Can't Trust Anyone (in Syria)

What has transpired in Syria over the past few years can only be described in two ways: both as a tragedy and as an embarrassment. A tragedy because a country pining for freedom has been devastated by war and devastation while its citizens huddle into refugee camps or are killed as collateral damage. An embarrassment because the world has stood by with covered eyes and ears, limiting any aid that may cut short the conflict, and just imagining a magical solution will help it end. And all because of politics - because Russia is still supportive of Assad, because Syria has limited natural resources, because no one wants to be performing regime change...

It seems that over the past six months or so, the conflict has crossed a broad, invisible line that will separate it from the level of medium-term resolvable (like the Balkans) to long-term potentially resolvable (like the Democratic Republic of Congo). This is also a line that separates the points where those inside the country can be trusted to where they cannot. The Syrian Civil War has arguably crossed that threshold.

Most evidently, the animosity and ferocity only continues to increase. Reports and videos circulate of (among other things) a rebel eating the heart of a government soldier, biochemical weapons use by both rebels and the government, and executions of prisoners of war, Meanwhile, the line the in sand that the United States drew regarding biochemical weapons use has turned to nothing more than a mirage, with reports as early as March, and more recent (and confirmed) reports being treated not as a reason to act now, but as a reason to investigate further. A vacuum of leadership is becoming ever more evident.

At this point, the likelihood that anyone in Syria currently on either side is a feasible post-conflict leader is questionable. Neither side can really be trusted to take charge and rule fairly and honestly. Moreover, the window that may have existed to tilt the balance may have closed long ago. Perhaps nothing short of a costly ground force, in human and physical terms, will change the current conflict path - and such an event is not likely to happen. Instead, the can is being kicked down the road, and another generation will wonder why a powder keg was allowed to ignite so easily and with such devastating consequences.

To Do What Feels Necessary

Reports early this morning indicated that Israel had struck inside Syria, though details were slim. At first, there was speculation that the Israelis had struck a chemical weapons site. This would have changed the dynamics of the Israel-Syria relationship, which remains in a technical state of war. Despite espousing concern over Syria's chemical weapons over the past month, Israel has not ventured into the conflict itself, likely at the behest of the United States, who belatedly continues to review and grow concerned with the atrocities inside Syria.

It seems, later reports indicate, that Israeli planes did not enter Syrian airspace (though they did enter Lebanese airspace) to conduct the airstrike. In fact, the target was another weapons convoy to Hizbullah, much like the previous strike in January. Therefore, in fact, as the day has gone on and the details have come out, this story has died down. It is not a new phase in the war, but Israel's continuance of doing what is necessary in order to keep itself secure.

Domestic Violence: Not Just a Western Issue

    (source: Daily Mail)

The image above is the first domestic violence awareness ad in Saudi Arabia. It is certainly an important step toward not only eventual equality (note that this equality may be different in parts from the Western definition), but more critically, it acknowledges that a problem exists that can no longer be overlooked.

Curiously, the English and Arabic versions have not just different statements, but different connotations. While the English text reads "Some things can't be covered," the Arabic translates to "the tip of the iceberg." The English is a very Western play on words given the covered women's wear. The Arabic meanwhile, hints at a much larger problem that needs to be addressed.

The Chorus Grows Louder: Syria & WMD

Are they or aren't they? And who is they - the government or the rebels? The only known known, as Donald Rumsfeld would eloquently put it, is that the mess in Syria is turning into a quagmire.

Rumblings of chemical WMD use in the Syrian conflict are not new. New images seem to strongly suggest that conventional weapons are not solely in play. Moreover, American intelligence affirms this position and indicates that sarin has been used, but on a small scale (Syria denies this American "lie"). Unfortunately, as with previous evidence, it doesn't seem that any country, with the United States in particular, is really willing to do anything about it other than utilize euphemisms for further investigation and delayed action. In a sense, the United States is saying that there's evidence, but not clear-cut proof. Figure that?

It seems that the line in the sand, which seemed so clear in the past based on American statements, has blurred with the wind. Given recent history and even considering older military history (dating as far back as World War I), the United States is visibly shaken by the potential problems of confronting chemical weapons militarily. While those weapons pose significant threat to Americans, putting soldiers on the ground to eliminate them seems to be a line in itself. It seems doubtful that in all this time, no special force has been organized and trained to tackle such an obvious concern.

