Syria: a civil war (closed)

[Ken White]

... from the comfort of an air-conditioned office somewhere ... : "...So all the world sees is talk, talk, talk and a little finger wagging..."Yes. Proclivity in that regard is noted... :rolleyes: :wry:

[J Wolfsberger]

Spoken from the comfort of an air-conditioned office somewhere in North America... while the Syria regime moves into Homs to carry-out another massacre.

But hey! Don't let anyone dear say the US or the international community should do something about it. So all the world sees is talk, talk, talk and a little finger wagging. My, my, my how the once mighty have fallen.

The U.S. went through 8 years of criticism for its "cowboy diplomacy" and "illegitimate wars." Following that, we elected a president who promised to "restore" our standing in the world through "resets" and working with and through the international "community." i.e. "talk, talk, talk and a little finger wagging."

This resulted in the U.S. "leading from behind" in Libya, and letting the international "community" decide to do not much of anything about Syria. You may not have been one of the voices, domestic and international, screaming about the U.S., but I'm sure you heard about it. It was in all the papers.

You seem to be very critical of the U.S. for not doing anything unilaterally in Syria. Are you, sitting in your presumably air-conditioned home in Durban, advocating that the U.S. engage in "cowboy diplomacy" and start an "illegitimate war" with the legal government of Syria? Sorry, but we decline your generous offer to waste our lives and treasure in a thankless task. You can call our current inaction a symptom of U.S. decline. I see it as giving the world exactly what it said it wanted for most of the Bush presidency. If that leaves anyone unhappy, I can only suggest they get familiar with the concept of "consequences."

Forget the monetary cost. If you, or the rest of the world, want the U.S. to risk the lives of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines, then you, and the rest of the world, have to expect what I outlined above about the conditions. You, and the rest of the world, also have to expect that people will make mistakes along the way, because that is part of the price of acting. I don't see any sign that those expectations are going to be understood, acknowledged and accepted.

In case any of this hasn't helped clarify my attitude, consider this: At present, Afghans are rioting over the burning of their scripture. The proper response should have been along the lines of "Sorry our troops improperly disposed of the sacred texts your co-religionists desecrated. Want to tell us how to do it right next time? Oh, by the way, here's the desecrators. Feel free to try them." Instead, the commanding general and our president have apologized to the post turtle* president of Afghanistan, who responded by calling for trials of the soldiers involved.

Excuse me if I don't want to see our men and women exposed to even more of this lunacy. People like Bob have given far more than you or I have in an effort to make the world a safer place, and received sweet f--- all in the way of gratitude. I'll be d----- if I want them asked to give more.


* An old rancher is talking about politics with a young man from the city. He compares a politician to a "post turtle". The young man doesn't understand and asks him what a post turtle is.

The old man says, "When you're driving down a country road and you see a fence post with a turtle balanced on top, that's a post turtle. You know he didn't get up there by himself. He doesn't belong there; he can't get anything done while he's up there; and you just want to help the poor, dumb thing down."

[JMA]

Why would the US want to intervene in Syria? What have we to gain?

I generally ignore your posts because you just can't help yourself. You continue to post as if you are speaking on behalf of the US people.

You don't speak for anyone but yourself. Try to preface your comments with 'in my opinion' or 'as I see it' etc etc.

As such I won't even ask who the 'we' is in this instance.

[JMA]

... tell you to go F yourself with your silly little AC and think tank comments ... Grow up.

To think all it took to set you off 'effing and blinding was the mention of 'think tank'.

It matters naught that you have 20 odd years of service and reached senior officer rank when such emotional instability is evident.

Those who selected and trained me created contrived situations to test for this particular character defeat (in all of us). Those that failed to demonstrate a phlegmatic disposition would be sent on their way.

I am sure I will 'grow up' as I mature with age but for those with a character defect there is no hope.

[JMA]

If you, or the rest of the world, want the U.S. to risk the lives of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines, then you, and the rest of the world, have to expect what I outlined above about the conditions.

In your haste to respond you missed the point.

As a personal opinion if I state that I believe that intervention in a particular situation is warranted or justified it remains just that ... a personal opinion... and not a plea or demand for US action.

As Ken has repeated stated the US has proved to be incapable to intervening with any success just about anywhere.

US intervention in Syria (like in Libya) would be sure to be a class one 'cock-up'.

It is therefore important that the US does not intervene in Syria.

What will restrain any temptation to intervene is the opposition of Russia and China.

I think that should clear things up.

Now it seems to me that all that remains is for you and other US citizens to come to terms with the current situation where your politicians and military do not have the balls (nor ability) to stand up to either/or or both Russia and China. I sympathise. How the once mighty has fallen.

[Bob's World]

To think all it took to set you off 'effing and blinding was the mention of 'think tank'.

It matters naught that you have 20 odd years of service and reached senior officer rank when such emotional instability is evident.

Those who selected and trained me created contrived situations to test for this particular character defeat (in all of us). Those that failed to demonstrate a phlegmatic disposition would be sent on their way.

I am sure I will 'grow up' as I mature with age but for those with a character defect there is no hope.

Still shooting blanks; with your insults and your simplistic "one size fits all" violent tactical approaches to virtually any tactical, strategic or political problem.

Now, if you are prepared to discuss some specific aspect of the situation in Syria, I'm all ears. They are not at war, and there is no tactical solution to "win" in the fighting taking place between the government and segments of the populace; and there is arguably no violent solution of any sort that will solve the problems at the roots of this unrest either. There are arguably no direct US interests at stake in Syria, but certainly an opportunity to shape events elsewhere in the region where such interests are very much at stake.

So, impress me with your selection, training and maturity, how do you play this hand?

But I've not much time for this.

[Dayuhan]

You don't speak for anyone but yourself. Try to preface your comments with 'in my opinion' or 'as I see it' etc etc.


I can't see how any of those can be reasonably affixed to the question of what Americans could possibly gain from intervention in Syria... even if they could "do it right", assuming on no evidence whatsoever that there is a "right" way to do it.

Everything anyone says here is their opinion, it's obvious and goes without saying. Silly waste of pixels to go inserting "IMO" into every paragraph to remind people of what they already know. If I say "there is no compelling reason for the US to intervene in Syria", that of course is my opinion. If you think there is a compelling reason, tell us what it is, by all means.

Why would America, or any American, or any combination of Americans want to intervene in Syria? What would be the point? What would they have to gain? Those seem reasonable questions for anyone to ask, American or not, if US intervention in Syria is under discussion.


Now it seems to me that all that remains is for you and other US citizens to come to terms with the current situation where your politicians and military do not have the balls (nor ability) to stand up to either/or or both Russia and China. I sympathise. How the once mighty has fallen.

How did Russia and China get into the picture? Completely irrelevant.

[JMA]

Still shooting blanks; with your insults and your simplistic "one size fits all" violent tactical approaches to virtually any tactical, strategic or political problem.

Insults? You are too thing skinned. But there's another thing Bob, you can dish it but you can't take it... just now we will see some 'quick draw' moderator running to your assistance.

Secondly I will restate my position (as I am not arrogant enough to believe you have followed my postings around here) which is simply that the lack of consistency and stability in US foreign policy is more of a threat to world peace than the growth of China into a super power.

The White House over my lifetime (the last 60 years) has shown not capacity intelligent strategic thinking and action leaving the world (that is everyone other than US citizens) what the hell the US are on about.

Adding to this circus is the Laurel and Hardy show (the State Department and the CIA) which together bring a whole new meaning to the word incompetence.

Now based on the folly of the three-ring-circus hundreds of thousands of young US soldiers continue to be placed in harms way for no logical (or intelligent) reason.

I will just ignore your comment on my suppose 'one-size-fits-all' approach... because it is nonsense.


Now, if you are prepared to discuss some specific aspect of the situation in Syria, I'm all ears. They are not at war, and there is no tactical solution to "win" in the fighting taking place between the government and segments of the populace; and there is arguably no violent solution of any sort that will solve the problems at the roots of this unrest either. There are arguably no direct US interests at stake in Syria, but certainly an opportunity to shape events elsewhere in the region where such interests are very much at stake.

Simple.

Study the history of Syria... in so doing all will be revealed.

With Russia, China, Iran and Lebanon supporting does anyone really think Assad with take notice of the finger wagging from the US, Britain and Europe?

The shooting has started, the massacres are happening so it will take more than a fireside chat to stop it.

The US already has urine running down its leg as a fear response to possibly being sucked into a shooting match in Syria. So what do they have to back up their finger wagging?

So the advice to the US Administration should be that unless they are prepared to put their money where their mouth is it is better to just shut up ... lest the rest of the world come to realise just how impotent the US really is (if they haven't grasped it already).

[Ken White]

Those who selected and trained me created contrived situations to test for this particular character defeat (in all of us). Those that failed to demonstrate a phlegmatic disposition would be sent on their way.Mmm. Then what happened?
As Ken has repeated stated the US has proved to be incapable to intervening with any success just about anywhere.Not quite right, as is quite common with thee...

Ken has frequently stated that successful interventions, generic, all parties, are rare. The US record is no better or worse than many others.
US intervention in Syria (like in Libya) would be sure to be a class one 'cock-up'.Possible, also possible that it could be effective even in your opinion (though that's rather doubtful no matter how it turned out...). That's not the reason not to do it; the reason is that the Syrians have to provide a Syrian solution to a Syrian problem and that busybodies who like interventions -- but rarely themselves participate and instead kibitz from a comfortable distance -- generally do not understand all they think they know about the issue. As is shown...
What will restrain any temptation to intervene is the opposition of Russia and China.Of course, just as it restrained intervention in the case of Afghasnistan and Iraq. :rolleyes:
I think that should clear things up.Bwahahhahahahaaaa... :D
The White House over my lifetime (the last 60 years) has shown not capacity intelligent strategic thinking and action leaving the world (that is everyone other than US citizens) what the hell the US are on about.You kids are so impatient. If you'd paid attention in history class you'd know that the US has been doing that to one degree or another for about 225 years. The US is on about itself and doesn't give, in the words of my favorite Canadian Journalist, a rat's a$S what the rest of the world thinks. Poor attitude on our part, I know but that's life. Get used to it, not going to change in the short remainder of your life.
...my suppose 'one-size-fits-all' approach... because it is nonsense.True. Two sizes, cutting off heads and cruise missiles. ;)

Then there's this:
With Russia, China, Iran and Lebanon supporting does anyone really think Assad with take notice of the finger wagging from the US, Britain and Europe?That's sort of simplistic, which is okay but it is also borderline ludicrous. You probably should not have added Iran to your usual blustery, certainly could have omitted Lebanon.
The shooting has started, the massacres are happening so it will take more than a fireside chat to stop it.Isn't that always the case? How well do your fireside chats affect what even the RSA, much less the UK, the US or the broader world behave? Absolute shame others do nor react the way one dictates.
The US already has urine running down its leg as a fear response to possibly being sucked into a shooting match in Syria. So what do they have to back up their finger wagging?I wouldn't know about urine running down a leg though that apparently happens to some who seem prone to project a bit. The issue is not fear, it is simply cost. We wasted too much money on those other interventions that China and Russia disapproved of. We also have a new generation that has learned the futility of interventions, so we're good for another 30-40 years before we get to relearn that...
...lest the rest of the world come to realise just how impotent the US really is (if they haven't grasped it already).As that Canadian Journalist said... :D

[Surferbeetle]

JMA,

I was wondering how long your apparent new year's resolution of being diplomatic would last! You held out longer than I would have guessed... :eek: :wry:

Ken,

Found this one to be pretty interesting...


Then there's this:



With Russia, China, Iran and Lebanon supporting does anyone really think Assad with take notice of the finger wagging from the US, Britain and Europe?
That's sort of simplistic, which is okay but it is also borderline ludicrous. You probably should not have added Iran to your usual blustery, certainly could have omitted Lebanon.

Although I agree that it is a superficial treatment, I would add Iraq to JMA's list, wonder about your proposal to remove Iran (due to current elections?), and add that the nearby powers (in a geographic sense) are likely to help or hinder depending upon how the day/circumstance (internal & external) plays into their hands...Europe, Russia, China, and the USA's motivations and actions will take more coffee, and perhaps a walk of the dogs...:wry:

[J Wolfsberger]

Those that failed to demonstrate a phlegmatic disposition would be sent on their way.


So, is your characterization of the U.S. as a vacillating, dysfunctional, cowardly, declining empire evidence of your "phlegmatic disposition?" Or perhaps the ad hominems tossed off at Bob and Dayuhan?

Let me try and summarize: You think the U.S. should intervene in Syria, and seem to recognize that such would have to be military. The rest of us believe it would be pointless to do so. You disagree, strongly.

You have yet to make any strong case for why the U.S. should take up that burden, the cost to us, what the likely outcome will be in Syria, what the consequences might be for the U.S., what the domestic and international blow-back will be, etc.

State your case, absent the ad hominems, and let's see where it goes.

[Ken White]

...I would add Iraq to JMA's list, wonder about your proposal to remove Iran (due to current elections?), and add that the nearby powers (in a geographic sense) are likely to help or hinder depending upon how the day/circumstance (internal & external) plays into their hands...Europe, Russia, China, and the USA's motivations and actions will take more coffee, and perhaps a walk of the dogs...:wry:We have known knowns, unknown knowns... :D

Some familiarity with the region and its peoples and with the US and its people leads me to not discount the neighbors but to place them in minor impediment rather than deterrent status. Similarly, some time observing the US and its actions in the world as well as those of China and Russia leads me to place them as significant impediments but -- even collectively -- not as total deterrents. Not even, not ever... :cool:

We do what we think we need to do and have always done so. If anything, we are way too prone to act precipitously and / or to over do things, not back off or fail to act.

Of course, it occasionally takes an inordinate amount of time to get ourselves in gear... :D

[Surferbeetle]

Posted by Ken White: We have known knowns, unknown knowns...:D

…and we all go to war with what we have ;)

Everybody,

I am going to take a quick look at recent and upcoming elections among Syria, Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Lebanon, Iraq, Russia, China, France, the USA…I wanna keep things simple ha.

It’s a statement of the obvious that democracies, monarchies, theocracies, single-party republics, kleptocracies, dictatorships, etc. all rely on the will of the people since there are more people than there are ‘leaders’ in charge. 2012 is a volatile one with respect to elections and the tone and tenor of respective populaces, which drive this expression of national will and desire. Syria (a single party state), believe it or not held local elections in Dec of 2011, held a Presidential Referendum in 2007, and will hold another in 2014. (1) (2) (3). Israel will hold Parliamentary Elections in 2013 and Presidential ones in 2014. (3) (4) Turkey held Parliamentary Elections in June of 2011 and will hold Presidential Elections in 2014. (3) (4) Saudi Arabia, although a monarchy, held legislative elections in September of 2011. (3) Iran held Parliamentary Elections on March 2012 (the count is still coming in) and Presidential Elections are scheduled for June 2013. (3) (4) Lebanon holds Parliamentary Elections in 2013 and Presidential ones in 2014. (3) Iraq, ah Iraq, is scheduled for Parliamentary Elections in 2014. (3) (4) Russia held Parliamentary Elections in December of 2011 and held Presidential Elections on March 4, 2012. (3) (4) China uses direct elections for village councils and the local Peoples Congress, while indirect elections are used by the People’s Congress. (5) Hu Jintao is the current Paramount Leader and will be succeded by Xi Jinping in 2013. (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) France holds it’s first round of Presidential Elections on April 22, 2012 and the second round in May 6, 2012. (3) (4) The USA holds Legislative and Presidential Elections November 6, 2012. Given the ferment that the world is currently in, it would seem to me that a long-term war would mostly likely be politically costly (in a negative sense) while a raid might be politically beneficial given the right set of circumstances. Keep in mind that 'good' politics does not necessarily translate to success on the battlefield.

Another statement of the blinding obvious - key personalities, someone once said history is written by key personalities by the way, to watch might include the formal and informal leaders among Syria, Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Lebanon, Iraq, Russia, China, France, the USA...wish SWJ had a matrix function for posts so that we could run some breakouts to include perceived constraints and motivators...;) The concept of permutations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permutation) might bear also review at this point.

And for JMA…South African Parliamentary and Presidential elections are scheduled for 2014. :wry:

1. Elections in Syria, Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Syria
2. Syria unrest: Local elections held despite fighting, BBC News, 12 December 2011 Last updated at 15:29 ET, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16135298
3. Election Guide, http://www.electionguide.org/
4. The World in 2012, The Economist, http://www.economist.com/theworldin/2012
5. Elections in the People’s Republic of China, Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China
6. Paramount Leader, Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paramount_leader
7. Hu Jintao, Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hu_Jintao
8. Xi Jinping, Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xi_Jinping

Maybe later I’ll take a quick look at national import and export destinations among the same countries…

[JMA]

So, is your characterization of the U.S. as a vacillating, dysfunctional, cowardly, declining empire evidence of your "phlegmatic disposition?" Or perhaps the ad hominems tossed off at Bob and Dayuhan?

Pure nonsense. Yes ad hominems seems to work only in one direction around here... I keep forgetting.

What is it about an absence of a phlegmatic disposition being a disqualifying factor in officer selection do you not understand?


Let me try and summarize: You think the U.S. should intervene in Syria, and seem to recognize that such would have to be military. The rest of us believe it would be pointless to do so. You disagree, strongly.

No... Read my posts before you misrepresent my position.


You have yet to make any strong case for why the U.S. should take up that burden, the cost to us, what the likely outcome will be in Syria, what the consequences might be for the U.S., what the domestic and international blow-back will be, etc.

Again you really need to read my posts before you shoot from the hip.

I am saying that while intervention is necessary and justified the US should not intervene because (of political and senior military ineptitude) such intervention will end in tears (and the unnecessary loss of soldiers lives).


State your case, absent the ad hominems, and let's see where it goes.

I have long since ceased to take orders from people and certainly from those who have no authority over me.

[JMA]

Why would America, or any American, or any combination of Americans want to intervene in Syria? What would be the point? What would they have to gain? Those seem reasonable questions for anyone to ask, American or not, if US intervention in Syria is under discussion.

Given that the chances of a successful intervention by the US is close to zero your questions are worth asking.

I suggest the first questions that need to be answered is wether intervention is necessary and can be justified.

The likelihood of a failed US intervention (if attempted) would not detract from such a justifiable need... IMHO

[Dayuhan]

I suggest the first questions that need to be answered is wether intervention is necessary and can be justified.

So answer it... why exactly do you think that intervention is "necessary and can be justified" for any potential intervening power?


The likelihood of a failed US intervention (if attempted) would not detract from such a justifiable need... IMHO

The probability of unintended adverse outcomes and reasonable assessment of the capacities of the proposed intervening power are a necessary part of any effort to justify intervention, are they not? Why would anyone want to intervene in a situation where the probability of an advantageous outcome at an acceptable cost is low and the probability of a disadvantageous outcome and/or unacceptable cost is high?

You can't have an intervention without an intervening party, and the internal interests, constraints, capacities and motivation of the proposed intervening party have to be included in any discussion of intervention, otherwise the discussion is completely irrelevant.

[JMA]

Ken has frequently stated that successful interventions, generic, all parties, are rare. The US record is no better or worse than many others.

Pointless to justify the poor record of the US on the basis that everyone is equally incompetent, yes?

[JMA]

So answer it... why exactly do you think that intervention is "necessary and can be justified" for any potential intervening power?

The probability of unintended adverse outcomes and reasonable assessment of the capacities of the proposed intervening power are a necessary part of any effort to justify intervention, are they not? Why would anyone want to intervene in a situation where the probability of an advantageous outcome at an acceptable cost is low and the probability of a disadvantageous outcome and/or unacceptable cost is high?

You can't have an intervention without an intervening party, and the internal interests, constraints, capacities and motivation of the proposed intervening party have to be included in any discussion of intervention, otherwise the discussion is completely irrelevant.

I'm afraid you are merely being argumentative (probably for the sake of it)... Answer your own questions

[Dayuhan]

Answer your own questions

The question in question was yours, I believe:


I suggest the first questions that need to be answered is wether intervention is necessary and can be justified.

You asked it, why don't you answer it?


Pointless to justify the poor record of the US on the basis that everyone is equally incompetent, yes?

The historical record suggests that intervention in the internal affairs of others is for the most part is a nasty, pointless, and counterproductive business... what has "incompetence" got to do with that? Have we had any reason to believe that there was some magically "competent" recipe that would suddenly make such intervention something other than what it's always been? If so, where is the empirical evidence that any such recipe exists?

If "competence" assured successful interventions at acceptable cost, surely there should be more examples of such interventions around...

[Ken White]

Pointless to justify the poor record of the US on the basis that everyone is equally incompetent, yes?No justification intended or needed, just correcting another of your errors. :rolleyes:
Again you really need to read my posts before you shoot from the hip.You wrote that above. Physician, heal thyself... :D

[Entropy]

I suggest the first questions that need to be answered is wether intervention is necessary and can be justified.

Necessary for what and necessary for whom?

Justified by what criteria and justified for whom?

Pretty much anything can be deemed "necessary and justified" depending on perspective and circumstance. Asking whether it is justified or not is pretty much meaningless without knowing the details and assumptions behind the proposal. Additionally, there's no additional context regarding what "intervention" means exactly? Is it arming rebels? "Humanitarian" corridors? No-fly zones? Unlimited air support for the rebels? (BTW, which rebels?) A ground invasion? Some combination? What is the political goal for the intervention?

There are millions of combinations. I think I could come up with some combination of circumstances that I think would make a US intervention both necessary and justified. That's a fun game, but looking at actual circumstances in the present tense I don't think intervention by the US is either necessary or justified when compared to the costs and risks of intervention. The most I'd be willing to do at this point is assist the rebels.

I'm willing to change my mind, however. The problem is that you haven't presented anything beyond vague notions of doing something along with concern trolling about US impotence. It's easy to declare something necessary, justified and achievable and you've proven yourself quite capable of making such declarations. I can do that too. It's a bit more challenging to develop an actual strategy, much less operationalize it. So here's your opportunity to present your plan to make things right in Syria, however you define it. Doesn't have to be too detailed. Ann-Marie Slaughter did it in about 800 words in the New York Times a few days ago. Should be easy for you in half that. Hell, even a broad outline would be something.

[J Wolfsberger]

I'm afraid you are merely being argumentative (probably for the sake of it)... Answer your own questions

Speaking of which ...

Either you haven't gotten the point of a great many of our responses because you don't understand English particularly well, in which I suggest you work on your language comprehension skills, or you're "... merely being argumentative (probably for the sake of it) ..."

Pick one.

[jmm99]

A person of phlegmatic disposition who is a blockhead, would, with a sanguine nature, be a fool.

LINK (http://quotationsbook.com/quote/37499/)

Entropy: In response to Anne-Marie Slaughter (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/24/opinion/how-to-halt-the-butchery-in-syria.html?_r=1), I'd go with Gian Gentile's measured counter-point (http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/realities-syrian-intervention-6596). Peter Munson (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/the-responsibilities-of-civilian-policy-advocates) reaches the same result as Gian - though with more hyperbole.

Regards

Mike

[Dayuhan]

A person of phlegmatic disposition who is a blockhead, would, with a sanguine nature, be a fool.

And with a choleric nature, a menace... something we should recall when considering inherently choleric recommendations involving "solving" problems by sending troops, or cruise missiles.

[Watcher In The Middle]

Been a while...

I have a couple of dumb observations regarding Syria...but I would appreciate feedback on what I'm missing.

First off, it appears that Syria has put what might of been a developing relationship between Turkey and Iran 'on the rocks', with little hope of re-floating that particular vessel. I'd much rather see the development of a negative relationship between those two nations, rather than have the US jump in with our usual bumbling technique and give the Iranians an opportunity of having another player to manipulate.

Secondly, if the US jumped in, you know the "Dupe of Israel" card is going to get played. So why go there? Which leads directly into the next point...

Third, you have to take into account the US appetite for intervention. It's not there. And this viewpoint isn't current Administration driven. The current US economics, and gas prices, and all the other economic issues are just not going to allow for another foreign adventure. And that looks to be from just about any of the different major political viewpoints.

Lastly, Syria looks like sort of a blindfolded poker game being played in total darkness on a moonless night (NVG is fine, but it has it's limitations). When it's unclear as to the cards being dealt, and even who the other players are, why would you want to play? I see too many other nations (and smart money players among them) who are shying away from jumping into the Syria 'situation', so what would ever possess us to jump in?

If a Syrian 'Intervention' is going to be pushed, it's going to have to be one of the more unbelievable "Sell Jobs" to the American people in the last 20-30 years. Just don't see it happening.

[JMA]

Speaking of which ...

Either you haven't gotten the point of a great many of our responses because you don't understand English particularly well, in which I suggest you work on your language comprehension skills, or you're "... merely being argumentative (probably for the sake of it) ..."

Pick one.

I'll just ignore this post from you... you have now descended to the level of D

[JMA]

The question in question was yours, I believe:

You asked it, why don't you answer it?

That question was what I see as the basic consideration for intervention.

Since you have a position where no intervention by the US can be considered there little point in discussing the matter with you.

I am in agreement with you that the US should not intervene in Syria... Perhaps for different reasons.

[JMA]

No justification intended or needed, just correcting another of your errors. :rolleyes:You wrote that above. Physician, heal thyself... :D

Nothing wrong on my side. I suggest that you are beginning to realize that your stock answer to matters of US intervention does not fully deal with the complexity of a super power on the wane struggling to come to terms with it's decline.

[JMA]

Necessary for what and necessary for whom?

You are getting ahead of yourself (with some command and staff training you will come to realize that there is a question you need to answer before you get onto those two).

Surprise me.

[Dayuhan]

Since you have a position where no intervention by the US can be considered there little point in discussing the matter with you.

I've not stated any such position. What I've said is that I believe the default US position should be non-intervention. I've also said that there are circumstances in which that default could be overridden, it there are sufficiently compelling interests at stake, if there are mechanisms at hand for intervention that have a strong probability of success and a realistic chance at not producing undesirable unintended consequences, and if the goals of the intervention are practical, realistic, and achievable. Obviously these are subjective criteria, but many recent (and less recent) US interventions have been far off those criteria by any standard, and I've seen nothing even vaguely resembling a coherent argument suggesting that intervention in Syria would meet those criteria. If you have seen such an argument, please direct us to it.


I suggest that you are beginning to realize that your stock answer to matters of US intervention does not fully deal with the complexity of a super power on the wane struggling to come to terms with it's decline.

The US is on the wane, to the extent that it is, as a consequence of internal economic policy and other domestic policy issues, helped along by overambitious and largely pointless interventions abroad. Reluctance to intervene is not a cause of decline, it's a consequence of decline: I think it's generally recognized that the US can't afford pointless interventions, and that to reverse or at least slow the decline the US needs to focus on its own interests and its own business, not burn its strength messing about in other people's fights.

[JMA]

And with a choleric nature, a menace... something we should recall when considering inherently choleric recommendations involving "solving" problems by sending troops, or cruise missiles.

Lets see what Sheriff Wolfsberger makes of this post... wonder if he sees it as a test of integrity?

[JMA]

I've not stated any such position. What I've said is that I believe the default US position should be non-intervention. I've also said that there are circumstances in which that default could be overridden, it there are sufficiently compelling interests at stake, if there are mechanisms at hand for intervention that have a strong probability of success and a realistic chance at not producing undesirable unintended consequences, and if the goals of the intervention are practical, realistic, and achievable. Obviously these are subjective criteria, but many recent (and less recent) US interventions have been far off those criteria by any standard, and I've seen nothing even vaguely resembling a coherent argument suggesting that intervention in Syria would meet those criteria. If you have seen such an argument, please direct us to it.

Yea, yea, yea (and said with a straight face too). I have read you correctly so it is unnecessary to write a paragraph to spin out exactly what I said in the first place.

It would be interesting to hear if you believe there has ever been a situation that has required US military intervention.

There are calls for those who consider intervention in Syria necessary/needed/desirable to present their case to a handful of people who are no more than mere US citizens. The sheer arrogance of it. The sheer arrogance of people you want to withdraw into isolationism yet still want to be always 'sitting at the top table'.

I have said this before here (a few years ago) that the US and various citizens (where ever they may be found) want to be the 'the bride at every wedding' and the 'baby at every Christening' ... while not realising that you can't be a player unless you are prepared to 'put your money where your mouth is'.

The world is weaning itself off the US hegemony of the past at a speed rapidly increased after the Libya debacle.

Who is the 'us' you speak of here?

I will tell you one more time that the US must not intervene in Syria as it would be guaranteed to be a class one cock-up (with the tragic loss of life of many US soldiers).

As the US politicians are too $hit scared to face down Russia and China your efforts should (IMHO) rather be directed towards getting that inept White House and the incompetent State Department to shut the .... up (and to get out of the kitchen).


The US is on the wane, to the extent that it is, as a consequence of internal economic policy and other domestic policy issues, helped along by overambitious and largely pointless interventions abroad. Reluctance to intervene is not a cause of decline, it's a consequence of decline: I think it's generally recognized that the US can't afford pointless interventions, and that to reverse or at least slow the decline the US needs to focus on its own interests and its own business, not burn its strength messing about in other people's fights.

Nonsense. The problems the US faces is as a result of a mega leadership failure.

The costs of these interventions (as stated by others before) is not at the heart of the problem.

So lets summarise what you took a paragraph in an attempt at obfuscation in a sentence.

The current situation in which the US finds itself is as a result of a massive political leadership failure and accompanying inability to constrain domestic spending.

Get the idea?

[J Wolfsberger]

Lets see what Sheriff Wolfsberger makes of this post... wonder if he sees it as a test of integrity?

Respectfully declining the position of Sheriff. :D

[Dayuhan]

Yea, yea, yea (and said with a straight face too). I have read you correctly so it is unnecessary to write a paragraph to spin out exactly what I said in the first place.

It would be interesting to hear if you believe there has ever been a situation that has required US military intervention.

WW2 would be close. Might be a few others, haven't time to go through case by case. Not many, certainly. "Required" is a big word: intervention would only be "required" in the event of a grave and imminent threat could be averted in no other way. I can imagine circumstances in which intervention would be desirable, though not required, though not many.

I'm curious, what exactly do you find objectionable in the criteria I cited? Compelling national interest, an opportunity for action under advantageous circumstances, and a clear, practical, achievable goal... how is that unreasonable? Seems a bare minimum one would ask for before getting into a military engagement overseas. What would you propose as criteria to be met before commitment to military intervention?


There are calls for those who consider intervention in Syria necessary/needed/desirable to present their case to a handful of people who are no more than mere US citizens. The sheer arrogance of it.

Since when has it been "arrogant" for participants in a discussion to expect other participants in that discussion to present and support their views? Kind of hard to have a discussion if people aren't willing to "present their case", no?

You can wait for an invitation to "present your case" to Congress if you want, but it might take a while.


The sheer arrogance of people you want to withdraw into isolationism yet still want to be always 'sitting at the top table'.

Since when has an absence of intervention equaled isolationism? There's a whole range of ways to be internationally engaged without military intervention. The Chinese haven't taken up military intervention, are they "isolationist"?


I have said this before here (a few years ago) that the US and various citizens (where ever they may be found) want to be the 'the bride at every wedding' and the 'baby at every Christening' ... while not realising that you can't be a player unless you are prepared to 'put your money where your mouth is'.

