The Real Conspiracy

[David Morris]

The children are just collateral, not main target. They can't fight yet.

On Monday, September 9, 2013, Bekah wrote:

> Okay -  I read Cole's column today -
> http://www.juancole.com/syria
>
> It doesn't really answer my question,  but it will do for now - he's
> striking the rebel children,  right?   Thank you.
>
> Bekah
>
> On Sep 9, 2013, at 8:27 AM, David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 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> 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 cuttin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://waste.org/pipermail/pynchon-l/attachments/20130909/72789cb9/attachment.html>