The Real Conspiracy

[alice wellintown]

To remind Israel and others, Turkey, the US, its enemies that, while Syria
does not have nukes, or a great defense, or great allies in the region,
 accurate and powerful weapons it can use, against an attack by Israel,
others, it has chemical weapons and it can, and will use them.
On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 11:20 AM, Bekah <bekah0176 at sbcglobal.net> 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 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/20130909/2a809241/attachment.html>