Why are you so certain "the U.S.A. is resisting growing calls for military involvement."? The US has long been 'rumored' to be training, equipping, and supplying anti-Assad forces from bases in Turkey (and probably Iraq and Jordan as well).

There is no doubt the U.S. is supplying arms, that is what they do, the Russians and the Iranians are supplying Assad

Obama says chemical weapons would be a game changer.

Then, lo and behold....

"A senior Israeli military official has said Syrian forces have used chemical weapons against rebels several times." BBC 23rd April

Never saw that coming.

Ignoring the fact that chemical weapons have been used without changing the game, why would chemical weapons be a 'game changer'? Is killing a civilian with a weapon derived from mustard (you can probably guess from this that my knowledge of modern chemical warfare is a tad limited) so much worse than good old fashioned lumps of metal? If so, why?

Chemical weapons are no more dangerous than lumps of metal in the sense that both can kill you; but then so can a chair leg. I think chemical weapons are viewed as being more serious because they can inflict mass casualties with little effort. They also have the potential to kill more indiscriminately.

More over of course chemical weapons provide political cover for an invasion. Leaders would have little chance these days of winning the hearts and minds of their populous (and the UN) if the perceived threat was crossbows, catapults and tanks. To gain support amongst the Un and your home population the country to be invaded needs WMD, Chemical, Biological or Nuclear weapons. I think the UN and home populations view this as legitimate as at least the other side then have a fighting chance. This dates back to the spirit of fair play often seen on the fields of Eton.

@ Maniac

Surely then the killing of mass casualties should be the game changer, and not the method. If 1000 people were slaughtered by an enthusiastic legion of chair leg wielding troops it would be far more significant than a dozen people being gassed in a village.

On another note did anyone else notice the Boston bomber being charged with using WMDs? Seems like an interesting change of definition of what a WMD is to me

I couldn't agree more that number of causalities rather than how they are killed should be a consideration. However, part of Obama's message is to try and stop escalation by reserving the use of force. It's hard to say 'Once death rate rises above x thousand, we're going in' whereas saying 'Chemical weapons is a game changer' gives wriggle room.

I still think wars are fought in the gathering support stage first these days. USA/UK/Allies need UN backing, public support and tacit approval from Russia and China before any boots hit the ground. Saying 20,000 or 250,000 people have died doesn't gain much support - 1 death is a tragedy, 1 million is a statics - but chemical weapons and horrific deaths and vilification of the aggressor tends to help the propaganda war.

Gotta make it popular with the public to get reelected and, even though Obama isn't eligible for another term, he still wants to go out with a positive spin on his time in office. An unpopular war would seriously damage that reputation and turn him into a Johnson or Bush, not a Reagan or Clinton.

I believe its the Qataris who are behind most of the funding for arms in Syria. Its amazing how much power that small nation has in the region.

I'm torn over this conflict though. On one hand, we waited too long to enter it, so if we were to enter it now, the Syrians would remain bitter. On the other hand, its not right for us to sit idly by and let this happen. This is me speaking as a human, politics aside. There has to be a way to end this without waiting for one side to kill off the other.

@ maniac

Does it really give you that much wriggle room? If Syria then chooses not to use chemical weapons it allows them to slaughter at will leaving you looking impotent at the sidelines. If Syria does use them you are either forced into action you're not fully prepared for, or you end up pretending it isn't going on and look like a total knob head.

Obama said it changes the game, not we will invade if. Changing the game has lots of wiggle room built in.

It also doesn't preclude massive conventional deaths also being a game changer. Remember, inbclusion of one item is not necessarily the exclusion of another. In this case, chemical weapons are not the only way to "change the game," just the way specifically mentioned.

President Obama is doing something different with Syria - something he accomplished brilliantly in Libya (what happened later is independent in my mind) - by fighting without putting a single soldier on land. He's also pulling a page out of the Bush book in that he's not supporting police states that are in good with the USA but instead is supporting freedom of the people and doing what he can to maintain it. Thus far, Egypt and Libya and others have been unsuccessful in keeping it once they've had it in their hands, and frankly, I don't think Obama could have done much about that.

I hope he stays out of Syria and I think he can. It's not our war so we don't need to make it ours.

