Damascus gas attack - who did it and how will the west spin it ?

[french frank]

The objective would be to strengthen the rebels .

But I meant that in strict military terms, that would be much too vague as an 'objective':

'Defence sources and independent analysts said that on Syria there had been a disastrous mismatch between incoherent political objectives – driven in the main by moral outrage – and the military means to achieve them.'

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/aug/30/syria-vote-politics-military-uk-role

[MrGongGong]

The objective would be to strengthen the rebels .

aaah yes
my enemies enemy is my friend
can't see where that could go wrong at all ....... perfectly logical and 'common sense' innit

[zoomy]

The military aims would support the political aims of weakening Assad. They would probably attack air defences, barracks, installations that the rebels want to have neutralised thereby weakening Assad depriving him of his military advantage and forcing him to the negotiating table in a weaker capacity or causing a split amongst the ruling elite.

[ahinton]

Not exactly: the sense of what you said was one question, mine was another: What would be the objective? The second half was merely a hypothetical (if nonsensical) answer.

OK; here's my best answer to that. I have no idea what ultimately worthwhile objective could be achieved by such action.

[french frank]

The military aims would support the political aims of weakening Assad. They would probably attack air defences, barracks, installations that the rebels want to have neutralised thereby weakening Assad depriving him of his military advantage and forcing him to the negotiating table in a weaker capacity or causing a split amongst the ruling elite.

You sound as if you would be in favour of military intervention. I was probably mistaken in thinking that your thread title was questioning what 'spin' western powers would put on the news to justify intervening?

[zoomy]

You asked what the objective of military action would be and I tried to provide an answer from a United States perspective. I am not advocating that action, I am just trying to answer your question.

[french frank]

You asked what the objective of military action would be and I tried to provide an answer from a United States perspective. I am not advocating that action, I am just trying to answer your question.

Fair enough. I was just wondering whether there had yet been a clearly stated military objective, rather than a political one.

In one respect, Putin may have a point: if the US has evidence that the Syrian government was responsible for the chemical attack, it should be placed before the UN to be generally assessed.

[zoomy]

I think Putin has outmanoeuvred the United States on Syria at every point - Russian backed Assad is winning the war on the ground, United States is looking very confused after the consensus began to unravel and Putin knows (as well as Obama probably) that Assad forces did not launch the gas attack and that it came probably from the rebels either trying to provoke the United States to enter the war or from warring factions fighting against one another. If the US has genuine evidence they would publish it for the UN to discuss for sure but they do not - their evidence so far uses words like ' in our judgement' 'the probabilities' etc.

[Resurrection Man]

....... Putin knows (as well as Obama probably) that Assad forces did not launch the gas attack and that it came probably from the rebels either trying to provoke the United States to enter the war or from warring factions fighting against one another. ......

As I have said before, your posts are very pro-Assad regime. You have no evidence to support this statement.

[Resurrection Man]

......
Why overtly meet violence with more violence in order to try to satisfy a forlorn hope of achieveing peace?
.....

So you are walking down Hereford High Street and a guy comes up to you and starts hitting you. What would you do? Curl up in a little ball on the ground and hope he goes away? Try talking to him , rationalising with him as to why he is doing it and hope to bore him to death? Run away....no good, he's faster than you. Or have a good go at hitting him back? By your own statement, hitting him back is not an option.

[ahinton]

So you are walking down Hereford High Street and a guy comes up to you and starts hitting you. What would you do? Curl up in a little ball on the ground and hope he goes away? Try talking to him , rationalising with him as to why he is doing it and hope to bore him to death? Run away....no good, he's faster than you. Or have a good go at hitting him back? By your own statement, hitting him back is not an option.

Well, first of all, I wouldn't go walking down there in the first place. Then again I might just use a pepper spray on him; you know, chemical weapons and all that. More seriously, however, at least I would know who was doing the hitting. That said, what happens between two adults in a city high street is hardly to be considered on the same level as a government taking its taxpayer funded armed forces - in possible disregard for the majority wish of its electorate - en masse into another country to attempt to deal with something that it has not started and when it has not itself been the victim of aggression on the part of that country.

[MrGongGong]

So you are walking down Hereford High Street and a guy comes up to you and starts hitting you. What would you do? Curl up in a little ball on the ground and hope he goes away? Try talking to him , rationalising with him as to why he is doing it and hope to bore him to death? Run away....no good, he's faster than you. Or have a good go at hitting him back? By your own statement, hitting him back is not an option.

goodness me
I thought this sort of "Nazi's in jackboots kick down your door and attack your mother" nonsense was a thing of the past ?

[ahinton]

goodness me
I thought this sort of "Nazi's in jackboots kick down your door and attack your mother" nonsense was a thing of the past ?

Well, you learn something new everyday, don't you? - apparently - at least from Resurrection Man - or is it Piltdown Man? - no, it's Ashdown Man, methinks...

[Mr Pee]

Well, you learn something new everyday, don't you? - apparently - at least from Resurrection Man - or is it Piltdown Man? - no, it's Ashdown Man, methinks...

Oh dear.....

[ahinton]

Oh dear.....

"Oh dear" indeed!

But never mind that; the unprecedented and unpredicted prospect of US acting as UK's poodle, as looks now to be very much the case (for the time being, anyway), might at least afford a momentary opportunity for wry amusement in this otherwise horrifying scenario, one commentator ruefully portraying Obama's current stance as characterised by "hurry up and wait"...

That said, it is perhaps now timely to remind ourselves that, at the very opening of this thread, RM did at least follow the OP example by further opening up the possibility that the culprit in the Syrian atrocity concerned could be any one of several - and I think that, as no reliable evidence has since been put forward that incriminates just one of them beyond all reasonable doubt, this fact remains too important to overlook; for that, RM deserves all due credit.