The Gathering Storm in Syria
 

Hopefully this will not happen...but the pieces are being set for a greater Middle Eastern War.

There are many different players in this conflict, each with their own set of interests. As I said, hopefully it does not escalate from here but things do not look optimistic.

As for U.S. involvement, it seems to be damned if we do...damned if we don't.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art..._118699-3.html

I've been thinking about this for some time. There is an idea that there is (often but not always) a "natural political map" of any given area, with national boundaries following cultural groups. Each group, having it's own language, bases its ideas on its own literature, and develops its own cultural values; and consequently various groups with differing values are best administered separately.

The situation in Central and Eastern Europe post WWII is a good example of national boundaries being imposed in tension with the natural map. In the 1990s, the natural map reasserted itself. The Czechs and Slovaks managed an amicable divorce, but Yugoslavia was too entangled and erupted in war.

The borders of the Middle East, defining countries like Jordan, Syria and Iraq, were drawn up in the peace conferences after WWI and WWII, and largely represent the global ambitions of the victorious powers at the various conferences. These countries are largely fictional. Most people in them do not, it seems, identify as being a citizen of that country, but as being a member of their own particular ethnic group. These countries were only held together by repressive governments. Now, after the removal of Saddam Hussein, the sectarian violence in Iraq, and the Arab spring, the idea that the government cannot be resisted has been undermined, and various groups are taking things into their own hands.

From here, I can see three ways to go. Firstly, the current governments effectively repress the mobs, and force the lid back on the simmering pot for a few more years, til it all erupts again.

Secondly, the whole Middle East could peacefully reorganise itself along a lines of European style centralised regulation, with a high degree of regional cultural independence. I consider this massively unlikely.

Thirdly, and most likely, the area slides into further ethnic and civil war, going through a particularly long and bloody Balkanisation. I would imagine this taking quite a few years to play out, lead to millions of deaths and huge refugee flows, and really screw up the worlds oil supply networks. Because of the oil, the world's great powers will want to push for option one, and keep deferring the problem.

At the end of the day, I imagine the Middle East with radically different borders. Not only would various Shi'ite groups and Sunni groups have their own countries, so too should the Kurds, the Palestinians, and many other minorities. Many of the Arab states, especially the Gulf Emirates, have (One Side) majority populations, with (Other Side) rulers. That has to change.

TL/DR: Like the Balkans, only longer, bigger, and with oil.

Now the Russians are going to supply Syria with an anti-aircraft rocket system, to kill any west imposed no-fly zone, it may get very hot, very soon.

Sounds like too much work. Maybe the nuclear powers in the region can divvy up the rest of the geography and wipe out those populations. All they do is bicker anyway.

I forgot to mention how many of the great cities are multi-ethnic.

Czechia and Slovakia had a reasonably straight border that produced roughly convex country shapes with the majority of the ethnic sorting already done. The former Yugoslavia didn't. Consider also the partitioning of India/Pakistan.

This could get quite messy.

And how much will the great powers get involved?

See, here's where a long term autocracy would have benefits for the US. Over the next five years the US government could spend, rough guess, a trillion dollars in a process of banning oil imports, and subsidising the creation of an alternative fuel network on eg hydrogen, biofuel, electric etc etc.

But that would be an outrageous interference in the natural market system, and a huge waste of taxpayers' money.

So instead, over the next five years, they'll spend two trillion dollars on building military capability and using it to "stabilise" the middle east, because the nation needs the oil.

Wouldn't it be nice to be able to simply walk away from the greater middle east, let them sort their shit out in whatever way seems fit to them, and maybe just take a humanitarian interest in the people there?

I agree with pretty much all of this. I read an article a few years back (can’t find it) predicting that in 2100, there will be twice as many countries than what exists today due to the nation-state boundaries not taking ethnic differences into account. Africa is the main one.

This scares me as well. My outcome predictions are a little different but boil down to basically the same thing. Also, it seems clear that the situation has gotten so bad so quickly that a peace deal will never be accepted by all parties.

If Al Assad and his allies win, a major crackdown will ensue and regime change will be unlikely in other countries (Iran, etc.). This will probably result in the most stable condition for a non-peace outcome but the problem is that this peace will likely be temporary. Things may boil over later or may not.