Despite all this, it is time to take a position, whether it be showing force (regional deployment) or showing presence (drones). Something must be done. Or will the world stand by as another civil war drags months into years and death and destruction into the everyday? Just in the past few decades, the world watched Somalia, Congo, and Yugoslavia - do we really need another example? Where are the massive protests about inaction? Where is the public outcry? It seems that the Syrian conflict's human toll has gone overlooked in the face of political calculations.

It's important to remember that sometimes the war we try to avoid is the war that drags us in. Perhaps we can truly preempt such a calamity by taking a stance now and beginning to end the madness.

On Boston and WMD

Yesterday, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev (the younger of the two brothers responsible for the Boston Marathon bombings) was charged with using a weapon of mass destruction.  Although the brothers' actions were certainly terrible, do they really warrant the loaded terminology of using WMD?

Yes, according to the current federal statute that defines "weapons of mass destruction."  Specifically, the term "weapon of mass destruction" includes "any destructive device" such as

(A) any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas—

(i) bomb,
(ii) grenade,
(iii) rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces,
(iv) missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce,
(v) mine, or
(vi) device similar to any of the devices described in the preceding clauses;

As Danger Room's Spencer Ackerman perhaps presciently pointed out almost a month ago, this overbroad definition begins to blur the distinction between types of weaponry.  Ackerman also noted the inherent "threat inflation" when one party accuses another of possessing or using WMD.

While the bombings in Boston were horrific and tragic, they were exactly that -- bombings.  Making any bomb, grenade, or rocket a WMD, however, dilutes the term.  This is the same issues facing international law courts and scholars who must address calls to expand the definition of genocide.  The fact that the Boston killings aren't a WMD attack in the traditional nomenclature does not and should not in any way downplay the horror of the attacks nor lessen the panoply of options available to federal and state prosecutors.  However, aligning federal criminal statutes with the more conventional understanding of WMD terminology would in the end help lessen confusion -- such as that experienced by many when they found out that pressure-cooker bombs are "WMD."

Crowdsourced Intelligence

In the nexus between terrorism and technology, there are really only two standards floating upon a sea of change. The first is that despite the plethora of seemingly endlessly advancing technologies available, terrorists consistently utilize some of the most basic accouterments. While Black swan events such as nuclear terrorist elicit concern, it is the everyday kitchen anarchist who creates terror. The second standard is that it is equally impossible to determine beforehand what available technologies will be used to track down (and, in cases, eliminate the terrorist threat). In a mere decade, the United States has progressed from meticulous house-to-house searches to unmanned drones that stalk the night for hours.

In the case of the Boston Marathon bombing, one interesting trend that has developed is the utilization of internet forums to sift through the vast amount of facts (video, stills, etc.) surrounding the attack to crowdsource intelligence on potential suspects based on group analyzation. Up to five potential suspects have been identified, though more officially, only two are being sought. If the pattern is limited to providing intelligence to the appropriate sources, then the vast amount of data being recorded each day is not beneficial to terrorist operations; however, if crowdsourcing moves beyond intelligence review on its face and to tracking those people down, the downsides of ruining a potentially innocent person's life have already been made clear in much more benign circumstances.

It is definitely a fine line to walk, but authorities did request assistance on information on the bombing. That information started to sift in quickly and it will likely not be so long before we start to see whether any, or all, of it is accurate.

Sticking to the Facts is the Hardest Part...

When it comes to terrorist incidents, sticking to the facts is the hardest thing to do. Conversations naturally boil down to polemics that insinuate motive and reasoning. It's easy to forget, for example, that Muslim terrorists were initially blamed for the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995. Therefore, initial reports that a Saudi national was the prime suspect may prove to be a dead lead.

The facts are limited, but also clear:

1. This was nearly certainly a terrorist attack (even if the President is hesitant to use that word). Some initial reports that it may have been a gas explosion are likely to be unfounded.

2. There were multiple explosive devices. Some reports suggest up to seven, although this could later come to be far too extensive (and is already being noted as such). For 5/7 devices to fail would be significant.

3. There was likely shrapnel in the explosive device. This suggests more of an intent to kill than injure, maim, or elicit terror.

That's pretty much the extent of the facts right now, apart from the casualties. It's too early to label the bombing as international terrorism or Muslim extremism - it could very well turn out to be right-wing extremism and/or domestic terrorism.

For the time being, while the professionals do their work, it's best to help those in need and keep those in Boston in mind.