.jpg)
Remember, in class we discussed threats, deterrence, and how credibility is necessary for these to be successful. Read the pieces linked above and answer the following questions for participation credit:
- Do you trust the intelligence that indicates the use of chemical weapons by Assad's government? Why or why not?
- If so, should the US back up the threat posed by the Obama Administration? Or should we trade a bit of credibility in exchange for staying out of yet another conflict in the Middle East?
I believe that sarin gas has been released but it is undermined the causation of how it became upon Syrians: accidental spillage or purposive release. At this point, I look to the Washington Post article by Max Fisher where he wrote about the U.S. varying degrees of confidence and how we need further investigation in terms of whether the sarin gas of the Assad regime was usage or exposure. Gearan and Whitlock spoke of the need for a thorough United Nations investigation to amass direct and tangible evidence of the regime possessing chemical weapons before any action takes place. The Obama administration has made clear their red line stance on having a “whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized”. In the past, policy decisions have been made on intelligence assumptions and been proven incorrect. I believe we need to wait until investigations can confirm the presence of the chemical weapons as well as the effects of either the “usage” or the “exposure” to determine intent before any actions are taken. The administration is perceived to be taking a verbally highly dramatized stance on the “red line” of any chemical weapons possession or proliferation actions when reviewing the language in the Swampland Times article of “unacceptability” “accountable for their actions” and “not tolerate”. The United States does not need to back up the threat because until an investigation takes place, officials must reason with the rationality of a cost-benefit analysis of why the would Assad regime would purposively release minimal amounts of chemical weaponry progressively at the risk of military retaliation. We are already involved financially with Syrian humanitarian and defensive force efforts so to involve ourselves in a militaristic efforts without concrete evidence or credibility would only multiply our militaristic expenditures in furthered failed attempts. Credibility is also imperative when accounting for the number of American military troops that would be necessary for intervention and would be put at risk of bombing the chemical weapons of the Assad regime.
ReplyDeleteI think that the use of chemical weapons by the Assad government is still highly questionable. Intelligence on the matter appears very inconsistent. For instance, the White House stated that evidence was based on “physiological data” but that the method of exposure was unconfirmed. Meanwhile, Israeli intelligence seems much more confident that the purposeful use of chemical weapons occurred. The conflicting information leads me to believe that evidence exists but it may not be related to the Syrian government in any way. Because of this, US intervention is surely a bad idea. The US government has already been in hot water when it comes to acting on faulty intelligence (invasion of Iraq) and doing so again could hurt future credibility. Furthermore, minimal evidence also means that chemical weapons have not been utilized much (if at all) so there is no need for military action. If concrete proof arises, then action should be considered, but only if the threat to civilians is high. At the current time, most Americans probably want to stay out of another costly war in the Middle East. Involvement would benefit the US little and would further increase our excessive debts. Yes Obama’s threat may lose credibility if action isn’t taken, however this is a sacrifice worth making. Further investigation must be undertaken before any military action or sanctions are imposed.