The US has put so much money where its mouth is that it has none left in its wallet. Possibly there are some Americans out there who want to be "the bride at every wedding and the baby at every Christening", but I see no reason why anyone here should answer for them, unless someone here has expressed such views... are you perghaps generalizing about what "Americans" collectively think or want?


The world is weaning itself off the US hegemony of the past at a speed rapidly increased after the Libya debacle.

The world has been weaning itself off US hegemony for decades. That's not a bad thing; hegemony wasn't good for the US or anyone else. The greatest hit to US hegemony in recent years was probably the Iraq debacle; Libya, which was a debacle of minor proportions if it was one at all (I'd argue that it wasn't though that's a subject for another thread), pales by comparison.


Who is the 'us' you speak of here?

If you refer to the "us" in this line:


If you have seen such an argument, please direct us to it.

that's referring to the rest of the participants in this discussion. I'd have thought that obvious.


As the US politicians are too $hit scared to face down Russia and China your efforts should (IMHO) rather be directed towards getting that inept White House and the incompetent State Department to shut the .... up (and to get out of the kitchen).

China has nothing at all to do with intervention in Syria, and Russia very little. US politicians aren't staying out of Syria because they're afraid of the Russians and Chinese, who aren't going to fight for Basher Assad in any event, they're staying out because they're afraid of the American voter, and of the legacy they'd incur in the likely event that they bog the US down in yet another pointless, expensive, and messy in a fight that has nothing to do with the US. Is that really an unreasonable fear?


Nonsense. The problems the US faces is as a result of a mega leadership failure.

The costs of these interventions (as stated by others before) is not at the heart of the problem.

Agreed... the heart of the problem is not the silly interventions, but a set of domestic economic issues that does owe a great deal to a leadership deficit, though the followership hasn't exactly covered itself in glory. That doesn't mean the money spent in Iraq and a great deal of what was spent in Afghanistan couldn't have been put to any number of better purposes.


So lets summarise what you took a paragraph in an attempt at obfuscation in a sentence.

The current situation in which the US finds itself is as a result of a massive political leadership failure and accompanying inability to constrain domestic spending.

Constraining domestic spending is but a fraction of it. Constraining spending on unnecessary and wasteful interventions is an even smaller fraction. In any event, I can't see how intervention in Syria, or anywhere else, would put the US in a better position. The US is declining (to the extent that it is) for many reasons, but I can't see how an intervention deficit can be called one of them

[davidbfpo]

I recall one very close, wise observer of Libya, who a day before Western intervention did not think Washington would act. So who knows whether the USA will surprise itself and the world again?

The strident R2P lobby has had a "whacking" of late, including by the SWJ Editor;see the links and summary on:http://zenpundit.com/?p=6108

I am puzzled, especially for Europe as it was rather too close, that few mention the parallels in the break-up of Yugoslavia and the years of slaughter in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

FP Blog has a timely reminder how effective media reporting can be limited, if not made deadly, by drawing upon the Russian approach in Chechen War:http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/03/02/kill_the_messenger

My media watching is limited, but I've yet to see signs of the Arab public in mass protests. IIRC there have been some protests at Syrian embassies.

[J Wolfsberger]

The strident R2P lobby has had a "whacking" of late, including by the SWJ Editor;see the links and summary on:http://zenpundit.com/?p=6108

A good article and roundup by zenpundit. Dr. Slaughter, understandably, will forever by motivated by her commitment to prevent another event like the Rwanda Genocide. However, the R2P advocates don’t seem to realize that as long as they require international approval/authorization/"legitimacy," their efforts will always be blocked by outside actors who seek advantage or gain from the turmoil.

Furthermore …


I am puzzled, especially for Europe as it was rather too close, that few mention the parallels in the break-up of Yugoslavia and the years of slaughter in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

Most R2P advocates want to ignore it because it leads to unpalatable conclusions. The UN intervention was almost totally ineffective at preventing the slaughter, and the NATO intervention not much better. A large part of this is due to, again, outside actors who have a vested interest in continuing the turmoil or do-good busy bodies (both governments and NGOs) with a childish understanding of the use of force. The result is ROEs that prevent the interveners from taking any useful or effective action.

At the same time, most of the R2P advocates (but not, I believe, Dr. Slaughter) would stridently oppose unilateral action led by the U.S.

This leads to the problem that the only realistic option to achieve their desired outcome depends on an approach they vehemently oppose. Examining Bosnia-Herzegovina too closely proves that point, and thus it’s mentally and emotionally safer to just drop it down the memory hole.

[ganulv]

FP Blog has a timely reminder how effective media reporting can be limited, if not made deadly, by drawing upon the Russian approach in Chechen War:http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/03/02/kill_the_messenger
Thanks for the link. I would have assumed that Marie Colvin was saltier. I don’t mean that as a criticism, it just surprises me given how long she had been in that particular line of work.

[Ken White]

Nothing wrong on my side.Heh. Check that mirror...

You are indeed funny -- and apparently somewhat deluded. You are quite often wrong and usually blatantly deny it. Not a particular problem to me or to this board, it's rather droll but can be mildly entertaining on occasion. Unless of course you're serious as opposed to merely being confrontational for the fun of it... ;)
I suggest that you are beginning to realize that your stock answer to matters of US intervention does not fully deal with the complexity of a super power on the wane struggling to come to terms with it's decline.Actually, your constantly taking my quite plain statements of minor facts as 'excuses' or 'justification' would seem to indicate a predilection on your part to ignore what others write unless they are in total agreement with your views -- or worse. That's why I earlier in this thread wrote: "You're funny. It's not an excuse, it is a simple statement of fact which I've made repeatedly, you keep trying to make into an apologia. It is not. I and most Americans are very much aware of that dysfunction, more so than most overseas but most of us are not apologetic about it nor do we state the obvious as an excuse, it just is." I've written along that line in responses to you for a couple of years in several threads and you apparently still cannot accept that I (and many others) are aware that decline is extant and aren't too concerned about it. Several of us have repeatedly acknowledged and agreed with your constant carping about American decline and acknowledged our dysfunction, conditions of which most here seem to be aware but not nearly as concerned about as you appear to be. :rolleyes:

You wrote:
The current situation in which the US finds itself is as a result of a massive political leadership failure and accompanying inability to constrain domestic spending.Yep. Most in this thread have agreed with that, I certainly do and long have and have so written -- so what's your point?

One could almost suspect that your petulant attitude toward that issue is engendered by the mere fact that I and others often state that most, not all, Americans likely do not care what you -- or the rest of the world thinks. Surely that can't be the case... :o

Or, based on this, maybe it is:
;;;The sheer arrogance of it. The sheer arrogance of people you want to withdraw into isolationism yet still want to be always 'sitting at the top table'.Yep, we're arrogant (a not unheard of attribute elsewhere in the world...). Frosts your mess gear, huh?

If it is, you probably oughta work on those fixations. For one of your advanced years, I've heard they're unhealthy... :D

ADDED: Forgot. You might want to re-read Dayuhan's Post number 284. He quite neatly and concisely answers -- skewers -- all your 'points.'

[JMA]

Respectfully declining the position of Sheriff. :D

Don't blame you... the requirement to be evenhanded can be a real bitch.

[JMA]

Heh. Check that mirror...

You are indeed funny -- and apparently somewhat deluded. You are quite often wrong and usually blatantly deny it. Not a particular problem to me or to this board, it's rather droll but can be mildly entertaining on occasion. Unless of course you're serious as opposed to merely being confrontational for the fun of it... ;)

My being wrong most often is merely in the opinion of some person with a different view.

Ken, sadly you often cross the boundary and demean yourself through displays of blind loyalty to what appears to be standard US opinion (possibly due to some form of misguided subliminal tribal loyalty).

To late to improve on that I guess.


Actually, your constantly taking my quite plain statements of minor facts as 'excuses' or 'justification' would seem to indicate a predilection on your part to ignore what others write unless they are in total agreement with your views -- or worse.

You state this as if this does not happen with monotonous regularity around here. Sadly you also take a one eyed view.


That's why I earlier in this thread wrote: "You're funny. It's not an excuse, it is a simple statement of fact which I've made repeatedly, you keep trying to make into an apologia. It is not.

If it is not... it should be.


I and most Americans are very much aware of that dysfunction, more so than most overseas but most of us are not apologetic about it nor do we state the obvious as an excuse, it just is."

Yes it is known US arrogance to flip the rest of the world even after they have really screwed so much up. I say again even if you don't give a damn about what the US has done to the world... maybe you should.


I've written along that line in responses to you for a couple of years in several threads and you apparently still cannot accept that I (and many others) are aware that decline is extant and aren't too concerned about it. Several of us have repeatedly acknowledged and agreed with your constant carping about American decline and acknowledged our dysfunction, conditions of which most here seem to be aware but not nearly as concerned about as you appear to be. :rolleyes:

I am certainly entitled to restate my opinion just as those on the non-interventionist fringe do with monotonous regularity. You are surely not telling me that you can't see your one eyed slant in all this?


You wrote:Yep. Most in this thread have agreed with that, I certainly do and long have and have so written -- so what's your point?

Simple. I am stating the obvious. It clearly gets up your nose despite your assurances that you don't give a rats ass. I don't see you correct any of your misguided fellow countrymen when they state idiotically that the cost of these minor interventions is behind the economic woes currently facing the US. Why would that be Ken?


One could almost suspect that your petulant attitude toward that issue is engendered by the mere fact that I and others often state that most, not all, Americans likely do not care what you -- or the rest of the world thinks. Surely that can't be the case... :o

I suggest you worry less about what I am thinking and concern yourself with more accurately articulating your opinion... and yes... also accepting that your opinion is just that and not necessarily the truth.


Or, based on this, maybe it is:Yep, we're arrogant (a not unheard of attribute elsewhere in the world...). Frosts your mess gear, huh?

...but currently the US and the odd person around such discussion groups set the international standard in arrogance. I guess you just have to learn to live with that .... once again flip the world.


If it is, you probably oughta work on those fixations. For one of your advanced years, I've heard they're unhealthy... :D

Huh?


ADDED: Forgot. You might want to re-read Dayuhan's Post number 284. He quite neatly and concisely answers -- skewers -- all your 'points.'

LOL ... then that places you way out on the ... fringe with him.

"WW2 would be close" he says and you agree. Sad. Now you understand why I don't waste much of my time on him. Maybe you are getting too much of my time as well.

[J Wolfsberger]

"John McCain: U.S. should bomb Syria (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/73627.html)"




“Providing military assistance to the Free Syrian Army and other opposition groups is necessary, but at this late hour, that alone will not be sufficient to stop the slaughter and save innocent lives. The only realistic way to do so is with foreign airpower,” McCain, a Vietnam war veteran and the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, will say in a speech on the Senate floor.

He is apparently calling for U.S. led air strikes.

More at "McCain to call for air strikes on Syria (http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/03/05/mccain_to_call_for_air_strikes_on_syria)"

[ganulv]

"John McCain: U.S. should bomb Syria (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/73627.html)"

He is apparently calling for U.S. led air strikes.

More at "McCain to call for air strikes on Syria (http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/03/05/mccain_to_call_for_air_strikes_on_syria)"
Just the law of the instrument as applied by an old pilot.

[Ken White]

My being wrong most often is merely in the opinion of some person with a different view.I'd say persons, plural...
You state this as if this does not happen with monotonous regularity around here. Sadly you also take a one eyed view.Could be. If so, likely a function of the cataract in my left eye...
Yes it is known US arrogance to flip the rest of the world even after they have really screwed so much up. I say again even if you don't give a damn about what the US has done to the world... maybe you should.Oh, I care but I also know we've, on balance, done more good than harm. Shame others cannot say that. Equally regrettable that some who know that purposely elide.
I am certainly entitled to restate my opinion just as those on the non-interventionist fringe do with monotonous regularity. You are surely not telling me that you can't see your one eyed slant in all this?I think the one eyed slant is actually in which view is really the "fringe." :D
Simple. I am stating the obvious. It clearly gets up your nose despite your assurances that you don't give a rats ass. I don't see you correct any of your misguided fellow countrymen when they state idiotically that the cost of these minor interventions is behind the economic woes currently facing the US. Why would that be Ken?Because I read all they write and most of them expand on that; you just ignore that bit as you tend to do to all things inimical to your positions. :wry:
I suggest you worry less about what I am thinking and concern yourself with more accurately articulating your opinion... and yes... also accepting that your opinion is just that and not necessarily the truth."Worry" is an extremely poor choice of words. Tickled is more appropriate.

Of course my opinions are not necessarily the truth -- nor are yours.
...but currently the US and the odd person around such discussion groups set the international standard in arrogance. I guess you just have to learn to live with that .... once again flip the world.Okay, consider your self duly "flipped," to use your word.
Huh?Pay attention... :D
LOL ... then that places you way out on the ... fringe with him.Kewel. There's that "fringe" bit again -- I think you might've misplaced it.
"WW2 would be close" he says and you agree. Sad. Now you understand why I don't waste much of my time on him. Maybe you are getting too much of my time as well.Well, WWII is the last one I can recall -- and I went to most of the others, not one of which merited the force applied. As for wasting time, I'm retired and can piddle away like this for days doing little or nothing of consequence. :cool:

I think we've degenerated into nothingness. I'd love to continue to play but must unfortunately go and do things of consequence for a bit. You be nice, hear...

Back to the thread. Syria.

[Dayuhan]

The only realistic way to do so is with foreign airpower

And of course before we put our pilots in harm's way there has to be a full shock-and-awe thing to take out air defenses and command/control... we never learn, I guess.

I just hope common sense prevails somewhere.

[Entropy]

I think we've degenerated into nothingness. I'd love to continue to play but must unfortunately go and do things of consequence for a bit. You be nice, hear...

Seems to be arguing about arguing at this point.

[ganulv]

Seems to be arguing about arguing at this point.
The hell you say! :p

[J Wolfsberger]

Seems to be arguing about arguing at this point.

I am shocked, shocked to find that arguing is going on in here! :eek:

[Ken White]

I'm tilting at wind...mills! So there. :p

:D

[ganulv]

I am shocked, shocked to find that arguing is going on in here! :eek:
And by the usual suspects, at that!

[Fuchs]

And by the usual suspects, at that!

I feel superfluous... ;)

[jmm99]

19% Support Increased U.S. Involvement In Syria (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/israel_the_middle_east/19_support_increased_u_s_involvement_in_syria):


...
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely U.S. Voters shows that only 19% believe the United States should get more directly involved in the Syrian crisis. That’s up from 12% last August (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/august_2011/only_12_think_u_s_should_step_up_involvement_in_sy ria) and nine percent (9%) in May (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/may_2011/65_want_u_s_to_stay_out_of_syrian_crisis). However, 56% say the United States should leave the situation in Syria alone. Twenty-five percent (25%) are undecided. Opposition to increased U.S. involvement in Syria is down from 66% last August. ...

Some meat for Fuchs.

Regards

Mike

[Fuchs]

Anything up to 20% is not so important.
You can get the most outrageous nonsense polled with up to 20% support about everywhere. It happens.

There are 5-10% dangerous a-holes in all populations and on top of that several per cent of what statisticians at times call 'clowns'.

[jmm99]

:)

Not quite Scott Rasmussen's style, but what the H - Thou art what thou art. ;)

Got to leave Syria (TG) and address AG Holder's speech re: targeted killing.

Regards

Mike

[Watcher In The Middle]

OK, we're seeing an approx. 1% per month increase rate in support, and a 1% per month decrease in opposition. But we're still only at 20%....

But.... (and there's ALWAYS a 'but' in politics)...

It's pretty much (for the American people) an academic question at the current time (no current US involvement). But once you have/take an active part in the 'event', that's when your support levels starts to get impacted - and usually negatively.

Many (not all, but many) political pro's have kind of a rule of thumb - If you can't start the 'campaign process' (and Syria would certainly be a 'campaign process') with a formulated idea/approach having at least 35 to 40 percent support at the front end (the starting gate), you are probably backing a loser.

Also. don't be at all surprised if this wasn't John McCain backing Hillary Clinton up. This may very well have been one time where personal politics overrode partisan politics.

[Dayuhan]

"More directly involved" is fairly vague, have to wonder what the numbers would be if the question had specifically referred to military intervention.

A lot will depend on the CNN effect. There wasn't much support for intervention in Libya until the reports from Benghazi started coming in. We'll see how people respond. With an election coming up, politicians will be watching the polls closely.

[jmm99]

19% + 1% per month over 6 months ain't spit in my experience (managing several congressional district level campaigns).

On the other hand, the folks who will decide on a Syrian intervention are those in the WH and Congress, where the %s should be much closer. The Syrian issue could become a non-issue if the Iran question flips one way or the other within the next 6 months.

Regards

Mike

[JMA]

WW2 would be close. Might be a few others, haven't time to go through case by case. Not many, certainly. "Required" is a big word: intervention would only be "required" in the event of a grave and imminent threat could be averted in no other way. I can imagine circumstances in which intervention would be desirable, though not required, though not many.

Thank you for your opinion on the matter. As stated before you are so far out in left field on this that there is no point is discussing the matter further with you.


I'm curious, what exactly do you find objectionable in the criteria I cited? Compelling national interest, an opportunity for action under advantageous circumstances, and a clear, practical, achievable goal... how is that unreasonable? Seems a bare minimum one would ask for before getting into a military engagement overseas. What would you propose as criteria to be met before commitment to military intervention?

I really don't care what criteria you cite because quite simply nothing (in your opinion) would meet those criteria. No point in discussing the the matter further with you.


Since when has it been "arrogant" for participants in a discussion to expect other participants in that discussion to present and support their views? Kind of hard to have a discussion if people aren't willing to "present their case", no?

You may expect what you like but people passing through any discussion board are not required to answer to your beck and call.

In this thread it goes beyond arrogance and into the realms of stupidity in that despite my saying repeatedly that the US should not intervene in Syria I get asked why should the US intervene in Syria. Pointless to respond to that sort of insanity.


You can wait for an invitation to "present your case" to Congress if you want, but it might take a while.

As Bob would say (quite rightly in this case)... grow up.


Since when has an absence of intervention equaled isolationism? There's a whole range of ways to be internationally engaged without military intervention. The Chinese haven't taken up military intervention, are they "isolationist"?

Tibet 1951?


The US has put so much money where its mouth is that it has none left in its wallet.

This is not accurate to the point of being a deliberate untruth.


Possibly there are some Americans out there who want to be "the bride at every wedding and the baby at every Christening", but I see no reason why anyone here should answer for them, unless someone here has expressed such views... are you perghaps generalizing about what "Americans" collectively think or want?

The US Administration certainly does.

That brings me back to the perennial problem of just about every American having a different view of what is in the US's best interests. Yet all stated as if they were the truth and the only truth.


The world has been weaning itself off US hegemony for decades. That's not a bad thing; hegemony wasn't good for the US or anyone else. The greatest hit to US hegemony in recent years was probably the Iraq debacle; Libya, which was a debacle of minor proportions if it was one at all (I'd argue that it wasn't though that's a subject for another thread), pales by comparison.

So you missed the main issue with Libya then?

The world tends to watch the actions of the current US Administration and not listen to odd bod US citizens with different opinions.


If you refer to the "us" in this line:

that's referring to the rest of the participants in this discussion. I'd have thought that obvious.

OK... so like us against him (like in the school yard?)


China has nothing at all to do with intervention in Syria, and Russia very little.

I suggest that that is a very ignorant opinion... suggest further study on your part.


US politicians aren't staying out of Syria because they're afraid of the Russians and Chinese, who aren't going to fight for Basher Assad in any event,

Fight? Can fear only be linked to a fight?


they're staying out because they're afraid of the American voter, and of the legacy they'd incur in the likely event that they bog the US down in yet another pointless, expensive, and messy in a fight that has nothing to do with the US. Is that really an unreasonable fear?

That's your personal opinion.


Agreed... the heart of the problem is not the silly interventions, but a set of domestic economic issues that does owe a great deal to a leadership deficit, though the followership hasn't exactly covered itself in glory. That doesn't mean the money spent in Iraq and a great deal of what was spent in Afghanistan couldn't have been put to any number of better purposes.

Good, now lets have no more innuendo that the cost of these interventions are the cause of the US's current economic woes from you then, OK?


Constraining domestic spending is but a fraction of it. Constraining spending on unnecessary and wasteful interventions is an even smaller fraction. In any event, I can't see how intervention in Syria, or anywhere else, would put the US in a better position.

Yes you can't see it, won't entertain it... so there is no point in discussing it with you, yes?


The US is declining (to the extent that it is) for many reasons, but I can't see how an intervention deficit can be called one of them

I said it could?

[JMA]

I'd say persons, plural...

Wow... so that means that in this obscure discussion group more than one person shares the same opinion? That makes the small group of like minded 'persons' right?


Could be. If so, likely a function of the cataract in my left eye...

Not one of your more intelligent comments, Ken... maybe you are indulging in a little bit of grandstanding? Unbecoming.


Oh, I care but I also know we've, on balance, done more good than harm. Shame others cannot say that. Equally regrettable that some who know that purposely elide.

Don't agree that more good than harm has been done... but I appreciate that you need to feel that way. You have my sympathies.


I think the one eyed slant is actually in which view is really the "fringe."

You've lost it.

My position has been clear in that I believe that intervention in Syria is required and can be justified... but should not be carried out by the US.

This is a 'fringe' view?


Because I read all they write and most of them expand on that; you just ignore that bit as you tend to do to all things inimical to your positions.

No, I suspect it is more that you choose not to challenge your constituency... know what I mean ;)



"Worry" is an extremely poor choice of words. Tickled is more appropriate.

Whatever. You obviously missed it in D's post which you appear to have salivated over.

Finally he has articulated his position with some clarity ... took him paragraphs to say what should have taken a few sentences. In so doing he has undermined his earlier cost argument (which you failed to note) and has now reach the position where it is all a matter of personal opinion as to what conforms to compelling national interest. You USians may well find it fun to argue amongst yourselves as to what constitutes compelling national interest but out here in the colonies we just watch what the 'suit' in the White House does. Seems lost on this talk shop that like in the case of Libya despite local consensus that there should be no intervention, intervention went ahead anyway. So who is the fringe opinion now?


Of course my opinions are not necessarily the truth -- nor are yours.

The difference is that I never present anything in any other way.

Staff training would have taught you (and others around here - maybe) that you reach an end point (decision) by considering a number of factors along the way... and not by selecting an end point then building a case to support it. Common problem... always leads to a fail grade.


Okay, consider your self duly "flipped," to use your word.

Expected US arrogance.


There's that "fringe" bit again -- I think you might've misplaced it. Well, WWII is the last one I can recall -- and I went to most of the others, not one of which merited the force applied. As for wasting time, I'm retired and can piddle away like this for days doing little or nothing of consequence.

You forgot to add in my opinion after 'not one of which merited the force applied'.

In my opinion it is less about that force was used than about how it was used. With repeated incompetent execution it should be clear that the US political / senior military planning for such intervention ensures failure and more national humiliation.

The political and often humanitarian motives behind these interventions were often (in my opinion) sound. I suggest that repeated failure has blinded USians to the merits of the intervention and as such like a Pavolv's Dog respond to the memories of previous failure.


I think we've degenerated into nothingness. I'd love to continue to play but must unfortunately go and do things of consequence for a bit. You be nice, hear...

Back to the thread. Syria.

Speak for yourself. If you wish to continue you need to up your game.

[Entropy]

My position has been clear in that I believe that intervention in Syria is required and can be justified... but should not be carried out by the US.

So who, in your opinion, should do it, and how, in your opinion, should it be done and what, in your opinion, should be the political goal for the intervention? Just to be clear, this is just asking your opinion and not demanding that you heed anyone's beck and call.

[JMA]

So who, in your opinion, should do it, and how, in your opinion, should it be done and what, in your opinion, should be the political goal for the intervention? Just to be clear, this is just asking your opinion and not demanding that you heed anyone's beck and call.

When there are people with sufficient maturity and of a phlegmatic disposition around here who are able to see this issue and discuss it without seeing everything in terms of the US then we (them and I) can talk. At the moment while everything is revolving around a US-centric approach such a discussion is pointless.

Think humanitarian... if you are able.

[Entropy]

When there are people with sufficient maturity and of a phlegmatic disposition around here who are able to see this issue and discuss it without seeing everything in terms of the US then we (them and I) can talk. At the moment while everything is revolving around a US-centric approach such a discussion is pointless.

Think humanitarian... you you are able.

I'm not thinking in terms of the US, which was the point in my asking your opinion. Humanitarian? Ok, can you provide any details? I'm "all ears" to use an American phrase.

[Surferbeetle]

Andy,

Something that might be of interest...

Don’t despair of democracy, by Gideon Rachman, March 5, 2012 8:26 pm, Financial Times, www.ft.com


This weekend offered a rogues’ gallery of phoney democracy in action. In Russia it was announced that Vladimir Putin had been swept back to the Kremlin, after a suspiciously smashing first-round victory in the presidential election. Iran staged its first parliamentary elections since the rigged presidential poll of 2009 and the violent suppression of the Green movement. And in China, the National People’s Congress – the country’s rubber-stamp parliament – assembled for its annual meeting. It is a coincidence – but perhaps no accident – that these are the three nations that have emerged as the closest protectors of Syria’s murderous one-party state.

The combined spectacle should give pause to those who like to believe that an irresistible wave of democracy is sweeping the globe. But events in Russia, Iran and China should also give a perverse form of encouragement to democrats. For even as they decry the flaws and hypocrisies of western democracies, the world’s autocrats feel compelled to ape their practices.

...consider the comments section as well if you get a chance, there are some very interesting tidbits floating around.

Registration will get one ten free articles a month, but the resulting addiction is tough to break...:wry:

[J Wolfsberger]

In today's Wall Street Journal: The Case for Arming the Syrian Opposition (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203986604577257201200177274.html?m od=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTTopOpinion) by Mark Palmer and Paul Wolfowitz. I don't think it's behind a pay wall, but if it is PM me.

It starts with this:
While the slaughter continues in Syria, the U.S. is in danger of repeating the mistake made 20 years ago when we refused to arm the Bosnians. They go on to advocate making the same mistakes we made in Bosnia 20 or so years ago.

This gem stood out:
Material support must also include weapons. But that does not mean tanks or artillery or other weapons that would escalate the violence. What the opposition needs are defensive weapons so it can protect its own people, particularly defectors from the Syrian army.

So I guess we give them rifles, but no tanks or artillery to protect against tanks and artillery because that would escalate the violence? It's scary that these are supposed to be smart people.

[Entropy]

So I guess we give them rifles, but no tanks or artillery to protect against tanks and artillery because that would escalate the violence? It's scary that these are supposed to be smart people.

I'd laugh if not for the fact that lives are on the line. The whole notion that there are such things as "defensive" weapons is bunk anyway.

[Fuchs]

I'd laugh if not for the fact that lives are on the line. The whole notion that there are such things as "defensive" weapons is bunk anyway.

AT mines and most SAMs happen to be rather defensive (OK, those are munitions, but pols don't see the difference anyway).

[Entropy]

AT mines and most SAMs happen to be rather defensive (OK, those are munitions, but pols don't see the difference anyway).

Yes, but what if they are used, for instance, to protect an offensive? Weapons that are used for tactical defense can help on the offense.

[Surferbeetle]

Assad May Lose Russia, China; McCain Calls for Airstrikes (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-06/syria-s-assad-may-lose-key-backers-as-mccain-calls-for-u-s-led-airstrikes.html), By Nicole Gaouette - Mar 6, 2012 2:10 AM MT, Bloomberg News


Russia and China are shifting on Syria because they haven’t been “particularly happy with the position they’ve adopted in the region,” said Robert Danin, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington. Their UN vetoes scuttled a resolution authored by the Arab League calling for Assad to hand power to a deputy.

“They’re lined up against popular sentiment in the Arab world,” Danin said. “That’s just not a great place to be. They have a lot of reasons to reconsider their position.”

In a March 4 six-point statement about a political resolution on the “Syria issue,” the Chinese Foreign Ministry pointedly distanced itself from the Assad government, noting the regime’s violence against civilians. China called itself a “friend of the Arab people,” and urged an end to “all acts of violence, particularly violence against innocent civilians.”

[Tukhachevskii]

Rod Liddle, The Syria Delusion (http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/7686598/the-syria-delusion.thtml), The Spectator, 1st March 2012

[Bob's World]

Rod Liddle, The Syria Delusion (http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/7686598/the-syria-delusion.thtml), The Spectator, 1st March 2012

Nice find. I will forward to some of my co-workers. There is still room for cooler heads to prevail on this issue. Though as more US senior leaders come to see Syria as a cheap and easy way to take a jab at Iran, I fear that could slip away.

[JMA]

Rod Liddle, The Syria Delusion (http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/7686598/the-syria-delusion.thtml), The Spectator, 1st March 2012

OK lets look at this piece. This Ron Liddle person asked the following question:


What proportion of the Syrian population is fully in support of the continued uprising against the country’s authoritarian leader, Bashar al-Assad?

...then he pontificates for 930 words through which one must sift for what he sees as the answer to his question in 79 words:


...the Free Syrian Army has claimed that ‘50 per cent’ of the territory of Syria is no longer under government control. However, this 50 per cent does not seem to include any towns apart from Homs — just vast swaths of that reddish scrubland they have out there. On the other hand, the Syrian government’s referendum on a new constitution claimed a turnout of 57 per cent and a vote in favour of the constitution of almost 90 per cent.

Does Liddle answer his question?

Not close. Maybe he passed journalism school with junk like this but would not pass staff writing at any half decent army college.

If decisions are made based on crap like this little wonder so many policy decisions are a screw-up.

[ganulv]

Does Liddle answer [the] question [“What proportion of the Syrian population is fully in support of the continued uprising”]?

Not close.

Maybe he passed journalism school with junk like this but would not pass staff writing at any half decent army college.

I disagree that he failed to answer his own question, but I do agree that the prose is very much journalism writing. As such, you can get the gist by reading the first sentence of each paragraph (this is so the editor knows what can be cut without asking the writer). These include:


But I still do not see much evidence of burgeoning fury and rebellion among ordinary Syrians; as Hillary Clinton put it: ‘You don’t see uprisings across Syria the way you did in Libya.’

At the very least — the very least — you can say with some certainty that the popular opposition to Assad is far less widespread in Syria than was the opposition to the government in Bahrain, for example.
I think it is a responsible answer given the limited evidence available. While you may find that he hedges too much, I will remind you of the words of someone whom you seem to admire (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/russell/): “The demand for certainty is one which is natural to man, but is nevertheless an intellectual vice.”

[Fuchs]

Yes, but what if they are used, for instance, to protect an offensive? Weapons that are used for tactical defense can help on the offense.

Let's stay serious.
I understand your point, but you overstate it.

The bigger problem is that defence is not decisive. The people or Syria may protect themselves with foreign assistance, but that doesn't equal an end to the civil war, they cannot defeat the regime with defence alone.

The foreign meddling would most likely turn towards supporting the offence of the rebels, just as in/over Libya where bombers -originally supposed to destroy tanks which attack towns - began to pave the way for the rebel offensive by bombing regime defenders ripe for assault.


So the really despicable thing here is not that "defensive weapons" is misleading, but that the hawks pull an old trick and try to lower the threshold to get Western powers involved, expecting that mission creep will then carry the Western powers to what the hawks really want.