If the Syrian rebels win and the fighting remains isolated within Syria, there may be vast amounts of Shia ethnic cleansing and the government that follows (if one even does) will likely be unfriendly to not only U.S. and Israel, but also its Iraqi (mainly Shia) neighbors. This is not a stable condition.

If the fighting erupts into a Greater Middle Eastern War, then the outcome is anyone’s guess. While a re-divided Middle East is a potential option, it may also end up not being as “clean” as the Balkans, resulting in further problems. Or, one side may end up winning and the region becomes more centralized as well. I don’t think we can automatically assume that decentralization of nations is the only possible option.

The reactions from Israel, Turkey, Iran, Europe, Russia, and China are up for grabs as well. Russia and China care more about stability and economic gains than ideology so their “loyalty” could be lost or transferred instantly. If Assad falls and the fighting expands or continues, it isn’t about regime change anymore for Europe and the US. Both sides will likely be unfriendly to Israel.


In hindsight, this entire Arab Spring may also cause reflections of foreign policy strategies. I think Obama is going to find out the hard way that having good intentions and pushing for the best outcome (peace deal) may unintentionally result in a much more destructive outcome. As realpolitik as it sounds, if the US and Europe supported Assad from the beginning, many lives would be saved. On the other hand, pursuing realpolitik policies that doesn't take civilian opinion into account, like China and Russia is now and the US has in the past, may also result in a more unstable environment that becomes extremely hostile. The shortcomings of all the major foreign policy ideologies may be exposed in the next few years.

Yes, the possibility of a long war that leaves one group dominating other groups across a large area, still in violation of the "natural political map", is an outcome I hadn't listed. That would just defer the situation for another generation.

Fareed Zakaria gives a historical perspective of why the US should not intervene in Syria. The argument is that Syria closely resembles Lebanon and Iraq where all three countries had (colonial installed) minority ruling regimes. In both Lebanon and Iraq, decade long civil wars broke out and he doesn’t expect Syria to be any different, whether the US intervenes or not. In this case, the US cannot stop the violence; we can just influence who is on the receiving end…

http://vimeo.com/67864718

Add this to your speculation ZG:

-- US oil production is rising quite sharply; it rose more than 10% in 2012

-- As of last month, US oil production is higher than consumption for the first time since 1995

-- Most US oil imports are from Canada

No way. That can't be true. Did you mean to type that? We're a net oil producer now, not a consumer?

Yes, and which state is the second-highest producer of oil, behind Texas?

North Dakota!

I really enjoyed that video. I think Fareed Zakaria is pretty sharp.

I also really enjoyed this series of counter-points, via Ta Nehisi Coates:

http://www.theatlantic.com/internati...istory/276797/

Apparently there's a lot of historical context that he glosses hard, in giving the historical context.

Or just go back to posts in 2003 when scumbags in America gleefully planned to massacre 5000 Americans for no useful purpose. The same arguments apply. 1) Where is the smoking gun? 2) What is the strategic objective? 3) What is the exit strategy defined by that objective?

Zarkaria's discussion dovetails quite nicely with what everyone here - at this point there should be no one - what everyone here should have learned from recent history. Or what was then called Deja vue Nam.

He even asks a simple question. Who is the enemy? Because our leaders in 2002 were so dumb, they even failed to answer that question. As a result, almost everyone in Iraq was the enemy. Because none of those three key points existed to justify military action.

Having seen "convincing evidence" of (small scale) use of chemical weapons by Assad's forces, Obama has approved "military support" for the opposition.

There is no part of this I am comfortable with.

Me neither.

As a parent, you have to set limits and when the limits are tested, you have follow through with the consequences or your kids will know you are a total pushover.

Obama said if they crossed the line, he would do this. I wish he hadn't said that. He painted himself into the corner. But it's not like it's this crazy thing he said. It's reasonable to say that using chemical weapons on your civilians is crossing the line. It's a messed up situation. I just hope we don't give them any really good weapons they can use against us later.

I don't see us getting anything by going into Syria. Arm the rebels - seems like a reasonable response if the Sarin gas incidents are probably true.

Anything after that, should be humanitarian aid for the refugees, and later on, funds to help them survive as they rebuild their devastated country.

No other involvement.

There are NO "friends" to the US, in Syria, and Israel *should* act independently, for it's own defense and interests.

A line has been laid down not just for Syria, but for every other country in the world as well:

If you use chemical weapons, you will face some vague amount of reprisal, such as your runways may be cratered.