ReplyDeleteAlden Knipe
In the fact that the use of chemical weapons is being debated, then it means that more information is needed. There are several sources that confirm the use of chemical weapons; both from our western allies (France and Britain), and by regional allies (Israel). Even the Syrian rebels “know” for a fact that chemical weapons are being used; however there is still some speculation that this is just a ploy to force American engagement. Thousands have died in this civil war, and almost more than a million have been displaced. However, America shouldn’t let this violence be the meaning for our possible involvement in Syria. The use of these chemical weapons needs to be one-hundred percent verified. Word of mouth from a couple of Israeli soldiers and “psychological” proof seems to be a bit flimsy for proof. America needs to be careful about what conflicts they get involved with, just because “weapons of mass destruction,” are rumored to be used within its borders. I think that if these weapons are actually being used upon its people, then America should intervene in some way. For decades America has acted as a world police force; constantly stepping into conflicts that don’t necessarily call for America’s help. However, as a powerful and developed country, we owe it to our neighbors abroad to aid them in whatever way we can. The threat that Obama has made has set the Obama administration up for failure. If America does nothing, then more harm might be done to the Syrian people, possibly with these chemical weapons. In addition, the administration will seem weak, allowing more long-term problems to emerge. If America honors its threat and does engage in Syria, then there may be little support from other Middle Eastern countries. However, America must preserve its credibility among the international community. If these chemical weapon usage reports can be confirmed, then America should have limited engagement in Syria.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Alden's contention as far as the validity of the intelligence stating that the Assad Government is using chemical weapons. The intelligence seems to be highly volatile and changing constantly - the opinions are flying from every direction and while some seem certain, others seem very vague and unstable. I feel that the US government should wait for a bit more credibility in my opinion, not only to save face, but also to save time and money that could be once again wasted. It is clear that the actual use of chemical weapons would certainly warrant some intervention - however I believe that there should be substantially evidence that reveals their use as concretely as possible before any military action is even debated.
ReplyDelete~Elyssa Geer
While I do believe that these victims died as a result of Sarin exposure, I do not think Assad or his government is directly responsible. Like the "Three important caveats" article argues, the "small scale" use of chemical weapons does not make any sense. Many countries have publicly stated their opposition to the use of chemical weapons and their intent to combat it if they come into play, so that would not be a good decision on the part of Assad's government. In addition, if Assad was feeling bold enough to use chemical weapons, I think he would have used them on a much larger scale than a few individuals. Also, the use of the word "exposure" is disconcerting because it indicates that although these people have been exposed to chemicals, there is no way to tell who did it or why. If it is later discovered that Assad's government did use these weapons, I think the United States should back up their threat in a very limited way and ONLY if we are 1000% sure.
ReplyDeleteDo you trust the intelligence that indicates the use of chemical weapons by Assad's government? Why or why not?
ReplyDelete1. America is the number one country when it comes to our intelligence being correct. I feel it is less of a question of whether or not the Syrian government used chemical weapons at this point, especially if the American intelligence on this matter is ““varying degrees of confidence”. If the sources that the American government uses are even somewhat confident on this matter, then Obama has no other opinion to believe than the one provided by his top analyst on these matters. It seems that Obama is now in a situation very much like the one that former President George W. Bush found himself in concerning Iraq all before 2003. There is always a lead in to war. If the United States’ intelligences are pointing towards the use of chemical warfare, and since Obama did claim that this was his “redline” subject, then it seems that we are ever more close to another costly war based on the grounds of America’s goodwill towards other nations and people.
If so, should the US back up the threat posed by the Obama Administration? Or should we trade a bit of credibility in exchange for staying out of yet another conflict in the Middle East?
2. Obama is the commander-in-chief. Whereas our current President is a civilian with no military background, he is still the one with the final say so in the matter of how America plans to go to war. The only threat that seems to have been made is that the U.S. will now request for the U.N. to find further evidence of what the U.S. is reporting, mainly, that chemical agents have been used by a nation and its regime on its on citizenry. If this is true, than it shouldn’t be left up to just the United States to handle this matter, but defiantly should fall in the realm of a global problem that needs a response from the world’s most powerful I.G.O. I don’t feel that America would lose credibility for staying out of another conflict. It is not solely America’s job to patrol the world; it should fall upon all the signing members of the U.N. Security Council, who should look past their own country’s position on the Syrian conflict, and realize that all countries are held accountable by the Geneva Accord and the modern conducts of war. It is a well-known fact of all nations that you should not use chemical weaponry on your on civilian population. If this did happen, all nations should be held accountable in dealing with the nation which acted out of line; not just America.
