How will the U.S. respond to the Syrian chemical attack?
The post Episode 21: Predicting the U.S. response to the Syrian chemical attack appeared first on Dilbert Blog.
This is an unofficial transcript meant for reference. Accuracy is not guaranteed.
Two to five years. My second periscope other day now with better shirt. Looking, I think so. The tv shirt good periscope shirt Ices. We give five hundred people here. I'm gonna tell you my theory on what's gonna happen with Syria, which The way I don't think the government has decided yet so we will probably be getting ahead of the decision. Let me tell you a little story first and then I'll take this story into the Syria situate. Years ago, I knew a couple of guys were roommates, and one day their apartment burglarized, so somebody rob their apartment now it turns out, that there was somebody in their extended circle of acquaintances who they are. to be a robber
someone who often rob people's apartments and houses So they came to believe tat. He was the responsible person without act evidence, but it just seemed obvious. It was probably the sky because he knew was in the apartment that was worth stealing and he had knowledge of etc. So they hunted in down, and they apply the little prairie justice, meaning they be him with clubs, and they they just gave him a good beating. But later they came to think they came to think that maybe he wasn't the actual burglar now. I dont know what evidence came to came to light or why they came to think that but they had in all likelihood hunted down. Baden, the person who did not rob their apartment now did they feel bad about it. Now,
they did not because the person they beat for rubbing their apartment is somebody was robbed. Lots of apartments without getting caught, who is a person who needed to get beaten for robbing apartments so they set close enough now? Let's look in Syria. Syria is a country that we know has in the past used gas against citizens. So we know in the past. It was true, I'm not so sure about this. This most recent case I I'm not sure about the one before that, but there are Believes there is credible evidence, not counting these last two of Syria using gas. Is there now drew, or at the very least
owned it, so I dont believe: there's anybody arguing with the fact that they had weapons of mass destruction there were included. Gas is funny their people saying that as false and I am always happy to be fact corrected, but I'm pretty sure that that there was at least evidence of the existence of of gas in Syria. Anyway, I'm gonna make my prediction based on that assumption. So if that assumption is wrong well than discouraging said my my prediction of IRAN as well, so here's what I thought Is likely it's likely, we may not ever know for sure who did the gas attack but we also have to do something because we can do nothing.
I would argue that Syria has created a situation where we have a free pass and they can. the attacked, even if they worse directly responsible, Because they have a history of using gas. So what what? What? What is it that will cause us to mistakenly bomb the government of Syria for thinking that they had one? the mass destruction and use them, while the reason that we would be mistaken if we are mistaken and if we I am not mistaken. Assumption is. As they had them before. Another words, Syria created a situation in which, they become the likely suspect, even when their innocence so Fortunately, they have created a situation where anybody who bombs and for using weapons of mass destruction is sort a girl. Like they're in the right, even if their
for the wrong reasons. So it's a weird situation is much like the burglar, who robbed other apartments, but not the one is eager got been four for. Does anybody care? No, they do not So here is the second part of the equation. I think ass, to weaken it. in its economics. When you see a military war. As in Syria, you ve got a lot of big countries spending a lot of money that they wish they weren't spending. and so what a wind would look like would be to do something in the Middle EAST. There would cause both Russia and ran to spend way too much money. and one thing she could do to make Russia and ran. Spend too much money would be to destroy all of the expensive assets in Syria that they're gonna need,
replace and probably the most expensive assets in Syria that are the type they need to replace our desire airforce. So one possibility- and I think, is good- it will have to be high on the list of options- is to just destroy Syria's airforce permanently. as in destroy it and never let them have one in the future, because if they try, you just destroy that too, because it seems to me that Probably would not change you what's gonna happen in terms of the power struggle. There probably won't change that much, but it will get a lot more expense, so Russia would probably have to spend more money using their own airforce if they tried to replace help Pacific replace it. That would be expensive, who were probably expensive for ran,
so there may be a better target, the simply cost more money- for our ran for Russia to be in the area, but I think he got a look at the economics of great plan to help ISIS so the the calculation there would be whether there. We already have been ISIS enough that it doesn't make any difference of Syria has an air force because it might not make any difference here they may be. Enough that an air force just doesn't make any difference. They still of Russia in the air. If they needed I don't know for ran this flying over Syria does ran, have aircraft in Syria. I don't know how that works so years. So here's the deal- We probably can't do nothing the United States that is weak.