It's a salami slicing tactic, and I regret that more than one Western public is stupid enough to fall to such tactics again and again (at least in the current setting; not so sure what would happen in a direct democracy when people discussing at a bar would have a sense that their discussion and their vote may have consequences).

[Entropy]

Fuchs,

I think you're overthinking things. My point about "no such thing as a defensive weapon" was simply to point out that you can't give a rebel movement "defensive" weapons and expect them to use those weapons only for "defensive" purposes. So I think we basically agree and are just arguing semantics.

[Dayuhan]

Thank you for your opinion on the matter. As stated before you are so far out in left field on this that there is no point is discussing the matter further with you.

That may be your opinion, but can you support it? What situation since WW2 can you cite in which US intervention was (your word) required. Not justifiable, advisable, or desirable, but required


I really don't care what criteria you cite because quite simply nothing (in your opinion) would meet those criteria. No point in discussing the the matter further with you.

I thought initial intervention in Afghanistan was justified and desirable, though not required. Of course it was hopelessly messed up by the transition into "nation building" but that doesn't change my opinion that intervention was in that case justifiable and desirable. So there's one, which takes "simply nothing" out of the picture.


You may expect what you like but people passing through any discussion board are not required to answer to your beck and call.

Supporting your opinions with evidence and/or reasoning isn't answering to someone's beck and call, it's accepting a fundamental principle of rational discourse. If you're not willing to do that, don't expect anyone to take your opinions seriously.


In this thread it goes beyond arrogance and into the realms of stupidity in that despite my saying repeatedly that the US should not intervene in Syria I get asked why should the US intervene in Syria. Pointless to respond to that sort of insanity.

You previously wrote:


If I personally believe there should be an intervention in Syria (as I did in Libya) I am entitled to say so.


intervention is necessary and justified

You are entitled to say these things, of course. If you fail to say why you believe these things, don't expect anyone to take the opinions seriously.

Saying you think there should be an intervention in Syria but the US should not be involved is like saying you want to eat beef without a cow being killed.


Tibet 1951?

Or Vietnam '79. If you place China's minimalist history of messing along its borders beside the US history of global projection, though, what do you see? Do note, as well, that during China's surge in global presence and influence over the last 20 years there have been no military interventions, suggesting that intervention is not in any way necessary for a nation to gain global influence and prominence.

Unless you're prepared to cite some sort of evidence and reasoning to support the point, I don't think you can reasonably argue that the US is declining because it has not conducted enough interventions abroad, or that failing to intervene in any case has hastened or will hasten its decline. If you're going to link decline to overseas intervention, that opinion has to be supported if you want anyone to take it seriously.


So you missed the main issue with Libya then?

The "main issue" for who? MG is gone and the US isn't responsible for the inevitably messy aftermath. Goals achieved. Where's the "debacle"?


The world tends to watch the actions of the current US Administration and not listen to odd bod US citizens with different opinions.

I suspect and hope that the US administration will take its cue from the 56% of odd bod US voters who don't want intervention in Libya. The world will make of this what it will, as always.


OK... so like us against him (like in the school yard?)

I'm sure that even those who agree with you, were there any, would be interested in hearing the reasoning and evidence behind your opinions.


I suggest that that is a very ignorant opinion... suggest further study on your part.

I suggest that you've tossed out an unsupportable opinion and are declining to support it because you can't.


Fight? Can fear only be linked to a fight?

What else would there be to fear?


That's your opinion

Yes, it is. Look at the poll numbers cited earlier: 56% of surveyed voters "say the United States should leave the situation in Syria alone". Do you think that American politicians in an election year are going to ignore that? Don't you think that figure poses a more immediate and potent restraint on the temptation to intervene than some imaginary connection to Russia or China? If you think not, please say why.


Good, now lets have no more innuendo that the cost of these interventions are the cause of the US's current economic woes from you then, OK?

A cause, not the cause. One among many.

Look at your own words:


The current situation in which the US finds itself is as a result of a massive political leadership failure and accompanying inability to constrain domestic spending.

If domestic spending is an issue, than overseas spending has to be an issue also: spending is spending, and domestic spending has at least some residual economic benefit. The money spent on Iraq, Afghanistan, and the means required to prepare for additional such prospective escapades is not the sole cause of the US spending problem, but it's in no way chump change, return on investment has been minimal to nonexistent, and if spending is a problem this has to be part of it. On the ledger a dollar spent in Iraq is no different than a dollar to a welfare recipient in Detroit, except that the Detroit dollar is re-spent in the domestic economy and most of the the Iraq dollar isn't.


Yes you can't see it, won't entertain it... so there is no point in discussing it with you, yes?

If you believe that "intervention in Syria, or anywhere else, would put the US in a better position", why won't you tell us why? If there's no point in discussing matters with those who disagree, this place will get very quiet very quickly. Surely you cannot expect people to entertain your opinions if you're not prepared to reveal the reasons why you hold those opinions.

[JMA]

I disagree that he failed to answer his own question, but I do agree that the prose is very much journalism writing. As such, you can get the gist by reading the first sentence of each paragraph (this is so the editor knows what can be cut without asking the writer). These include:

Oh he also no doubt believes he has answered his question... as do some around here ;)

To that I respond with my favourite Bertrand Russell quotation:


If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. – Bertrand Russell

I suggest that our man Liddle (and those who support his view) are ready to clutch at any straw which they see as building a case against intervention in Syria or arming the various opposition groups.


I think it is a responsible answer given the limited evidence available. While you may find that he hedges too much, I will remind you of the words of someone whom you seem to admire (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/russell/): “The demand for certainty is one which is natural to man, but is nevertheless an intellectual vice.”

If I may suggest that you are getting ahead of yourself here (much like Entropy did) by not dealing with the initial question.

I would ask Liddle why he asked the question when he knew (or should have) that he did not have the answer. What was his point? Meeting a blog deadline? He gets paid by the word? What? Did his blog entry inform? I could go on...

I respect Russell for his honesty and moral courage - as apart from the physical (lower level) variety which many of us have displayed in battle at one time or other. I have mentioned this before (around here somewhere) that the need to protect their pensions has made many generals (both Brit and US) moral cowards to the cost of the respective militaries and their countries.

Russell again:


Many a man will have the courage to die gallantly, but will not have the courage to say, or even to think, that the cause for which he is asked to die is an unworthy one. - Bertrand Russell

[JMA]

If you believe that "intervention in Syria, or anywhere else, would put the US in a better position", why won't you tell us why? If there's no point in discussing matters with those who disagree, this place will get very quiet very quickly. Surely you cannot expect people to entertain your opinions if you're not prepared to reveal the reasons why you hold those opinions.

I am ignoring the majority of your post because your are obviously looking for someone to argue with... and I'm not taking the bait.

I have told you on a few occasions that you lack comprehension skills and this is once again evident in the final piece of your post (quoted above).

My position on Syria is simple...

I would support intervention in Syria (for much the same reasons I did for Libya) but would not support that intervention being carried out by the US (due to their extremely poor record with such interventions) neither would I support arming the opposition (for much the same reasons I stated for Libya).

That said... now go find someone else to play with.

[Dayuhan]

I would support intervention in Syria (for much the same reasons I did for Libya) but would not support that intervention being carried out by the US

So who do you think should do it, or is that also destined to remain a mystery?

If you insist on presenting strongly worded opinions, expect people to ask you to support those opinions with evidence or reasoning. That's not being argumentative, it's an established convention of rational discourse. It may be awkward, especially if you can't support the opinions with evidence or reasoning, but that's not the fault of those asking you to support your opinions.

Regarding this...


If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way.

There was a time (we were all young once) when I was a great advocate of humanitarian intervention... of course nobody cared or listened, but I believed. Most Americans raised in liberal progressive environments have that cultivated instinct to help. It was only with the passage of time, and some painful scrutiny of a rather large body of evidence, that this instinct was gradually replaced by a much more restrained set of opinions.

Most of us have changed our minds on something, at some time.

[Fuchs]

The Israelis are "not suitable" for an intervention in Syria.

The Turks would possibly face imperialism rumours, as if they wanted to re-establish the Ottoman Empire.

The French would have no entry point, and their expeditionary forces would have troubles with the quite heavily-armed Syrian army. Their only option would be air strikes from the CdG (if the ship is operational at the time; dunno), but that wouldn't be much. Alternatively they might be allowed to use Cyprus as base for AdA strikes.

Same for the British; they couldn't do more than Cyprus allows.

Russia has rather been a supporter of Syria and will certainly not intervene.

Saudi-Arabia is an absolute monarchy that's more interested in getting over with the Arab Spring and the secular Syrian baathists than in protecting the Syrian people.

Jordan is too weak for intervention.

Iraq is too weak for intervention.

Lebanon isn't even strong enough to ward off Syrian influence domestically.

Italy and Spain have no significantly better intervention potential than the UK.



So who should in your opinion intervene? The Americans were the only ones crazy enough to sink trillions of dollars in the ability to beat up a medium-sized, very distant country that has a large and obsolete military.

[JMA]

So who do you think should do it, or is that also destined to remain a mystery?

If you insist on presenting strongly worded opinions, expect people to ask you to support those opinions with evidence or reasoning. That's not being argumentative, it's an established convention of rational discourse. It may be awkward, especially if you can't support the opinions with evidence or reasoning, but that's not the fault of those asking you to support your opinions.

Regarding this...

There was a time (we were all young once) when I was a great advocate of humanitarian intervention... of course nobody cared or listened, but I believed. Most Americans raised in liberal progressive environments have that cultivated instinct to help. It was only with the passage of time, and some painful scrutiny of a rather large body of evidence, that this instinct was gradually replaced by a much more restrained set of opinions.

Most of us have changed our minds on something, at some time.

Yes we were all young once... and some of us were soldiers too... now listen to me... go find someone else to play with!

[JMA]

So who should in your opinion intervene? The Americans were the only ones crazy enough to sink trillions of dollars in the ability to beat up a medium-sized, very distant country that has a large and obsolete military.

Good summary.

Most can't while those who could either won't or should not.

How does this, if at all, detract from the need curb the excesses of the Assad regime?

[jmm99]

If Turkey were to proceed with a conventional armed intervention - a 1 on 1 with Syria with full commitment of military forces by both states, who would win ?

No US-NATO support of any kind for the Turks; and Russia and China stay out of it completely (other than making noises about "aggressive war", etc.).

Regards

Mike

PS: This headline from TZ, ‘Turkey seeks parliamentary authorization to avert Syrian threat’ (http://www.todayszaman.com/news-273560-turkey-seeks-parliamentary-authorization-to-avert-syrian-threat.html) (7 Mar 2012), is seriously misleading because Davutoğlu speaks throughout in the conditional.

[Dayuhan]

now listen to me... go find someone else to play with!

You'll want to recover that phlegmatic disposition long enough to recall that you don't give orders 'round here.

You've expressed certain opinions that need to be supported to be taken seriously. It's up to you to support them, is it not? If you're not willing to do that, why should you be ordering anyone else to listen to you?

[JMA]

... a conventional armed intervention - a 1 on 1 with Syria with full commitment of military forces by both states, ...

Why would there be a need for an intervention on this scale?

Can you put your finger on where the problem lies?

[Dayuhan]

Why would there be a need for an intervention on this scale?

Realistically, do you think Assad, his military forces, and his substantial base of civilian support are going to disappear or give up in the face of anything less than an intervention on that scale? Surely you don't really believe that they will tuck their tails between their legs and submit to a foreign will simply because somebody fires a few cruise missiles at them...

[Fuchs]

Good summary.

Most can't while those who could either won't or should not.

How does this, if at all, detract from the need curb the excesses of the Assad regime?

Which need?

3,000 people died in inter-tribal violence in province Pibor, South Sudan, at the beginning of this year. We didn't even notice, much less did a Western public discuss the prospect of intervention.

Why is there a need for action in Syria, but not in other places?

Looks to me as if it's not a need, but a personal preference.
The Syrians are having a civil war. I can resist the urge for calling for an involvement.

[J Wolfsberger]

Which need?

3,000 people died in inter-tribal violence in province Pibor, South Sudan, at the beginning of this year. We didn't even notice, much less did a Western public discuss the prospect of intervention.

Why is there a need for action in Syria, but not in other places?

Looks to me as if it's not a need, but a personal preference.
The Syrians are having a civil war. I can resist the urge for calling for an involvement.

And as Rod Liddle pointed out, by asking an obviously rhetorical question, we know very little about who the people in rebellion really are, while we know a great deal about Assad, the Ba'ath Party, the Alawite minority in power, and so on. If events in Egypt and Libya are any indication, regardless of the current gush-gush over the insurgents in many quarters, only the hard core, radical Islamist groups have sufficient organization, resources and clarity of goals to shape the end state after the overthrow of the the Assad regime. The rest will be sidelined.

At least for the present, the situation seems to be that the Arab League would like somebody to intervene, so that the "somebody" will be the bad guy rather than them. Otherwise, those Saudi and Jordanian aircraft, tanks and infantry would already be on the scene.

Meanwhile, the choosing of sides is leading to a rift between Hamas and Iran - which I think most rational people would consider a Good Thing.

I'm with you, Fuchs. Resisting the temptation to intervene is proving very easy.

[J Wolfsberger]

Realistically, do you think Assad, his military forces, and his substantial base of civilian support are going to disappear or give up in the face of anything less than an intervention on that scale? Surely you don't really believe that they will tuck their tails between their legs and submit to a foreign will simply because somebody fires a few cruise missiles at them...

Well, if JMA thinks otherwise he's kept it secret. He doesn't ".. support that intervention being carried out by the US (due to their extremely poor record with such interventions)," he doesn't want the rebels armed, and he agreed with Fuchs' summary of the possibility of other actors intervening, so that pretty much takes everything off the table except for his three cruise missile option. Oh, and the usual "viewing with alarm," "strongly disapprove," "condemnation by all civilized people" and useless economic sanctions the Syrians are pretty much already ignoring.

Of course, a decapitation strike in Syria would lead to complete chaos as everyone fought for position in the aftermath, with no telling what kind of resulting state of affairs. I hope JMA will explain to us why this is "good planning" as opposed to what he considers the U.S. record of "bad planning."

[Fuchs]

Syria is very divided in ethnic and religious groups, almost as bad as Lebanon.
Assad's minority will feel the urge to emigrate when Assad falls, and I suspect the bigger factions will dominate the country "democratically". This requires that they're united (not split in religious extremists and others themselves);
the new regime will likely be ethnically dominated, not religiously or ideologically.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Syria#Ethnic_groups

I'd expect a Sunni Arab majority gaining control; their religious radicals would likely fail to be a majority nation-wide.

[davidbfpo]

From Fuchs a few posts back:
3,000 people died in inter-tribal violence in province Pibor, South Sudan, at the beginning of this year. We didn't even notice, much less did a Western public discuss the prospect of intervention.

This reminds me of an issue that has appeared on SWC before and JMM99 has used a nice global map to illustrate his point of view.

Simply put we all have a very different world map, with assigned, changing priorities and sometimes governments are in parallel with their own public. Sorry who cares about 'province Pibor' ? Very few outside the immediate area and the two Sudan's.

Incidentally I had to search for the location of Pibor:http://earthcatalogue.com/?ecd=SD_HSTM_368553_00&title=River-Pibor-Sudan and a BBC report on the incident(s):http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-16394664

Sadly whole chunks of the world are rarely delivered to our screens, how many viewers let alone editors want to learn about feuding tribes in South Sudan? I'm sure some here will remember the reporting of the famine in Ethiopia, that led to the Band Aid concerts.

Two of us here have already reminded readers of the shame Europe first & foremost has over Bosnia and FRY. The late Michael Foot, a Labour leader, made a startling documentary at the time and IIRC the title was 'Three Hours from Here'. There was endless TV reporting, Martin Bell being one; sometimes grim and even then it took months, years for politicians to get the courage to change the ROE. The UK's record is not good in this respect.

If anyone needs a reminder of humanitarian intervention view the 1999 BBC series 'Warriors', which is awesome - a word I rarely use. It is on YouTube and here are links to Part 1:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGj3cLQKlik and a rather crude snippet:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_OccBb6pqs&feature=related

Why the outrage over Syria? Well first foremost geography, secondly we have a mass of footage (still) of the year-long protests and check out:http://www.enduringamerica.com/ Add in the calls for "something to be done", even here in the UK by some surprising people - who oppose(d) our role in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I don't know enough about Syria or the Assad regime and what short of "boots on the ground" would affect their decision-making.

That caveat aside what we should do beyond declarations is practical:

Ensure the evidenceof brutality is collected and is ready for the day when justice can be done.

Boost radio broadcasting to the region.

Reduce all Syrian embassies to consular duties, close all trade offices and UN delegations. Send the staff home PNG.

Monitor all import / export activity and ask those involved why publicly. Yes, publish which ships and aircraft visit.

[JMA]

Realistically, do you think Assad, his military forces, and his substantial base of civilian support are going to disappear or give up in the face of anything less than an intervention on that scale? Surely you don't really believe that they will tuck their tails between their legs and submit to a foreign will simply because somebody fires a few cruise missiles at them...

Just run your military credentials past me so I can try to understand where you are coming from here.

[JMA]

You'll want to recover that phlegmatic disposition long enough to recall that you don't give orders 'round here.

Last time I said something like that to someone I got suspended.


You've expressed certain opinions that need to be supported to be taken seriously. It's up to you to support them, is it not? If you're not willing to do that, why should you be ordering anyone else to listen to you?

Let me help you here.

I am obviously different from the emotionally fragile USians of your generation and younger.

I am happy to be taken seriously by people I care about. I am not driven (it should be obvious by now) to attempt to seek acceptance by people I don't know and will never get to know and really don't need to know.

This discussion group is interesting and I have learned much here... but it gets trying when people without even rudimentary knowledge of the military speak as if they do. Always better to stay within the bounds of your expertise which in your case is what?

[JMA]

Which need?

3,000 people died in inter-tribal violence in province Pibor, South Sudan, at the beginning of this year. We didn't even notice, much less did a Western public discuss the prospect of intervention.

Why is there a need for action in Syria, but not in other places?

Looks to me as if it's not a need, but a personal preference.
The Syrians are having a civil war. I can resist the urge for calling for an involvement.

I see where you are coming from... but I did not say intervention in other areas/places is not needed. This is a thread about Syria, we are talking about Syria.

Would you agree that there are scales of potential involvement/intervention?

[JMA]

And as Rod Liddle pointed out, by asking an obviously rhetorical question, we know very little about who the people in rebellion really are, while we know a great deal about Assad, the Ba'ath Party, the Alawite minority in power, and so on. If events in Egypt and Libya are any indication, regardless of the current gush-gush over the insurgents in many quarters, only the hard core, radical Islamist groups have sufficient organization, resources and clarity of goals to shape the end state after the overthrow of the the Assad regime. The rest will be sidelined.

At least for the present, the situation seems to be that the Arab League would like somebody to intervene, so that the "somebody" will be the bad guy rather than them. Otherwise, those Saudi and Jordanian aircraft, tanks and infantry would already be on the scene.

Meanwhile, the choosing of sides is leading to a rift between Hamas and Iran - which I think most rational people would consider a Good Thing.

I'm with you, Fuchs. Resisting the temptation to intervene is proving very easy.

It is important that the US does not intervene.

Ron Liddle was just filling space and providing fodder for those looking for reasons to oppose any intervention. His work is apparently necessary to help those unable to think for themselves.

So I guess you are right then... lets all just sit back and watch 1,000s of people being butchered. I wonder what that makes us?

[JMA]

Well, if JMA thinks otherwise he's kept it secret. He doesn't ".. support that intervention being carried out by the US (due to their extremely poor record with such interventions)," he doesn't want the rebels armed, and he agreed with Fuchs' summary of the possibility of other actors intervening, so that pretty much takes everything off the table except for his three cruise missile option. Oh, and the usual "viewing with alarm," "strongly disapprove," "condemnation by all civilized people" and useless economic sanctions the Syrians are pretty much already ignoring.

Of course, a decapitation strike in Syria would lead to complete chaos as everyone fought for position in the aftermath, with no telling what kind of resulting state of affairs. I hope JMA will explain to us why this is "good planning" as opposed to what he considers the U.S. record of "bad planning."

This is very immature comment. I am amused that you seek to establish what I think/believe/want. Then you start you put things into my mouth... which is naughty.

My best advice to you is to force yourself to think for yourself. Difficult at first but really worth the effort even at this late stage.

[JMA]

I'd expect a Sunni Arab majority gaining control; their religious radicals would likely fail to be a majority nation-wide.

90% Arabs
Sunni Muslim 74%

The result would be pretty obvious, yes?

[J Wolfsberger]

...

Simply put we all have a very different world map, with assigned, changing priorities and sometimes governments are in parallel with their own public. Sorry who cares about 'province Pibor' ? Very few outside the immediate area and the two Sudan's.

...

Sadly whole chunks of the world are rarely delivered to our screens, how many viewers let alone editors want to learn about feuding tribes in South Sudan? I'm sure some here will remember the reporting of the famine in Ethiopia, that led to the Band Aid concerts.

...

The UK's record is not good in this respect.



Except for the occasional incidents, such as Darfur, the world usually turns a blind eye to bad things happening in primitive places far away. For example, I doubt the general public anywhere in the developed world is aware of the ongoing horror show in the Great Lakes region of Africa.

The UK isn't alone in the poor record department. The list of humanitarian disasters that the post WW II world has ignored begins with Biafra, runs through Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge right up to Syria in the present with lots of stops along the way. And after Syria ...?

Part of my cynicism comes from the realization that calls to intervene don't reflect any desire to build a better world so much as a desire for the caller to feel good about himself for making the call, and as a result he hasn't put much thought into what the intervention entails. (e.g. If you want to stop a slaughter you will have to kill people. And if those people collect human shields, some of them will be killed as well.)

In the instance under discussion, I doubt anyone calling for intervention has thought through what it would cost, or what the aftermath would be if the intervention didn't continue past the immediate goal of toppling the current regime. As much as I believe the whole notion of Nation Building to be complete rubbish, intervention without some long term (decades) commitment to improve on the past is a likely to turn out a wasted effort, almost certain to require a repeat in a few years when the new gang of thugs out lives its "welcome." (cf. Iraq now that the U.S. and allies have pulled out, or Afghanistan a few years after we’re gone.)


I don't know enough about Syria or the Assad regime and what short of "boots on the ground" would affect their decision-making.

That caveat aside what we should do beyond declarations is practical:

Ensure the evidenceof brutality is collected and is ready for the day when justice can be done.

Boost radio broadcasting to the region.

Reduce all Syrian embassies to consular duties, close all trade offices and UN delegations. Send the staff home PNG.

Monitor all import / export activity and ask those involved why publicly. Yes, publish which ships and aircraft visit.


All of which would be good things to do, but of only limited value in reducing the carnage. And I suspect, even if they effected a stop, it would only be long enough to let the world move on to its next cause du jour, after which the retribution would continue and finish off the opposition. Quietly, so the world can blissfully ignore it.

[Fuchs]

Would you agree that there are scales of potential involvement/intervention?

Is the country under attack?

If not: Their defence is no topic for our security policy.
If yes:

Are they allied (by treaty!)?

If yes: Collective defence, we are all under attack.
If not:

Are we really sure they are becoming victim of a genocide?

If not: Keep an eye on the topic, all else is an issue for the UNSC.
If yes: Check whether we can do something about it.

Can we do something about it?

If not: Go back one step.
If yes: What can we do about it? (Military intervention is just on possibility.)

...

[Fuchs]

Originally Posted by Fuchs View Post
I'd expect a Sunni Arab majority gaining control; their religious radicals would likely fail to be a majority nation-wide.90% Arabs
Sunni Muslim 74%

The result would be pretty obvious, yes?


Depends what you mean.
You cannot simply multiply these figures and come up with a figure for relgious radicals.

[jmm99]

on my question, Question for Military Experts (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showpost.php?p=133191&postcount=331). That's fine. Keep the question in mind. If you run into a military resource which bears on a Turkish-Syrian conflict per my hypothetical, please post it.

TZ is running a Turkish geopolitical analysis of "Who's on First" in the Middle East, ‘Ankara is Iran's rival whether it likes it or not’ (http://www.todayszaman.com/news-273654-ankara-is-irans-rival-whether-it-likes-it-or-not.html) (8 Mar 2012):


Turkey and Iran are two countries in the region that have not been paralyzed by the events of the Arab Spring. “I believe that Iran, the oldest imperial regime of the region, will try to preserve its position in the region at all costs,” Çağaptay (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soner_Cagaptay) added.

While Turkey turned its back on the East and tilted toward the West, Iran strengthened its hand in the region, Çağaptay noted. But when Turkey refocused its foreign policy on the Middle East 10 years ago and began deepening its relations with other countries in the region, Ankara became Iran's rival.

“If the Arab Spring had never occurred, there would have been secret competition,” Çağaptay posited.

He pointed to the two countries' conflicting stances on the regime crisis in Syria, which he said has taken the Turkish-Iranian rivalry to an unprecedented level. “While Turkey supports the Syrian opposition, Iran has decided to support Syria's Assad regime. In the end, either the Syrian opposition or the Assad regime will win. In other words, either Turkey or Iran will win.”

This article leads me to a second question for military experts (the first one - a Turkish-Syrian 1 on 1 - is still on the table):


If Turkey were to proceed with a conventional armed intervention into Syria, and Iran responds with a conventional armed attack on Turkey - a 2 on 1 with full commitment of military forces by all three states, who would win ?

No US-NATO support of any kind for the Turks; and Russia and China stay out of it completely (other than making noises about "aggressive war", etc.).

The Turkish preference (based on what TZ and its columnists have been saying for the last few months) appears to be a Turkish-brokered diplomatic deal involving Turkey, Iran and the Arab League (Saudi and the Gulf states as the money partners) being the "peacekeepers" and guarantors of limited negotiated external interests (Russia-China; US-NATO) - a reverse Sykes-Picot, in effect. ;)

Regards

Mike

[Entropy]

I'll go ahead and lay out my view and analysis regarding military intervention, specifically the use of military means toward a political end.

First of all, I think there are three "categories" in which military force could be used:


Regime change, by whatever means.
Change the balance of power between Assad’s forces and the opposition so that Assad’s forces cannot conduct mass killings.
Compel Assad to make a political decision to stop the mass killings or reconcile with the opposition.


Let’s examine the utility of military force in each case:

First, regime change:


Regime change is something military force can achieve by following, very roughly, the Libya model. Another example is the post Desert Storm counter-factual where the Iraqi Shia rebels receive a proxy air force to finish Saddam off after we decimated his conventional forces. The US does have a lot of experience at this sort of thing - see also Afghanistan in 2001-2002.
The problem is, however, that whatever the circumstances, we can’t control how regime change occurs or turns out in the end. It’s a pretty big gamble and the odds are good that the result will not be pretty. The stakes are a lot greater in Syria than Libya because Syria is bigger, more populous, better armed, has chemical weapons, is more geographically strategic, and plays an important regional role with it's alliance with Iran and involvement in factional Lebanese politics. It's not clear at all how things would turn out if we upset that apple cart, but I think the result would look a lot more like Iraq circa 2006 than Libya 2011.
The best case for regime change is a successful coup, but that’s not something we can create or control through military force. It's also not clear that an Alawite successor would view the rebels any differently than Assad and it's highly unlikely anyone but another Alawite could stage a sucessful coup.
Even if Syria transitions smoothly to a new government, the effect will likely be that Syrians will still die, they'll just be different Syrians. A Marine officer over at Tom Rick's blog said: "Killing several thousand Syrians so they don't kill several thousand other Syrians only to leave the nation knowing that several thousand more will die is not protecting anyone." That sums it up IMO.
The worst case is an open and brutal civil war in a highly militarized country rife with internal divisions that also happens to have a lot of chemical weapons.


The second option is to use military force to change the balance of power between Assad and the opposition. There are two basic ways to do this.


First is to create no-fly/no-drive zones, (using the Southern/Northern watch model) or something similar like "humanitarian corridors" which some advocate for. A bigger version of this the Bosnia partition model which would require an enduring ground-force commitment to separate the warring parties. Any of these options could be accomplished militarily, but there are some serious downsides. The most obvious problem is that such measures are inherently temporary. At some point the NFZ or enforced partition will end. Perhaps a political solution could be negotiated while the parties are separated, but that is not likely for a whole host of reasons I won't belabor here. If a political solution isn't reached, and the political will to continue spending resources enforcing the "peace" ends, then the situation would likely return to the status-quo ante.
The second option involves attriting Assad’s military and security forces while strengthening the opposition so that Assad no longer has the capability to conduct the mass killings even if he still has the intent. This is a task the US military could accomplish, though it would take a long, sustained air campaign. The problem with this option, however, is what then? Either the situation will slide again into Assad’s favor (a return to the status quo ante), or the opposition will be strong enough to overthrow Assad (see regime change), or you end up with a stalemated civil war in which neither side has a decisive advantage. None of these options sound very good to me and they would all involve killing a lot of Syrians, not protecting them.


The third option is to use military force to compel Assad to come to a political solution with the opposition instead of using violence. This seems the least-realistic of the options and the one least-likely to be accomplished with military force. Is Assad the kind of man who can be bullied into compliance? It's possible I suppose, but it would be uncharacteristic for the typical dictator in Assad's circumstances. And if the interventions in Libya and Iraq are any guide, the political mission creep will tend to try to box Assad in and provide no option but to fight until the bitter end. There's also no guarantee that the opposition would accept any offer from Assad (much less agree among themselves), especially since their primary demand is that Assad step down from office. In my judgment, this option is mostly fantasy abetted by wishful thinking.

There is a fourth option which focuses on punishment as the goal. Although it wouldn't prevent mass killings, it would "send a message." I'm talking, of course, about the tried and true punitive raid. For Syria it would have to be pretty big and would likely last a couple of days - look at Operation Desert Fox for an example of what it might look like. The operation would likely strike regime targets and key strategic facilities. It won’t stop the killings, won’t topple the Assad regime, but at least we could be satisfied that we “did something" even if that "something" is counterproductive.

So in the end, I don't think a military intervention is, at this point in time, justified when compared to the risks and consequences, both intended and unintended.

[J Wolfsberger]

I'll go ahead and lay out my view and analysis regarding military intervention, specifically the use of military means toward a political end.

...

Nicely done.

One thing to add to your appreciation of the military options is that in both Libya and Iraq, the regimes were politically and geographically isolated. That is clearly not the case with Syria. As a result, it seems that any military action would likely draw in other actors.

That touches on jmm99's post:


The Turkish preference (based on what TZ and its columnists have been saying for the last few months) appears to be a Turkish-brokered diplomatic deal involving Turkey, Iran and the Arab League (Saudi and the Gulf states as the money partners) being the "peacekeepers" and guarantors of limited negotiated external interests (Russia-China; US-NATO) - a reverse Sykes-Picot, in effect.

I can almost see Turkey and the Arab League working together, but the Iranians are much more likely to be spoilers, and would definitely get involved on Syria's side if there were any military intervention.

[Dayuhan]

I am obviously different from the emotionally fragile USians of your generation and younger.

I'm aware that you've a high opinion of yourself. The reminder is unnecessary.


I am happy to be taken seriously by people I care about. I am not driven (it should be obvious by now) to attempt to seek acceptance by people I don't know and will never get to know and really don't need to know.

