Monthly Archives: August 2013

View 787 Saturday, August 31, 2013

“Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency.”

President Barrack Obama, January 31, 2009

“Build your enemy a golden bridge to retreat across.”

The Art of War

Sun Tzu

Never do any enemy a small injury.

Niccolò Machiavelli

President Obama has announced from the Rose Garden that (1) Bashar al-Assad has used chemical weapons against his own citizens in the civil war in Syrian, (2) this must be punished as it is a monstrous crime against humanity, (3) he has the authority to strike Syria in any way he thinks important since he has deemed that leaving the gas attack unpunished would be a threat against US national security interests, and under the War Powers Resolution of 1973 has the authority to order whatever military action against the Syrian government as he deems proper to deal with this threat to American National Security.

He has not always so interpreted the 1973 Democratic resolution designed to get the US out of Viet Nam just when Saigon had won the civil war, and was now faced with a Russian armed invasion by an armored army from North Viet Nam. The Resolution was carefully crafted to allow the US to anticipate or respond to Soviet actions – particularly a nuclear attack on the US – while keeping us out of future Viet Nam wars. When the North invaded South Viet Nam with 150,000 troops and 3 armored divisions, in 1972 the US assisted in the defense of the South with air and sea support, lots of munitions, logistical efforts, but little ground combat forces, and the invasion from the North was defeated; of the 150,000 sent into South Viet Nam, fewer than 50,000 ever got home. The US/South Viet Nam alliance had won major war at minimal US costs. Then came the 1973 Resolution, and when the North invaded the South in 1975, the US gave its ally no air support, and supplied the Army of the Republic of Viet Nam with 20 rounds and 2 hand grenades per man. The Soviet Union equipped a new armored army that would have been respectably large in World War II. It was sent South in a massive invasion and the US left South Viet Nam to its own devices. Saigon fell, and the era of the boat people was at hand. The War Powers Resolution had done its work.

The present interpretation is different: "A limited engagement such as the one tentatively proposed for Syria, involving no troops on the ground and relying on weapons fired from air and sea, does not appear to fulfill the vague criteria for ‘hostilities’ under the War Powers Resolution," says Christopher McKnight Nichols, a professor at Oregon State University and an expert on the U.S. military history. "Thus the proposed intervention in Syria does not appear to require a deadline for congressional approval or force withdrawal."

Having asserted that a strike against Syria is necessary and proper, and that he has both the physical means and the constitutional authority to order this punitive bombardment, the President announced that he will wait for Congress to come back from the Labor Day holidays and ask for Congressional approval before he sends in the cruise missiles. This will be a bombardment, not an invasion or a punitive expedition.

It is an act of war and by definition of interference in the internal affairs of Syria.

I am no great fan of the United Nations, but President Obama has said in the past that he is.

A/RES/36/103

                                                   91st plenary meeting

                                                   9 December 1981

          36/103.  Declaration on the Inadmissibility of Intervention

                   and Interference in the Internal Affairs of States

               The General Assembly,

Recognizing that full observance of the principles of

non-intervention and non-interference in the internal and external

affairs of sovereign States and peoples, either directly or

indirectly, overtly or covertly, is essential to the fulfilment of

the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations,

1. Approves the Declaration on the Inadmissibility of

Intervention and Interference in the Internal Affairs of States, the

text of which is annexed to the present resolution;

2. Requests the Secretary-General to ensure the widest

disseminaion of this Declaration to States, the specialized agencies

and other organizations in associaton with the United Nations, and

other appropriate bodies.

But, the President says, over 1400 Syrians were killed in the chemical attack including 426 children; that clearly has to be punished, and although the British have decided that they won’t participate, the French (who would not let our air strike against Khadafi fly over French airspace when Reagan bombarded Libya) are all for us.

We live in interesting times.