We can't just say I well, we couldn't figure out who did it so we'll just ignore weep. I can't do that because It is a red line and a guy crossed we probably can't identify a rebel that did it if a rebel did it receives like it seems like Some non governmental entity is more likely to be behind it Probably we will ever know if we don't know that we have to do something. What are we gonna do? That is the most expensive thing for the other side, while giving us the least amount of casualties. On our side, My guess is that we would destroy the Syrian Airforce entirely, so so, if we respond, I would expect it to be against their air force and to just make a really really expensive.
Now, not that's gonna, be the best thing to do, because how would I know? But if you are Situation where you don't know who did it and you can't do nothing Assad has given the world free, pass your his past actions. put him in a situation where he gets blame for a future stuff, even if he didn't do it. So I wouldn't get near a syrian jet this week. so somebody says so wiping out serious air. Just vicious and giggles is a good idea. Now that would be a terrible idea destroy worse for no reason would be a bad idea unclouded and suggests that, but creating it situation where everybody knows that using weapons of mass destruction is a terrible causes, a terrible price. Well, I think that's that's a message. We can send
Look at if you look at the war in Iraq, which was a giant mistake on many levels. Here are two things that are true. If you, if you want to find the silver here. Saddam Hussein did use gas on the curves, so in his past he did use gas. now the evidence suggests that he got rid of it and it was playing nice by the time we mistakenly thought he had wmds and attacked it creates a situation where Saddam attacked using gas, Some years later he was killed. Syria, We will look a lot like that. They use gas in the past and even if they cleaned up the rack, and even if they were behind this latest event, they use gas in the past and if and if they get taken down forward or pay,
big price. Nobody is really gonna feel too bad because it is. That is a precedent that has some utility, So whoever said we would go in there and do it and giggles or Whoever said we would attack Syria, but there are the wrong target. So it's crazy were being drawn back in. I think, there's a bigger picture which is Syria, has in the past, to use weapons of mass destruction and so- creating the creating a clear history. Of anybody you use them. Doesn't last long wouldn't be a bad idea. now I dont know that we would be exactly drawn back into the fighting if all we did is destroy their air force, which is probably mostly on the ground. So it seems to me we could destroy their entire air force without a casualty it would just be exceeded,
if we're trying to spend them into into submission, ran probably doesn't have the strongest economy at the moment. It must be a. It must be a stretch for them to even be involved in the wider region. Some who says, I think, you're wrong, that we can't do nothing. We can do nothing, so we certainly have the physical option of doing nothing, but You would also have created the you would have created a situation where more chemicals will be used in the future. So, if you are willing to do, help with a world with more chemical war, you can do nothing
no, we don't know how that would turn out could be good could be bad, but we do have an option. You right. Who cares? Not our problem as fair? You could say it's not our problem but you can also say is a standard that you want to establish so clearly if it ever did become our problem, everybody else would be on our side as others. There is something to be said for being clear. this issue, Russia- will not let it happen now lower happen attack of their syrian air force. Can they stop it.
Yeah, I think the real love the real danger here is when drones get fitted with gas and come to the homeland. You know, that's coven must come into their own land, so we might want to set a precedent right now that there are certain there is nowhere wiggle room when it comes to that somebody said I just lost lot of respect for you knew you may have misheard me, then I'm predicting, as opposed to giving you my preference. If you thought you heard my preference you heard more than I said, I'm telling you that the situation
as it lines are now, does allow the United States to attack Syria even if they're not guilty. That's just the facts on the ground. Now you can lose respect for my prediction, but I would suggest that you wait to see if, If my prediction turns out to be totally inaccurate, then you would have good reason to do like me less, but if you think that my prediction is also a preference, then you reading too much into So what is your preference you now? I hadn't actually thought about my preference, but let me concoct one on the spot. My preference would be if we can't figure out who did it there. We say we care figure out who did it right?
