Now that chemical weapons have been used on civilians in Syria, and with boots on the ground with OIR, what should be our response?

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 04 Apr 2017 20:49:53 -0400

The previous administration called the use of chemical weapons by Syria a "Red Line" which was abandoned. Now that chemical weapons have been used on Civilians during the current administration and with boots on ground with OIR what do you think?

Response by SFC George Smith made Apr 4 at 2017 8:57 PM

SFC George Smith — Tue, 04 Apr 2017 20:57:18 -0400

where did they come from...
or were they leftovers from Iraq...

Response by SSG Edward Tilton made Apr 4 at 2017 9:16 PM

SSG Edward Tilton — Tue, 04 Apr 2017 21:16:12 -0400

Sarin is marked, you can tell where it came from. When everyone was blaming Sadaam Hussien for the use of Sarin at Halabja, the Army War College issued a report which showed that the Sarin used was originally produced at Ft. Detrick Md. and Issued to the Shah of Iran, not Iraq. I can't seem to locate that report any more. Bashir al Assad and his Russian allies aren't going anywhere. I am ols enough to remember Assads father battling Black September many years ago.

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 4 at 2017 9:31 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 04 Apr 2017 21:31:52 -0400

I would gather to guess that until the CBRN is used on US troops, our response will be to: Remember ROE, Do Not Engage, Render Assistance if and when requested for medical aide

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 4 at 2017 10:12 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 04 Apr 2017 22:12:29 -0400

I think that one thing people don't remember is that the after the "red line" was breached, the talk was that there would be US strikes against Syrian government targets. Sensing his ally was in danger, Vladimir Putin swooped in and brokered a deal where Russia would take possession of all Syrian chemical stockpiles and destroy them. President Obama was clearly relieved to not have to engage seriously on Syria at the time, although he did authorize some action later on.
Question is, if the Russians got rid of all the Syrian chemical weapons way back when, where is the Syrian government getting more to use against rebel and civilian targets? There are only a few possibilities:
1. The Syrians made more WMDs. Not terribly likely given the situation on the ground, but possible.
2. The Syrians hid some of their stockpile from their own friends, the Russians.
3. The Russians willingly allowed Syria to retain some of their stockpile.
4. The Russians are allowing the Syrians to utilize weapons that the Russians were holding onto for destruction.

I don't like any of those possibilities, because all of them mean that we were played for suckers. Of those, I'd put my money on choice number two, but since chemical attacks have occurred regularly since the "handover", this seems less and less likely as time goes by.
What ever the case may be, we need to find out. If the Russians are in cahoots with using chemical weapons on civilians, that needs to be widely publicized and potentially referred to The Hague for war crimes charges. Charges against Assad are overdue as it is.
Further, given our attention to the area and the significance of WMDs being employed, it is completely inexcusable if US Intelligence Services were not watching that handover very closely.

Response by LTC Eric Udouj made Apr 4 at 2017 10:40 PM

LTC Eric Udouj — Tue, 04 Apr 2017 22:40:48 -0400

So in tracking the war in Syria - and some have been - then the answer is of course this is not the first use of them since the Red Line debacle - plenty of NGO reports out there listing each of the attacks that have occurred. We just ignored it. How many attacks occurred this week -- One or three?
It is very evident that the stock piles were not all removed - and that they still have some.
But the question is actually far more complex than these items of discussion. What triggered the Assad regime to use Chemical weapons this week - and how was such a red flag not seen by Western Intelligence. The risks of using such at this point are huge - so something drove the decision. That is the real key to understanding.

Response by SSgt Gary Andrews made Apr 4 at 2017 11:01 PM

SSgt Gary Andrews — Tue, 04 Apr 2017 23:01:09 -0400

I'm not sure what our response should be......but I do hope Trump has something more in mind than just blaming it on Obama.

Response by SGT Jerrold Pesz made Apr 4 at 2017 11:41 PM

SGT Jerrold Pesz — Tue, 04 Apr 2017 23:41:39 -0400

I don't think that we should be in Syria and I am not sure that we aren't supporting the wrong side.

Response by TSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 4 at 2017 11:47 PM

TSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Tue, 04 Apr 2017 23:47:42 -0400

what should our response be? i seem to recall the nazi party gassing minorities, be it on a much larger scale. but what made the nazis stop being nazis you ask? well, we took all their leaders out into the middle of the street and hanged them for war crimes. suddenly nobody wanted to be a nazi. huh, weird right? it seems such a measure would almost definitely work in a variety of similar human rights situations. too bad we don't have any balls now though, that'll just mean more innocent people will die.

Response by SPC Erich Guenther made Apr 4 at 2017 11:59 PM

SPC Erich Guenther — Tue, 04 Apr 2017 23:59:54 -0400

It's a little late in the game to hold people accountable for something that happened years ago. Most of the folks involved have either fled Syria or are dead.