Since some bombardment of Syria is now considered necessary and proper, the question becomes one of choosing targets. The purpose of the US bombardment is to teach a lesson: you must not use Soman, Sarin, Tabun, VX, or even mustard gas in your civil war. The bombardment is explicitly intended not to effect a regime change; it is punitive only.

Targeting the stockpiles of chemical weapons, assuming that we know where they are, seems a singularly bad idea. Indeed, if Assad can herd his enemies into areas around a war gas dump and there comes a terrible explosion that distributes VX or Soman around the area, who can say that this was not some missile fired from a US warship, or a drone, or from some rocket base in Israel or Jordan. “Our enemies said they would bombard us. Now they have done so.” Of course that requires an explanation of why there was a store or Tabun, but the US still has some stockpiles of really nasty stuff – it turns out that safely getting rid of it is much harder to do than we thought – and having a secure stockpile isn’t an international crime. “We had it secured. But we couldn’t secure it against whatever the United States fired at us.” Or of course the grand plea: “We didn’t have Sarin. The US did. It was their missile that carried it.”

Or, perhaps in keeping with the notion that the US Navy is now serving as the long range bombardment system for al Qaeda, we could crater Syrian runways, blow up their air control towers, and generally cripple as much of their air force as we can find. It might work. But no battle plan survives contact with the enemy. The Syrians are not fools.

Keeping an air force from being a target is tricky but possible. One assumes that the Syrians have learned a lot from the Swedes who successfully kept a modern air force distributed all over the nation. Not just helicopters, either. You do need fuel trucks and possibly pipe lines.

Of course the French will help choose targets. They used to run the place before World War II – and they still have commercial interests in Syria.

If we do find their airplanes and blow them up (expensive aircraft destroyed by even more expensive missiles – modern war is not cheap)  the Syrians will have to buy more modern airplanes from the Russians, which ought to benefit the Russian economy. Perhaps someone in the Middle East will then feel threatened and want to update their air force and come to MacDonnell-Douglas or Boeing, which might have some benefit for the US. And perhaps that is unduly cynical.

I am glad I am not involved in target selection for the coming bombardment of Syria.

Of course it is not entirely clear what the Congress will have to say. The wording of a resolution authorizing the President to punish an unruly nation with a naval and air bombardment will prove interesting. With the President I look forward to the debate.

For whimsical consideration only: would we be better off if the Egyptian military discovered that at one time Syria and Egypt were the “United Arab Republic” (back when the two Hashemite monarchs in Jordan and Iraq formed in retaliation to Nasser’s United Arab Republic the United Arab Kingdoms). The Egyptian President could decide that the union still existed, and send the Mamelukes into Syria to reestablish order and bring Syria into union with Egypt again; to be governed of course by a coalition of the Egyptian and Syrian military. 

View 787 Wednesday, August 28, 2013

“Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency.”

President Barrack Obama, January 31, 2009

“Build your enemy a golden bridge to retreat across.”

The Art of War

Sun Tzu

“Never do any enemy a small injury.”

Niccolo Machiavelli

"President Obama believes there must be accountability for those who would use the world’s most heinous weapons against the world’s most vulnerable people."

John Kerry, Secretary of State

We are abuzz with speculation about what act of war the United States will commit against Syria, apparently without any Congressional resolution or any United Nations consent, in order to teach the Syrians that they must not ignore international law. Apparently this is agreed to by France, but there is parliamentary debate in Britain; and of course Russia disagrees entirely.

The common consensus is that sometime in the next day or so – possibly as early as this evening – the Navy will launch Tomahawk missiles, targeting Syrian airfields. One presumes that the Syrian military authorities will have dispersed their aircraft and fuel assets to other places; craters in runways are easily fixed. Assad would do well to be in a bunker well outside his usual sphere of travel. As to what other targets are “legitimate” when the United States bombards a barbarian port as Great Powers frequently did in the 19^th Century we can only speculate. The United States is serving as the al Qaeda Air Force, but whether we are allowing al Qaeda Syria any consultation in target selection I can’t say. Since President Obama is aware of the reaction to President Clinton’s symbolic bombardments, we can assume that this will be at least symbolically more effective. Craters in runways and perhaps the destruction of a few fire fighting and search and rescue aircraft conveniently left exposed may have to do.