I do not feel competent enough to decide whether this is a good idea. I will leave it up to you guys.

I would imagine that every possible action in this situation will be viewed as a bad idea in hindsight.


The big factor in this "intervention" will be how much assistance we actually give the Syrian rebels. Right now we are just giving small arms and Obama has made it clear that this assistance is not a blank check. This amount of assistance will be cheap with a low potential for blowback. I would get worried if we really start escalating our involvement.

Another possible explanation for the minimal assistance is that this intervention is more about Iran than Assad. Right now Iran is helping fund Assad and has a large stake in Assad winning. The longer this civil war prolongs, the higher the price-tag for Iran.

http://drezner.foreignpolicy.com/pos...realism_stupid

oxymoron? ...or just plain :D

Its a term for liberal interventionists. Essentially promoting military intervention for humanitarian purposes. Think Balkans and what Susan Rice believes should have been done in Rwanda.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_internationalism

I usually avoid the politics threads. Can I just drop in and make the smart-ass comment that firearms are technically chemical weapons being both composed of matter and requiring a chemical reaction to launch the projectile?

(I know it's ridiculous. Don't take it seriously.)

You forgot to mention that the bullets can cause lead poisoning.

Not so much the dose as the delivery...

I vote no to arming Al Q but I foolishly thought Iraq and Afghanistan would go badly so who knows?

Yes to UT'S point about the international precedent (remember how Libya started playing nice after Saddam got the boot).

And Yes to PH45's article about the greater strategy - although it is a dangerous game to play. Still, what is a good idea in this situation isn't clear to me.

However, what the Syrian Rebels need is something to counter Assad's air power. With a no-fly zone and bombing of the Syrian Air Force bases pretty much off the table, that leaves giving the rebels shoulder fired SAMs. These are well capable of bringing down a civilian jet, in whatever country they are used. Hmmm. You really want to give those to people who are friends with Al Q?

Maybe if we could make SAMs that have GPS chips that track where they are are and disable themselves if they are used outside an approved war zone...


However, I was a little puzzled by this (in PH45's article):

Israel? or the Saudis and "friendly" Arab states? How so? Why would any of them like more weapons drifting around in Syria?

The Syria ship has sailed. We missed that boat when we didn't begin humanitarian aid early in the rebellion. Medical support in particular would have enabled us to establish rapport with indigenous people who could point out foreign interventionists and identify which rebel groups, if any, were seeking a free Syria as opposed to those which would simply replace one oppressive regime with another. We'd be playing Russian Roulette (pun intended) if we began arming factions now.

Soon after the rebellion began, I checked with a contact [old Army buddy and physician] at a government contractor whose services include providing former military special operations medical personnel for such purposes. Civilian veterans with specialized skill sets enable the government to accomplish what its military can do; but, without having to put boots on the ground. I was told that the government wasn't letting such contracts. There was no political will to get involved anywhere else in the region, not even on a humanitarian level, after the fiascos in Iraq and Afghanistan strained our relations with our allies in the region.

If we intervene now, at any level, it will be so that Barack Obama can save face after his red line was crossed just as George Bush Jr. got us into Iraq to save face after Hussein tried to knock his daddy off. At this late stage, it's better to let the players in the region handle it and clean up after them as necessary. We can always use our political influence in the region to have Syria's chemical weapons destroyed for us if WMD compromise becomes imminent.

This is one of the main inconsistencies I've noticed when looking through different articles. Some say that Assad's air force is a major factor and other suggest that the air force is a really only a small part and it is the soldiers on the ground that is causing the largest amount of damage.

What could go wrong? :D


I think Europe, Turkey, and the other Arab states, namely Qatar and Saudi Arabia, are really pushing for the US to get involved.

Long before the world has any responsibility, first local powers must try and fail. It is their job; not our's. We are not the world's policeman. When we go in, the entire world also goes in. Currently, responsibility only lies with regional powers. Who are crying rather than doing.

Nothing is stopping Saudis, Turks, Gulf States, Iraqis, Lebanese, or Jordanians from providing massively more aid. Many are also rich. But instead they want us to do their work?

The Saudis and Qataris have been arming the rebels for the past few years. I do agree with you that we can not "own" the situation in Syria. If we are going to give weapons, it has to be backseat to the support from other countries. If the rebels manage to overthrow Assad, then let them deal with it.