If we can bring it out, we can figure out there. We just walk away because we We don't have to, somebody randomly for for a crime for their crime. Now keep in mind. The first time that President Trump sent the tomahawk missiles into the syrian airport and blew up some things that didn't seem to make. difference, he was a new president and he was establishing himself as a bad ass, because that would have great benefits number of fields, including North Korea, probably made a difference in Kim Jonah calculation of how to deal with them so the first time the Trump bomb. he made a lot of noise. He showed use about ass. He showed he was decisive. He showed that that weapons,
the situation will be tolerated. We did a lot of good things, but there's a pretty chance. It wasn't the government Syria behind those weapons it just in matter because the president's still accomplished as objectives at a reasonable cost. What to do with a second time. you're not really helping your reputation. The way you them on day one now his rapid, Asian ass sort of a bad ass is already established. So it doesn't need to reinforce it. So the calculation for Second, one is different on this one he can say you know we looked as hard as we could. We did what we could. We just couldn't figure now now suppose Syria, The syrian army says we're not going to let you in to analyze the actual site and talk to people
If the syrian Army says we're not gonna, let the experts in to analyze this well, then you get a free pass, the bomb, Syria least there their airports, not their civilians. So we'll see. I think it might come down to that. The syrian army says come on in and take a look it wasn't us, we look around and we can tell who I was and they let us look. They gave us full access said, look around. You know. If you can see that it's us be due to us, then then I think you could walk away, but if they give us any problem with access, then I think they're they're right air force us to just go away, this prediction wise, that's the way it would go back and let the Russians look well. The Russians think the Russians have credibility at the moment.
War hawks want to pushes into war, so in my view, things. There are only two small moves, one of them. This is a we don't know who did it and walk away. And the other one is to or to say that we're gonna keep looking I have to walk away, you can say we don't know who did it and we're not going to stop looking. We just don't know along asking take, so we can do that. We can also say we can also bomb just the of the area. worse of Syria and just get out- and you say I would always
do is make sure that nobody ever thinks. This is a good idea again. So you? U? We think he used these weapons of mass destruction. Goodbye, Airforce, you're, never gonna get it back, so we both of those will be legitimate to pass, and I think it depends on what we find out on the ground. If I had to guess it's either some rebel group who is not associated with the victims or some local commander, who maybe didn't overreach. The use of weapons he didn't need to use and. I'll be approved by even Assad. Now, if I were assad- and I wanted to convince the world that I did not do this-
One may be on television say Has anybody seen Assad on video saying I absolutely promise you we didn't do this, we ve looked into it, you know, doesn't it isn't? It is surprising that Now producing a video. Now I can see why he doesn't do live, because maybe we can find him if he's doing alive but to record a video to just say I want. I want to assure the world that this was not us, we're looking into it and will give will give the the? U S and Russia all the access they want, because we think that can come to the same conclusion. I am innocent where's that And how long would it take you to do that? Now, it put out. Nay, they put out,
statements statement the Ceta, wasn't them, but that's a statement. You know when when something is this bay. You really have to you really have to go on tv with your face, a lead people look at your face. Serve we see Assad go on, say, look, I'm giving you full access. This is the last. Thing we would want to happen. Trust me this doesn't help. Our country anymore than helps yours, dont, be tricked, will give you full access. We'll give you everything you need to guarantee that it wasn't an. And by the way, if you did discuss somebody in the Assad regime was behind this. I will execute them in public. You can even watch. That is how serious we are about not having weapons. The master but word I'll see that our way
Where's where's that announcement by either by their leader. So if you don't get that clear and unambiguous a dinner EL from Syria. It either means they don't know which is possible. it's possible. Even the leaders area doesn't know if his own people that it's possible, He may not know what all of his troops have and what they might do so right now in Syria is allowing the situation where the? U S attacked, you'd have to say they. They allowed it to happen because they could prevent it with a more aggressive denial. I think ridiculous demand. Syria destroyed is chemical weapons and twenty thirty.
now when I went to see somebody say that with such. Certainly so here is somebody who said with complete certainly than this comment: the Syria destroyed other weapons of mass destruction and twenty thirteen. How would you know and if they destroy them? Where did these? What are these the calls for this attack come from. Nowhere have you know everything was destroy. You can't know that the only you can know, is the something's were destroyed. You can't know that all things were destroyed. That's not normal! so, if your entire opinion about this situation is based on your certainty, their weapons of mass destruction were destroyed in twenty thirteen you're. Not a thinker you're, not even you're, not even involved in anything. That looks like a rational thought. You don't know we
now, our government doesn't even know nobody knows, owes a job at John Kerry statement that there were destroyed in twenty Ok, if you sarcasm, then I'm on your side. Everybody can have chemical, happens while they're, not that easy them eagerly I'm going to end here. That's all I want to say you have my predictions. So two possibilities either Assad, goes on tv and says we would
We do this, we can help you and they give full access to the there's only if they dont give full access to analyze it. It's a free bad because he's use weapons of mass destruction before a price will be paid and probably his air force will cease to exist by the end of the week and we'll see that's my prediction by flow.