Response by SGT Tony Clifford made Apr 5 at 2017 1:18 AM

SGT Tony Clifford — Wed, 05 Apr 2017 01:18:56 -0400

This might be an unpopular answer but it's not our problem. Syria is in the throes of civil war. Civil wars are always the most brutal type of wars. As far as the dead are concerned, does it make any difference if they were killed by gas or by death squads shooting indiscriminately? Not really. Innocent people are going to die no matter how much we limit the weapons used. By the way how did the last time we meddled in this civil war go again? Oh yeah, we ended up sending weapons to an extremist group bent on creating a caliphate.

Response by SGT Bryan O'Reilly made Apr 5 at 2017 2:50 AM

SGT Bryan O'Reilly — Wed, 05 Apr 2017 02:50:27 -0400

"Mandrake, do you recall what Clemenceau once said about war?" " I don't think I do, sir, no. "
"He said war was too important to be left to the generals. When he said that, 50 years ago, he might have been right. But today, war is too important to be left to politicians. They have neither the time, the training, nor the inclination for strategic thought. I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids. "

This is more true today, civs are too isolated from the military and don't think tactically. They take freedom and democracy for granted as static. A thing that was always here and always will be because they have never had to defend it. As a result, They point fingers politically, and pontificate but the act,is somehow acceptable because they themselves don't have to bear witness to it. I believe that we should unilaterally condemn and punish ANYONE who uses NBC weapons, regardless of who or how it should be treated with same gravity as nuclear weapons. But we would need to enforce it and this would be the opportunity to show the world we are serious about seeing all use of NBC weapons banned. Then, if we can get them to read the damn constitution.....(sigh)

Response by Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen made Apr 5 at 2017 8:37 AM

Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen — Wed, 05 Apr 2017 08:37:22 -0400

Our response should be the same as it was when they were used during the Iran Iraq war in the 80s. Condemn the use and intensify diplomatic solutions. Granted Iraq was on our side back then so we could exert a bit more pressure than we can with Syria and the rebels but the process should be the same. I also agree with the comment about finding out where they came from. Leftovers that were hidden when Syrian chemical weapons were supposedly destroyed, purchased/otherwise obtained from another country or manufactured locally. That identification needs to be made and steps, either diplomatic or military, need to be taken to eliminate the source.

Response by SSG Edward Tilton made Apr 5 at 2017 9:10 AM

SSG Edward Tilton — Wed, 05 Apr 2017 09:10:22 -0400

Sarin is completely traceable. Ft. Detrick puts markers in every strain. That wasn't brought out during the Iraq war because the Sarin used had been issued to Iran not Iraq. My bet is Russia.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 5 at 2017 9:19 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 05 Apr 2017 09:19:15 -0400

Scramble the B1s, B2s, and B52s and carpet bomb the ever loving crap out of the place. Problem solved, problem staying solved.

Response by SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 5 at 2017 10:40 AM

SSG(P) Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 05 Apr 2017 10:40:00 -0400

I remember when this came out... It was quickly and quietly ignored and squashed, as it did not go along with the Obama Administration's narrative that the Syrian government used chemical weapons. This is not a partisan report; it is a UN finding.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/6/syrian-rebels-used-sarin-nerve-gas-not-assads-regi/

Syrian rebels used Sarin nerve gas, not Assad’s regime: U.N. official

Testimony from victims strongly suggests it was the rebels, not the Syrian government, that used Sarin nerve gas during a recent incident in the revolution-wracked nation, a senior U.N. diplomat said Monday.

Response by SGT David T. made Apr 5 at 2017 10:52 AM

SGT David T. — Wed, 05 Apr 2017 10:52:35 -0400

This may sound cold, but how does this actually affect us? We have to remember that the military is a political tool used to further our national interests. It is not to run around the world and right every wrong.

While the compassionate side of me would love to do something about it, politically, we cannot justify taking action in response to it. I do feel bad for the civilians that were gassed, but our national power should not be used in matters that do not actually concern us. If they gassed U.S. forces, that changes the situation significantly and more options become available at that point.

Response by SGT Rick Ash made Apr 5 at 2017 12:02 PM

SGT Rick Ash — Wed, 05 Apr 2017 12:02:09 -0400

We should drop a small, tactical nuke on Moscow, or wherever Putin might be that day or night, that beady-eyed little sh*t....

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 6 at 2017 9:20 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 06 Apr 2017 21:20:03 -0400

I'm not at the top but the way I would handle it is put pressure on the UN and NATO to do something about it for right now, let them take the lead as well as pushing some of our partners in to start training a resistance but NOT WITH WEAPONS only knowledge and tactics. Then I would say out loud in a press conference that's what we are doing. But I would not commit more then that because we are everywhere else right now.