It is of course the very definition of doing your enemy a small injury.

Of course there are those who advocate doing Bashar al-Assad a severe injury. Bomb hell out of them. Blow up his palaces, destroy his home. Reagan scared Khadafy into abject submission and deference. Perhaps it will work with Assad. The problem here is that having frightened Khadafy into being more willing to cooperate, we built him no golden bridge when his country exploded into revolution. The lesson being taught in the 21^st Century is that dictators ought never to let go, because you will be hounded to your death, and your children killed. And if you can get nukes, get at least one, and quickly. It is a lesson easily learned even by a stupid man, and actually few dictators got their position from being stupid – or at least didn’t keep them long. Claudius was elevated to the purple by a drunken sergeant who discovered him hiding behind an arras and was elevated to command by officers convinced that he was elderly and befuddled: they learned better. Most of those elevated to supreme command have to be a lot more bloodthirsty. Claudius learned early that you have to be ruthless – don’t do enemies a small injury – as Messalina discovered.

It does seem certain that we are about to become involved in another war in the Middle East. It will cost ten times as much as is estimated, and will have unintended consequences. It will also have grave implications concerning constitutional government in the United States of America.

The New York Times discusses the legality of bombarding Syria from the safety of the sea:

Bomb Syria, Even if It Is Illegal

By IAN HURD

Published: August 27, 2013 345 Comments

EVANSTON, Ill. — THE latest atrocities in the Syrian civil war, which has killed more than 100,000 people, demand an urgent response to deter further massacres and to punish President Bashar al-Assad. But there is widespread confusion over the legal basis for the use of force in these terrible circumstances. As a legal matter, the Syrian government’s use of chemical weapons does not automatically justify armed intervention by the United States.

There are moral reasons for disregarding the law, and I believe the Obama administration should intervene in Syria. But it should not pretend that there is a legal justification in existing law. Secretary of State John Kerry seemed to do just that on Monday, when he said of the use of chemical weapons, “This international norm cannot be violated without consequences.” His use of the word “norm,” instead of “law,” is telling.

Of course pelting people with missiles has some consequences. It is an act of war and presumably make all the members of your armed forces legitimate targets of retaliation. One supposes that no one is very concerned about that.

Nerve Agents

Jerry,

I looked at some of the victim tapes and they sure were twitching in a familiar way. Admittedly, my personal experience is with demo goats. A bit of neurotoxin in the eye; twitch,twitch; a syrette of atropine in the haunch; artificial respiration by the modified chest pressure/hoof pull method. About five minutes later the star staggers off the stage back to the pen. Survive three shows and you are off to Pelham Range to live a feral life.

Folks around Anniston might be able to tell us how the herd is doing these days.

Since the MSF doctors did not bring anybody back from the brink and there is plenty of atropine available in the area, it looks like somebody came up with old(probably) Russian rockets loaded with GD. Atropine won’t help with that.

As to whodunit, now there is plenty of room for speculation. May not even have been any of the serious participants.

Val Augstkalns

I presume that someone used nerve gas in Syria and killed between 100 and 300 people in an incident that changed nothing about the course of the civil war – except to enlist the United States to serve as al Qaeda air force.

a very short guide to the middle east

http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/a-short-guide-to-the-middle-east

Jerry,

Just received

What if anything do you know about this? I’m looking for confirmation or discreditation.

http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2013/01/leaked-emails-prove-obama-backed-plan-to-launch-chemical-weapon-attack-on-syria-and-blame-it-on-assa.html

I know nothing about it nor does anyone else I have asked. It seems enormously unlikely: unlikely that there was such a plot, and even less likely that anyone involved in such double dyed villainy would ever use an e-mail for any part of it. In any event no one I know considers it likely, and few consider it possible.