I don't know why you'd see supporting your statements with evidence or reasoning as "seeking acceptance". I also can't see why you'd bother making statements if you're not prepared to back them up if questioned: it's called a discussion board for a reason. Stating fringe opinions and retreating to bluster and obfuscation when they're challenged is not consistent with any definition of "discussion" that I know of.


it gets trying when people without even rudimentary knowledge of the military speak as if they do. Always better to stay within the bounds of your expertise which in your case is what?

The discussion in progress on this thread is predominantly political, not military. In any event the credence any opinion gets here should depend solely on the reasoning and evidence presented to support that opinion.

I'd be curious to know what specific expertise supports your dramatically stated opinion that US leaders won't intervene in Syria because they're pissing their pants in terror of some still unspecified threat from Russia and China.

The repeated suggestion that these interventions could be achieved neatly and cleanly if only people were "competent" begs the question of what steps you think competent people would take, what you think the outcome would be, and why you think that. In the absence of that information, the claim of "incompetence" is less than compelling.


Just run your military credentials past me so I can try to understand where you are coming from here.

I asked the question so that you might display your knowledge.

If I challenged your assessments of the capacity to carry out such a strike, or the means by which such a strike might be carried out, that would involve military credentials. The question as asked involves the anticipated political response to a military action, not the action itself, and is essentially a question involving political expertise, not military expertise.

Again, it looks like you're evading the question because you can't answer it. Best way to change that perception is to answer the question.

You've proposed the three cruise missile theory and the process by which it would be implemented. No question or challenge there. The question is what political outcome you'd expect from those steps, and why.

Entropy's post above would be an excellent starting point for reasonable discussion of the prospects for intervention in Syria.

[JMA]

Of course, a decapitation strike in Syria would lead to complete chaos as everyone fought for position in the aftermath, with no telling what kind of resulting state of affairs.

You start with the definite - "would lead to complete chaos" and have no idea of the "kind of resulting state of affairs".

You obviously have no intel and neither do I. So neither of us can tell and given the poor track record of the CIA they are most probably not in a position to advise accurately.


I hope JMA will explain to us why this is "good planning" as opposed to what he considers the U.S. record of "bad planning."

All planning is based on good intel. With no intel you go in blind. This is perhaps the reason for the US failure in such foreign interventions.

Put the intel on the table and take it from there.

[JMA]

Is the country under attack?

If not: Their defence is no topic for our security policy.
If yes:

Are they allied (by treaty!)?

If yes: Collective defence, we are all under attack.
If not:

Are we really sure they are becoming victim of a genocide?

If not: Keep an eye on the topic, all else is an issue for the UNSC.
If yes: Check whether we can do something about it.

Can we do something about it?

If not: Go back one step.
If yes: What can we do about it? (Military intervention is just on possibility.)

...


Understandable but too simplistic I suggest.

Most such decisions are driven by a mix of political and emotional motivations. There are a lot of factors which lead to a given set of circumstances being pressed home into the national psyche resulting in action being taken and those can safely be ignored.

[davidbfpo]

Professor Paul Rogers commentary:http://www.opendemocracy.net/paul-rogers/syria-and-cost-of-failure

It has nothing new or surprising and is a good summary of the position. Noteworthy as it does not discuss intervention.

[JMA]

I'm aware that you've a high opinion of yourself. The reminder is unnecessary.

I don't know why you'd see supporting your statements with evidence or reasoning as "seeking acceptance". I also can't see why you'd bother making statements if you're not prepared to back them up if questioned: it's called a discussion board for a reason. Stating fringe opinions and retreating to bluster and obfuscation when they're challenged is not consistent with any definition of "discussion" that I know of.

The discussion in progress on this thread is predominantly political, not military. In any event the credence any opinion gets here should depend solely on the reasoning and evidence presented to support that opinion.

I'd be curious to know what specific expertise supports your dramatically stated opinion that US leaders won't intervene in Syria because they're pissing their pants in terror of some still unspecified threat from Russia and China.

The repeated suggestion that these interventions could be achieved neatly and cleanly if only people were "competent" begs the question of what steps you think competent people would take, what you think the outcome would be, and why you think that. In the absence of that information, the claim of "incompetence" is less than compelling.

I asked the question so that you might display your knowledge.

If I challenged your assessments of the capacity to carry out such a strike, or the means by which such a strike might be carried out, that would involve military credentials. The question as asked involves the anticipated political response to a military action, not the action itself, and is essentially a question involving political expertise, not military expertise.

Again, it looks like you're evading the question because you can't answer it. Best way to change that perception is to answer the question.

You've proposed the three cruise missile theory and the process by which it would be implemented. No question or challenge there. The question is what political outcome you'd expect from those steps, and why.

Entropy's post above would be an excellent starting point for reasonable discussion of the prospects for intervention in Syria.

LOL ... pass

[JMA]

I'll go ahead and lay out my view and analysis regarding military intervention, specifically the use of military means toward a political end.

First of all, I think there are three "categories" in which military force could be used:


Regime change, by whatever means.
Change the balance of power between Assad’s forces and the opposition so that Assad’s forces cannot conduct mass killings.
Compel Assad to make a political decision to stop the mass killings or reconcile with the opposition.


Let’s examine the utility of military force in each case:

First, regime change:


Regime change is something military force can achieve by following, very roughly, the Libya model. Another example is the post Desert Storm counter-factual where the Iraqi Shia rebels receive a proxy air force to finish Saddam off after we decimated his conventional forces. The US does have a lot of experience at this sort of thing - see also Afghanistan in 2001-2002.
The problem is, however, that whatever the circumstances, we can’t control how regime change occurs or turns out in the end. It’s a pretty big gamble and the odds are good that the result will not be pretty. The stakes are a lot greater in Syria than Libya because Syria is bigger, more populous, better armed, has chemical weapons, is more geographically strategic, and plays an important regional role with it's alliance with Iran and involvement in factional Lebanese politics. It's not clear at all how things would turn out if we upset that apple cart, but I think the result would look a lot more like Iraq circa 2006 than Libya 2011.
The best case for regime change is a successful coup, but that’s not something we can create or control through military force. It's also not clear that an Alawite successor would view the rebels any differently than Assad and it's highly unlikely anyone but another Alawite could stage a sucessful coup.
Even if Syria transitions smoothly to a new government, the effect will likely be that Syrians will still die, they'll just be different Syrians. A Marine officer over at Tom Rick's blog said: "Killing several thousand Syrians so they don't kill several thousand other Syrians only to leave the nation knowing that several thousand more will die is not protecting anyone." That sums it up IMO.
The worst case is an open and brutal civil war in a highly militarized country rife with internal divisions that also happens to have a lot of chemical weapons.


The second option is to use military force to change the balance of power between Assad and the opposition. There are two basic ways to do this.


First is to create no-fly/no-drive zones, (using the Southern/Northern watch model) or something similar like "humanitarian corridors" which some advocate for. A bigger version of this the Bosnia partition model which would require an enduring ground-force commitment to separate the warring parties. Any of these options could be accomplished militarily, but there are some serious downsides. The most obvious problem is that such measures are inherently temporary. At some point the NFZ or enforced partition will end. Perhaps a political solution could be negotiated while the parties are separated, but that is not likely for a whole host of reasons I won't belabor here. If a political solution isn't reached, and the political will to continue spending resources enforcing the "peace" ends, then the situation would likely return to the status-quo ante.
The second option involves attriting Assad’s military and security forces while strengthening the opposition so that Assad no longer has the capability to conduct the mass killings even if he still has the intent. This is a task the US military could accomplish, though it would take a long, sustained air campaign. The problem with this option, however, is what then? Either the situation will slide again into Assad’s favor (a return to the status quo ante), or the opposition will be strong enough to overthrow Assad (see regime change), or you end up with a stalemated civil war in which neither side has a decisive advantage. None of these options sound very good to me and they would all involve killing a lot of Syrians, not protecting them.


The third option is to use military force to compel Assad to come to a political solution with the opposition instead of using violence. This seems the least-realistic of the options and the one least-likely to be accomplished with military force. Is Assad the kind of man who can be bullied into compliance? It's possible I suppose, but it would be uncharacteristic for the typical dictator in Assad's circumstances. And if the interventions in Libya and Iraq are any guide, the political mission creep will tend to try to box Assad in and provide no option but to fight until the bitter end. There's also no guarantee that the opposition would accept any offer from Assad (much less agree among themselves), especially since their primary demand is that Assad step down from office. In my judgment, this option is mostly fantasy abetted by wishful thinking.

There is a fourth option which focuses on punishment as the goal. Although it wouldn't prevent mass killings, it would "send a message." I'm talking, of course, about the tried and true punitive raid. For Syria it would have to be pretty big and would likely last a couple of days - look at Operation Desert Fox for an example of what it might look like. The operation would likely strike regime targets and key strategic facilities. It won’t stop the killings, won’t topple the Assad regime, but at least we could be satisfied that we “did something" even if that "something" is counterproductive.

So in the end, I don't think a military intervention is, at this point in time, justified when compared to the risks and consequences, both intended and unintended.

You have put some time and effort into this so I will be gentle.

I ask you again to start at the beginning.

It is the politicians who decide to intervene and generally place a whole string of limitations on such intervention.

The Pentagon (in the case of the US) then usually don't have the balls to say no (meaning that under those circumstances with those limitations the aim is unlikely to be achieved). Its all about not putting one's pension at risk you see.

Then the planning staffs get hold of it and begin to play. And out pops a plan of sorts... think "Bay of Pigs", think "Operation Eagle Claw" think "Son Tay Raid" and any other of the cock-ups these "planners" (or what passes for them) produce. Then the 'fine tuning' starts with input normally from people who have never been exposed to more than Hollywood movies and BB guns.

Then they send the troopies out to die.

After the dead are buried they dish out a gongs (medals) to the survivors and praise the patriotism and bravery of those involved... but never a word of apology for sending soldiers to their death on some incompetently conceived and ineptly planned operation/intervention.

So all that said ... don't plan for options you at your level will not be asked to decide on.

Next I would like to comment on that (idiotic) quote from that Marine officer. (I hope he is a Lt at most otherwise the USMC is in a lot of trouble)

(In Rumsfeld style)... if there are bad guys (which no doubt Assad's military are) killing opposition groups and their families (even if these opposition groups include some nasties) then the killings by the regime of mainly unarmed men, women, children supporter of the opposition is quite simply a crime against humanity.

So if a guardian angel starts to take out 1,000s of the bad guys (being from Assad's political and military hierarchy) is not the same as killings civilians (men, women, children) in Homs with artillery, mortars, armour and then by firing squad.

Now one wonders why a Marine officer can't connect the dots in order to protect civilians (regardless of their religious or political persuasion) from being butchered by Assad's thugs (can't call people who do that soldiers) it is clearly necessary to kill a lot of Assad's thugs. Now this killing of Assad's trigger men must be swift and extremely violent because (as reports state) if they refuse to kill civilians and oppositions groups they themselves will be killed by the regime's enforcers. So to tip the balance in favour or defection/flight/whatever one needs to send them a very serious message.

So ignore that idiot Marine officer. Sadly though he seems to have influenced your thinking because you come up with this: "None of these options sound very good to me and they would all involve killing a lot of Syrians, not protecting them." So think it through again I suggest and understand that to save Syrian civilians a lot of "bad guys" are going to have to be killed.

Finally I suggest that your "gut feel" is not what counts here. When you arrive at what you think will or won't work consider the basis on which you arrived at that decision. In appreciations the deductions and conclusions are not 'plucked' out of the air but are arrived at through your discussion of factors. So "in my opinion" and "but I think" and "the odds are" have no place in an appreciation.

For example your man Wolfsberger states that if Assad is taken out it "would lead to complete chaos". Where did he pluck this from? Sadly he states this opinion (his opinion) as a fact. He gives no inkling as to how he is able to state this with such certainty. You should not fall into this trap as well.

[Dayuhan]

So if a guardian angel starts to take out 1,000s of the bad guys (being from Assad's political and military hierarchy) is not the same as killings civilians (men, women, children) in Homs with artillery, mortars, armour and then by firing squad.

Now one wonders why a Marine officer can't connect the dots in order to protect civilians (regardless of their religious or political persuasion) from being butchered by Assad's thugs (can't call people who do that soldiers) it is clearly necessary to kill a lot of Assad's thugs. Now this killing of Assad's trigger men must be swift and extremely violent because (as reports state) if they refuse to kill civilians and oppositions groups they themselves will be killed by the regime's enforcers. So to tip the balance in favour or defection/flight/whatever one needs to send them a very serious message.

Since there is no guardian angel, how exactly do you propose to accomplish this? What specific steps would you recommend, what outcome do you expect those steps to achieve, and why do you expect that those steps would lead to that outcome?

If you, as a military expert, were to propose a course of action to civilian leadership, you would presumably be asked those questions or something very much like them. How would you convince them that your proposed course of action would work?


When you arrive at what you think will or won't work consider the basis on which you arrived at that decision. In appreciations the deductions and conclusions are not 'plucked' out of the air but are arrived at through your discussion of factors.

That's exactly what I've been asking you to do.


For example your man Wolfsberger states that if Assad is taken out it "would lead to complete chaos". Where did he pluck this from? Sadly he states this opinion (his opinion) as a fact. He gives no inkling as to how he is able to state this with such certainty. You should not fall into this trap as well.

He can speak for himself, but he would probably look at prior cases, recent and otherwise, where dictators have been removed by outside force (Iraq, Libya, etc). He'd likely listen to what people who study Syrian politics have to say. He'd probably at least consider the possibility that various factions would contend to fill the power vacuum left by Assad's removal, and the possibility that the contention would involve violence.

What do you think would happen if Assad were "taken out", and why do you think that?

You stated this opinion:


Two cruise missiles is all it will take

That opinion certainly looks like it's being stated as fact, as much as anything J. Wolfsberger said. You also give no inkling of how you are able to state this with such certainty. What's the basis on which you arrived at that conclusion?

The same might be asked of comments like this:


What will restrain any temptation to intervene is the opposition of Russia and China.

Again, stated as fact without any inkling of how you are able to state this with such certainty.

Why criticize others for doing what you do so readily yourself?

[JMA]

Since there is no guardian angel, how exactly do you propose to accomplish this? What specific steps would you recommend, what outcome do you expect those steps to achieve, and why do you expect that those steps would lead to that outcome?

If you, as a military expert, were to propose a course of action to civilian leadership, you would presumably be asked those questions or something very much like them. How would you convince them that your proposed course of action would work?

That's exactly what I've been asking you to do.

He can speak for himself, but he would probably look at prior cases, recent and otherwise, where dictators have been removed by outside force (Iraq, Libya, etc). He'd likely listen to what people who study Syrian politics have to say. He'd probably at least consider the possibility that various factions would contend to fill the power vacuum left by Assad's removal, and the possibility that the contention would involve violence.

What do you think would happen if Assad were "taken out", and why do you think that?

You stated this opinion:

That opinion certainly looks like it's being stated as fact, as much as anything J. Wolfsberger said. You also give no inkling of how you are able to state this with such certainty. What's the basis on which you arrived at that conclusion?

The same might be asked of comments like this:

Again, stated as fact without any inkling of how you are able to state this with such certainty.

Why criticize others for doing what you do so readily yourself?

LOL... pass

[JMA]

Depends what you mean.
You cannot simply multiply these figures and come up with a figure for relgious radicals.

Arab and Sunni majorities are reflected in the demographics.

I agree that it is difficult to estimate religious radicals as what has been bubbling under the surface in that brutal dictatorship is almost impossible for an outsider to know as the regime itself with a network of informers does not fully understand (otherwise they would have nipped this insurrection in the bud).

[J Wolfsberger]

Well, JMA, here goes:



For example your man Wolfsberger states that if Assad is taken out it "would lead to complete chaos". Where did he pluck this from? Sadly he states this opinion (his opinion) as a fact. He gives no inkling as to how he is able to state this with such certainty. You should not fall into this trap as well.


He can speak for himself, but he would probably look at prior cases, recent and otherwise, where dictators have been removed by outside force (Iraq, Libya, etc). He'd likely listen to what people who study Syrian politics have to say. He'd probably at least consider the possibility that various factions would contend to fill the power vacuum left by Assad's removal, and the possibility that the contention would involve violence.

Dayuhan pretty much covers it.

As best I can understand it, you believe that (Point A) launching a few cruise missiles, perhaps in conjunction with some raids by special ops forces, will result in (Point B) an end to the violence and the replacement of the Assad regime with one that will have some probability of being a representative, participatory government.

After offering your two or three cruise missile solution, you were asked to discuss planning, execution, consequences and likely outcomes, all in the context of local, regional and global actors and their interests.

What we've received in response has been insults about anything and everything, directed at nearly everyone, having only the constant thread of assertions of your brilliance. At the same time, your posts show remarkably poor skill at responding to the substance of others posts, instead responding to what you wanted them to have written. (I was very surprised at how far back I had to go in this thread to find any substantive post from you.)

In the U.S., when someone presents a course of action (point A) and a desired outcome (point B), without any discussion of the current situation, the effects of the plan or the full range of potential outcomes and consequences, we refer to it as "magical thinking." It's not a compliment.

I don't respond to many of your posts because I learned to ignore playground taunts around the age of 10. Other than that, your posts have little substance: "there's no there, there."




What do you think would happen if Assad were "taken out", and why do you think that?

Which is one of many questions you should probably answer (absent gratuitous insults to all and sundry and the unproven assertions of your own brilliance) if you want any credibility as a serious participant.

[TDB]

Worth a read http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/03/08/how_not_to_intervene_in_syria

[Fuchs]

Well, doom predictions about the impending outbreak of chaos always remind me of the tired Hollywood fiction that you need to keep people ignorant of an impending disaster in order to "avoid panic".

Let's face it; the assumption that chaos would break out (for any serious duration) is what result you get if you switch your brain first into sleep mode and then ask it for a prediction.

There's no real intellect, knowledge or originality required for such a conclusion. It's simple the arch-conservative basic instinct at work - the one that tells people that all deviation from the status quo is creepy.

[J Wolfsberger]

Worth a read http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/03/08/how_not_to_intervene_in_syria

From the article:



And as painful as it is to watch, the wrenching reality of a brutal dictator killing his own people isn't a compelling enough reason to justify a unilateral, open-ended American military intervention to topple him.

...

But the notion that we should intercede quickly with some dramatic, ill-advised, poorly thought through idea of kill zones or safe havens without thinking through the consequences of what protecting those areas would entail is a prescription for disaster.

Intervening militarily now isn't about left or right, liberal or conservative, Republican or Democrat, or even about right or wrong -- it's really about choosing between being dumb or smart.

Which, I think, summarizes what many of us have been saying.


Well, doom predictions about the impending outbreak of chaos always remind me of the tired Hollywood fiction that you need to keep people ignorant of an impending disaster in order to "avoid panic".

Let's face it; the assumption that chaos would break out (for any serious duration) is what result you get if you switch your brain first into sleep mode and then ask it for a prediction.

There's no real intellect, knowledge or originality required for such a conclusion. It's simple the arch-conservative basic instinct at work - the one that tells people that all deviation from the status quo is creepy.

I'm not sure I agree that the assumption that chaos will break out is silly. But I'm reasonably sure that if we do nothing, the current situation in Syria will resolve itself the way such things typically do: those in rebellion will be killed or cowed into submission, and everyday life will, over the course of a few years, revert to the status quo.

As I've written above, if the Syrian people want a different outcome, they're the ones who will have to achieve it. If the other Arab countries want a different outcome, they have the aircraft, tanks, artillery, guns, troops, etc. to try and bring it about. The only thing the intervention of the "Great Satan" can achieve is giving everyone a foreigner to focus their hate on.

[Entropy]

You have put some time and effort into this so I will be gentle.

Thanks but such paternalism is neither necessary nor warranted.


I ask you again to start at the beginning.

It is the politicians who decide to intervene and generally place a whole string of limitations on such intervention....

Yes, when isn't that the case? I don't see how that is relevant to my analysis.


So all that said ... don't plan for options you at your level will not be asked to decide on.

Have you heard of contingency planning? Maybe it's different in your neck of the woods, but I've participated in lots of planning for contingencies that were unlikely to materialize for whatever reason. In fact the vast majority of war and contingency plans I participated in were never executed. Again, not sure how this is relevant to anything I wrote.


So if a guardian angel starts to take out 1,000s of the bad guys (being from Assad's political and military hierarchy) is not the same as killings civilians (men, women, children) in Homs with artillery, mortars, armour and then by firing squad.


and


Sadly though he seems to have influenced your thinking because you come up with this: "None of these options sound very good to me and they would all involve killing a lot of Syrians, not protecting them." So think it through again I suggest and understand that to save Syrian civilians a lot of "bad guys" are going to have to be killed.


If you look at the problem only from a short-term, tactical perspective, then yes, stopping the killing appears to be a straightforward goal. And just to be clear I do think that stopping the killing is both noble and righteous and should seriously be considered. My default position i that I want to do something about it. However, experience has taught me that it is, unfortunately, not possible to put such "tactical" political goals in a nice little box and isolate them from everything else that is going on to include the longer-term effects of expediently satisfying the short-term goal. Looking at the potential long-term and "big picture" effects and how things might play out was the purpose of my post.

Secondly, while the political goal my appear simple, the execution is not straightforward since it's not easy to distinguish the "good" guys from the "bad" guys and civilian deaths can't be completely avoided. Therefore, any intervention is very likely going to carry a cost in civilian deaths caused by the intervening force. Depending on the type and scope of the intervention, and how things turn out, an intervention could easy kill more civilians than are "saved." The military instrument is quite blunt when it comes to "saving" civilians.


Finally I suggest that your "gut feel" is not what counts here.


My post was a combination of facts, analysis, judgment and opinion. If you didn't like the opinion part, then feel free to ignore it.


When you arrive at what you think will or won't work consider the basis on which you arrived at that decision. In appreciations the deductions and conclusions are not 'plucked' out of the air but are arrived at through your discussion of factors. So "in my opinion" and "but I think" and "the odds are" have no place in an appreciation.

My deductions and conclusions were not "plucked" out of thin air. They were arrived at through my "discussion of factors" and are not merely my "opinion."

[Entropy]

Well, doom predictions about the impending outbreak of chaos always remind me of the tired Hollywood fiction that you need to keep people ignorant of an impending disaster in order to "avoid panic".

Let's face it; the assumption that chaos would break out (for any serious duration) is what result you get if you switch your brain first into sleep mode and then ask it for a prediction.

There's no real intellect, knowledge or originality required for such a conclusion. It's simple the arch-conservative basic instinct at work - the one that tells people that all deviation from the status quo is creepy.

Yes, but the opposite conclusion suffers from the same problem. Generally it's bad form to make grandiose predictions about what might happen absent some serious analysis and supporting arguments. With respect to Syria there are some good reasons to expect a civil war and not an orderly transition, but there is a lot of uncertainty over what would/could happen.

[Entropy]

Not sure if it's been posted here yet, but here is some more "big picture" analysis from Mark Safranski. (http://zenpundit.com/?p=5349)

[J Wolfsberger]

Not sure if it's been posted here yet, but here is some more "big picture" analysis from Mark Safranski. (http://zenpundit.com/?p=5349)

Thanks for the pointer.


The problem is not intervention per se but an otherworldly posture of Western policy makers that embraces tactical geopolitics – i.e. each intervention (Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq), undertaken whenever chance arises somehow exists on it’s own terms, in splendid isolation. It doesn’t, except in NATO capitols.

and


We are now the ones backing others into corners. Iran, North Korea, Syria, Zimbabwe and other states ruled by kleptocrats and monsters act as buffers for China and Russia. Aside from the benefits these failed states can bring as customers for military hardware or sellers of raw materials, the attention of Western statesmen and human rights activists are diverted by the cause du jour in these hellholes, rather than being focused on what Beijing and Moscow might be up to at home or abroad. Every dismantling of an anti-Western dictatorship, from their perspective, is a step closer to their direct confrontation with the West’s hyperactive, erratic, morally hypocritical, meddling, ruling elite who will be no more able to ignore “grave injustices” in Wuhai or Kazan than they could in Aleppo or Benghazi.

I've heard several Russian Generals, politicians and academicians speaking on Voice of Russia describe the U.S. as an international bully, going from country to country and kicking out any government that displeases us in order to replace it with a puppet of our making. To them, NATO is nothing more than the tool the American Empire uses to add the troops of supplicant allies to our own.

I don't think this is propaganda tossed out for domestic consumption. This is the way the world looks from Moscow.

Since Syria is their last ally in the region, it seems safe to assume that any U.S./NATO/European involvement to topple Assad would almost certainly be met with a strong Russian effort to keep him in power.

[jmm99]

from JMA
Next I would like to comment on that (idiotic) quote from that Marine officer. (I hope he is a Lt at most otherwise the USMC is in a lot of trouble) ... So ignore that idiot Marine officer.

Finding the victim of this defamation takes but a little effort.

First, we find Rick's original post:


Why Syria feels different from Libya (http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/02/15/why_syria_feels_different_from_libya)
Posted By Thomas E. Ricks Wednesday, February 15, 2012

I've been wondering why I advocated NATO intervention in Libya but don't feel the same way about Syria. I had thought it was because I thought all Qaddafi needed was a good shove, while Syria is more complex.

But I got this note from Billy Birdzell, who was a Marine officer with Special Ops experience and two tours in Iraq who went off and got an MBA (and if you know someone in the DC area who could use that sort of background, let me know and I will forward the note to him). He wrote that, "Killing several thousand Syrians so they don't kill several thousand other Syrians only to leave the nation knowing that several thousand more will die is not protecting anyone."

That strikes me as pretty succinct. It's one thing to provide the means to help finish off a reeling dictator. It is another to wade into a civil war.

Lt. Billy Birdzell turns up in 2004 aka 1st.Lt. William Birdzell, in Dick Camp's Battle for the City of the Dead: In the Shadow of the Golden Dome, Najaf, August 2004 (http://www.amazon.com/Battle-City-Dead-Shadow-Golden/dp/0760340064), at page 94 (Birdzell .pdf attached).

See also, a related two part article by Col. Camp which starts in Leatherneck Magazine - December 2010 (http://www.mca-marines.org/leatherneck/article/battle-city-dead); and e.g., Zenith Press, Military Snapshot - A Tank's-eye View in Najaf, Iraq (http://www.zenithpresstheblog.com/2011/04/military-snapshot-tanks-eye-view-in.html):


Looking through a tank driver's view port down a debris-laden street in Najaf. Note the barrel of the tank's 120mm cannon. Photo courtesy of 1st Lt. William Birdzell, USMC, from Battle for the City of the Dead by Col. Dick Camp.

And, in the April 2007 Marine Gazette, as Capt. William Birdzell (http://www.marinecorpsgazette-digital.com/marinecorpsgazette/200704?pg=12) for his award winning article. The article was noted at this SWC post (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showpost.php?p=42766&postcount=5):


... April 2007, "For what are we ready?", by Capt William Birdzell

In the conclusion, he notes the five great improvements of the 20th century as amphibious assault, close air support, vertical envelopment, tank blitz, and parachute operations. He credits the Marine Corps with the first three and the Germans with the rest.

Some here may know him personally - It's a small Corps.

I stand by the Marine who was defamed.

Regards

Mike

[JMA]

Well, doom predictions about the impending outbreak of chaos always remind me of the tired Hollywood fiction that you need to keep people ignorant of an impending disaster in order to "avoid panic".

Let's face it; the assumption that chaos would break out (for any serious duration) is what result you get if you switch your brain first into sleep mode and then ask it for a prediction.

There's no real intellect, knowledge or originality required for such a conclusion. It's simple the arch-conservative basic instinct at work - the one that tells people that all deviation from the status quo is creepy.

Such predictions of doom and gloom or the opposite made unsupported by facts is always dangerous if they are used as a basis for decision making around a military intervention.

Intelligent people will indeed realise this danger.

I have no access to current intel on Syria so I will just stick to a position that the longer the internal strife is allowed to continue the more people (combatants and civilians) will be killed both before and after the the current regime falls. The quicker the regime's butchery is brought to an end the less the need for vengeance there will be.

Arming the opposition will prolong the violence and provide the means to exert payback after the regime collapses.

[JMA]

Finding the victim of this defamation takes but a little effort.

First, we find Rick's original post:

Lt. Billy Birdzell turns up in 2004 aka 1st.Lt. William Birdzell, in Dick Camp's Battle for the City of the Dead: In the Shadow of the Golden Dome, Najaf, August 2004 (http://www.amazon.com/Battle-City-Dead-Shadow-Golden/dp/0760340064), at page 94 (Birdzell .pdf attached).

See also, a related two part article by Col. Camp which starts in Leatherneck Magazine - December 2010 (http://www.mca-marines.org/leatherneck/article/battle-city-dead); and e.g., Zenith Press, Military Snapshot - A Tank's-eye View in Najaf, Iraq (http://www.zenithpresstheblog.com/2011/04/military-snapshot-tanks-eye-view-in.html):

And, in the April 2007 Marine Gazette, as Capt. William Birdzell (http://www.marinecorpsgazette-digital.com/marinecorpsgazette/200704?pg=12) for his award winning article. The article was noted at this SWC post (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showpost.php?p=42766&postcount=5):

Some here may know him personally - It's a small Corps.

I stand by the Marine who was defamed.

Regards

Mike

Oh here we go then... happy to hear from the horses mouth why his (the following statement) is not totally idiotic:


"Killing several thousand Syrians so they don't kill several thousand other Syrians only to leave the nation knowing that several thousand more will die is not protecting anyone."

He is so wide of the mark it is obvious he has not thought the whole issue carefully through.

[JMA]

I must admit that I am mostly in agreement with the sentiments expressed in the document Presidential Study Directive on Mass Atrocities (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/08/04/presidential-study-directive-suspension-entry-immigrants-and-nonimmigran)

It has a clear opening statement as follows:


Preventing mass atrocities and genocide is a core national security interest and a core moral responsibility of the United States.

Dated August 04, 2011 with a 120 day to commence work deadline. Has it made the deadline, who knows? Will it ever be more than a talk-shop, who knows.

But what it does is makes it clear that preventing mass atrocities is in the nation interest of the US. Good, so now the world knows what the current Administration sees as being in National Interest... so let there be no more of the nonsense around here that action envisaged in terms of the above document not being in the US national interest unless prefixed with "in my personal opinion".

[JMA]

Worth a read http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/03/08/how_not_to_intervene_in_syria

Staggering arrogance... he ends with:


Intervening militarily now isn't about left or right, liberal or conservative, Republican or Democrat, or even about right or wrong -- it's really about choosing between being dumb or smart.

So if you agree with him (don't support intervention) you are smart but if you don't (by supporting intervention) you are dumb.

Pity because there was some good content in that piece.

[J Wolfsberger]

Lt. Billy Birdzell turns up in 2004 aka 1st.Lt. William Birdzell, in Dick Camp's Battle for the City of the Dead: In the Shadow of the Golden Dome, Najaf, August 2004 (http://www.amazon.com/Battle-City-Dead-Shadow-Golden/dp/0760340064), at page 94 (Birdzell .pdf attached).

...

Some here may know him personally - It's a small Corps.

I stand by the Marine who was defamed.

Regards

Mike

Especially easy to do when you consider the source of the defamation.

[JMA]

I am saying that while intervention is necessary and justified the US should not intervene because (of political and senior military ineptitude) such intervention will end in tears (and the unnecessary loss of soldiers lives).

