Possible Western military response to Syrian chemical weapons use

[AkSaber]

So, what's the plan exactly to get rid of Assad and make sure the next regime will be stable and democratic?

Considering that the sort of 'military response' being more than considered will certainly not remove the Assad regime and will not stop them engaging in further massacres, could somebody perhaps explain what the point of it will be?

Feel free to answer both questions at once.

There is no plan, and with the UK vote, I suspect no war either. I doubt the US would do this alone.

I hope. Doubt it'll happen, though.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Yes, UK is out.  Have there been any other US military actions in the past century in which France participated, but the UK didn't?

Did the UK get at all involved in Indochina?

[retromike22]

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

The U.S., Britain and Israel have Used Chemical Weapons within the Last 10 Years

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

That article you cite considerably overstates the facts.  It also is applying what is essentially a "one civilian in the area" rule that would make the use of weapons not to be used against civilians totally unusable in war and that clearly is not what the CCCW was intended to do.  Conversely the Geneva Protocol bans the use of chemical weapons against both civilians and soldiers.  Incidentally, whether DU is more ecologically harmful than other less effective alternatives is at present unknown.  DU gets a lot of its scare potential because it is mildly radioactive, but the bioeffects are mainly ,and possibly wholly, due to it being a heavy metal.  If DU weren't being used, tungsten would be, and causing a lot of the same problems.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Yes, UK is out.  Have there been any other US military actions in the past century in which France participated, but the UK didn't?

Did the UK get at all involved in Indochina?

France was alone in Indochine.

The US were alone in Vietnam.

All is said in that great scene of the dinner with the French in Apocalypse now.

Ah and, Hollande said that no matter what the UK did, France is still in, people speak about some strikes before Wednesday.

I don't remind how it happened within UK for Lybia, I was too focused on France, the Parliament did vote it? By a large margin if so?

It's crazy how 'the policeman of the world' screwed so many things with that 'Mission Accomplished', screwed things for Iraq, Middle East, Western countries (kudos Tony, Syrians can thank you I guess...), the only advantage would have really been to make France looking saner than others...

So, so far we would have:

France
UK
Turkey
US

In case something actually begins before the UN establishes the use of chemical weapons, I guess UK would join later.

Those who refuse the military intervention:

Arab League
Canada
Italy (if no UN)
UK (waiting)
Germany
Egypt
Venezuela
Russia
China

Yesterday there was noise in the Egyptian papers about Egypt shuting Suez Canal to US war ships, 'lol' if so...

What a broad list. Maybe others that I didn't note.

So, what's the plan exactly to get rid of Assad and make sure the next regime will be stable and democratic?

Considering that the sort of 'military response' being more than considered will certainly not remove the Assad regime and will not stop them engaging in further massacres, could somebody perhaps explain what the point of it will be?

Feel free to answer both questions at once.

At once?

I'd say you both are sounding so Americans...

(please stop to comfort me in the idea that there is only one Anglo paradigm, and that that one has been seized by a kind of annoying US mentality...)

More seriously though and to try to answer the 2nd question, I might focus too much on that case but to me it seems it could begin more or less like Lybia.

That is 2-3 days of strikes on military facilities and different kinds of logistics through which Assad can commit massacres on civilians. The most logical would be that it is focused chemical weapons logistics, who knows, might only be limited to that, which would also raise one question: striking chemical weapons?? oho, it can raise some kinds of problems... Israel did it a few months ago apparently though.

That's the minimum that I'd see as possible personally.

And later, we'll see...

The difference with Lybia is that all was clear since the beginning, so the 2-3 days of strikes was the US cruise missiles destroying logistics in order to establish a NFZ and French and UK planes striking to defend cities and to destroy some targets in cooperation with rebel forces on the ground. Later France has been the only ones to have allegedly sent weapons, and later engaged its helicopters till the fights calm down, wich happened with, yeah, the fall of the regime.

I keep making the coparison because it seems the operational scheme could be more or less the same, the difference would be the targets, and the kind of commitment we decide on the long term.

And to be fair, I'm not sure both Hollande, Obama, and whoever would be in, and their advisors actually have a clue right now about what they exactly gonna do...

Beyond the duty of protection one can have toward one who asks for it, one of France major angle in this conflict has been to at least make that one part can't massacre the other one, as long as one part can take the advantage by force, a political solution isn't possible. Which also was one of the French justifications to deliver defensive weapons.

In short, try to neutralize the murdering machine 1st, and then you see.

[Silent Hunter]

Yesterday there was noise in the Egyptian papers about Egypt shuting Suez Canal to US war ships, 'lol' if so...

Pretty sure that's against international treaty; the Canal remains open to all ships in peace and war.

[Hatman 🍁]

Surprised Canada is staying put. The Harper government has been very pro-military. I guess they figure it would be rather unpopular here.