Senator Cruz of Texas is trying a direct experiment in this Internet age: he is seeking support for withdrawing funding from ObamaCare when the next continuing resolution – there won’t be a budget of course – comes up this fall.

http://www.dontfundobamacare.com/

No intervention in Syria

Dear Dr. Pournelle,

Having read on your site, I was inspired to create a white house petition urging restraint in Syria. 100,000 signatures will force SOME kind of a response, even if it’s nothing more than a pat on the head.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/say-no-war-syria/cr4tYvSG

Feel free to sign and pass on if you agree.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

View 787 Tuesday, August 27, 2013

“Transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency.”

President Barrack Obama, January 31, 2009

“Build your enemy a golden bridge to retreat across.”

The Art of War

Sun Tzu

It has become breaking news and hard to follow, but one thrust is clear: the neo-cons and Secretary Kerry seem determined to involve the United States in the Syrian war. There has been no suggestion of what would get us out of the war once we are in it.

The provocation is about 100 civilians killed by war gas. The death of those civilian Syrians could not have been very useful to Bashar al-Assad, and thus he would have had to be a very stupid man to have ordered their use against that target: if you are going to cross a line in the sand, you don’t do it by spitting across it.

In the old days it was traditional for major powers to demonstrate their serious intentions by bombarding a port of a minor nation that wasn’t paying sufficient tribute to the major power. A warship would pull into the harbor and bombard the fort. Tomahawk missiles are I suppose the modern equivalent except that we will be bombarding cities far inland. Drone warfare with a vengeance. If we are fortunate the result will not exceed more than 200 civilian casualties. We will be certain there will be some, and that there will be a teddy bear in the wreckage shown on world television.

The news states that we are doing target selection, and trying to involve others in the fight, to include Turkey. Is this an invocation of NATO against Russia? I don’t know of any formal alliance between Russia and Syria; there is nothing like WTO involved.

We seem on a track to war. Not to effect a regime change – after all both Kerry and Mrs. Clinton have said that Bashar al-Assad is more liberal than his father and at one time they seemed to prefer him to the rebels who slaughter Christians – but to “punish” Syria for using war gas. And we have decided that he has used them, in the most ineffective way he could have used them, for no military purpose whatever.

I’m waiting for the TV image of the teddy bear on the wreckage from an American bombardment.

Syria and the "third possibility that nobody counted upon"

Jerry

I recall listening to the “Entire Massacree” of Alice’s Restaurant some 45 years ago, and many times since. Aside from inspiring me to visit the village of Stockbridge, Massachusetts, the song had a line in it I have never forgotten:

"There was a third possibility that nobody had counted upon."

I thought of that while pondering the recent chemical attack in Syria. Seemingly everybody wants to blame the government, but the government denies they made the attack. As chemical attacks go, it was pretty small. Would the Assad government risk US intervention over so small an attack? I haven’t heard that any strategic assets were being threatened. It just seems like a random attack. Who would do such a thing?

There are four major factions in Syria – one government and three separatist groups. I think the Kurds had nothing to do with this. It seems unlikely the Assads would have much to gain from this attack. The quantity of gas used in the attack seems to fit the resources of someone who had captured that supply from government stores, not the government itself. Could this be an example of the jihadists attacking secular rebels and civilians with captured gas?

Ed

I find a false flag operation far more probable than that Bashar ordered an ineffective gas attack just so he could be accused of using them.

Jerry,

I am speaking as someone who has professional experience and knowledge obtained from professional contacts but no access to specific intelligence.