This thing seems designed for chaos. Its a nice distraction from what could become an American Spring.

I'm still caught on the chemical weapons trip-wire.

The war has killed maybe 93,000 people, to date. That's acceptable, apparently.

150 of them were killed be sarin, not shrapnel? OMG OMG OMG!

I wonder if this is more to do with the recent victories by the Assad forces in a couple of strategic towns whose names I have since forgotten.

That is the sort of idiocy which leads me to believe the President really wants this war, collision with Russia be damned.

Obama seems to either be a bumbling idiot or a strategic realist (see earlier article) with respect to Syria. If he is a bumbling idiot, his hand got played for him from surrounding peer pressure and when Syria called out his red line by using chemical weapons. If he is strategic realist, he is responding to the recent victories by Assad et al. and using their use of chemical weapons as an excuse to get minimally involved to keep the status quo.

I disagree. Obama has had more than enough chances to escalate in the past and he didn't. If Obama really wanted war, we would be already be training the rebels, arming them with heavy weapons, and enforcing a no-fly zone. He has a choice and he has chosen not to. Everything Obama has done (up to this point) has suggested that he wants minimal or no involvement in this.

What pisses me off is the rush by some in Congress to go to war. These are the same people who allowed sequestration and who demand offsets for every dollar spent on domestic programs.

How can they argue against most spending and suddenly find the money to involve us in a foreign conflict that may have strategic implications but that does not directly threaten us?

It is possible that Syria can be a 'hands off' war like Clinton ran in Bosnia or it can be like Bush's Iraq/Afghanistan quagmire. Noone gave Clinton enough credit for not getting us sucked into boots on the ground in Bosnia. Or it can be a proxy war against Russia with both sides giving heavy weapons and aid. What will happen when the first US aircraft is shot down by a fixed emplacement or man portable Russian missile? What will happen if in 5 years a US aircraft in Afghanistan is shot down by a USD-made man portable missile that was given to the Syrian rebels?

Mixed in with the 'freedom loving' rebels are anti-Western radicals who want a religious state and hate secular governments, US, and Russia. The whole 'enemy of my enemy is my friend' bullshit does not apply here.

Probably not so...

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/15/us..._20130615&_r=0
NY Times
PETER BAKER
16/15/13

Heavy Pressure Led to Decision by Obama on Syrian Arms

He wanted to get reelected.
Since the rebellion's inception, his administration has admitted that it doesn't know who to train, who to arm; or, that there is sufficient trust in the overall movement to implement a no fly zone. Lack of knowledge has dictated his actions.
Then why did he draw a red line in the sand. Was he not astute enough to realize that WMD can also be used in limited applications. The US even has tac-nukes that can be delivered in an artillery shell. Did Obama forget that Al-Assad is a medical doctor who knows very well that this can be done with chemicals and biologicals. Did Obama underestimate him?

Whether one believes Obama to be a hero or a traitor to Americans' best interests, he is a politician in his final term as President. Anyone in that position is a wild card. It isn't prudent to assess his post-reelection disposition by his pre-reelection actions anymore than it was to base first term expectations on campaign promises. Past human behavior is not necessarily a good indicator of future human behavior. And I voted for him, just sayin'.

Well said. He knew the voters would never sanction this war. To my permanent shame, I voted for him as well.


So when Mr. Obama agreed this week for the first time to send
small arms and ammunition to Syrian rebel forces,
he had to be almost dragged into the decision at a time when critics,
some advisers and even Bill Clinton were pressing for more action.

Except that he's the President. It is on him, no one dragged him, no matter what unattributed narrative the Times is selling.

Oops. According to the UN via the Washington Times, the sarin gas that was allegedly used ... was allegedly used by the rebels, not Assad.

Umm, does this mean we ought to arm Assad?


Oh and in other news, Iran reportedly is sending/has sent 4000 men from the revolutionary guard.

ETA in other other news, 8,000 troops - mostly US, Jordanian and British, but from 19 nations - are conducting a training exercise named operation Eager Lion about 120 kms from the Syrian border.

http://rt.com/news/jordan-multinatio...exercises-459/

Insufficient weapons. Criticism should start with those who are cost controlling while waiting for the world's policeman to take charge.

We have one obligation. To provide defensive forces for our friends. Especially our friends who are the border states of Jordan and Turkey.

The world (and therefore the US) only has an obligation when the local 'powers that be' screw it up. That obligation does not yet exist.

