviously we don't know what happened. Even if this scenario is true, diplomacy is always a better solution than war which is no solution at all and simply begets hatred and more war.