1. I am mortally convinced that Saddam had chemical weapons, to include non-conventional chemical weapons. Based on information I’ve seen, a portion was likely transferred to Syria by Saddam, a portion was disposed of by Saddam’s forces, and a portion was disposed of by other means. I can’t confirm any of this, but I have seen too much evidence – virtually all open source – just short of confirmation to believe otherwise. I can speculate on sound reasons why the government would suppress such information, even to the political embarrassment of President Bush.

2. Regarding the current Syrian exercise: I am going back to your original comment: who did it. This looks like an attack mostly against civilians in a rebel-held zone, and the casualties appear to be mostly non-combatants. Kerry is blaming Assad, but it could as easily be a false flag operation intended to force the US in against the Assad regime. Given the previous round of emails-essays about Muslim Brotherhood involvement in US politics, I am forced to the belief that the current Administration is supporting the false flag.

A

It would be far better for the United States to be thought feckless for assuming this was not done by Assad than to have us involved in yet one more perpetual war for perpetual peace. We have plenty of work for the armed forces without killing Syrians in Syria.

WMDs in Iraq

Dr. Pournelle,

I have to toss the "BS flag" when anyone says that no one found any sort of VX, Sarin, or whichever sort of nerve agent in Iraq. I personally met soldiers from the 4th Infantry Division that not only stumbled upon bunkers of 55 gallon drums full of it, they had to go through the complete decontamination procedures, to include the extra long swabs rammed up into their sinuses and all other orifices. Painful to say the least.

I’m sure that, for whatever reason, our military was directed to report that no WMDs were found. I cannot come up with any good reason why this was so, but suffice to say, that statement is not correct. I lump it in the same category with the stories from Vietnam when our military claimed that Agent Orange had no side effects and from the Gulf War, as is still maintained that Saddam did not use chemical weapons on our soldiers, even though the chemical detectors were repeatedly set off from the "smoke" drifting in on my unit’s positions. Our NCO told us that his direction was to wear NBC suits and masks until told otherwise.

In short, I was in Kuwait and spoke with the 4th ID chemical guys and know the people that experienced the chemo attack in the Gulf War. The all stick by their stories.

Keep up the good work,

Bill R.

But there was great incentive to show WMD and take Johnny Depp over to look at them. Along with other critics of the Iraq war. I would have thought that Bush had paladin officers out looking for any signs of WMD ready to summon the New York Times…

Syria–a DARPA challenge?

How do you disable chemical weapons from afar? What can we do neutralize the poison in the tanks? Or in the atmosphere? Put a blanket over the stockpiles? Chelate the stuff in the air? I realize that such technology might not be available right away, but looking ahead, it seems like a good investment, not only for rogue states, but also for everyone’s homeland security.

Maybe we could yet turn the whole dreadful Syria thing into a positive, if we could figure out a new way to deal with gas, before they turn some loose on closer to home.

JP

Vaporize and burn. There was considerable research on this at Edgewood in the 1960’s and I make no doubt there has been more since them. It is a messy operation and if there are a lot of chemicals the timing is crucial: the napalm has to arrive just in time to prevent the toxins from dispersing before they can burn, but after the disruption of their containers.  I have no idea whether the Navy has ever practiced such operations. They are very tricky and the chance of something going wrong and killing a lot of people is quite high.

If your own troops are threatened there are desperation operations; after all, one does not wait for the enemy to fire his machine guns if you can blow up the bunker.  But if the bunker is in the middle of an orphanage it does give pause to those who order the bombardment.

When I was a sophomore in high school I concluded from my studies that the law ought to be color blind.  Except for the Brothers at my school I was regarded as a communist. I continued in that opinion for the rest of my life, and now I am regarded as a hopeless right wing radical.  Yet I continue to believe that the law ought to be color blind.  I have a dream.

An 88 year old WW II vet was murdered in Spokane by two teen agers who were apparently infuriated when he defended himself, and doubtless thought he had dissed them when he didn’t plead and give them everything he had. I do not see much national outrage. http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/26/us/world-war-vet-beating-death

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/07/13/justice/zimmerman-it-firing/index.html