swishnicholson wrote:Werthless wrote:Monkeyboy wrote:So a guy I work with asked why Assad did the gas strike in the first place. I said that many are saying it was due to Tillerson's comments. Then the guy pointed out that it's hard to believe Assad wouldn't know that Trump would HAVE to react to a chemical weapon.
So wouldn't Assad have to know Trump would react? Wouldn't he have to know Trump would have to do something or risk looking weak?
It's really hard to figure out why all the actors acted as they did in this thing. Usually everyone will act in their best interest, but it seems like several did not in this case.
I wrote a paper about the Iraq War, on the topic of Just War theory, that had a significant section on Saddam Hussein's rationality. This was before we could confirm that Hussein didn't have WMDs. I think it was well written, I got an A actually, but my analysis was flawed. I made similar assumptions about rationality -- why would Hussein kick out the weapons inspectors and induce an invasion if he didn't have WMDs -- and those assumptions didn't hold up. Leaders don't seem to behave rationally with respect to international relations.
In hindsight, domestic politics is often the driving force behind a leader's decision. Is it popular? Does it reduce my opposition? Does it consolidate power? The international fallout is usually secondary, and the leader assumes they can do damage control internationally because he knows that other countries don't actually want a war. I assume Assad, if he got guidance on expected retaliation from abroad, severely discounted it.
That sounds about right. Let's not discount the role of dick-waving in all of this. Even though I support the strike with the understanding that it may preclude further chemical attacks, it's not like I delude myself that Trump suddenly had humanitarian concerns about Syrian civilians. It was a show of "strength" plain and simple. Certainly Assad's attack, following closely on comments indicating even further disassociation from the US at involvement, can be seen as the same. And teh Russian posturing post-event certainly qualifies.
If I slip on my tinfoil hat, it almost seems prearranged, with everyone given their time in the spotlight to strut around and show off for the boys and girls back home. I'm not ready to go that far, but as werthless says, I thinks it's just as unlikely that there is some sort of sophiticated international endgame at play.
There was a solid bit of analysis in the Guardian which pointed out that Assad's army has been fighting 6 years now. That's a long war. Considering the state of his army, and a reasonable expectation of minimum response by other powers who seek to enforce a ban on chemical weapons, it may well have been a worthwhile risk to take. It probably helps that Assad is looking at trump and reckoning on him being unable to commit to military action for any length.