Found a wonderful quote to support the above comment of mine:


"The Joint Chiefs of Staff-a group who, in my opinion, cannot be matched for arrogance when the wind is blowing their way or for a quality of abject ass-kissing when it is not." Joseph Alsop in “I've Seen the Best of It (http://www.amazon.com/Ive-Seen-Best-Adam-Platt/dp/1604190078/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1331326689&sr=8-1)" - page 300

A mans got to do what a mans got to do to look after that pension.

[ganulv]

I've heard several Russian Generals, politicians and academicians speaking on Voice of Russia describe the U.S. as an international bully, going from country to country and kicking out any government that displeases us in order to replace it with a puppet of our making. To them, NATO is nothing more than the tool the American Empire uses to add the troops of supplicant allies to our own.

I don't think this is propaganda tossed out for domestic consumption. This is the way the world looks from Moscow.

Since Syria is their last ally in the region, it seems safe to assume that any U.S./NATO/European involvement to topple Assad would almost certainly be met with a strong Russian effort to keep him in power.
Russia has been consistent in its opposition to the creation of a European missile defense shield (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/02/nato-missile-defense/). Concessions have been made (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_missile_defense_complex_in_Poland#Russian_respo nse), it is true, but the project has not been abandoned. Given that the likelihood of the creation of an effective missile defense shield is somewhere between the likelihood of discovering a cure for AIDS and the successful manufacture of a time machine (in all seriousness, it’s a pipe dream (http://rmp.aps.org/pdf/RMP/v76/i3/pS1_1)) one can understand why the Russians might view its continued pursuit as a recipe and possibly even a euphemism for escalation.

So here you have the Russians with a not totally unfounded concern in regards to the nuclear balance of power. It so happens that their sole Mediterranean port is in Syria (http://wikimapia.org/20161375/Russian-naval-base-Tartus). Anyone who thinks a nation in that situation is not going to do everything in its power—which in this case amounts to no more than (not) casting a vote—to block a U.N. resolution which calls for regime change in Syria is on crack.

[JMA]

Russia has been consistent in its opposition to the creation of a European missile defense shield (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/02/nato-missile-defense/). Concessions have been made (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_missile_defense_complex_in_Poland#Russian_respo nse), it is true, but the project has not been abandoned. Given that the likelihood of the creation of an effective missile defense shield is somewhere between the likelihood of discovering a cure for AIDS and the successful manufacture of a time machine (in all seriousness, it’s a pipe dream (http://rmp.aps.org/pdf/RMP/v76/i3/pS1_1)) one can understand why the Russians might view its continued pursuit as a recipe and possibly even a euphemism for escalation.

So here you have the Russians with a not totally unfounded concern in regards to the nuclear balance of power. It so happens that their sole
Mediterranean port is in Syria (http://wikimapia.org/20161375/Russian-naval-base-Tartus). Anyone who thinks a nation in that situation is not going to do everything in its power—which in this case amounts to no more than (not) casting a vote—to block a U.N. resolution which calls for regime change in Syria is on crack.

Agreed that all they need to do at the moment is vote down UNSC motions

[davidbfpo]

I have watched the exchange on this thread for the last few days with interest tinged by concern that it has become a "ding, dong".

This has been reinforced by a concerned SWC member's comment:
It is this back and forth that most folks do not want to have to weed through to get the real valuable nuggets. SWC should adopt the US prosecutor's motto - Without Passion or Prejudice....just the facts...and some well supported conclusions.

Having just read through the exchange I could delete or edit down posts, that will lose some of the value and obscure how I reached this position.

So everyone please from now on discuss the issues and:
just the facts...and some well supported conclusions.

Posts that do not conform will be treated robustly within SWC rules.

[TDB]

I confess to not having read all of the posts on this thread. But to be clear, JMA you support an intervention just not by the USA?

[Dayuhan]

A policy statement like this:


Preventing mass atrocities and genocide is a core national security interest and a core moral responsibility of the United States.

is likely to be badly misinterpreted if taken in isolation. The key context here is the same administration's repeated rejection of unilateral action, and repeated statements making multilateralism a core element of foreign policy. With that context, what you get is a statement that while the US gets very very upset over mass atrocities and genocide, any action to stop them has to be multilateral.

A cynic might say that with that context the statement quoted above is degraded to the point where it's little more than sound bite.

A couple of comments on comments...


Let's face it; the assumption that chaos would break out (for any serious duration) is what result you get if you switch your brain first into sleep mode and then ask it for a prediction.

It's certainly true that there is no certainty that chaos would break out if Assad were removed (assuming he could be neatly removed, another subject). It's equally impossible to state with certainty that chaos wold not break out if Assad were removed. There are circumstances present that incline toward chaos: lack of an established succession process, a history of repressive minority rule, concentration of coercive force in the hands of a minority with a great deal to lose from majority control, an abundance of neighbors meddling to advance their own interests. None of this means that chaos is certain, but it means chaos is a significant possibility that has to be factored into any plan.

The assumption that there would be chaos would be unsupportable, but an assumption that there would not be chaos would be downright absurd and potentially extremely irresponsible... I guess we all remember Paul Wolfowitz claiming that the forces needed to secure Iraq couldn't possibly exceed those needed to take Iraq.

We can't be certain that removing Assad (again, assuming we can) would produce chaos, but I don't think anyone would deny that it's a strong possibility that needs to be factored into any plan. You can't be certain that sticking your head in a crocodile's mouth will result in being bitten. That's a poor reason to go and do it.


Arming the opposition will prolong the violence and provide the means to exert payback after the regime collapses.

If the opposition has the capacity to collapse the regime, it has the capacity to go for payback. The two go together, unless we propose that the regime be collapsed purely by external action. Any such proposal cannot be taken seriously without a clear description of what action is proposed and why it's expected to produce the desired results.

[jmm99]

Since someone asked.

From Whither the Atrocities Prevention Board? (http://wherepoliticsstops.wordpress.com/2011/12/29/whither-the-atrocities-prevention-board/):


Back in August, President Obama signed into existence PSD-10, a Presidential Study Directive on Mass Atrocities (http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/08/04/presidential-study-directive-mass-atrocities). When it was first released, PSD-10 was well-received by liberal interventionists and those who believe that preventative diplomacy and coordinated action can head-off mass killings, Anne-Marie Slaughter (http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/09/intervention-libya-and-the-future-of-sovereignty/244537/) and myself included. ...
...
... The Directive determined that an interagency study, led by the National Security Advisor, would be complete within 100 days, to determine the full mandate and make-up of the body, as well as its processes. The resulting Atrocities Prevention Board was to begin its work 120 days after the signature of PSD-10, on August 4, 2011. It has now been 147 days.

Since August 4th, precisely nothing has come out of the White House on the matter. There have been no stories written, in the mainstream media on the development of the Board since late August. None. Nothing on interagency squabbles that would prevent its creation, nothing on how close it is to launch, nothing on how David Pressman’s War Crimes, Atrocities and Civilian Protection directorate (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2010/04/13/obama-hires-a-clooney-sidekick.html) at the NSC is proceeding. Nothing.

That was posted on December 29, 2011.

From Human Rights First (http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/2012/02/10/dni-testimony-reiterates-administration-priorities-on-genocide-prevention/):


DNI Testimony Reiterates Administration Priorities on Genocide Prevention
2-10-2012
By Crimes Against Humanity Program

Last week, a little-noticed passage on mass atrocities made its way into the Director of National Intelligence’s (DNI) annual testimony to Congress. The passage reaffirmed the President’s proclamation that the prevention of mass atrocities and genocide is a core U.S. national security interest and moral responsibility, and committed the U.S. intelligence community (IC) to play a significant role in the forthcoming Atrocities Prevention Board.

IF the Board has been appointed and staffed since 10 Feb 2012, I'd like to know the personnel selected, since they would shape its findings and proposed COAs. As the President stated in the Directive:


In the face of a potential mass atrocity, our options are never limited to either sending in the military or standing by and doing nothing. The actions that can be taken are many: they range from economic to diplomatic interventions, and from non combat military actions to outright intervention. But ensuring that the full range of options is available requires a level of governmental organization that matches the methodical organization characteristic of mass killings.

Actions do speak loudly.

Regards

Mike

PS: I know I'm not eligible. When I took my wife out in Jan (anniversary), I noticed I forgot to shave for two days (occupational hazard of a Retired Gentleman), and told her: "Hell, I look like George Clooney." She (immediately): "No you don't."

[jmm99]

TZ (http://www.todayszaman.com/menuDetail.action?sectionId=100) for 9-10 Mar has a number of "Syria" articles. Two were of most interest to me.

Syrian army officers defect to Turkey (http://www.todayszaman.com/news-273769-syrian-army-officers-defect-to-turkey.html):


9 March 2012 / AP, ANKARA

Turkish officials said Friday that two Syrian generals, a colonel and two sergeants have defected from the Syrian army and crossed into Turkey, a day after Syria's deputy oil minister also deserted President Bashar Assad's regime.

The defections come amid reports of Syrian army assaults on the northern Syrian province of Idlib, which borders Turkey, and as UN humanitarian chief Valerie Amos toured Syrian refugee camps along the Turkish-Syrian border before talks with Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu.
...
On Thursday, Syria's deputy oil minister became the highest-ranking civilian official to join the opposition and urged his countrymen to "abandon this sinking ship" as the nation spirals toward civil war. Abdo Husameddine, 58, announced in a video that he has defected.

The officers and the two sergeants were in a group of some 234 Syrians who have fled to Turkey since Thursday, Yusuf Gler, the administrator for the Turkish border town of Reyhanli told Turkey's state-run Anadolu Agency, without providing any information on their identities.

Gler said the defectors and other refugees were taken to camps near the border with Syria. Some 12,000 Syrians now live in six refugee camps in the region.

Brig. Gen. Mostafa Ahmad al-Sheik, who fled to Turkey in January, was the highest ranking officer to bolt. ....

and PKK card tests Turkish-Syrian relations, experts say (http://www.todayszaman.com/news-273838-pkk-card-tests-turkish-syrian-relations-experts-say.html):


9 March 2012 / ABDULLAH AYASUN, İSTANBUL

With Turkey appearing at the forefront of discussions over international intervention in Syria -- particularly regarding the implementation of a humanitarian corridor in order to bring help to civilians who are trapped in besieged cities-- the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) is one of the key elements in a puzzle that could radically change Turkeys stance towards the tumultuous country.

The unfolding Syrian puzzle, which has continued for over a year, poses complicated challenges for Turkey stemming not only from humanitarian concerns over the unabated violence carried out by Syrias Baath regime but also signs of the growing PKK presence in northern Syria, which are fuelling uncertainty over the future of relations between the two countries.
...
Facing a battle of survival, experts have noted the Baath regime is likely to attempt any measures possible to prevent or delay its collapse with regard to a possible foreign military intervention. For this reason, according to some observers Syria may begin to play the PKK card against its northern neighbor if Turkey is seen to take the lead in a possible military operation against the stricken country.

On Tuesday, Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu touched upon the case and issued an open warning to Damascus, saying that Turkey would deploy troops in Syria to protect its national security. Pointing out that every option is open for discussion, Davutoğlu signaled that the government would seek authorization from Parliament to send Turkish troops over the border if it is deemed necessary to prevent the PKK crossing into Turkish territory.

A report appeared in Todays Zaman on Wednesday that addressed the growing PKK influence in northern Syrias current power vacuum. However, the question arises: What is the nature of the PKK presence in Syria? Would Syria give a free-hand to the PKK to do whatever it wants? To what extent will it turn a blind-eye to PKK operations in the North?

The fact is that the presence of armed PKK groups has become visible and obvious in Syria, particularly near the Turkish border near the southern regions of Gaziantep and Kahramanmaraş. This is real. Nobody can deny that, but the Turkish authorities seem unaware of the seriousness of the situation, said Gkhan Bacık, an international relations professor and director of the Middle East Research Center (MESRC) at Gaziantep Zirve University, in remarks to Todays Zaman made earlier in the week.

Bacık argued that Syria is unlikely to let PKK groups use its borders to attack Turkey for the time being, in order to avoid giving Turkey a reason to intervene. But, he added, the PKK is not a monolithic structure and is not controllable and therefore nobody is sure what course of action they will choose to take. He noted that Turkey would only act if the PKK staged a series of attacks against Turkey from across the Syrian border.

Regards

Mike

[JMA]

I confess to not having read all of the posts on this thread. But to be clear, JMA you support an intervention just not by the USA?

Since you ask so nicely... ;)

=====================


Opinion: The killings of opposition groups – men, women and children – by the minority Syrian regime must stop.

Opinion: I realise that Syria is a complex and unique problem.

Fact: The old Middle East Sunni/Shia is one major issue then there is that of Russia having Mediterranean ‘warm water’ port facilities there.

Fact: Then we have Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey who stand to get scolded if Syria burns.

Fact: I accept that any talk of military intervention by the US and maybe the EU will be interpreted by Russia and others as a pretext for regime change.

Fact: Regime change in Syria will most likely mean the end of access to Syrian port facilities for the Russians.

Fact: A new Sunni Arab government in Syria will change the balance in the Middle East significantly.

Fact: There are many vested interests in maintaining the status quo in Syria.

Fact: The insurrection in Syria has been bubbling for more than a year with increased intensity over the recent months.

Opinion: The longer the insurrection lasts and the more violent it becomes the more difficult it will be to impose a peaceful settlement in Syria.

Fact: When challenged with an insurrection has one of two choices – act or abdicate.

(Negotiation is the soft route to abdication but few regimes willingly relinquish power and tend to try to hold on too long until overthrown or forced to surrender.)

Opinion: The Alawite minority will try to cling to power until a negotiated settlement is no longer possible.

Opinion: I am told that there is a saying among the (15% minority) Alawites and that is, “we either hand individually or we hang together”. I believe they have chosen the latter.

Opinion: If the Alawites lose power they will become a persecuted minority (and also on the receiving end of some serious payback). Will they submit to democratic elections willingly? No.

Opinion: The Alawites should therefore be removed from power by the quickest means as this will end the current killing and also reduce future payback effected on the Alawites.

Fact: There are clearly efforts being made to bring economic (sanctions) and diplomatic pressure to bear on the Syrian regime to end the carnage. Safe in the arms of Mother Russia the Syrian regime is unmoved.

Opinion: The more weapons that find their way into the hands of the opposition groups the more difficult it will be to bring an effective cease fire into effect. Hence my opinion that opposition groups should not be armed and the urgent need to bring the Assad regime to heel.

What are the possibilities that Russia will change its position?

Opinion: Not much… until the writing is on the wall for the Assad regime and then some.

So where to apply the pressure?

Opinion: On Assad’s inner circle and the military units involved in the mass atrocities.

Who should do this?

Opinion: Anyone other than the US … or US assets placed under direct French or Brit military command.

Anyone other than the US able to do this?

Opinion: No. Military intervention is therefore unlikely as the Germans and the Dutch have already surrendered (no doubt with more to follow).

Why should the US not lead the intervention?

Opinion: Because (based on their track record) they will cock it up.

Where to from here?

Opinion: wait and see.

[J Wolfsberger]

From Space War: Commentary: Is Syria 2011 Spain 1936? (http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Commentary_Is_Syria_2011_Spain_1936_999.html)
by Arnaud De Borchgrave

I don't agree with all his conclusions, but it does a good job of placing the Syrian uprising in the broader context. In particular, it brought to mind the political science definition of prestige: a state's reputation for being able to assert its will. With that in mind, De Borchgrave makes the point that, in the Middle East and especially around the Arab Gulf, U.S. is low. Whether that is an argument for or against intervention, he does point out the risky consequences of intervention.

He does make the interesting assertion that:
Saudi Arabia is helping arm Syrian rebels who now call themselves revolutionaries

[JMA]

From Space War: Commentary: Is Syria 2011 Spain 1936? (http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Commentary_Is_Syria_2011_Spain_1936_999.html)
by Arnaud De Borchgrave

I don't agree with all his conclusions, but it does a good job of placing the Syrian uprising in the broader context. In particular, it brought to mind the political science definition of prestige: a state's reputation for being able to assert its will. With that in mind, De Borchgrave makes the point that, in the Middle East and especially around the Arab Gulf, U.S. is low. Whether that is an argument for or against intervention, he does point out the risky consequences of intervention.

He does make the interesting assertion that "Saudi Arabia is helping arm Syrian rebels who now call themselves revolutionaries."

He also notes:


Privately, Persian Gulf leaders say Iran has concluded the United States' days as a superpower are numbered. Iran's aging theocrats tell their visiting gulf interlocutors that America has lost two wars in 10 years -- Iraq and Afghanistan -- and is pulling out of Europe and "pivoting" to Asia where China is already dominant.

and...

Unless Iran's current view of a rapidly declining U.S. superpower can be reversed, a number of Arab Gulf rulers will be tempted into longer lasting accommodation with Tehran.

[Ray]

I wonder how far is it doing good in so far as western interests are concerned.

Libya has been liberated. Egypt has been liberated.

The radicals seem to have taken over!

They are still in a flux to make a solid 'impression'.

But given the way things are in the Islamic world, Islam is über alles!

And Saudi money flowing all over the world is no help!

[jmm99]

Welcome to the interesting situation in Southwest Asia.

I agree that the "Arab Spring" could go off in an extremist (Islamist) direction. Moreover, the best result that could be expected in any country is the present state of Turkey (as I'd likely view the results from where I sit). As things stand in Southwest Asia and North Africa, Turkey is a moderating force.

The AKP - Justice and Development Party (Turkey) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_and_Development_Party_(Turkey)) and its "paper of record", the Turkish daily Zaman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaman_(newspaper)) ("era in time"; as in "our times" or the "Times") [TZ - Today's Zaman (http://www.todayszaman.com/menuDetail.action?sectionId=100), the English-language edition], as moderate Islamics (not Islamists), portray themselves as favorable to both the Western world and to the Arab world. In the Turkish political spectrum, AKP advocates a conservative social agenda and a liberal market economy that includes Turkish membership in the European Union; but has pursued an aggressive "good guy" image to the Arab world since 2005.

While Turkey has not always been an admirable society, its core component (its ordinary people, solidly Islamic) have qualities that I find admirable. E.g., during the Korean War, Turkish POWs died not from starvation (they ate weeds), but from wounds inflicted by their captors. When the senior Turk was removed, the next senior took his place. The Turks never broke. The net result is that I follow TZ whenever something comes up in the Turkish sphere.

That being said, my news item is not from TZ, but from the Washington Post.

Syria’s Bashar al-Assad firmly in control, U.S. intelligence officials say (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/syrias-bashar-al-assad-firmly-in-control-us-intelligence-officials-say/2012/03/09/gIQAv7r71R_print.html) (by Greg Miller and Karen DeYoung, Published: March 9; Updated: Saturday, March 10) (emphasis added):


A year into the uprising in Syria, senior U.S. intelligence officials described the nation’s president, Bashar al-Assad, on Friday as firmly in control and increasingly willing to unleash one of the region’s most potent militaries on badly overmatched opposition groups.

The officials also said Assad’s inner circle is “remaining steadfast,” with little indication that senior figures in the regime are inclined to peel off, despite efforts by the Obama administration and its allies to use sanctions and other measures to create a wave of defections that would undermine Assad.

Assad “is very much in charge,” said a senior U.S. intelligence official responsible for tracking the conflict, adding that Assad and his inner circle seem convinced that the rebellion is being driven by external foes and that they are equipped to withstand all but a large-scale military intervention.
... (much more in article)

In contingency planning, one must consider "a large-scale military intervention" as a contingency. Given the geographic proximity, one must first consider Turkey (sans US-NATO to keep it basic) as the intervenor, giving my two basic hypotheticals (presented a few pages ago):


1. If Turkey were to proceed with a conventional armed intervention - a 1 on 1 with Syria with full commitment of military forces by both states, who would win ?

No US-NATO support of any kind for the Turks; and Russia and China stay out of it completely (other than making noises about "aggressive war", etc.).


2. If Turkey were to proceed with a conventional armed intervention into Syria, and Iran responds with a conventional armed attack on Turkey - a 2 on 1 with full commitment of military forces by all three states, who would win ?

No US-NATO support of any kind for the Turks; and Russia and China stay out of it completely (other than making noises about "aggressive war", etc.).

If you want a definition of "win" - find, fix and finish by destroying the enemy's will to resist.

Contingency planning would also include diplomatic solutions. Here is one suggested to me from reading TZ and its columnists over the last few months:


A Turkish-brokered diplomatic deal involving Turkey, Iran and the Arab League (Saudi and the Gulf states as the money partners) being the "peacekeepers" and guarantors of limited negotiated external interests (Russia-China; US-NATO) - a reverse Sykes-Picot, in effect.

That would enhance Turkey's "good guy" image, but would probably involve some other goodies that the AKP appears to want.

Finally, my personal position stands alongside Gian Gentile (http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/realities-syrian-intervention-6596) and Peter Munson (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/the-responsibilities-of-civilian-policy-advocates).

Regards

Mike

Hey Ray: Cooperation and Friendship ! :)

[ganulv]

But given the way things are in the Islamic world, Islam is ber alles!
When the mosque is the only civil institution not systematically snuffed out of existence by the bloaty strongman and his cronies over the decades-long course of their rule--because there are lines it is not smart to cross and because someone has to provide social services since most of the tax revenues are going into your offshore accounts--you end up with situations like these.

[Fuchs]

If you want a definition of "win" - find, fix and finish by destroying the enemy's will to resist.

I swear someday I will learn where this strange widespread insistence on "fix" in such simple three word rules comes from. Pretty sure the UK FMs are not the root of this obsession with the actually unnecessary "fix" stage.

[Dayuhan]

... for clarification on some points.


So where to apply the pressure?

Opinion: On Assad’s inner circle and the military units involved in the mass atrocities.

How do you propose to apply this pressure, and what end do you expect it to achieve?


Opinion: The more weapons that find their way into the hands of the opposition groups the more difficult it will be to bring an effective cease fire into effect. Hence my opinion that opposition groups should not be armed and the urgent need to bring the Assad regime to heel.

If the proposal is to remove the regime without arming the rebels... in your opinion, would it be possible to remove the regime purely with air/missile strikes, or would you propose an actual invasion... or is there a third option?

[Dayuhan]

I swear someday I will learn where this strange widespread insistence on "fix" in such simple three word rules comes from.

It sounds cooler if they all start with "f", and the sequence has to be three.

[ganulv]

I swear someday I will learn where this strange widespread insistence on "fix" in such simple three word rules comes from. Pretty sure the UK FMs are not the root of this obsession with the actually unnecessary "fix" stage.
They have a tendency to insist that words are supposed to mean something. I’ve wondered the same myself. Are Fs #1 and #2 redundant (in the same way as a fellow I know who insists on signing his name as <Dr. King, PhD>)? Or does F #2 mean ‘keep in place’ (which is at least part of what I assume is meant when I read that Rangers support CAG operations)?

[Fuchs]

Yes, usually the "fix" part is about stopping and pinning down the enemy, apparently in order to make it easier to move into a good assault position, aim well or simply for having some time for deliberations.

The Find/Fix/Destroy sequence elevates "fix" well beyond it league, though. It's the most unnecessary part (to finding and to destroy isn't always useful either).


I dislike such simple maxims because they're dumbing down too much.

[jmm99]

F3EAD: Ops/Intel Fusion “Feeds” The SOF Targeting Process (http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/f3ead-opsintel-fusion-%E2%80%9Cfeeds%E2%80%9D-the-sof-targeting-process)
by Charles Faint and Michael Harris
Journal Article | January 31, 2012

http://smallwarsjournal.com/sites/default/files/F1.jpg



Fix

Once a target is identified, the full gamut of intelligence collection capability is applied against the target in order to develop operational triggers to “fix” the target in space and time. Fixing a target simply means that the intelligence effort has progressed enough that the operations function has sufficient information to execute the mission, whether that mission be kinetic or non-kinetic. When possible, SOF utilizes a practice of “federating” or spreading the intelligence effort out amongst multiple agencies in order to maximize effects while minimizing costs, effort, and time. This is often done as far forward as possible in order to increase the speed of the process, but much of the effort can be accomplished via reachback. Federated intelligence processes enable the organization practicing F3EAD to spread the collection effort across the IC, calling on specific organizations and in some cases specific personnel to provide the expertise and capability to bring the process into the “finish” phase. Redundant, persistent, and centralized intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) capability allows commanders to mass ISR against a specific target for the period of time necessary to support F3EAD. The goal of an ISR is to provide an “unblinking eye” squarely focused on the target, to bring the targeting process into the decisive next phase.

The Targeting Process: D3A and F3EAD (http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/the-targeting-process-d3a-and-f3ead)
by SWJ Editors
Journal Article | July 16, 2011


The Operational D3A framework emphasizes full spectrum operations throughout the conduct of operations. It takes the entire staff to identify the sources of instability that interdict the Shaping Operations that were designed to set the conditions to decisively achieve the Strategic Objectives outlined in the Campaign Plan. In contrast, F3EAD enables the dynamic tasking process required at Tactical targeting level in support of Full Spectrum Operations. Currently, F3EAD has emerged as the methodology of choice to address certain sources of instability such as Personality and Network Based Targeting.

D3A is a great planning tool but it lacks in agility to execute the dynamic tasking process in the full spectrum operations environment. F3EAD is a great execution tool in the full spectrum environment but it lacks in depth and fidelity during the planning process! Simply put, D3A is a great planning tool and F3EAD is a great execution tool for short suspense targets!
The Targeting Process: D3A and F3EAD (http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/journal/docs-temp/816-gomez.pdf)
by Jimmy A. Gomez (pdf linked from SWJ Editors)

Regards

Mike

[ganulv]

F3EAD: Ops/Intel Fusion “Feeds” The SOF Targeting Process (http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/f3ead-opsintel-fusion-%E2%80%9Cfeeds%E2%80%9D-the-sof-targeting-process)
by Charles Faint and Michael Harris
Journal Article | January 31, 2012

http://smallwarsjournal.com/sites/default/files/F1.jpg

Because from afar it looks like Air Force Intelligence is doing a fairly decent job of all of the above.

[davidbfpo]

Hat tip to Circling The Lion's Den's author for his interview of The Sunday Times photographer injured in Homs:http://www.asharq-e.com/news.asp?section=5&id=28769

Hat tip to Zenpundit for pointer to a Nir Rosen interview of the Free Syria Army and other opponents in Syria:http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2012/02/201221315020166516.html and a longer FP article:http://mideast.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/03/08/islamism_and_the_syrian_uprising

[Uboat509]

This article leads me to a second question for military experts (the first one - a Turkish-Syrian 1 on 1 - is still on the table):



Regards

Mike

JMM,

I do not claim to be an expert on Turkish, Syrian or Iranian military strength. I am inclined to believe that, no matter what, Iran is unlikely to become directly involved in any military intervention in Syria, especially against Turkey. For a start, Iran has worked long and hard to cultivate goodwill among populations of the Sunni Arab states (though not necessarily with the governments of those states). I do not believe that it will be prepared to squander that by attacking another Muslim state in order to protect a regime that is probably doomed anyway. Iran is acutely aware that whatever goodwill that it has managed to build in the Sunni Arab states (mostly through the rhetoric directed at Israel and the West), is fragile. If it takes too strong a stance on supporting Assad then it runs the risk of fomenting a big anti-Shia/anti-Persian backlash, something that more than one Sunni Arab government would be more than happy to support. On top of this, Iran is still faced with the possibility of a military intervention on its own soil. It more likely to want to conserve both its military forces and any goodwill on the part of its Sunni Arab neighbors as a hedge against such an eventuality. I believe that the keystone of Iranian foreign policy has been to keep Arab animosity focused on Israel and the West, and therefore off of Iran. Direct action against Turkey could undo that rapidly. For all their bluff and bluster, I believe that Iran is far more rational than they are given credit for.

That said, I do believe that Iran would have no problem quietly stirring up the Kurds against Turkey. They need little enough stirring as it is. That could create all sorts of problems for Turkey. If the Kurds were to ratchet the violence up against Turkey it would almost certainly invite an even more brutal crackdown by the Turkish military, which needs little provocation anyway. Such crackdowns are damaging to Turkey's carefully cultivated image of a rational, moderate and enlightened modern state. For the time being, Turkey seems to have lost some of its enthusiasm for joining the EU (which is rapidly becoming damaged goods anyway) but that does not mean they have shut the door on the possibility. Kurdish problems do not help them on that regard and Iran knows that and who is better at operating through proxies than Iran?

That is my take anyway.

[jmm99]

A professional answer from a professional. Thank you. :)

Timely in view of your comments is, in TZ, Russia says it won't intervene militarily in Syria (http://www.todayszaman.com/news-274246-russia-says-it-wont-intervene-militarily-in-syria.html):


14 March 2012 / AP, MOSCOW

Russia's foreign minister says Moscow is providing Syria with weapons to fend off external threats but has no intention to use military force to protect Syrian President Bashar Assad.

Sergey Lavrov said Wednesday that Russia isn't supplying any arms that could be used against protesters.

He told lawmakers that a military intervention in Syria would contradict Russia's national interests.

Regards

Mike

[Uboat509]

Russia says it won't intervene militarily in Syria.



Regards

Mike

You never know when you might need your military forces to "shore up" public support for the regime. Just sayin'...

[Uboat509]

The more I think about it the more I think that US (or any other Western state) intervention in Syria would be a gift to Iran. That would potentially allow them to play the anti-imperialist/anti-crusader (or take your pick) card and take a more direct role in supporting the Assad regime. I very much doubt that they would risk a full scale invasion but they certainly could be more overt about sending materials and "volunteers" with less risk of a backlash in Sunni Arab opinion. That is a potential catfight we do not need to get dragged into right now (or ever really). The Arab Spring has shown Arabs that these authoritarian regimes can be over thrown. Assad's forces may clear an area but as soon as they leave the rebels come back (http://www.economist.com/node/21549999). That is not a sustainable position for the regime, not indefinitely. If the rebels could somehow convince Syria's minorities, such as the Christians that they would be protected from a Sunni backlash after the fall of the regime it would hugely undermine Assad's support. Unfortunately, that is probably an academic argument. I am not so sure that they can be protected, even if the leadership of the rebellion wants to. Even if they could be protected I am also not so sure that those minority groups could be convinced that they would be protected. The fact that two thirds of Iraq's pre-war Christian population has fled Iraq (http://www.economist.com/node/21542195) does not set a particularly encouraging precedent.

[davidbfpo]

Looking for information on Syria yesterday I found this Us-hosted website:
The Syrian Center for Political and Strategic Studies (SCPSS) is an independent nongovernmental studies center. SCPSS mission is to educate readers and activists about the Syrian Arab Republic from political, economic, social and strategic perspectives.

Link:http://www.scpss.org/index.php?pid=1

Another blogsite is:http://www.joshualandis.com/blog/

[Tukhachevskii]

Sorry, that should be RUSI

Hama Rules: the resilience of the Syrian Army (http://www.rusi.org/analysis/commentary/ref:C4E3685659531E/)

What Ends a War? The Limits of Bosnia-Syria Parallels
(http://www.rusi.org/go.php?structureID=commentary&ref=C4F60DEBA78376)

Popular Uprising in Syria: Beware of the Henchmen from Within
(http://www.rusi.org/analysis/commentary/ref:C4DD3A3D95BEE4/)

[BayonetBrant]

Did you guys see where the Russians are now sending troops to Syria?

http://grognews.blogspot.com/2012/03/russian-troops-to-syria.html

[Rex Brynen]

Did you guys see where the Russians are now sending troops to Syria?

