Boosting the body count

The Monkey Cage's Erica Chenoweth revisits a 2012 political science study which found that "military interventions in favor of the rebel faction (as opposed to pro-government or neutral interventions) tend to increase government killings of civilians by about 40%."

In other words, given the Syrian civil war's current, overall body count of 100,000, which is vastly the work of the Syrian government, that government's biochemical slaughter (which still awaits definitive proof) of nearly 400 civilians could--assuming the study has its empiricism correct--convert soon to about 40,000 more. 

Is "U.S. credibility" worth that? Is it worth the risk of that? But what am I saying. I shouldn't be asking you. I should be asking the potential 40,000.

Comments

[Peter G]

The key point in any plan must be securing such stockpiles of chemical weapons. The worst case scenario is that a complete breakdown of government puts these into the hands of multiple antagonistic factions. Could be worse though. It could be Pakistan and they have nukes.

[Charlieford]

"must be securing such stockpiles of chemical weapons"

That'll require boots on the ground.

[Robert Lipscomb]

"U.S. credibility"? This is about war crimes and atrocities against civilians.

I recently read a screed denouncing hypocritical, idiotically absolutist adolescents. Here is a little bit of hypocrisy for you.

A man rails against the war crimes of torture and demands action. Yet, when chemical warfare is used against civilians, apparently especially Muslim civilians - not so much.

Do you seriously posit that European and Middle East leaders are urging action for the sake of "U.S. credibility"? Or is this yet another example of the use of conflation in the service of third-rate sophistry?

[pamelabrown53]

Personally, I think the international Community should ALWAYS retaliate against the use of chemical weapons to demonstrate solidarity at genocide. So what if it were the rebels (unlikely) that confiscated and used them. Couldn't have happened if they didn't exist.

The only reason I'd support is a limited strike-clearly defined as "the world won't tolerate chemical weapons". Do it and leave them to their own devices. As you and others said, there are no apparent good outcomes. I just believe that the International Community cannot allow the use of chemical weapons...sort of like the Geneva Conventions.

[Peter G]

You are right Charlieford, but they don't have to be American boots. In fact, since these atrocities are largely Arab on Arab it might be nice to see them take the lead. they can put their manpower where their petrodollars are.