The Real Conspiracy

[David Morris]

This is what Juan Cole thinks:

> The chemical attack in Ghouta seems likely a military response to these
Jordan-trained, Deraa-based guerrillas coming up into Rif Dimashq.

On Monday, September 9, 2013, Bekah wrote:

> I'm curious as to why Assad would use poison gas on children from his own
> country.   I know that Hitler wanted to eliminate Jews and that's been the
> sort of thinking which has gone along with these types of mass atrocities -
> just get rid of the perceived enemy.   So -  does Assad want to eliminate
> his own citizen children?  Are they the children of the rebels?   I've not
> heard anything about the line of Assad's thinking.
>
> One possibility I've come up with is that it's a ploy (possibly factual)
> to get the US involved and stir up a huge anti-American/West sentiment in
> the entire Middle East and elsewhere - possibly reason for attack,  etc.
>  ???
>
> Thoughts?  Why would Assad attack the children? What reason (rational or
> not) could he have?
>
> Bekah
>
>
> On Sep 9, 2013, at 6:12 AM, David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com<javascript:;>>
> wrote:
>
> > http://www.juancole.com/2013/09/strategy-missile-strikes.html
> >
> > Are there any grand strategy considerations behind the Obama
> administration’s desire to bomb Syria? Yes, though they rest on doubtful
> premises.
> > The increasing importance of al-Qaeda-linked radical Sunni
> fundamentalist groups to the civil war in the north of Syria has posed a
> dilemma for the Obama administration, which began calling for the ouster of
> President Bashar al-Assad in late spring of 2011.
> > The US now doesn’t want the regime to fall relatively quickly as in
> Libya, because the al-Qaeda affiliates have become too powerful and could
> well take over Damascus. Highly undesirable. The US does not want that
> outcome, and neither do Israel or Saudi Arabia, the two pillars of US
> policy in the region.
> > So US policy is to join with Saudi Arabia and Jordan to encourage a
> second front at Deraa with anti-al-Qaeda fighters a la sons of Iraq and
> limiting access for heavy weapons to Jabhat al-Nusra at the northern front
> by intercepting them in Turkey. Turkey and Qatar are upset with this policy
> and both try to subvert it, undisturbed by the al-Qaeda tendencies of their
> allies.
> > So far the Sons of Syria haven’t exactly come together quickly, and this
> strategy is likely a multi-year effort. It also has the potential for
> provoking a Syria-Jordan War, since Jordan is clearly the base.
> > The chemical attack in Ghouta seems likely a military response to these
> Jordan-trained, Deraa-based guerrillas coming up into Rif Dimashq. The
> Obama administration’s plans for a missile strike in response to the
> chemical attack is part of the southern, “Sons of Syria” strategy comes
> because that strategy cannot succeed if the regime is allowed to use
> chemical weapons to level the playing field. The US will therefore threaten
> the Baath regime with a rapid Libya-like overthrow, with US air support
> given to the rebel cause, if Damascus goes on using chemicals. The US hopes
> that the Baath will be afraid of a Libya scenario and will therefore agree
> to fight fair, and then the US, Saudi Arabia and Jordan will continue with
> the ‘Sons of Syria’ strategy with the further fighting playing out with
> conventional weapons.
> > In the meantime, the radical Sunnis of the north will be left in place
> but starved of the resources needed to make further progress against the
> regime there. The US strike will not only punish the regime for chemical
> weapons use but also opportunistically attempt to degrade some regime
> capabilities, presumably especially those useful in the Deraa-Rif Dimashq
> front.
> > There are three big problems with the US intervention strategy:
> > 1. There is enormous space for mission creep
> > 2. The premise that the regime can be forced to fight the southern
> rebels fairly is not entirely plausible
> > 3. The US-Jordan-Saudi rebel forces are Sunni and could well be
> radicalized by their fight with the Alawite army; the idea that people keep
> the ideology you pay them to have is simplistic.
> > As for mission creep, the Baath regime may believe that the threat of
> sustained US air intervention is a bluff, and may call that bluff by
> continuing to fight the ‘Sons of Syria’ with chem units. The US at that
> point would either have to go in hard or go home, and as Les Gelb admitted,
> it is impossible in Washington circles to advocate cutting one’s losses in
> the face of a failed gambit.
> > One way the incipient Washington strategy could succeed is if Russia and
> Iran can be enlisted in forcing the regime to stop using chemical weapons.
> It would not shorten the civil war, but it might avoid a US quagmire. The
> signs that President Obama will go back to the UN Security Council are
> positive, and might be a step toward this outcome.
> >
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20130909/f6b1af7c/attachment.html>