A best example of how to do this was by Clinton in Bosnia. Until deaths are large enough to even concern a hardass (ie me), Syria's war remains a local issue. It is only getting worse because the local 'powers that be' are not yet criticized (even in the Cellar) for their inactions.

It is their problem. It becomes our future problem if WE are not overtly critical now of their inactions. Nobody is discussing a major problem - near zero weapons and aid from neighboring countries.

Are you arguing that he hasn't gotten involved because of logistics or re-election purposes? Both are valid points and are not mutually exclusive but I have been under the impression that it is more logistics. If Obama and media started banging the war drums with Syria (and Iran) and focus on the extremely fucked up shit happening (chemical weapons, government forces raping women and torturing children, etc.), voter support for intervening could have increased.

Most of Obama's foreign policy decisions have put him in the realist camp and not the non-interventionist or interventionist's camps. From what I've seen, most "realists", or close to that label, have been reluctant to get involved or have proposed minimal involvement. This is due to logistics and a lack of large direct interests in the region (some national interests do exist). This is no guarantee how Obama will react, but based on his past decisions, I would expect minimal involvement unless some big game changer happens and the strategy shifts. Maybe post-election Obama will be different but we will have to see.

On a side point, does anyone remember how popular intervening in Libya was pre-intervention?

I agree. That was a big mistake for Obama. He was probably under pressure to say something and thought Assad wouldn't use them.

I don't think the public call for intervention is dependent on how many deaths have occurred, but more on a cost-analysis of what we would have to do to stop the killing. There are multiple competing rebel groups who will start killing each other if they dispose of Al-Assad. Arming the rebels won't prevent more deaths from occurring and will likely cause more. Plus, Al-Assad isn't a direct threat to US and is an only an indirect threat to Israel. Rebel groups such as Jabhat al-Nusra are more direct threats.


http://www.economist.com/news/middle...mes-forces-and


The article gives a basic overview of what the supposed rebels and their ideologies. This gives good reason for the US to stay out of Syria completely. However, on the other hand, if things spill to far out of control the US may be getting involved one way or another...

Those "things" must spill out so badly that local (adjacent) 'powers that be' *beg* for help. Literally *beg* by acknowledging how toothless and irresponsible they have been. (As European had to admit in Bosnia.)

How much public begging is currently happening? None. Therefore we have no business militarily involved in Syria. (But should be massively involved in collecting facts/intelligence and in discussing solutions diplomatically.)

Why no civil war in Libya? Because we did not intervene. Because enough deaths occurred in every family that 'big dic' thinking earned the contempt it deserves. Therefore ideologies on all side were replaced the intelligent (moderate) thinking. Moderates were empowered because that war was so long and devastating - a good thing.

How many years of civil war in Lebanon were required to finally replace 'big dic' advocates with moderates? So that religious stupidity was replaced with tolerance only found among moderates? Unfortunately, some really stupid Americans (ie Col Oliver North, et al) were so anti-American dumb as to intervene. Therefore America uselessly sent to their death some 200 Marines. Because we let extremists make policy. How many more times must that stupidity happen before enough Americans finally learn lessons from history?

The spillover must be so massive that local 'powers that be' all but openly *beg* in the UN. They are not yet because no where near enough people have died due to their inactions.

If and when we do respond, then moderates who make policy also announce that "We will be the meanest and nastiest dog in the region." Anything less would only be contempt for the American soldier. Which again means three necessary conditions. A smoking gun. A strategic objective. And an exit strategy. Also only possible when the local 'powers that be' finally concede and beg.

BTW, both Jordan and Turkey are slowly moving towards begging.

http://au.businessinsider.com/cia-se...-rebels-2013-6

The CIA and US special operations forces have been training Syrian rebels for months, since long before President Barack Obama announced plans to arm the opposition, the Los Angeles Times reported Friday.

Shocked, shocked, gambling, establishment, etc etc.

Democrats are leading the push for more intervention:

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/po...ategy_on_syria


Well, it now seems that Obama's decision to arm the rebels wasn't due to recent pressure or from the chemical weapons...

Apparently we're supposed to choose our poison, because we definitely want to side-up with one of these.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...an-a-joke.html

or

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/fea...927813389.html

Side up hell, we're America and they better pay attention, dad-gum-it.