I do trust the US intelligence that Assad's government is using chemical weapons. They are the top analysts in the country, and even though the reports are in "varying degrees of confidence", there are others like Israel who firmly believe that Syria is using chemical weapons. I applaud the US for having the UN investigate to get all the facts. The US needs to make sure that the information we have is 100 percent accurate before we send even more troops and spend more money on yet another war. I also believe that the US should and needs to take action if Bashar is found to be using chemical weapons. If we do not take action, future deterrence's issued by the US may not seem credible to state considering using chemical weapons.
ReplyDelete-Gizman Abdijabar
While further investigation may be necessary to prove the allegations toward the Syrian government, I think that it is reasonable to say that we should take warnings by professional intelligence collectors seriously. On the case of trading credibility, it would be economically smart to avoid the conflict in Syria, but it seems to fight against our place as one of the top military powers on earth. With our position of power, we have somewhat of a responsibility to make sure that the rights of people all over the world are protected. In this situation, however, if the conflict could hurt our economy in anyway, it would be smart to become as little involved as possible.
ReplyDelete-Ben Primes
In the 1980's I more than likely would have trusted this Intel, however today I am a bit more skeptical. I believe that "may" is the keyword here, as in Iraq "may" have weapons of mass destruction. The reasonable doubt should be the reason for hesitation, because Syria is not a place that the United States needs to become involved in right now. I believe that it was appropriate for President Obama to make a statement asserting his opinion on the matter, but I believe that we should play the waiting game in this instance. We need to eliminate imperfect information by waiting for more Intel, and eventually confirmation of the use of chemical biological weapons. This is strictly opinionated, but I believe that the American government has been releasing information much sooner than it would have normally been released say 20 years ago in order to win back the trust of the American people. As far as the Obama administration goes, there are few events that truly characterize an administration. Whether it be a flubbed attempt at hostage rescue, promiscuity in the oval office, or a failed attempt to find weapons of mass destruction, Presidents are always looking for a way to leave office with a positive outlook on the administration, which with most 2nd term Presidents almost never happens. And with the immense disparity in support of passing the Healthcare legislation, Obama could use a military win, and I wouldn't really count killing Osama after watching Zero Dark Thirty. However, this situation could serve as a make or break scenario. Intervention could lead to one of three options. First, U.S intervention could in fact prevent the Syrian Government from using (or continue using) chemical weapons against their citizens which is the optimal outcome. Secondly, The U.S could not intervene and run the risk of having another Rwanda on our hands, which is second best choice. Or, thirdly, the U.S could intervene and realize that chemical weapons were in fact not being used, thus creating unneeded tension in the Middle East, that could potentially lead to global conflict. What we need to do in addition to gather ore Intel is to make this a multilateral effort, potentially through the U.N because it deals with humanitarian issues, so that we could put the blame on the IGO if we are wrong, yet if we are right Obama would still more than likely get credit for publicly shedding light on the issue through his threat. If it were up to me, I would definitely wait before we intervene with guns blazing, because then we would be up against the Syrian Government, and not just rebels.
ReplyDeleteTo make a more definitive decision as to whether or not Asad's government has used chemical weapons, I would need more evidence. In some cases intelligence reports can be misconstrued or precisely correct. To examine the accuracy of these reports, I look to past historical events. There were intelligence reports that mentioned that the Afghan government had weapons of mass destruction, which was one of the reasons in which the US invaded Iraq. However news sources reported and there was a consensus of confirmation that the Afghan government did not possess weapons of mass destruction. In contrast, there were intelligence reports of a heinous conflict in Rwanda. Yet, according to Samantha Powers in her article, "Bystanders to Genocide" the US did not act on these reports. This intense conflict turned into what is known as the Rwanda Genocide. Thus, it is evident from the evidence of the news sources on these two events in history, that intelligence reports can be misconstrued or accurate. Again, for me, in the case, of Asad governement's using chemical weapons, more evidence is needed. But, on a more broader scale, how many reports are necessary for US foreign policy elites to cross the "red line" and get involved?
ReplyDelete