It looks like it is a tiny protection detail for the tanker. To me it signals that the Russians don't feel entirely safe in Tartous (which may be sensible, given that the FSA has started attacks against some military facilities, sabotage, "sniping" with AT-13s and AT-14s, etc).

[davidbfpo]

the rebellion goes on, for longer than a year now and linked is the latest IISS commentary by their Middle East (Syria) expert following the Istanbul Conference:http://iissvoicesblog.wordpress.com/2012/04/03/friends-of-syria-still-hesitant/

Some acute phrasing:
Feeding the narrative of Assad’s impending doom (in effect, winning the propaganda war) would do more to encourage defections.

[Bob's World]

So, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates are all providing money to "pay the salaries of Sunni freedom fighters" ( translation, "hire mercenaries") to help overthrow the minority Alawite (Shia related) Assad regime.

I think Assad is responding completely inappropriately to these revolts, and should be seeking to bring community leaders to the table, listen to the reasonable concerns of the people and implement a true program of governmental reform.

But these Sunni leaders don't likely want to see better governance in Syria any more than they wanted to see better governance in Iraq. Bad for the business of autocratic rule in their own countries. This appears to be an effort to use this opportunity to expand Sunni rule in the region and to elevate some peer in their own image. We should not look at this as a good thing. It is just a different bad thing.

[Dayuhan]

I think Assad is responding completely inappropriately to these revolts, and should be seeking to bring community leaders to the table, listen to the reasonable concerns of the people and implement a true program of governmental reform.

That might have been a reasonable prescription at the start of the affair, but it's way beyond that point now, and the last thing the US should be doing is proposing a solution that would leave Assad in power... or for that matter proposing any solution at all, since there's no point in making proposals you aren't willing to stand behind.


This appears to be an effort to use this opportunity to expand Sunni rule in the region and to elevate some peer in their own image. We should not look at this as a good thing. It is just a different bad thing.

A good thing or a bad thing for who? For us it needn't be good or bad, as it's really not our business... neither is it our business to be telling others what we think is good or bad for them.

[Uboat509]

So, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates are all providing money to "pay the salaries of Sunni freedom fighters" ( translation, "hire mercenaries") to help overthrow the minority Alawite (Shia related) Assad regime.

It probably has less to do with religion than with authoritarian regimes wanting to buy their way into the good graces of the rebels in Syria. The writing is on the wall. Assad will fall at some point. All three of those states would very much like to contain the Arab Spring in Syria lest it spread to their states.


I think Assad is responding completely inappropriately to these revolts, and should be seeking to bring community leaders to the table, listen to the reasonable concerns of the people and implement a true program of governmental reform.

Way too late for that now. Even if Assad were to make a legitimate attempt to reform, the leaders of the uprising will assume that he is doing it because he is weakening. They will smell blood in the water and redouble their efforts. The best outcome that Assad can probably hope for now is a negotiated exit for him and protection for the minority groups in Syria that supported him. Even that is iffy.

[AmericanPride]

Assad's staying power is under-estimated. Sure, the West (generally) wants to see him go and his rivals in the Arab community are doing their part to help him make that transition. However, the Syrian state is constructed more similarly to the Egyptian model than the Libyan model; with the military playing a prominent and central role in state formation and stability. And while the Syrian military has suffered from a number of high profile defections, it by and large remains on the side of their governmeent (unlike the large Egyptian military and the small, decentralized Libyan military). The Syrian Army remained loyal to the regime in the past, and I don't see how this situation is any different for them. Without external intervention (whether attacking the regime directly, sustaining the rebelling forces, or enticing the military to defect), the best the uprising can hope for is a negotiated settlement.

[Uboat509]

Granted, the military is more loyal to Assad than it has been in other Arab states but that will likely delay the overthrow of the Assad regime but not prevent it. To begin with, Syria is not a petro-state. Assad does not have much to offer in the way of assets to potential supporters. Russia and China are not interested in the political cost of supporting Assad. Iran does not have unlimited resources to prop up Assad. Iraq will likely tread carefully in how they support him. Sanctions seem to be having an effect, probably because of the world wide attention on this has caused whatever limited support Assad had to begin with to be reduced.

Probably the most significant factor is the fact that the Arab Spring has given the rebels hope that they can force a change. That has not existed before.

[AmericanPride]

Nobody in Syria has the power to overthrow the government and defeat the army. Nor do I see the momentum of such a power building, despite selective mainstream media coverage of the "progress" of Syria's armed resistance in battling the army and enticing defections. It's precisely because that Syria is not a petro-state (it's a state with few natural resources at all actually) that stability and state formation has settled around the military, much like in Egypt. The military is essentially Syria's welfare-patron program (at the most basic level, it provides a job), and it's what holds the state together. What will entice the Army to defect to a decentralized, foreign-sponsored movement that will most likely reduce the influence of the military in the government? The rebels need more support than selective media coverage and global solidarity to overcome the guns and tanks of the Syrian army.

[tequila]

I think you're overestimating the level of loyalty and cohesion in the Syrian Army, especially amongst the lower, mostly Sunni ranks, and also discounting the role played by the Baath Party and associated security services in the Syrian state.

The Baath Party has no real counterpart in the Egyptian context, and the Syrian internal security forces are much more powerful than their Egyptian counterparts. The Army, OTOH, is correspondingly weaker. Mubarak had to go when the generals told him to - can you imagine Syrian generals throwing out Assad or his family? Quite the opposite.

I agree that the Syrian rebels need more than goodwill and media coverage to overthrow the Assads. But the Assads have been afraid to use the majority of the Army against the protests - and not out of fear of bad media coverage, but likely because they do not fully trust largely conscript Sunni units to attack largely Sunni cities.

[Uboat509]

Nobody in Syria has the power to overthrow the government and defeat the army. Nor do I see the momentum of such a power building, despite selective mainstream media coverage of the "progress" of Syria's armed resistance in battling the army and enticing defections. It's precisely because that Syria is not a petro-state (it's a state with few natural resources at all actually) that stability and state formation has settled around the military, much like in Egypt. The military is essentially Syria's welfare-patron program (at the most basic level, it provides a job), and it's what holds the state together. What will entice the Army to defect to a decentralized, foreign-sponsored movement that will most likely reduce the influence of the military in the government? The rebels need more support than selective media coverage and global solidarity to overcome the guns and tanks of the Syrian army.

The security apparatus may be stronger than the rebels but it does not exist in a vacuum. How long can they remain dominant with resources for the regime drying up and supplies starting to flow to the rebellion? Guns and tanks need resources to work. How big are Syria's reserves of fuel and ammunition? How long can Assad afford to pay the Army? How much tangible support is Assad actually getting from its few remaining friends? Petro-states can always find someone willing to pay for their oil. Syria has nothing to offer and the world wide attention on this has probably made sanctions more effective than past sanctions on other states have been.

[tequila]

Syria has nothing to offer and the world wide attention on this has probably made sanctions more effective than past sanctions on other states have been.

Russia and Iran disagree - I think this may be critical in the coming months. Iran can provide trained personnel through Hizbullah and IRGC cadres, while both can provide fuel and arms in abundance.

[davidbfpo]

Hat tip to the Oxford Research Group (ORG) for the pointer to Jonathan Steele's report after a visit to Syria; first ORG's summary:http://www.oxfordresearchgroup.org.uk/publications/articles_multimedia/syria_answer_dialogue

Steele's reporting:http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/mar/19/syria-might-need-own-mandela and:http://www.lrb.co.uk/v34/n06/jonathan-steele/diary

[AmericanPride]

I have no idea how long Assad can sustain his forces in the field. The foreign aid for syria's rebels is not that substantial. They can stand their ground in localized fights but they surely cannot mount offensive operations. Syria still has friends - not many but they're around and they have guns and money to toss around.

[davidbfpo]

An interesting article IMHO, curious to see the references to the FLN in Algeria; this could appear in the thread on Media & UW.


So does Syria’s uprising need more technologically savvy multimedia activists? Or – to be blunt – does it require more people inside the country blowing things up? In the end, which poses the greater threat to a repressive regime: its atrocities being instantly relayed across the world on Twitter, or a well-armed, tightly organised insurgency?

The 13 months of Syria’s revolt have starkly illustrated the limits of social media as an engine of revolution, and of the claims made for the internet’s transformative power.

Link:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/9193823/Syrias-online-army-is-simply-playing-into-Assads-hands.html

[davidbfpo]

A BBC News report from Idlib Province and a very curious photo of a Free Syrian Army (FSA) member carrying a M4 rifle, with a telescopic sight. Such a weapon does not IMO sit easily alongside the regular footage of the FSA with their AK's, RPD's etc. Have the Gulf States already started shipping in such weapons? Not to overlook the 'black market' and other local users.

Link:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-17734946

The reporter also observes:
the conundrum of Kofi Annan's plan....Not all government forces have withdrawn from residential areas. It calls for a political process to address the aspirations and concerns of the Syrian people. Yet the difference between what the opposition wants and what President Assad is prepared to agree to is greater than ever. The lasting effect of the violent assault in this area is to harden positions and make compromise almost unthinkable.

[AmericanPride]

A BBC News report from Idlib Province and a very curious photo of a Free Syrian Army (FSA) member carrying a M4 rifle, with a telescopic sight. Such a weapon does not IMO sit easily alongside the regular footage of the FSA with their AK's, RPD's etc. Have the Gulf States already started shipping in such weapons? Not to overlook the 'black market' and other local users.

This (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304177104577311572820862442.html) appeared in the WSJ at the end of last month. And like you stated, one can't overlook the black market (especially with the Iraq War 2003 - 2011). Also interesting is the (apparent) ramp up of public policy discussions about developing plans for US intervention in the country.

[davidbfpo]

Hat tip to Londonistani for identifying a Canadian-Syrian's blogging on Syrian, background analysis and on a quick scan making observations I've not seen before, notably the extent of support for the Bashir regime:http://creativesyria.com/syriapage/

[davidbfpo]

The events in Houla have brought Syria back to the fore and there has been much talk about this incident being a "tipping point".

What happened in Houla? A very short version:
Friday's massacre of 108 people - including 49 children and 34 women - in the Houla area of Homs province. Witnesses have told the UN the vast majority of killings were committed by pro-government shabiha militiamen.

The militia allegedly coming from adjacent Alawite villages.

Link for summary:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18260992 and link for more details:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18233934

The UN's efforts aside, with the Arab League, appear to be worthless and R2P is having a battering - as listened to on a BBC radio programme this week.

The comments on a "tipping point" obscure the fact that such points are rarely recognised at the time.

William Shawcross in 'Deliver us from Evil, a history of UN peacekeeping' wrote:
Reconciliation is much favoured in today’s peacekeeping efforts, but sometimes the desire for it is unrealistic...Today we demand instant reconciliation. The examples of Bosnia, Rwanda and Kosovo show that often that just cannot happen.

Cited in a long comment:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/9295167/Syria-no-end-in-sight.html

Finally methinks the thread's title needs changing - Civil War has arrived or is close?

[davidbfpo]

Hat tip to Enduring America for locating this report on the Vice website 'My Four Days of Madness with the FSA':http://www.vice.com/read/behind-enemy-lines-in-idlib?Contentpage=-1

Moderator's Note: On 5th June 2012 this thread's title was changed from 'Uprising in Syria now?' to 'Syria: a civil war'.

[JMA]

Hat tip to Enduring America for locating this report on the Vice website 'My Four Days of Madness with the FSA':http://www.vice.com/read/behind-enemy-lines-in-idlib?Contentpage=-1

Moderator's Note: On 5th June 2012 this thread's title was changed from 'Uprising in Syria now?' to 'Syria: a civil war'.

I don't know about this name change as it kind of indicates that the problem lies within Syria itself when we know that the situation has been allowed to deteriorate due to the inability of Europe to flex any muscle and the sheer gutlessness once again of the US to chance a face off with Russia and China. Once more we have a case study of inept foreign policy from North American and European countries.

[davidbfpo]

JMA,

Point taken, but I do feel that the key players in Syria are Syrians. They are the actors, everyone else is a reactor.

Now a few reflections.

I had missed that the original location of the street protests were in places known for their loyalty to the regime, what was the regime's reaction? Brutality, with arrests in Deraa, prisoners who were tortured and threats made to their families. Observers consider that 2m have been displaced inside Syria, with the UN saying 200k are refugees and others 450-500k. Given the regime's brutality one can only imagine what the families of the 70k detained feel (far greater scale than in Iran's Green Protest), let alone an estimated 35k who are missing.

Syria faces a protracted struggle. A civil war that currently sees the armed opposition in a defensive mode and the regime having enough troops, including a large number of retained conscripts and called-up reservists alongside a force of dedicated loyalists estimated at 75k, for "fire-fighting" or mobile oppression.

One well-informed observer considers that the opposition has 20% of the population in support and the vast majority are 'sitting on the fence". Syria is an urban country, with a few large cities. That is why watchers considered the street protests in Aleppo recently were significant and the regime's determination to stifle any dissent in Damascus.

For reasons maybe lost on most here there is a strong regional belief in conspiracy, not cock-up, as an explanation for what is happening; even when it is simple they look for a conspiracy.

Perhaps some of this belief lies in demography? Over half the population are aged 15-29yrs and 3.2% over 65yrs; quite different from Western Europe.

Additionally there is the promise of the 'Arab Spring', a regional Arab search for legitimacy in government and in Syria especially a demand to have a real democracy and human rights.

[Jedburgh]

Jamestown Foundation, 1 June 2012: Syrian Tribal Networks and their Implications for the Syrian Uprising (http://www.jamestown.org/programs/gta/single/?tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=39452&tx_ttnews%5BbackPid%5D=26&cHash=7a20925cf13da2607b897bb413a583b3)

Sunni Arab tribalism has a significant socio-cultural, political, and security impact on the current uprising in Syria, with strong implications for post-Assad governance formation. Tribalism has fueled unrest throughout Syria, including in places such as Dera’a, where mass opposition demonstrations began on March 15, 2011, in the eastern city of Deir al-Zor on the Euphrates River, and in the suburbs of Homs and Damascus, where some of the fiercest combat between the Syrian military and armed opposition groups has occurred. Millions of rural and urban Syrians express an active tribal identity and tribal affiliation is used extensively to mobilize the political and armed opposition against the Assad government as well as to organize paramilitary forces in support of the Syrian regime. Both the Syrian opposition and the Assad government recognize the political importance of the tribal networks that cross Syria and extend into neighboring countries. As a result, the support of Syria’s tribes is a strategic goal for both the Syrian government and the Syrian opposition.....

[davidbfpo]

The respected academic commentator, Joshua Landis, has a FP column today under the title 'Stay Out of Syria: Foreign intervention to topple Bashar al-Assad's bloody regime risks a fiasco on par with Iraq and Afghanistan':http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/06/05/stay_out_of_syria?page=full

He ends with:
The United States can play a role with aid, arms, and intelligence -- but it cannot and should not try to decide Syria's future and determine the victors of this conflict. If Syrians want to own Syria in the future, they must take charge of their revolution and figure out how to win it. It is better for Syria, and it is better for America.

AM today the BBC Radio had John McCain advocating intervention, yes there is a clear moral case, but I concluded then 'Just say no' and this article confirms that judgement.

[Uboat509]

That is a great find, davidbfpo. I was looking at some photos from the Houla massacre earlier. When one sees children that have been murdered that way it provokes a visceral reaction (in me anyway), but raw emotions have no place in geopolitical decision-making. Decisions like these have to be made rationally. Even if you are inclined to believe that the US should take more of a role in policing the world Mr. Landis makes some salient points about how much good the US could actually do over there, and what it is likely to cost.

When we hear about, or especially when we see pictures of, dead children it is natural to want to do something about it. The problem is that for some the go to reaction is to call for military intervention. We do have the most powerful military in the world, bar none. Removing Al-Assad would probably be fairly easy but, as Mr Landis points out, that is not the problem, it is the aftermath. It was the aftermath of both Iraq and Afghanistan that created so much pain for us and I have seen no compelling reason to believe that the aftermath of any intervention in Syria would be any less painful. Loyalists of the current government will almost certainly form an insurgent movement once Al-Assad is removed. This will be especially true if Al-Assad manages to escape being killed or captured. This could be exacerbated by the lack of a coherent opposition which means that a post revolution government might not have control of a significant portion of the militias that remain after the war. Some of these militias are going to want to take revenge against minorities who they believed were loyal to Al-Assad. At least some of these minorities will feel compelled to join the insurgency just for self-preservation (as happened in Iraq, particularly among the Shia) thus strengthening the insurgency.

Western intervention would speed the overthrow of the Al-Assad regime but might very well strengthen any insurgency as loyalist forces are rapidly overwhelmed and opposition forces find themselves in control of the state before they can consolidate control over their own forces. Paradoxically, a slower overthrow of the government (i.e. without direct Western intervention) may actually weaken any insurgency that forms as loyalists have time to defect (which they will as money dries up and popular unrest increases) and other minorities are given the opportunity to prove that they are not especially loyal to Al-Assad. Diehard loyalists may also be more inclined to stand and fight against a homegrown revolution than they would be against the overwhelming military might of a Western power. That is preferable to them joining an insurgent movement.

[JMA]

The respected academic commentator, Joshua Landis, has a FP column today under the title 'Stay Out of Syria: Foreign intervention to topple Bashar al-Assad's bloody regime risks a fiasco on par with Iraq and Afghanistan':http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/06/05/stay_out_of_syria?page=full

David maybe you can help decipher this Landis 'doublespeak'?

He said (as you quoted):

"The United States can play a role with aid, arms, and intelligence -- but it cannot and should not try to decide Syria's future and determine the victors of this conflict."

How does the Landis man produce a thought pattern where aiding, arming and providing intel to one side does not 'try to decide Syria's future'?


AM today the BBC Radio had John McCain advocating intervention, yes there is a clear moral case, but I concluded then 'Just say no' and this article confirms that judgement.

David the Landis article confirms nothing other than the US and European approach has been frozen in indecision and in fear of a face with Russia and China. Now (in the style of the classic coward) they can now wring their hands and claim that the situation is too advanced/complex/etc risk a physical involvement in Syria. This while their incompetence and failure to act decisively in the early stages has led to the current situation.

[davidbfpo]

David maybe you can help decipher this Landis 'doublespeak'?

Q. He said (as you quoted):
The United States can play a role with aid, arms, and intelligence -- but it cannot and should not try to decide Syria's future and determine the victors of this conflict

A. There is an assumption by those advocating a direct, military intervention it is in short a "fix", Landis disagrees and this sentence meets the demands of the "do something" school, with a minimum level of support for the opposition. That alone will not be decisive.

Q. How does the Landis man produce a thought pattern where aiding, arming and providing intel to one side does not 'try to decide Syria's future'?

A. The USA, Landis's primary if not sole audience, all too often sees issues as starkly black and white. It believes - at the start - it can decide.

[JMA]

David maybe you can help decipher this Landis 'doublespeak'?

Q. He said (as you quoted):

A. There is an assumption by those advocating a direct, military intervention it is in short a "fix", Landis disagrees and this sentence meets the demands of the "do something" school, with a minimum level of support for the opposition. That alone will not be decisive.

Q. How does the Landis man produce a thought pattern where aiding, arming and providing intel to one side does not 'try to decide Syria's future'?

A. The USA, Landis's primary if not sole audience, all too often sees issues as starkly black and white. It believes - at the start - it can decide.

Not seen as you do. I think Landis is unable to connect the dots that by supplying one side (or a favoured faction) with aid, arms and intel it can and will play a role in deciding Syria's future.

Is Landis stupid? I don't think so more like he is a non-interventionist to the point that he is reduced to making incoherent comment... like the following:


Anyone who believes that Syria will avoid the excesses of Iraq -- where the military, government ministries, and Baath Party were dissolved and criminalized -- is dreaming

and

If anyone tells you they are going to build democracy in Syria, don't buy it.

and

The argument that the United States could have avoided radicalization and civil war in Iraq by toppling Saddam Hussein in 1991 is unconvincing.

Landis writes like a journalist (at least in this article) and by no stretch of the imagination can be called a 'respected academic commentator' and this quoted article is an insult to the intelligence of the reader.

[Dayuhan]

David the Landis article confirms nothing other than the US and European approach has been frozen in indecision and in fear of a face with Russia and China.

I doubt that fear of Russia is much a factor, and China isn't even remotely in the picture. The fear is of getting sucked into another interminable "nation building" mess. On the American political side there's also substantial fear of an upcoming election and an electorate that's in no mood to put up with another overseas adventure.

I'm not sure "frozen in indecision" makes it either. The decision not to commit military force was made early on and remains in place. How is that indecisive?


Now (in the style of the classic coward) they can now wring their hands and claim that the situation is too advanced/complex/etc risk a physical involvement in Syria. This while their incompetence and failure to act decisively in the early stages has led to the current situation.

When did it ever make sense for countries to push into other countries' business at the first sign of trouble? Is staying out of other people's fights cowardice or common sense? Is any critical interest involved for the US or any other potential intervening party that would justify "physical involvement"?

It's far from evident that any course of action available "in the early stages" would have achieved anything but civil war, even if it had been a politically viable option, which for the US it was not.

[JMA]

I doubt that fear of Russia is much a factor, and China isn't even remotely in the picture. The fear is of getting sucked into another interminable "nation building" mess. On the American political side there's also substantial fear of an upcoming election and an electorate that's in no mood to put up with another overseas adventure.

I'm not sure "frozen in indecision" makes it either. The decision not to commit military force was made early on and remains in place. How is that indecisive?

When did it ever make sense for countries to push into other countries' business at the first sign of trouble? Is staying out of other people's fights cowardice or common sense? Is any critical interest involved for the US or any other potential intervening party that would justify "physical involvement"?

It's far from evident that any course of action available "in the early stages" would have achieved anything but civil war, even if it had been a politically viable option, which for the US it was not.

You again?

Look stick to your back and forth with Ray (he seems to be enjoying the game)... I'm not going to take the bait.

As a parting shot ... there are always a basket of options for just about every situation and the earlier you exercise those options the more likely the possibility that a civil war can be avoided. Most people know and understand this.

Now is there any 'smart guy' out there able to explain why a civil war in any country should be avoided at all costs (certainly not stoked by providing one side or tuther with the weapons of war)?

[davidbfpo]

JMA asked:
explain why a civil war in any country should be avoided at all costs?

The first people to avoid a civil war are those who live within the boundaries of the nation-state. I expect we all know civil wars are rarely a "clean fight" and short.

It is not pre-ordained that neighbours and those beyond should intervene.

Syria I think is now a civil war, although the ratio of regime supporters, opponents, "fence-sitters" and others are not clear. I have yet to read anything that states external support for the fighting opponents will be decisive. History I would contend is replete with examples of external actors being sucked in, who discover with :boots on the ground" that it is a quagmire.

[JMA]

JMA asked:

The first people to avoid a civil war are those who live within the boundaries of the nation-state. I expect we all know civil wars are rarely a "clean fight" and short.

It is not pre-ordained that neighbours and those beyond should intervene.

Yes but... it is all about the future. It takes generations for a nation to get over a civil war. Outsiders who have a stake in stability of the country/area/region would have a (purely selfish) national interest (ignoring any humanitarian concerns for the moment) to keep the peace.

Physical military intervention only becomes a final last option when all other options have failed or (as in the case of Syria) not even been attempted. So that leaves the US (due to political dithering) and Europe (due to a lack of influence) sitting on their hands and sucking their teeth.


Syria I think is now a civil war, although the ratio of regime supporters, opponents, "fence-sitters" and others are not clear. I have yet to read anything that states external support for the fighting opponents will be decisive. History I would contend is replete with examples of external actors being sucked in, who discover with :boots on the ground" that it is a quagmire.

Yes it is probably too late to save the situation... which reflects on an earlier political failure. Pathetic.

[Dayuhan]

You again?

Why not? Last I looked it was a public forum...


As a parting shot ... there are always a basket of options for just about every situation and the earlier you exercise those options the more likely the possibility that a civil war can be avoided. Most people know and understand this.

Of course there are always a basket of options, I never said otherwise. Some are politically viable (assuming the nations assessing their options are in some degree democratic), some are not. Some have a reasonable chance of a desirable outcome, some do not. In this case the decision from the US was to avoid any military involvement. That's not dithering or indecisiveness: they made a decision and stuck with it. That may or may not have been the best decision for Syria, but making the best decision for Syria is not the responsibility of the US Government.

If you think some other decision should have been made and some other course of action taken, please tell us what you think should have been done and what you think it would have accomplished.


Yes but... it is all about the future. It takes generations for a nation to get over a civil war. Outsiders who have a stake in stability of the country/area/region would have a (purely selfish) national interest (ignoring any humanitarian concerns for the moment) to keep the peace.

That would depend on the importance of the perceived stake and the assessment of probable costs (including political cost) and probability of success for any proposed effort to prevent the civil war. In this case that assessment did not come up on the side of intervention. I've seen no convincing argument that this was the wrong decision. If the national interest involved is less than compelling, the cost of the proposed intervention is likely to be high, and the probability of success is low, it makes sense not to get involved.


Physical military intervention only becomes a final last option when all other options have failed or (as in the case of Syria) not even been attempted. So that leaves the US (due to political dithering) and Europe (due to a lack of influence) sitting on their hands and sucking their teeth....

Yes it is probably too late to save the situation... which reflects on an earlier political failure. Pathetic.

Failure to do what? What was the option that wasn't attempted? It's easy to bluster about how everyone who could have intervened (in practical terms, the US) is incompetent and cowardly and pathetic and indecisive etc, but if you can't say what should have been done and demonstrate why you think it would have made matters better, all the bluster really doesn't mean much.

[Bill Moore]

This situation and others disproves the completely unfounded idea that because the U.S. has a standing Army it is prone to rapidly get involved in other people's fights.

I think most realize there are no good options, so if we follow the rule, first do no harm, sitting on the side lines for a while does appear to be the best option. Intervening sooner will not prevent what has already started.

It is clear that Russia, Iran, Turkey, Lebanon, and a host of other nations all have interests in this conflict that are not humanitarian, so to imply that if we simply provide arms and other forms of aid to the opposition that this will lead to anything other than an uncontrolled escalation is delusional. If those calling for the U.S. to intervene are doing so for humanitarian purposes, IMO they are misguided, because that type of support will simply result in more bloodshed to real end.

If we intervene at all, I think it best to wait until the picture is clearer and there is a clear military objective. Please stop fighting doesn't qualify.

[Dayuhan]

This situation and others disproves the completely unfounded idea that because the U.S. has a standing Army it is prone to rapidly get involved in other people's fights.

I think there is a tendency to intervene, and also a tendency to not intervene. These tendencies exist in constant opposition to each other, and we often oscillate between them. After a period of intervention we extricate and swear we won't do that again. Time goes by, we forget, we convince ourselves that this time will be different, and we do it again. Then we repeat the process. One of the reasons intervention in Syria was from the start unlikely is that the Syria situation emerged after a series of previous interventions, at a point when the nation was moving back into it's non-intervention mode.

My own feeling is that pushing into other people's fights is inherently a messy business best avoided in the absence of some compelling national interest. JMA seems to feel (I trust him to correct me if I'm wrong) that pushing into other people's fights doesn't have to be messy if only you do it right. I'm still not quite sure what would constitute doing it right, what action would be "right" and what the expected response to that action would be, but maybe he'll tell us. It seems to be largely a matter of early involvement, which of course raises the issue of political viability: jumping into other people's quarrels as soon as they emerge isn't likely to be popular, and I've some doubt as well over it's efficacy.

[JMA]

This situation and others disproves the completely unfounded idea that because the U.S. has a standing Army it is prone to rapidly get involved in other people's fights.

Bill, with respect, you demean yourself and the US military when you go out on a limb making excuses for the ineptitude of US foreign policy and the incompetence of US politicians in this respect (almost to a man - and Hilary).

Strutting arrogantly upon the world stage like the world leader (the US should be) then proving to be diplomatically and militarily unable to achieve almost anything without turning even the most simple efforts into a monumental cock-up. Then after the cock-up to claim that it doesn't matter about the outcome as it was never in the 'national interests' of the US anyway.

Now if only USians could agree on what constitutes their national interests' and their narcissistic political leadership (and in some cases also their military leadership) could resist the need to be in the media spotlight the world would be better off.

Wouldn't it be nice to hear from the US President (for a change) that the situation (whatever) in country X (whichever) is of no concern of the US people and as such will observe neutrality (on the Swiss model) and immediately pass legislation to prevent any US individuals and/or organisations from involving themselves directly or indirectly in the affairs of that country.

Not going to happen... US politicians just cant help themselves.

[JMA]

Why not? Last I looked it was a public forum...

I don't engage with you because you don't engage with individuals but rather play to the gallery and I don't intend to allow myself to be used in that manner.

[Bill Moore]

Posted by JMA,


Strutting arrogantly upon the world stage like the world leader (the US should be) then proving to be diplomatically and militarily unable to achieve almost anything without turning even the most simple efforts into a monumental cock-up. Then after the cock-up to claim that it doesn't matter about the outcome as it was never in the 'national interests' of the US anyway.

Now if only USians could agree on what constitutes their national interests' and their narcissistic political leadership (and in some cases also their military leadership) could resist the need to be in the media spotlight the world would be better off.

Wouldn't it be nice to hear from the US President (for a change) that the situation (whatever) in country X (whichever) is of no concern of the US people and as such will observe neutrality (on the Swiss model) and immediately pass legislation to prevent any US individuals and/or organisations from involving themselves directly or indirectly in the affairs of that country.

Overall I don't disagree with your assessment, and what I find interesting, but not surprising, is that non-USians are frustrated with our half-in, half-out approach while pretending to lead. We realize many nations are waiting for the U.S. to provide leadership, and we are providing mostly mixed messages, so point taken.

Many in our military are equally frustrated with our foreign policies that are built on constantly shifting sands. While the Powell Doctrine may be too demanding, IMO the U.S. leaders need to state clearly what the military objectives are before committing uniformed forces to the fight. We actually did quite well in Afghanistan and Iraq in achieving our initial objectives (it was a policy decision not to follow AQ into Pakistan). Then came the policy objectives to build model democracies, which we didn't have the means or know how to do, but it was a cool idea, an idealist idea, but it these unrealistic, idealistic goals that lead to
a monumental cock-up. Sadly I'm still a closet idealist, but I realize we can't force them upon others unless we use the same tactics others have such as the communists and fascists. We can remove pockets of evil that prohibit the natural evolution of a soceity, but after that all we can effectively do is provide assistance and advice. Still need to flush these ideas out, but they're a combination of realpolitik and a little bit more. We have to keep the "little bit more" to frustrate our foreign partners:D

Posted by Dayuhan,


I think there is a tendency to intervene, and also a tendency to not intervene. These tendencies exist in constant opposition to each other, and we often oscillate between them. After a period of intervention we extricate and swear we won't do that again. Time goes by, we forget, we convince ourselves that this time will be different, and we do it again.

I'll meet you half way on this, but I think if you look at our history of intervention we have continued to intervene fairly regularly even after undesirable interventions. Post Vietnam we intervened in Grenada, Lebanon, Panama, Somalia, etc. However, we didn't intervene in a number of other troubled spots in the world. Bob's World asserted we intervene because we have a standing Army, and if we didn't have one we would be much more deliberate in our decision making process, because Congress would have to call up the reserves. I'm sure that is true to an extent, but to assert we intervene just because we can is false, and this proposal directly opposes our Defense Strategic Guidance to maintain global leadership (which JMA pointed to indirectly).