We condescend everybody, always have, always will. ;)

Hooray! We've got ourselves a proxy war with Russia! Interestingly, we're the ones arming Al Q. We must have lost the coin toss.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/us-rus...145729405.html

What arms? Is this different than what Obama said he would do a month or so back?

Attachment 44949

"But you said next Tuesday.
.... That's today, not a week from today"

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/us-rus...145729405.html

... gives a story under the same picture that Lamp posted about current developments.

Z, Sorry to step on your post.

I was tired and I reverted to one of my favorite Russian calendar farces
... about the Battle of Ulm, Wednesday, Oct 16, 1805.

Well it looks like your prediction is starting to come true.

http://gulfnews.com/news/region/syri...ions-1.1219353

To show how this looks on a map (red is Assad, Green is rebel, Yellow is Kurd):

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._civil_war.png

If this continues to unfold, I wonder how important coastal cities will become? Where are the resources? What happens to Kurds in Turkey and Iraq?

So the new plan is to use cruise missiles but not to hit anything/anybody important, because we have to show we're serious... in our support of Al Q er... moderate elements. This is where our policy of perpetual involvement gets silly. We know it won't do a thing but we have to do something. No we don't. There is no place to lead the world on this.

Saving face is a flaw human beings, organizations, and governments have.

We're going to drop a hand grenade on the place to save face. Stupid.

With Russia and China already opposed to military action on Syria,
and now with the British Parliament voting against it,
and a large percentage of the US population opposed it too,
Obama is obviously in a hard spot.

IMO, his "red line" statement was appropriate and needs to be enforced,
not just as a "face saving" devise, but as the "right thing to do" when
it comes to gas- and germ-warfare.

If Obama were to take my advice, he would identify, locate, and target
with cruise missiles several of those specific military commanders and units
who were directly involved with the military's use of illegal WMD.
I think this would be an appropriate and limited action which would be
accepted by the world and specifically the US population,
and might prevent the Republican House from initiating impeachment.

Anything else will be politically "damned if he does and damned if he doesn't"

I'm a bit cross with the British press.
Nothing new there then, although I usually toe the BBC line.

They keep talking about Parliament's "failure" to pass a mandate to start airstrikes on Syria. Now I'm torn on the issue personally, but Parliament haven't failed. They have made a decision based partly on public opinion and partly on reaction to previous conflicts.

Right or wrong it is a decision, not a failure.

And no, I do not like the words "punish" and "send a message" either.
That's reactionary talk, vigilante talk.
Don't bomb the f**k out of a country to teach it a lesson. Because guess what? Doesn't work.
Oops. Maybe I do have an opinion on this after all.

Perspective. Failure was from the Prime Minister's perspective.

You really cannot blame Parliament. Since 2000, America lied and decieved the UK repeatedly. Even surrendered to the Taliban and then dragged NATO into the second Afganistan war. Lied completely about Saddam's WMDs - it should have been called treason. And then created an insurgency by violating the most basic military concepts. Even dragged the UK into that useless and unnecessary war. With Tony Blair all but wanting to be lied to.

Comments from Gen Dannatt so long ago accurately defined a morass that America had put the UK into. And what the UK had to do to get out. Of course, back then, it was too early for most layman to appreciate who the real enemy was. Or how right Dannatt was. Back then, when facts were so obvious, still many layman refused to admit they were brainwashed by Mission Accomplished and other intentional lies.

DejaVue Nam. We have met the enemy and he is us.

Reason for military action must be rock solid and unquestionable. Since we are all still living the destructive legacy of George Jr / Cheney, then many who make decisions only on feelings will be gun shy. You cannot blame so many UK citizens and Parliament.

Well, all of Nato could not "bomb the f**k out of a country to teach it a lesson." Bombing is only pin pricks. However pin pricks accurately placed can have significant attitude consequences IF directed by an intelligent leader and management. We know Clinton in 1998 defanged Saddam. We just did not know it then. His accurate use of all of our cruise missiles left Saddam to invent mythical WMDs. Myths were his last remaining defense. Bombing can be that powerful by limiting or focusing it to specific objectives.

In Syria, objectives are obvious and simple. All his chemical weapons depots and facilities necessary to make them useable. It will make everyone nervous. It will create much yelling. The wackos will spread more lies and insults. But at the end of the month, Assad will not do it again. Since he (nobody else matters) he suddenly appreciates the consequences. As Saddam did after Clinton took care of him.