@ Draug

It doesn't, but one has to wonder just how many conventional deaths it would take to count. I doubt there is a ruler on the planet who believes Obama would take any significant action other than sanctions. His words carry no weight and the aid given to rebel groups is too insignificant to win him any friends. Syria is a complete cock-up.

We should not intervene in Syria at all. The Russians will fight tooth-and-nail to keep that regime standing, as Syria is their only way in and out of the Med.

The *voice of reason*???

Fuck. That.

Assad has used chemical weapons and still we do nothing. A massacre of hundreds of people was revealed last week, and no one said anything. The foreign policy of the United States is as morally bankrupt as ever. Outside of morality, there is no place for reason, only absurdity and hypocrisy.

I have some (but not a lot) of sympathy for the 'Syria's none of our business' philosophy, but the non intervention bridge has been significantly damaged by the support for the rebels already given.

Out of interest, in what sense do the Russians use Syria as a way in and out of the Med?

The U.S. needs to step back as the leader of foreign police actions. If the UN is unwilling to pass a resolution calling for armed intervention then the US has no legal reason to intervene. Not to mention we can't really afford to put boots on the ground and an air campaign against Syria would be quite different than that against Libya. If we are going to endorse the right of self determination we must let the Syrians decide this for themselves. Self determination also means bearing the cost of regime change. I would be quite happy to see Assad fall, but the Syrian people must do this for themselves. We should not go beyond arming and training these people. And that only as a means to balance the capabilities of the opposing sides.

"Out of interest, in what sense do the Russians use Syria as a way in and out of the Med?"

IIRC, Russia leases a small naval base on Syria's coastline.

Why not just tell the Russians they can still have that port and then assassinate Assad

Would anyone like to try to justify doing nothing while almost a hundred thousand people are slaughtered? I invite you.

What would you say the monetary value of that many lives is? Ten billion? One billion? A hundred billion?

The monetary value of one life is approximately ∞.

@Puddle - guess how many independence or revolutionary movements would have succeeded if it weren't for foreign support. Not very many. Self determination does not mean letting them kill each other. It means creating a peaceful environment in which they can vote. That is self determination.

lol bo_sox maybe it ought to be, but it isn't.

@Puddle,

We are PART of the UN. A huge reason the UN does nothing is because we are unwilling to act.

I have little doubt that we *could* get a UN resolution if we *really* wanted one, even over Russia's objections. It's just that we won't. Pray to God that such a thing as is now in Syria never happens in your country, because apparently the rest of the world is content to hide behind "non-interventionism" as a way of assuaging your pain as you bleed out.

I would not necessarily be opposed to intervention, *but* we *have* to avoid a costly Iraq-esque occupation. Wars are not expensive. Occupations are expensive. Kick their asses and go home, like we did in 1991.

@thucy - I don't think we could get a UN resolution and the reason is something most diplomacy players will appreciate. How many times have we had alliances with someone on the basis of 'I'll help you if you take x and go no further' when you ally goes further, you're pissed to say the least. When your ally comes back and asks for further assistance and promises to only do x and nothing else, do you assist them again?

In Libya the Russia's and Chinese agreed to enforcing the no fly zone as a means of stopping the escalation of violence, and that's it. We all know that the UK and French airforce assisted in the insurgents progress across the deserts.

Russia and china will not be fooled so easily again.

Just in

US Defence Secretary Chuck Hagel has said American intelligence believes "to some degree of varying confidence" that Syria has used chemical weapons.

Man up boys, looks like we're going in.

Nah, I don't see it. Chemical weapons, while technically WMDs, aren't enough of a justification to go in.

Anyone who thinks American "advisers" and Forward Air Controllers aren't already on the ground in Syria (as they were in Libya) is very naive.

lol you took the US government at their word on their foreign policy? i thought you knew better maniac

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/04/25/three-important-caveats-on-the-syria-chemical-weapons-report/

Tolstoy - I don't think I'm very naive, but I don't think we have any operatives there. The civil war there is very different than in Libya. There's no "front line" or solidly rebel held territory. The fluid situation there would put too many American lives at risk, should we have any conventional type troops (even special forces) there. Do I believe there are CIA agents there facilitating the transfer of arms? Of course I do. But that's probably all they're there for, nothing more.

@ Tolstoy

Why would there be any FACs? (most likely highly-trained USAF TACPs in this case) There aren't any friendly aircraft to control. Well, there's not *supposed* to be any friendly aircraft.