Will Bomb Syria or will we reward Assad for using Sarin?
Last edited Fri Sep 13, 2013, 01:59 AM - Edit history (2)
That headline sounds hawkish if jammed into a binary frame-work. Which is one more strike against binary frame-works.
Will I learn to fly on a broom today, or will I slaughter millions?
Neither.
Assad/Putin will give up current stocks of chemical weapons if doing so makes it more likely that Assad stay in power.
Goal: Assad stays in power.
The USA destroying the Syrian air-force would retard that goal more than having chemical weapons advances that goal so it is conceivable that Assad would given up the Sarin if it prevented his air-force being destroyed. He would have to believe that his actions reliably had that effect... that, for instance, he wouldn't give up the weapons and then have his air-force destroyed a month later.
Getting the USA to cut back opposing Assad (not suppling, arming, training rebels, as a for instance) advances the goal of Assad staying in power, probably more than having chemical weapons does. So again, there is a potential deal there. But Assad's position would end up stronger than it was before, so gassing people would have paid off.
Now, to return the the headline... it is not bombast, it is two sincere questions.
Will we effectively reward Assad for using Sarin? (making his retention of power liklier than if he hadn't used it)
Will we Bomb Syria? (Or more to the point, does Assad believe that we will)
The answer to both is probably "no."
Current circumstances make a deal unlikely, so for a deal to happen will require some substantial future change from current circumstances.
I am open to logical counter-arguments. Are there any?
= new reply since forum marked as read