JMA seems to feel (I trust him to correct me if I'm wrong) that pushing into other people's fights doesn't have to be messy if only you do it right.

I think JMA is right to a point, the military can achieve clear military objectives, it is the rest of our system that is broken. The military, was effective in achieving its objectives in Grenada (despite the high level of incompetence that eventually contributed the Goldwater-Nichols Defense Reorganization Act), it was effective in Panama, Desert Storm, and a few other situations post WWII. When objectives are clear and achievable we do well, when we decide to intervene in situations that are not clear like Lebanon (not unlike Syria now) we tend to put troops in harm's way with vague goals and high expectations that often lead to great disappointment.

I realize there will always be those situations that are vague, but we need to think twice, three or more times before leaping.

[Ken White]

...the military can achieve clear military objectives, it is the rest of our system that is broken. The military, was effective in achieving its objectives in Grenada (despite the high level of incompetence that eventually contributed the Goldwater-Nichols Defense Reorganization Act), it was effective in Panama, Desert Storm, and a few other situations post WWII.I essentially agree that we do better with clear objectives and that "the rest of the system..." is, if not broken, generally less effective. With the stipulation that the political and / or policy level is the weakest link. :mad:

You're correct about the incompetence in Grenada but I disagree that we were effective in those other situations -- had you said adequate, I'd agree but effective not so much as to me "effective" entails competence and while we were and are today slightly less incompetent than in Grenada, we still need a lot of work -- the system is corrupted...
When objectives are clear and achievable we do well, when we decide to intervene in situations that are not clear like Lebanon (not unlike Syria now) we tend to put troops in harm's way with vague goals and high expectations that often lead to great disappointment.That's the rub, isn't it? "Clear and achievable..." We do not assess achievability very well in too many cases. We can do the big stuff but the smaller fine points trip us up...

Lack of strategic thought capability IMO.
I realize there will always be those situations that are vague, but we need to think twice, three or more times before leaping.Yes. Others not withstanding, military force is not appropriately applied to every situation some do not like. In fact, it is generally inappropriate and that is particularly true if it is ineptly applied -- which is what we do more often than not...::wry:

I have long contended that the potential for ineptitude MUST be a planning consideration. None of us, as Leaders would send our most incompetent Troopie on a sensitive effort; we would not just say "Phugaboski, it's your turn, Go..." Yet at the macro level, that's precisely what we do.

I believe our major flaw in that regard is that we assume that we can and will do the mission -- the old 'can do' attitude reinforced by pride and egos. I suggest that in the METT-TC formulation, at the strategic level -- where that formulation is as if not more important than it is at the tactical level -- the most important thing is not the Mission. The critical factors, strategically, are the last three letters:

- Troops available. Quite simply, have we trained and practiced to do this or can we do so in a timely manner and are the Troops capable of the effort required. For example, the GPF will never be able to do FID very well nor should it be able to do so.

- Time. How long will this take and will the Voters and more importantly, the Politicians, continue to support the effort pretty much unequivocally for that period. If the answer for either group is less than a firm 'yes,' we better have a Plan B...

- Civil considerations. At both ends; both the US polity and the target area or mission focus denizens. In a major war, that last becomes somewhat academic, in all other types of combat, it is a 'must consider with full knowledge' aspect. As examples in Viet Nam, Somalia and in recent actions we had access to pretty comprehensive knowledge of the target area population -- but we mostly ignored knowledgeable persons due to the pride / ego problems -- that's just foolish...

While those factors merit far greater consideration than we have apparently given them in the past, we really have a broader problem. Wile there are many very competent people in the services, the institutions that are the US Armed Forces -- all of them -- have not adapted well to change. We're still saddled with a 1917 model personnel systems and training systems that are in too many cases only slightly improved from that same year model. Until those are fixed and the quality of the forces -- people and training; the other stuff is ancillary -- is improved, things will be no better. We will continue to take four steps forward and three back... :mad:

The good news is that 'adequate' is acceptable and still puts us most always a notch or several above all potential adversaries. :wry:

[Dayuhan]

I'll meet you half way on this, but I think if you look at our history of intervention we have continued to intervene fairly regularly even after undesirable interventions. Post Vietnam we intervened in Grenada, Lebanon, Panama, Somalia, etc. However, we didn't intervene in a number of other troubled spots in the world.

We've a short collective memory, and we often think (sometimes correctly, sometimes not) that intervention is a smaller fight will be quicker and easier. The oscillation between interventionist and non-interventionist modes is not neat or even, but I do think it exists.


Bob's World asserted we intervene because we have a standing Army, and if we didn't have one we would be much more deliberate in our decision making process, because Congress would have to call up the reserves. I'm sure that is true to an extent, but to assert we intervene just because we can is false, and this proposal directly opposes our Defense Strategic Guidance to maintain global leadership (which JMA pointed to indirectly).

I've stayed out of that one, on purpose. It's true of course that you can't use a capacity you haven't got, and that when you have a capacity there's sometimes a temptation to use it when you shouldn't. That's not necessarily an argument for not having the capacity (you might someday need it faster than you can build it) but it's a good reason to think twice or more before using it. I wouldn't go so far as to say that intervention is never desirable, but IMO the default reaction to an intervention situation should be to "just say no", unless there are very compelling reasons to be involed and a clear, practical objective presents itself.


I think JMA is right to a point, the military can achieve clear military objectives, it is the rest of our system that is broken. The military, was effective in achieving its objectives in Grenada (despite the high level of incompetence that eventually contributed the Goldwater-Nichols Defense Reorganization Act), it was effective in Panama, Desert Storm, and a few other situations post WWII. When objectives are clear and achievable we do well, when we decide to intervene in situations that are not clear like Lebanon (not unlike Syria now) we tend to put troops in harm's way with vague goals and high expectations that often lead to great disappointment.

I realize there will always be those situations that are vague, but we need to think twice, three or more times before leaping.

Agreed on all counts, but I'd still point out that other people's fights are an inherently messy business that often don't lend themselves to clear, practical objectives. Even when we think such an objective exists, it often proves ephemeral and it's easy to get sucked into mission creep. Typically none of the contending parties will share our goals and objectives, and when you have multiple parties pursuing incompatible objectives, life tends to get messy.

I'd still be curious about what "doing it right" in Syria would have been: what specific actions could have been undertaken and what the anticipated response to those actions would have been. I don't suppose we'll ever know...

[Dayuhan]

I don't engage with you because you don't engage with individuals but rather play to the gallery and I don't intend to allow myself to be used in that manner.

I didn't know there was a gallery. Be that as it may, your posts beg certain very obvious questions, such as:

What do you think should have been done?

What result do you think that course of action would have achieved?

Why do you think that course of action would have had that particular result, as opposed to any number of unpredicted other results?

If you won't answer those questions, the obvious conclusion is that you can't.

[Bob's World]

Bill

"Global Leadership" does not mean a duty for Global Action. In fact, a leader that is too quick to jump in first and do everything himself is often the worst kind of leadership, as it tends to disempower the very audience it attempts to lead.

Yes, we have grown used to having a warfighting army on the shelf ready to go for the past 65 years, and for 40 of those years it was necessary as part of our Cold War containment strategy and our commitment to defend Western Europe from a potential Soviet invasion. European nations require larger armies in peacetime than maritime nations (Japan, US, Britain to name 3).

We have become a one-trick pony and it has shifted the base of national power from the Congress to the Executive; from the people to the President. It has allowed an emotional people to act on our emotions and leap into conflicts without the cooling off period provided by the process laid out in our Constitution. For the same reason people can't buy a gun the second they want it.

But we don't lead so much as preach, cajole and dictate. Seems to me we are increasingly making more noise to a smaller audience due to the application of this very type of "act first, think later" leadership we have been applying.

The fact is the US has never suffered from having a small peacetime army. Yes, we have been slow to foreign wars, saving billions of dollars and millions of American lives. When did that become a bad thing?

[AdamG]

TEHRAN, June 19 (UPI) -- Iran, Russia, China and Syria plan to conduct a joint military exercise in the Middle East in coming weeks, the semi-official Fars news agency said.

Citing "informed sources" the agency said some 90,000 troops from the four countries are expected to participate in land, air and sea maneuvers off the Syrian coast, including air defense and missile units.


http://www.upi.com/Top_News/World-News/2012/06/19/Iran-Russia-China-Syria-to-hold-drill/UPI-93751340106919/#ixzz1yFPgb1U6

[AdamG]

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e2850114-b95e-11e1-a470-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz1yFQe3JpW


Russia has announced it is readying two warships to sail to Syria to protect Russian citizens, in a sign that it is taking precautions against a worsening of the security situation there.

A spokesman for Russia’s Black Sea fleet, Vyacheslav Trukhachev, told Russia’s Interfax news agency the mission would be undertaken “in case of necessity”. His comments appeared designed to clarify speculation that warships had already set sail for Syria. Interfax had earlier quoted an anonymous official as saying that was the case on Monday morning.
One of the warships, said Mr Trukhachev, carries a 150-strong contingent of marines, in addition to 25 tanks, but he did not give details of the other ship. He made clear that the purpose of the mission would be only to evacuate Russian personnel and property from Syria.

[AdamG]

A Russian ship believed to be carrying helicopters and missiles for Syria has been effectively stopped in its tracks off the coast of Scotland after its insurance was cancelled at the behest of the British government.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/9339933/Britain-stops-Russian-ship-carrying-attack-helicopters-for-Syria.html

[davidbfpo]

I have no special insight into the workings of the Russian state, but I simply cannot believe this ship will stop and return home. This ship can be insured by a non-EU insurer, a Russian insurer or gain a Russian state certificate of cover / indemnity.

On a different, related theme - prompted by the possible despatch of troops to the Russian naval facility in Syria.

How many Russians are working in Syria, excluding diplomats? I would expect until recently families accompanied them, so are there signs of families leaving, or not returning after holidays?

[AdamG]

Syrian air defences “shot down” the Turkish jet fighter that went missing while on patrol near the border between the two countries on Friday, according to local television reports.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/9349777/Syria-shoots-down-Turkish-fighter-jet.html

[davidbfpo]

I asked three days ago:
On a different, related theme - prompted by the possible despatch of troops to the Russian naval facility in Syria.

How many Russians are working in Syria, excluding diplomats? I would expect until recently families accompanied them, so are there signs of families leaving, or not returning after holidays?

Nicholas Redman off IISS has the answer, edited to key points:
Yet sending ships and marines to the coast of Syria also points to an interest that sets Russia aside from all other permanent members of the UN Security Council – it has people on the ground. Rather a lot of people, in fact.

In the first instance, these are the Russian armed services personnel working in Tartous and supporting the use of Russian military equipment by the Syrian armed forces.

Secondly, there are perhaps 30,000 Russians who are married to Syrian citizens and are resident in the country...If the opposition were to win power, the nationals of a country which had backed Assad to the hilt, over many years, would face an uncertain future.

Thirdly, Syria is home to between 50,000 and 100,000 Circassians who originally hail from Russian lands around the Black Sea and the Caucasus.... They are one of a number of Syrian minorities who support the Assad government, and most reside in and around Homs, Damascus and Aleppo. A few hundred Syrian Circassians have already emigrated to Russia but this trickle could become a stream if violence persists in Syria.

Link:http://iissvoicesblog.wordpress.com/2012/06/19/russia-protecting-expats-and-more-in-syria/

Don't you love "kith & kin" turning in places you may now prefer were at home or somewhere safer. Almost shades of the US medical students in Grenada.

[AdamG]

I have no special insight into the workings of the Russian state, but I simply cannot believe this ship will stop and return home. This ship can be insured by a non-EU insurer, a Russian insurer or gain a Russian state certificate of cover / indemnity.



A Russian arms ship forced to turn back to port by the Britain last week is to make a second attempt to deliver its cargo to Syria - this time under escort.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/9352852/Russian-arms-ship-to-make-second-attempt-to-deliver-helicopters-to-Syria.html

Turkey has called a meeting of Nato member states to discuss its response to the shooting down of one of its warplanes by Syrian forces on Friday.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18568207


Istanbul (CNN) -- Western leaders roundly condemned the downing of a Turkish military fighter jet by Syria ahead of a NATO meeting on Tuesday on the issue.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Sunday said she had spoken with Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu about Friday's incident.

"The foreign minister briefed me on the specifics of the incident, including that the Syrian military shot its plane down without warning," Clinton said in a statement. "The United States condemns this brazen and unacceptable act in the strongest possible terms. It is yet another reflection of the Syrian authorities' callous disregard for international norms, human life and peace and security."

http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/24/world/meast/turkey-syria-plane/index.html

[davidbfpo]

With all the headlines about Russian support for the regime in Syria and the frequents references to a 'base' at Tartus - at last some clarity in a BBC report, which appears to rely mainly on Russian sources:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18616191

[AdamG]

ANTAKYA, Turkey (Reuters) - A general in the rebel Free Syria Army said on Friday that Syrian government forces had amassed around 170 tanks north of the city Aleppo, near the Turkish border, but there was no independent confirmation of the report.

*

Turkey deployed air defense weaponry along its border with Syria on Thursday, following Syria's downing of a Turkish warplane over the Mediterranean on Friday.


http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE85R1S720120628?irpc=932

[davidbfpo]

Last night an ITN reported:
In total there have been 60 deaths in Douma - a suburb of the capital Damascus. It's the scene of fierce fighting, and Syrian army troops have told ITV News they've lost many men in a bitter two-day battle with rebels.

The summary does not reflect a small portion of his report, although the headline did:
Syrian war planes: The view from Douma

Yes, the Syrian Air Force was bombing Douma. Apparently the first time fixed wing aircraft had been seen in use, as distinct from helicopter gunships; flying high too, so presumably not accurate bombing.

More evidence of atrocities, with children and an entire family killed.

Link:http://www.itv.com/news/2012-06-29/the-view-from-douma-where-syrian-war-planes-have-been-seen-targetting-rebels-in-heavily-populated-areas/

[AdamG]

Turkey has scrambled six F-16 fighter jets near its border with Syria after Syrian helicopters came close to the border, the country's army says.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-18666165


BEIRUT: U.S. intelligence indicates a Turkish warplane shot down by Syrian forces was most likely hit while in Syrian airspace, lending validation to Damascus' account and putting it at odds with Ankara's, the Wall Street Journal reported over the weekend.

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Middle-East/2012/Jul-01/178925-us-intelligence-sheds-new-light-on-downed-turkish-warplane.ashx#ixzz1zQIcJ5gk

[Dayuhan]

The Guardian reports 2 days of continuous fighting in Damascus, more defections, even some questions being asked in Iran over whether it's wise to be backing a sinking ship...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/16/syria-fighting-damascus-live

Too early to say it's the beginning of the end or the end of the beginning, or anything else, but the turn of events does not seem to be going Assad's way. Not much discussion here, though... possibly because there isn't much talk of intervention?

[ganulv]

Too early to say it's the beginning of the end or the end of the beginning, or anything else, but the turn of events does not seem to be going Assad's way. Not much discussion here, though... possibly because there isn't much talk of intervention?

The anti-Assadists might be taking the fight to the government here, but it looks like more of the same from them to me—knock over a few cop shops, hold some urban terrain for a short period, slink out of town leaving it worse for wear and its residents waiting for the inevitable knock at the door.

[davidbfpo]

On Twitter, appropriately, are pointers to news reports and rumours that the Syrian regime will recourse to chemical weapons, which are handily close to the main cities. Plus a report troops facing the Golan Heights are being redeployed.

[Dayuhan]

The anti-Assadists might be taking the fight to the government here, but it looks like more of the same from them to me—knock over a few cop shops, hold some urban terrain for a short period, slink out of town leaving it worse for wear and its residents waiting for the inevitable knock at the door.

In the practical strategic sense, true, but if the opposition can sustain fighting in the capital, even on a hit-and-run basis, there's a real psychological impact. I'd guess there are a fair number of people in government and the military keeping as much as possible on the fence and waiting to see who looks likely to come out on top. The ability to create the perception that you're winning is important, even if that perception isn't really based on much.

Chemical weapons would be a last resort and I suspect the rumors are just that... not sure how much the regime would really gain, and they'd just make it more difficult to retain even the tepid support they have from Russia and China.

[AdamG]

The rebel Free Syrian Army said it shot down on Tuesday a helicopter gunship in Damascus, scene of violent battles between army and rebel forces.
"Yes, we have shot down a helicopter over the district of Qaboon," the FSA's Joint Command spokesman told AFP via Skype, without elaborating.

http://news.yahoo.com/syrian-rebels-shoot-down-helicopter-damascus-155809393.html?_esi=1

[ganulv]

or assassinations in general, I do believe that this—if the particulars as reported turn out to be true, of course—counts as taking the fight to the other side.

Architect of crackdown in Syria and Defense Minister killed in bombing (http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/07/18/156959316/syrian-defense-minister-killed-in-explosion-state-tv-says) | the two-way (http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/)

“The uprising in Syria against the regime of President Bashar Assad took a dramatic turn today when an explosion at a government building in Damascus killed the country’s defense minister and a brother-in-law of the president. […]”

[carl]

I will post the question I asked over at the blog here also.

"I have question about the suicide bombing in Syria today that killed a number of high ranking people. It may be that the group that pulled off that attack will gain status within the rebellion. Also history seems to show that groups that use suicide bombers are very unsavory. Do people think that assumption and observation are valid and if they are, is that suicide bombing an indication of good things happening or bad things happening?"

I will add that I don't think there is much if anything we can do to affect what is happening for good or ill, but I am interested in any responses to my question.

[JMA]

I will add that I don't think there is much if anything we can do to affect what is happening for good or ill, ...

Carl, the opportunity prevent a civil war in Syria came and went while the incompetent politicians of the West sat on their hands frozen in an abject state of indecision.

[davidbfpo]

Carl you asked:
Also history seems to show that groups that use suicide bombers are very unsavory. Do people think that assumption and observation are valid and if they are, is that suicide bombing an indication of good things happening or bad things happening?"

In societies where violence is not prevalent recourse to suicide bombing is a bad sign, especially when it is your own nationals / long-term residents - I would cite the 7/7 attacks in the UK as an example for their impact.

Where violence is so common, as it was in Syria prior to the protests, using the tactic shows IMHO how far some will go for their cause. Sad to say, I expected its use there earlier. After all Syrians were fed on a TV diet of suicide bombings locally in Israel, Lebanon and adjacent Iraq for years, so some of the contrary factors were less influential.

It is not an indication of 'good things happening or bad things happening', it is always a bad sign showing how far those participating have moved away from what others consider justifiable.

[Dayuhan]

Carl, the opportunity prevent a civil war in Syria came and went while the incompetent politicians of the West sat on their hands frozen in an abject state of indecision.

That statement would mean a bit more if it came with some suggestion of what might have been done, and when, and how exactly that action might have prevented civil war.

Not expecting anything, though...

[JMA]

That statement would mean a bit more if it came with some suggestion of what might have been done, and when, and how exactly that action might have prevented civil war.

Not expecting anything, though...

An other nonsense post from you... ending with a pathetic attempt at child psychology.

As I have said to you before, there is no point in discussing anything with you because you have a radical non-intervention mindset.

There were a number of opportunities prior to the out break of civil war short of military intervention. The prime problem is that in this case - due to the Russian and Chinese positions - the US has been scared ...... through a fear of a face-off with the Russians supported by the Chinese.

[Dayuhan]

There were a number of opportunities prior to the out break of civil war short of military intervention.

Such as? What do you think should have been done, and when?


The prime problem is that in this case - due to the Russian and Chinese positions - the US has been scared ...... through a fear of a face-off with the Russians supported by the Chinese.

I see no evidence whatsoever to support that contention. The Chinese don't give a rat's ass about Syria and aren't going to do anything more than vote against intervention at the UN. The Russians aren't going to stick their necks out for Assad either, in any way beyond verbiage.

American politicians aren't worried about the Russians or the Chinese, they're worried about American voters, which is as it should be. Given the lack of attractive options for intervention, significant probability of unintended adverse consequences, minimal US interests, limited resources, and above all an electorate that is focused on domestic concerns and very much disillusioned with intervention, engagement in Syria was always going to be a tough sell and nobody even made a serious effort to sell it. Given that array of factors, the idea that fear of Russia or China had a role is speculation from well beyond the fringe.

[JMA]

Such as? What do you think should have been done, and when?

You need to read me my rights before you can question me like that. So in the meantime why don't you ...


I see no evidence whatsoever to support that contention. The Chinese don't give a rat's ass about Syria and aren't going to do anything more than vote against intervention at the UN.

Nothing to do with Chinese interest in Syrian oil, huh? Or the Syrian ballistic missile programs?


The Russians aren't going to stick their necks out for Assad either, in any way beyond verbiage.

LOL... you got that wrong. In fact you have had this wrong from the beginning of this thread.


American politicians aren't worried about the Russians or the Chinese, they're worried about American voters, which is as it should be.

Then they are as stupid as I have thought all along. As if a collapse into anarchy and total civil war would not spill over into the Middle East and affect US interests there. Read my lips ... O... I... L.


Given the lack of attractive options for intervention, ...

Which are/were what exactly? If you don't mind my asking.


... significant probability of unintended adverse consequences, minimal US interests, limited resources, and above all an electorate that is focused on domestic concerns and very much disillusioned with intervention, engagement in Syria was always going to be a tough sell and nobody even made a serious effort to sell it. Given that array of factors, the idea that fear of Russia or China had a role is speculation from well beyond the fringe.

LOL... absolute nonsense (gibberish,in fact). Better you stick to agriculture, methinks.

[Dayuhan]

You need to read me my rights before you can question me like that. So in the meantime why don't you ...

Given this previous assertion:


the opportunity prevent a civil war in Syria came and went while the incompetent politicians of the West sat on their hands frozen in an abject state of indecision.

it seems quite reasonable to ask what the alleged opportunity was and when it came and went, as without those details the assertion as quoted is utterly pointless. Of course you've the right to remain pointless, if you choose to do so.


Nothing to do with Chinese interest in Syrian oil, huh? Or the Syrian ballistic missile programs?

What Syrian oil? Declining production, rising consumption, current exports at a 100k bbl/day? What's there to interest China? Of course they might be able to score a service or exploration contract or two as Syria tries to squeeze a bit more out of their dwindling reserves, but they aren't going to be big ones and the Chinese don't need Assad to get those contracts. They've shown in Iraq that they are quite capable of moving in after a US intervention and getting work.

What about the ballistic missile program would produce a Chinese response to a US intervention? A few hundred old Scuds and SS21s, no? Sure, there have been reports that Syria has tried to acquire Chinese missile tech, mostly via Iran and N. Korea, but that's hardly going to be a major point for the Chinese.


LOL... you got that wrong. In fact you have had this wrong from the beginning of this thread.

Is that meant to be a credible argument?

What do you think the Russians (or for that matter the Chinese) might do that would scare the US away from intervening... assuming on no evidence at all that the US ever had any desire or incentive to intervene? Of course if the US was dumb enough to send troops the Russians would gleefully assist the ensuing insurgency, but since sending troops was never on the table that's a moot point. What else do you think either would do? Complain? Vote against intervention at the UN? Hardly earth-shaking or unprecedented, and not much to fear.

So far we have a claim that the US could have averted a civil war but no hint of how it might have been done, and a claim that the US backed away from intervention out of fear of Russia and China but no hint of what Russia or China might have done that would make the US not want to intervene. 0 for 2 on the substance scale.


Then they are as stupid as I have thought all along. As if a collapse into anarchy and total civil war would not spill over into the Middle East and affect US interests there. Read my lips ... O... I... L.

It's far from certain that even a worst case scenario in Syria would have a major adverse effect on US interests in the region. Again, what specific adverse effects do you think the US should be worried about? Just an opportunity to go 0 for 3 on the substance scale, if you choose to do so.

US intervention was not in any way certain to prevent Syria from collapsing into anarchy and civil war, and could easily have accelerated that collapse. At least this way we're not in the middle of it.

All I hear you saying is that Syria could have been saved if only those incompetent Americans had done what you think they should have done, with no hint of what you think they should have done or how it might have saved Syria. Given the lack of substance, it's hard to take that allegation seriously.


Which are/were what exactly? If you don't mind my asking.

They are/were lacking, as stated. Lacking as in absent, missing, nonexistent. Am I supposed to make a list of attractive options that weren't there? Or of the broad range of bad options that were there? Please specify what you're asking for... or better yet, specify the option you think should have been taken.


LOL... absolute nonsense (gibberish,in fact). Better you stick to agriculture, methinks.

Easy response to points you can't answer. Not a convincing response, but easy.

[wm]

Nothing to do with Chinese interest in Syrian oil, huh? Or the Syrian ballistic missile programs?
Syrian oil production for export is a pittance, and their primary customer outside the country is the EU. According to US EIA, China is a partner with India in a joint production venture that includes the Syrians (50% interest) and the Dutch via Shell Oil (32%). So the Chinese may get about 9% of the revenues from this venture if they have a 50-50 split with India in Himalaya Energy Syria. If China is backing Syria over oil, it is more likely doing so to appease Iran, which at about 1/12 (.4 of 4.8MM bbl/day) of China's total bbl/day imports is a distant third largest source for Chinese oil imports after Saudi Arabia and Angola at about 800K BBls each/day(again according to US EIA)

And what would the Chinese do with a bunch of modified old SCUDs and SS-21s? North Korea is much closer as a source for tactical SRBM/MRBM development if the Chinese needed or wanted an outside source.


As if a collapse into anarchy and total civil war would not spill over into the Middle East and affect US interests there. Read my lips ... O... I... L.
IMHO, a concern associated with regime change or anarchy in Syria that is bigger than US/Western oil imports would by Iran's loss of its primary staging base for its crusade against Israel. I submit that Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey would not be too greatly affected by further bloodshed or, as you described it, anarchy and total civil war in Syria, nor would the rest of the smaller Persian Gulf oil-producing states. But who knows what trouble the IRGC and its surrogates like Hezbollah might kick up across the region?

BTW, Dayuhan's post hit while I was writing mine. We aren't in cahoots or channeling for each other as far as I know. What we seem to share from our locations that are almost half a world apart is a desire for facts and good arguments rather than bombastic rhetoric and eristic expositions.

[JMA]

Given this previous assertion:

it seems quite reasonable to ask what the alleged opportunity was and when it came and went, as without those details the assertion as quoted is utterly pointless. Of course you've the right to remain pointless, if you choose to do so.

You should stick matters agricultural (which I believe is your area of some 'expertise') you are way out of your intellectual depth in such matters.

Unlike you and the others in the chattering classes (around here) as I recall I am the only one in this thread who has paid out a list of my opinions and the facts as I see them. See post #383 of this thread. So feel free you review that and nit-pick there if you are able.

So while you just blabber on like a stuck record about non-intervention the bodies of Syrians pile up in the streets.

I guess it is really sad that you don't understand that intervention in say Syria does not need to be of a military nature. Also that the absence of a military option and the will to use it (if necessary) weakens the negotiating hand to the extent of neutralising it completely.


What Syrian oil? Declining production, rising consumption, current exports at a 100k bbl/day? What's there to interest China? Of course they might be able to score a service or exploration contract or two as Syria tries to squeeze a bit more out of their dwindling reserves, but they aren't going to be big ones and the Chinese don't need Assad to get those contracts. They've shown in Iraq that they are quite capable of moving in after a US intervention and getting work.

What about the ballistic missile program would produce a Chinese response to a US intervention? A few hundred old Scuds and SS21s, no? Sure, there have been reports that Syria has tried to acquire Chinese missile tech, mostly via Iran and N. Korea, but that's hardly going to be a major point for the Chinese.

More of your high-school level debating level. What others believe or state needs to be fully explained while what you believe or state is 'obviously' self evident and needs no further explanation. Who are you kidding?


Is that meant to be a credible argument?

As stated before I am the only one around here who has taken the time to express my opinion and what I see as the facts - see post #383 - so until you do likewise or better why not just zip it?


What do you think the Russians (or for that matter the Chinese) might do that would scare the US away from intervening... assuming on no evidence at all that the US ever had any desire or incentive to intervene? Of course if the US was dumb enough to send troops the Russians would gleefully assist the ensuing insurgency, but since sending troops was never on the table that's a moot point. What else do you think either would do? Complain? Vote against intervention at the UN? Hardly earth-shaking or unprecedented, and not much to fear.

You obviously have absolutely no clue about what options and pressures the US and/or Europe were able to bring to bear to peacefully resolve this situation do you?

Instead of demanding others to do so (to educate you) why not go off and educate yourself.


So far we have a claim that the US could have averted a civil war but no hint of how it might have been done, and a claim that the US backed away from intervention out of fear of Russia and China but no hint of what Russia or China might have done that would make the US not want to intervene. 0 for 2 on the substance scale.

What have you claimed so far?

Here again you fail you understand that military intervention is the last resort after all the other options have been attempted. I understand why non-military types in the US (and some in the military too) based upon previous experiences of failed military interventions are afraid that any such intervention will end up a cock-up as usual. But unless a credible military intervention possibility/threat in on the table most of the soft options will not be taken seriously.

The incompetence displayed (as Syria slides further into civil war) comes from the 'Three Stooges' - the White House, the State Department and the CIA - who once again have a major foreign policy failure to explain (to the US electorate).


It's far from certain that even a worst case scenario in Syria would have a major adverse effect on US interests in the region. Again, what specific adverse effects do you think the US should be worried about? Just an opportunity to go 0 for 3 on the substance scale, if you choose to do so.

Thats your opinion and your reply probably indicates that you have not thought of the effect the collapse of the state of Syria will have on the Middle East. I understand that after all you are merely an agricultural advisor of sorts.


US intervention was not in any way certain to prevent Syria from collapsing into anarchy and civil war, and could easily have accelerated that collapse. At least this way we're not in the middle of it.

Thats just a comment but it betrays you main thrust and that is for the US not to get involved regardless of the consequences. I have covered the most likely threat to US interests across the Middle East if Syria collapses - which it appears you failed to anticipate - and now it seems the piles of bodies in the streets are of no concern to you either.


All I hear you saying is that Syria could have been saved if only those incompetent Americans had done what you think they should have done, with no hint of what you think they should have done or how it might have saved Syria. Given the lack of substance, it's hard to take that allegation seriously.

Thats not all I have said... go read post #383 and a bunch of others earlier in this thread.

What Syria represents is the growing inability of the US to influence international affairs. I wonder how many USians realise this? The US is moving from 'influencial' to 'pathetic' on the international stage. We observed the slow decline of the Brits from controlling 'half' the world to controlling little more than the home islands... and the Falklands.

Now just to restate my opinion on possible US military intervention in Syria. My position has been clear from the start. Of all the countries the US is the one that should not get involved. The historical record of such US interventions is so appalling to the extent that any such action must not be considered. Any US involvement must be limited to logistic support only (should such a need arise).


They are/were lacking, as stated. Lacking as in absent, missing, nonexistent. Am I supposed to make a list of attractive options that weren't there? Or of the broad range of bad options that were there? Please specify what you're asking for... or better yet, specify the option you think should have been taken.

I made a list in post #383 to explain my position on Syria... why can't you? I appreciate you run the risk of exposing yourself.