[Franknburger]

The best way to keep Assad from further using chemical weapons is getting his "big brother", i.e. Russia, telling him to stop. There is a G-20 summit coming up next week in St. Petersburg Moscow. Looking at the G 20 member list, which, aside from the five permanent UN security council members, includes, among others, Canada, Japan, Germany, Italy, the EU, Turkey, Saudi-Arabia, India, Indonesia, Australia, South Africa, Brazil and Argentina, I am pretty sure Syria will rank high on the agenda. I am also pretty sure that host Putin will see quite a number of fingers pointing at him, which means, he will either risk the summit's failure, plus Russia's worldwide diplomatic isolation, or he must come up with some sort of "constructive solution".  
I haven't yet figured out whether Obama tries to play the "bad cop" in order to allow Putin to give in without losing face, or whether he has become so pissed off by Putin that he does not care anymore he may be presenting Putin the perfect opportunity to get back to cold war rhetoric. In any case, there is obviously a lot of "behind the scenes" preparatory talks going on from the German side, and it appears Merkel has convinced Cameron to at least try to get Putin moving during the G 20 summit (there may as well have been a few phone calls from 'down under', Canada and South Africa...)

When it comes to "getting rid of Assad, without helping Al Kaida", the obvious strategy would be to back up those areas that are under opposition control but Al-Kaida-free.  That is first and foremost Syrian Kurdistan. So you get two quasi-autonomous Kurdish regions, one in Iraq and one in Syria, with the Iraqi one sitting on a lot of oil. Not necessarily something the Turkish government would like to see....

[afleitch]

1,429 killed says Kerry.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Surprised Canada is staying put. The Harper government has been very pro-military. I guess they figure it would be rather unpopular here.

If it ends up being just cruise missile strikes as has been speculated, does Canada even have any?

[Tender Branson]

Those who refuse the military intervention:

Arab League
Canada
Italy (if no UN)
UK (waiting)
Germany
Egypt
Venezuela
Russia
China

Add us to that list:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Hatman 🍁]

Surprised Canada is staying put. The Harper government has been very pro-military. I guess they figure it would be rather unpopular here.

If it ends up being just cruise missile strikes as has been speculated, does Canada even have any?

Just did a quick google search: the answer is no.

[ZuWo]

Those who refuse the military intervention:

Arab League
Canada
Italy (if no UN)
UK (waiting)
Germany
Egypt
Venezuela
Russia
China

Add us to that list:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Now that you have mentioned Austria I can also post what the current president of another incredibly important global superpower (Ueli Maurer, SVP, Switzerland) has to say on this matter:

"[...] an open conflict and the intervention by third countries should not be a solution to the problem and we have every interest in achieving a political and peaceful solution in Syria."

http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/politics/Illegal_strikes_not_about_regime_change.html?cid=36767780

[njwes]

1,429 killed says Kerry.

lolz @ that specificity. What a joke.

[Hatman 🍁]

1,429 killed says Kerry.

lolz @ that specificity. What a joke.

Yes, people getting gassed is soooo funny

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

1,429 killed says Kerry.

lolz @ that specificity. What a joke.

Yes, people getting gassed is soooo funny

Yes, because EXACTLY 1,429 people were killed, and that is not rebel/Assad propaganda

[barfbag]

1,429 killed says Kerry.

lolz @ that specificity. What a joke.

Yes, people getting gassed is soooo funny

Your take on when Saddam Hussein gassed his own people?

[Mr. Morden]

Those who refuse the military intervention:

Arab League
Canada
Italy (if no UN)
UK (waiting)
Germany
Egypt
Venezuela
Russia
China

Are those countries that say a military strike is a bad idea and that they oppose the US or anyone else doing it, or do you just mean that they themselves won't provide military assets for any operation?  Because if a military strike is launched, I suspect there may be quite a few Western countries (like Australia, for example) who don't get involved directly, but either say they support the US's actions or stay neutral and don't comment on it.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Those who refuse the military intervention:

Arab League
Canada
Italy (if no UN)
UK (waiting)
Germany
Egypt
Venezuela
Russia
China

Are those countries that say a military strike is a bad idea and that they oppose the US or anyone else doing it, or do you just mean that they themselves won't provide military assets for any operation?  Because if a military strike is launched, I suspect there may be quite a few Western countries (like Australia, for example) who don't get involved directly, but either say they support the US's actions or stay neutral and don't comment on it.

Well, it would take as many precisions as there are countries, more or less.

In short though, in this list only Canada doesn't condemn a military action, it just doesn't join the operations yes.

And apparently the US now say that Australia and the Arab League would be supporting some 'limited strikes'.

It would take 3 lists:

Those who do:

France
Turkey
US

Those who support:

Canada
Australia
Arab League
Maybe others that I didn't notice

Those who oppose:

What's left of the preceding list, those added by other posters, and maybe others

Ah and, how come did I forget it...

Have there been any other US military actions in the past century in which France participated, but the UK didn't?

...there is something on France2 right now about...Lafayette.

To be fair the UK were involved then, but, well...

(I don't know whether this was planned on TV before or if it's a 'conjonctural thing'...)

[Silent Hunter]

When did France became so hawkish? You guys led the charge over Libya as well - literally, your planes were the first over it.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Syria is a former colonial possession.

[Eraserhead]

This just gets weirder and weirder (see Obama's press conference).

[Silent Hunter]

Syria is a former colonial possession.

Libya was Italian.

[GMantis]

Syria is a former colonial possession.

Libya was Italian.

Italy was never as enthusiastic about its colonies as France.