Easy response to points you can't answer. Not a convincing response, but easy.

No, no, I am the only one who as explained his reading of the Syrian situation in some detail (see post #383). I understand that it is easier to nit-pick other peoples comments and opinions than it is to open yours up to public comment and scrutiny.

I would suggest that until you have done the same you should zip it.

[JMA]

Syrian oil production for export is a pittance, and their primary customer outside the country is the EU. According to US EIA, China is a partner with India in a joint production venture that includes the Syrians (50% interest) and the Dutch via Shell Oil (32%). So the Chinese may get about 9% of the revenues from this venture if they have a 50-50 split with India in Himalaya Energy Syria. If China is backing Syria over oil, it is more likely doing so to appease Iran, which at about 1/12 (.4 of 4.8MM bbl/day) of China's total bbl/day imports is a distant third largest source for Chinese oil imports after Saudi Arabia and Angola at about 800K BBls each/day(again according to US EIA)

And what would the Chinese do with a bunch of modified old SCUDs and SS-21s? North Korea is much closer as a source for tactical SRBM/MRBM development if the Chinese needed or wanted an outside source.

Ok... so you obviously don't understand.

I suggest that you study how China approaches foreign relations and how and by what means it enters into and establishes relationships with countries. Also it would be valuable for you to come to understand that unlike with the US - who seek instant gratification - China is quite happy to plan over a 100 year time frame. Yes I appreciate that all this is beyond the understanding of the average western mind but I do suggest you give it a shot.



IMHO, a concern associated with regime change or anarchy in Syria that is bigger than US/Western oil imports would by Iran's loss of its primary staging base for its crusade against Israel. I submit that Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey would not be too greatly affected by further bloodshed or, as you described it, anarchy and total civil war in Syria, nor would the rest of the smaller Persian Gulf oil-producing states. But who knows what trouble the IRGC and its surrogates like Hezbollah might kick up across the region?

You are entitled to speculate as is anyone. Now why don't you attempt to put something down like I did in post #383? A little more than a single 'who knows'?

OK so you have stated that you disagree that there would be a knock on effect across the region should the Syrian state "collapse into anarchy and total civil war". We shall see.


BTW, Dayuhan's post hit while I was writing mine. We aren't in cahoots or channeling for each other as far as I know. What we seem to share from our locations that are almost half a world apart is a desire for facts and good arguments rather than bombastic rhetoric and eristic expositions.

Great!

Well then why not set the example by doing just that rather than sitting off to one side and sniping at other peoples comments?

Use my simple attempt as in post #383 as an example if you wish.

But really its not going to happen is it? Not your style or his. Both seem better suited resorting merely to criticism of others.

Hey, I may be wrong with you. Maybe you can guide me to a post of yours somewhere around here where you have actually gone out on a limb and expressed an opinion (as opposed to merely to comment on what others have said or a 'me too' response). Surprise me.

[davidbfpo]

This is JMA's Post 383, dated 03-10-2012 which he refers to and brought forward for ease:



Opinion: The killings of opposition groups – men, women and children – by the minority Syrian regime must stop.

Opinion: I realise that Syria is a complex and unique problem.

Fact: The old Middle East Sunni/Shia is one major issue then there is that of Russia having Mediterranean ‘warm water’ port facilities there.

Fact: Then we have Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey who stand to get scolded if Syria burns.

Fact: I accept that any talk of military intervention by the US and maybe the EU will be interpreted by Russia and others as a pretext for regime change.

Fact: Regime change in Syria will most likely mean the end of access to Syrian port facilities for the Russians.

Fact: A new Sunni Arab government in Syria will change the balance in the Middle East significantly.

Fact: There are many vested interests in maintaining the status quo in Syria.

Fact: The insurrection in Syria has been bubbling for more than a year with increased intensity over the recent months.

Opinion: The longer the insurrection lasts and the more violent it becomes the more difficult it will be to impose a peaceful settlement in Syria.

Fact: When challenged with an insurrection has one of two choices – act or abdicate.

(Negotiation is the soft route to abdication but few regimes willingly relinquish power and tend to try to hold on too long until overthrown or forced to surrender.)

Opinion: The Alawite minority will try to cling to power until a negotiated settlement is no longer possible.

Opinion: I am told that there is a saying among the (15% minority) Alawites and that is, “we either hand individually or we hang together”. I believe they have chosen the latter.

Opinion: If the Alawites lose power they will become a persecuted minority (and also on the receiving end of some serious payback). Will they submit to democratic elections willingly? No.

Opinion: The Alawites should therefore be removed from power by the quickest means as this will end the current killing and also reduce future payback effected on the Alawites.

Fact: There are clearly efforts being made to bring economic (sanctions) and diplomatic pressure to bear on the Syrian regime to end the carnage. Safe in the arms of Mother Russia the Syrian regime is unmoved.

Opinion: The more weapons that find their way into the hands of the opposition groups the more difficult it will be to bring an effective cease fire into effect. Hence my opinion that opposition groups should not be armed and the urgent need to bring the Assad regime to heel.

What are the possibilities that Russia will change its position?

Opinion: Not much… until the writing is on the wall for the Assad regime and then some.

So where to apply the pressure?

Opinion: On Assad’s inner circle and the military units involved in the mass atrocities.

Who should do this?

Opinion: Anyone other than the US … or US assets placed under direct French or Brit military command.

Anyone other than the US able to do this?

Opinion: No. Military intervention is therefore unlikely as the Germans and the Dutch have already surrendered (no doubt with more to follow).

Why should the US not lead the intervention?

Opinion: Because (based on their track record) they will cock it up.

Where to from here?

Opinion: wait and see.

[JMA]

Not as an election cheap-shot but I wonder how many USians actually see the obvious:

Barack Obama is proving an embarrassing amateur in confronting the Russian bear (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/nilegardiner/100170803/barack-obama-is-proving-an-embarrassing-amateur-in-confronting-the-russian-bear/)

[AdamG]

Here we go again, same old stuff again...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/19/world/middleeast/syrian-rebels-hone-bomb-skills-military-analysis.html

[JMA]

Here we go again, same old stuff again...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/19/world/middleeast/syrian-rebels-hone-bomb-skills-military-analysis.html

Same old stuff but the essential point seems lost on some of the smart guys around here.

In such circumstances - as are found in Syria right now - the best plan is to 'kill the snake' by a blow to its head.

One explosion - like what happened - has almost achieved that.

Instead the smart guys - aka idiots - have allowed the rebels to be armed to the extent a viscous civil war with ongoing t*t-for-tat butchery is now inevitable because they don't have the smarts to comprehend the simple solution.

[wm]

Ok... so you obviously don't understand.

I suggest that you study how China approaches foreign relations and how and by what means it enters into and establishes relationships with countries. Also it would be valuable for you to come to understand that unlike with the US - who seek instant gratification - China is quite happy to plan over a 100 year time frame. Yes I appreciate that all this is beyond the understanding of the average western mind but I do suggest you give it a shot.

You are entitled to speculate as is anyone. Now why don't you attempt to put something down like I did in post #383? A little more than a single 'who knows'?

OK so you have stated that you disagree that there would be a knock on effect across the region should the Syrian state "collapse into anarchy and total civil war". We shall see.

Great!

Well then why not set the example by doing just that rather than sitting off to one side and sniping at other peoples comments?

Use my simple attempt as in post #383 as an example if you wish.

But really its not going to happen is it? Not your style or his. Both seem better suited resorting merely to criticism of others.

Hey, I may be wrong with you. Maybe you can guide me to a post of yours somewhere around here where you have actually gone out on a limb and expressed an opinion (as opposed to merely to comment on what others have said or a 'me too' response). Surprise me.
Thanks for the series of ad hominem attacks. Your "you just don't understand" is a standard riposte that was not unexpected.
What China plans to do in 100 years is really not all that germane to the issue at hand. A century is a long time. The Soviet Union only lasted about 3/4 of one. The current Chinese dynasty has only been around about 2/3 of one and is already unraveling. But you want a position not a critique of yours. So here you go.
My crystal ball indicates that in 2112, the China we now know and love will be no more. It will have dissolved into a group of disparate regions that may or may not be confederated. Some pieces of the current country will no longer be part of it. The provinces of Xinjiang, Xizang (Tibet), and Inner Mongolia are the most likely candiudates, but a separate southern confederation of at least Guangdong and Guangxi seems possible too.
However' this has little to do with the issue of what to do about Syria, except to point out that the appeal to Chinese future plans is a non sequitur.
Here's an opinion about Syria: Syria deserves the same attention that Biafra and Bangladesh got last century and the Sudan has been getting. The world can express its moral indignation but should let the locals sort it out for themselves. What are a few hundred or thousand more dead in a country that allows itself to be a base for bad actors against other nations anyway? No skin off most other countries' noses, except some EU countries that may lose a little imported oil. In fact, the chaos may give Lebanon and Israel a little breathing space from Iranian-sponsored attacks. An intervention to conduct regime change is unlikely to end the killing, as the experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan show so poignantly.

I ask you to compare the above to the "position" in your vaunted post #383. That Post reminds me of the zuzuvelas that were so distracting during the last World Cup. First you opine (without support) that the killling must stop in Syria, but your final, and contradictory, position is "Wait and See." I'm not sure how this constitutes espressing an opinion other than your middle unsupported view that the US will cock up an intervention so it should not lead one or empower the French or British to do so.

In reponse to your request to show you places where I've taken a stand/expressed an opinion (or gone out on a limb as you call it) maybe you could look at the posts made on the "what we support and defend" thread found here (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showpost.php?p=136764&postcount=60) and here (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showpost.php?p=138276&postcount=293) for what I consider to be recent examples of such. I suspect you are right though: those posts are not really expressing an opinion or taking a risky position (as your "going out on a limb" comment suggests ); just sniping at Carl and Bob's World.

[JMA]

Thanks for the series of ad hominem attacks. Your "you just don't understand" is a standard riposte that was not unexpected.

That's better than someone who puts "Tilting at Windmills, belling cats, and pointing out logical inconsistencies" in his "About Me" on SWC should expect. I mean the incredible arrogance of it all. A pity everyone else is so imperfect that you have to help by putting them right.


What China plans to do in 100 years is really not all that germane to the issue at hand. A century is a long time. The Soviet Union only lasted about 3/4 of one. The current Chinese dynasty has only been around about 2/3 of one and is already unraveling. But you want a position not a critique of yours. So here you go.
My crystal ball indicates that in 2112, the China we now know and love will be no more. It will have dissolved into a group of disparate regions that may or may not be confederated. Some pieces of the current country will no longer be part of it. The provinces of Xinjiang, Xizang (Tibet), and Inner Mongolia are the most likely candiudates, but a separate southern confederation of at least Guangdong and Guangxi seems possible too.

That is a personal opinion or a self evident fact? I note you provide no supporting evidence which you and your mate demand when ever someone else makes such a prediction. Strange that.


However' this has little to do with the issue of what to do about Syria, except to point out that the appeal to Chinese future plans is a non sequitur.

Not quite, what it all means (if you were smart enough to understand) is that the Chinese have a different approach to developing relationships with countries than has been the traditional method of the past.


Here's an opinion about Syria: Syria deserves the same attention that Biafra and Bangladesh got last century and the Sudan has been getting.

Yes that is merely your personal opinion... for what is worth.


The world can express its moral indignation but should let the locals sort it out for themselves. What are a few hundred or thousand more dead in a country that allows itself to be a base for bad actors against other nations anyway? No skin off most other countries' noses, except some EU countries that may lose a little imported oil.

Yea, I know, just a bunch savage "rag-heads". Let them butcher each other, who cares, right?


In fact, the chaos may give Lebanon and Israel a little breathing space from Iranian-sponsored attacks. An intervention to conduct regime change is unlikely to end the killing, as the experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan show so poignantly.

And that too is merely your opinion, (for what that's worth).

Do I detect an intellectual deficit here? One would suppose that the US would learn from its past mistakes on method but it should not rule out the possible use of force/military action/whatever to remove Assad and his criminal thugs from power. Note: I have stated repeatedly that the US should not get involved in any military action in Syria for reasons of a now predictable pattern of failure.


[QUOTE]I ask you to compare the above to the "position" in your vaunted post #383.

Same problem, just a few personal opinions from you... worthless.


That Post reminds me of the zuzuvelas that were so distracting during the last World Cup.

How childish is that... LOL


First you opine (without support) that the killling must stop in Syria, but your final, and contradictory, position is "Wait and See."

Your IQ?

That list of mine contained a mix of facts and opinion - clearly marked as such.

What is so difficult to understand that IMHO I state that the killing should stop... then as I am powerless to do anything about it all I can do is "wait and see". You can't really be this dim, can you?

In fact on that list some of the items I listed as merely opinion a year or so ago I can now safely say are now facts.


I'm not sure how this constitutes espressing an opinion other than your middle unsupported view that the US will cock up an intervention so it should not lead one or empower the French or British to do so.

History speaks for itself. Provide a list of interventions carried out by the US which have not turned out to be a cock-up. Let history be the judge. Predictable failure is a very good reason to avoid such interventions.


In reponse to your request to show you places where I've taken a stand/expressed an opinion (or gone out on a limb as you call it) maybe you could look at the posts made on the "what we support and defend" thread found here (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showpost.php?p=136764&postcount=60) and here (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showpost.php?p=138276&postcount=293) for what I consider to be recent examples of such. I suspect you are right though: those posts are not really expressing an opinion or taking a risky position (as your "going out on a limb" comment suggests ); just sniping at Carl and Bob's World.

Exactly... and in addition and more true to form are the following two posts where you do nothing but take cheap-shots at AmericanPride's posts.

post 1 (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?p=135303#post135303)

post 2 (http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?p=135285#post135285)

You and your mate are certainly two peas in a pod.

[carl]

Where violence is so common, as it was in Syria prior to the protests, using the tactic shows IMHO how far some will go for their cause. Sad to say, I expected its use there earlier. After all Syrians were fed on a TV diet of suicide bombings locally in Israel, Lebanon and adjacent Iraq for years, so some of the contrary factors were less influential.

David, I meant to tell you I thought this a very insightful comment, especially the part about mass media propagandizing lowering the threshold of acceptable behavior.

[Ken White]

Else the thread will be locked after offensive posts are deleted.

Ken White

[AdamG]

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration has for now abandoned efforts for a diplomatic settlement to the conflict in Syria, and instead it is increasing aid to the rebels and redoubling efforts to rally a coalition of like-minded countries to forcibly bring down the government of President Bashar al-Assad, American officials say.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/22/world/middleeast/us-to-focus-on-forcibly-toppling-syrian-government.html?_r=2&hp

[Dayuhan]

Omitting vast quantities of extraneous material and trying to concentrate on the point....


In such circumstances - as are found in Syria right now - the best plan is to 'kill the snake' by a blow to its head.

One explosion - like what happened - has almost achieved that.

Deliver the blow to the head, and what do you expect to happen? Even assuming the blow is accurate and effective, you're left with a power vacuum, a number of local factions fighting to fill that vacuum, and various meddling neighbors trying to advance their own interests by supporting and arming their preferred factions... in short, the same vicious civil war that you were trying to prevent.

Do you really think that an attack on Assad or the core of his military at any point in this process would have resolved this mess favorably? If so, why? Granted it's a moot point, since even you agree the US shouldn't do it and we all know nobody else would have... but even on a hypothetical level I have to wonder what you think the outcome of such action would be.


Instead the smart guys - aka idiots - have allowed the rebels to be armed to the extent a viscous civil war with ongoing t*t-for-tat butchery is now inevitable because they don't have the smarts to comprehend the simple solution.

What "simple solution" would that be? If it's really that simple, surely you can describe it.

[Bill Moore]

Posted by JMA


Opinion: The killings of opposition groups – men, women and children – by the minority Syrian regime must stop.

Fact: Then we have Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey who stand to get scolded if Syria burns.

Fact: A new Sunni Arab government in Syria will change the balance in the Middle East significantly.

Fact: There are many vested interests in maintaining the status quo in Syria.

Fact: The insurrection in Syria has been bubbling for more than a year with increased intensity over the recent months.

Opinion: The longer the insurrection lasts and the more violent it becomes the more difficult it will be to impose a peaceful settlement in Syria.


Opinion: If the Alawites lose power they will become a persecuted minority (and also on the receiving end of some serious payback). Will they submit to democratic elections willingly? No.

Opinion: The Alawites should therefore be removed from power by the quickest means as this will end the current killing and also reduce future payback effected on the Alawites.

Opinion: The more weapons that find their way into the hands of the opposition groups the more difficult it will be to bring an effective cease fire into effect. Hence my opinion that opposition groups should not be armed and the urgent need to bring the Assad regime to heel.

So where to apply the pressure?

Opinion: On Assad’s inner circle and the military units involved in the mass atrocities.

Who should do this?

Opinion: Anyone other than the US … or US assets placed under direct French or Brit military command.

Anyone other than the US able to do this?

Opinion: No. Military intervention is therefore unlikely as the Germans and the Dutch have already surrendered (no doubt with more to follow).

Why should the US not lead the intervention?

Opinion: Because (based on their track record) they will cock it up.

Where to from here?

Opinion: wait and see.

So at the end of this rant, and by the way I agree with your facts and most of your opinions, your only recommendation is to wait and see? If that is the case, then you are in agreement with most of the world leaders who don't want to get involved, many for good reasons.

The U.S. is over extended as it is, and the last thing we need is another quagmire, especially during election year, so Assad will probably act aggressively until after our election in NOV, then he'll have to reassess.

I'll go out on limb and offer an opinion on a potential course of action. Assuming there will be an international intervention, the lead nation makes a secret deal with elements of the Syrian military it can co-opt, and then facilitates a hard strike against those that can't enabling a coup of sorts. Simultaneously the intervening nation will have to negotiate a cease fire with the insurgents/rebels to facilitate the establishment of a new government (they will have to give the military leadership some breathing space to re-establish control). Russia and China will be marginalized if someone pursues this course of action, so the world will have to unite against them diplomatically to limit their potentially hostile influence towards the intervening states. Iran's relationship with elements in Syria will have to be severed, and of course AQ in Syria will have to be hunted down and killed while simultaneously building the peace. Not to mention these things never go as planned, but if another nation wants to try.........

I hope you realize that I am describing a no win scenario unless Murphy is taking an extended vacation. I hate watching innocents getting killed as much as the next person, but I suspect intervention would result in more, not less blood shed.

[Dayuhan]

Fact: Then we have Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey who stand to get scolded if Syria burns.

The extent to which a Syrian descent into disorder would negatively impact the neighbors is debatable and variable. Some might lose, others might gain.


Fact: There are many vested interests in maintaining the status quo in Syria.

There are also those with vested interests in disrupting the status quo in Syria, notably the Sunni majority and their GCC backers, who will not ask anyone's permission before attempting to advance their own interests. Since the status quo has effectively been disrupted and is not likely to return, there are a wide range of domestic and regional actors who are trying to shape the new status quo in their favor.


Opinion: The longer the insurrection lasts and the more violent it becomes the more difficult it will be to impose a peaceful settlement in Syria.

Agreed, partially... with the reservation that I can't imagine who you expect to "impose a peaceful settlement". Could you clarify? Is the imposition of a peaceful settlement a goal? For whom?


Opinion: If the Alawites lose power they will become a persecuted minority (and also on the receiving end of some serious payback). Will they submit to democratic elections willingly? No.

Agreed, though I'd add that they are not likely to submit to being removed from power by any non-democratic means either. They will fight, and as a last resort may try to secede.


Opinion: The Alawites should therefore be removed from power by the quickest means as this will end the current killing and also reduce future payback effected on the Alawites.

How do you propose to remove them, having noted above that they will fight to the best of their ability to assure that they aren't removed? If you can remove them how do you propose to prevent the resulting power vacuum from spinning into civil war as local actors and their foreign backers try to fill it?


Opinion: The more weapons that find their way into the hands of the opposition groups the more difficult it will be to bring an effective cease fire into effect. Hence my opinion that opposition groups should not be armed and the urgent need to bring the Assad regime to heel.

Should not be armed by anyone? How does one prevent the Saudis, Qataris, etc from arming the rebels?


So where to apply the pressure?

Opinion: On Assad’s inner circle and the military units involved in the mass atrocities.

This is the core of the issue: how do you apply that pressure?


Who should do this?

Hard to say without a clear idea of what pressure is to be applied, which is the missing link in all this.


Opinion: Anyone other than the US … or US assets placed under direct French or Brit military command.

Agreed, vigorously.


Anyone other than the US able to do this?

Opinion: No. Military intervention is therefore unlikely as the Germans and the Dutch have already surrendered (no doubt with more to follow).

Agreed.


Why should the US not lead the intervention?

Opinion: Because (based on their track record) they will cock it up.

That, again, would depend on the still unknown nature of the proposed intervention. Hard not to cock something up if nobody knows what's to be done.


Where to from here?

Opinion: wait and see.

Agreed; that was my position from the start.

Overall, the weak points are:

No clear statement of what form of intervention is proposed (as always).

No clear idea of how the post-intervention environment can be controlled or managed to the advantage (or just to avoid the disadvantage) of the intervening party.

No clear idea of who could intervene, particularly given the reality of domestic political will in democratic countries. Since we all reach the conclusion that there is no likely or feasible intervening party, the whole discussion seems moot and we go back to "wait and see", which is not the worst place to be... better than being up to our necks it the mess.

[davidbfpo]

An interesting view on the situation inside Syria, especially why such a "hammer blow" to the regime with three top officers being killed was so quickly officially announced:http://www.opendemocracy.net/rita-from-syria/syria-headlines-2-decapitating-damascus

I'd missed this event:
Fighter planes bombed the funeral procession of the martyr Abdul Rahim Samour in Sayyida Zainab, located on the road to Damascus International Airport, resulting in a further 100 people being killed.

I would suggest that for the general TV viewer film of Syria has now passed the point of "More die in Syria, next item please". Akin to the impact here of atrocities being reported in Bosnia-Herzegovina, which often were the first item on the BBC and gradually became a blur. Reinforcing the Conservative government's policy on peacekeeping, which was often far from robust and I'd better stop as I get annoyed on that period.

[AdamG]

BEIRUT, Lebanon (AP) – The Syrian regime acknowledged for the first time Monday that it possessed stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and said it will only use them in case of a foreign attack and never internally against its own citizens.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/story/2012-07-23/Syria-violence-rebels/56425402/1

[JMA]

Posted by JMA

So at the end of this rant, and by the way I agree with your facts and most of your opinions, your only recommendation is to wait and see? If that is the case, then you are in agreement with most of the world leaders who don't want to get involved, many for good reasons.

The U.S. is over extended as it is, and the last thing we need is another quagmire, especially during election year, so Assad will probably act aggressively until after our election in NOV, then he'll have to reassess.

I'll go out on limb and offer an opinion on a potential course of action. Assuming there will be an international intervention, the lead nation makes a secret deal with elements of the Syrian military it can co-opt, and then facilitates a hard strike against those that can't enabling a coup of sorts. Simultaneously the intervening nation will have to negotiate a cease fire with the insurgents/rebels to facilitate the establishment of a new government (they will have to give the military leadership some breathing space to re-establish control). Russia and China will be marginalized if someone pursues this course of action, so the world will have to unite against them diplomatically to limit their potentially hostile influence towards the intervening states. Iran's relationship with elements in Syria will have to be severed, and of course AQ in Syria will have to be hunted down and killed while simultaneously building the peace. Not to mention these things never go as planned, but if another nation wants to try.........

I hope you realize that I am describing a no win scenario unless Murphy is taking an extended vacation. I hate watching innocents getting killed as much as the next person, but I suspect intervention would result in more, not less blood shed.

That was a rant?

Bill, I stated those 550 or so words in March this year. I would invite you and others to sit down and draft something similar rather than just nit-pick what others bother to contribute.

I explained the "wait and see" comment of mine as follows:

"... as I am powerless to do anything about it all I can do is "wait and see".

Get it?

The other point you (and others - all USians I might add) don't seem to understand is that I am not calling for US direct military intervention. The US can't do this stuff right. What I am saying is that if Britain, France or others had decided to act the US should have been willing to supply them logistically. Nothing more.

So I wish you and others would stop suggesting that I have been calling for armed intervention from the start when clearly all I have stated is that armed intervention is the last resort... and then not by the US.

[JMA]

Omitting vast quantities of extraneous material and trying to concentrate on the point....

Deliver the blow to the head, and what do you expect to happen? Even assuming the blow is accurate and effective, you're left with a power vacuum, a number of local factions fighting to fill that vacuum, and various meddling neighbors trying to advance their own interests by supporting and arming their preferred factions... in short, the same vicious civil war that you were trying to prevent.

Do you really think that an attack on Assad or the core of his military at any point in this process would have resolved this mess favorably? If so, why? Granted it's a moot point, since even you agree the US shouldn't do it and we all know nobody else would have... but even on a hypothetical level I have to wonder what you think the outcome of such action would be.

What "simple solution" would that be? If it's really that simple, surely you can describe it.

LOL... pass.

I do suggest though that you try to cobble together a personal statement of some 500-600 words on the Syrian situation. Not holding my breath.

[JMA]

The extent to which a Syrian descent into disorder would negatively impact the neighbors is debatable and variable. Some might lose, others might gain.

There are also those with vested interests in disrupting the status quo in Syria, notably the Sunni majority and their GCC backers, who will not ask anyone's permission before attempting to advance their own interests. Since the status quo has effectively been disrupted and is not likely to return, there are a wide range of domestic and regional actors who are trying to shape the new status quo in their favor.

Agreed, partially... with the reservation that I can't imagine who you expect to "impose a peaceful settlement". Could you clarify? Is the imposition of a peaceful settlement a goal? For whom?

Agreed, though I'd add that they are not likely to submit to being removed from power by any non-democratic means either. They will fight, and as a last resort may try to secede.

How do you propose to remove them, having noted above that they will fight to the best of their ability to assure that they aren't removed? If you can remove them how do you propose to prevent the resulting power vacuum from spinning into civil war as local actors and their foreign backers try to fill it?

Should not be armed by anyone? How does one prevent the Saudis, Qataris, etc from arming the rebels?

This is the core of the issue: how do you apply that pressure?

Hard to say without a clear idea of what pressure is to be applied, which is the missing link in all this.

Agreed, vigorously.

Agreed.

That, again, would depend on the still unknown nature of the proposed intervention. Hard not to cock something up if nobody knows what's to be done.

Agreed; that was my position from the start.

Overall, the weak points are:

No clear statement of what form of intervention is proposed (as always).

No clear idea of how the post-intervention environment can be controlled or managed to the advantage (or just to avoid the disadvantage) of the intervening party.

No clear idea of who could intervene, particularly given the reality of domestic political will in democratic countries. Since we all reach the conclusion that there is no likely or feasible intervening party, the whole discussion seems moot and we go back to "wait and see", which is not the worst place to be... better than being up to our necks it the mess.

Ok, now I wait for you to post a personal position statement so that interested others can dissect it.

[ganulv]

managed to run a piece today stating that the Syrian military is throwing all but everything it has against the opposition forces with ever diminishing returns as well as a piece on how the current situation in Baghdad reveals how overstated the previous claims of opposition advances had been. :rolleyes:

[Dayuhan]

LOL... pass.

But of course...


I do suggest though that you try to cobble together a personal statement of some 500-600 words on the Syrian situation. Not holding my breath.

What I've already said on this thread has been consistent to the point of repetitiveness, and I don't see any particular point in repeating it yet again. Maybe later I can go back and cut and paste the key points for your review; I'm going to ride the bike before the afternoon rains come in.

If were to claim that there were some magic bullet, some option for intervention that could be or could have been taken to resolve this situation, I would of course be obliged to say exactly what I think should be or should have been done. I'd look a complete ass if I didn't explain what I thought should be or have been done, especially if I'd accused others of incompetence for not doing it.

I've made no such claim. You have, notably absent any explanation of what you think should have been done and what effect you think that action would have had.

I have said, ad nauseam, that I do not see any available military intervention option that would meet even the most minimal criteria for probability of success, avoidance of extended commitment, probability of unintended adverse consequences, and domestic political acceptability. If anyone else has such an option great: let's see it. Claiming that an option exists without specifying what it is... not very convincing.

There are non-military options, some of which have been used. I don't think they have much chance of success, largely because, as you say, they are not backed by any credible and politically acceptable military option and everyone in the picture knows it.

It would be wonderful if some outside deus ex machina could simply "fix" Syria. That capacity isn't there. Even if the political will existed, which it doesn't, the effort would be likely to make matters worse and to leave the self-appointed deus ex machina up to their eyeballs in the sheisse.

In short: there are no critical US interests at stake, there's no domestic political support for military intervention, no viable options for military intervention have been presented, non-military options are on the table but probably won't accomplish anything, and there's an excellent chance that anyone who tries to drain that swamp will end up drowning in it. Therefore US involvement IMO needs to be at most peripheral. If anyone else wants a go, best of luck.

I could explain that in more detail, but is it really needed?

[davidbfpo]

JMA within Post 487 stated:
What I am saying is that if Britain, France or others had decided to act the US should have been willing to supply them logistically. Nothing more.

IMHO there has been no desire, let alone intention or will in France or the UK to 'act' in Syria. Nor do either nation or in concert have the capability to intervene against Syrian state opposition.

The mooted plans to evacuate nationals from Syria, with a flotilla of ships, are hardly impressive:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/9415792/British-flotillas-prepared-for-Syria-evacuation.html

Added 26th June:UK MoD deny the flotilla is for evacuation purposes:http://www.blogs.mod.uk/defence_news/2012/07/defence-in-the-media-23-july-2012.html

I am not sure if 'others' exist, except for Turkey and they may have been more concerned about border issues (refugees, incursions and Kurds), than regime change.

[wm]

JMA within Post 487 stated:

IMHO there has been no desire, let alone intention or will in France or the UK to 'act' in Syria. Nor do either nation or in concert have the capability to intervene against Syrian state opposition. The mooted plans to evacuate nationals from Syria, with a flotilla of ships, are hardly impressive:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/9415792/British-flotillas-prepared-for-Syria-evacuation.html

I am not sure if 'others' exist, except for Turkey and they may have been more concerned about border issues (refugees, incursions and Kurds), than regime change.

Turkey seems unlikely to intervene either based on this 24 July statement by Erdogan found at http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/erdogan-warns-syria-of-reprisals-in-event-of-further-hostility-.aspx?pageID=238&nID=26206&NewsCatID=338

Turkey has taken all necessary precautions within the framework of international law vis--vis [Syrias] hostile attitude. Turkey has changed its rules of engagement in order to prevent an incident similar [to the June 22 downing of a Turkish jet]. If Syria does not take lessons from these developments and continues its hostile attitude, Turkey will not avoid retaliating, Erdoğan said yesterday evening at the fifth Traditional Fast-Breaking Dinner for Foreign Mission Chiefs and Ambassadors in Ankara
Retaliation is very different from intervention.

Besides, if this story (http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/turkey-begins-work-on-icbm-.aspx?pageID=238&nID=26211&NewsCatID=338)is true, a big chunk of Turkey's defense budget will be consumed trying to build an ICBM.

[Dayuhan]

IMHO there has been no desire, let alone intention or will in France or the UK to 'act' in Syria. Nor do either nation or in concert have the capability to intervene against Syrian state opposition.

Agree on the desire, intention, and will. Capability is hard to assess without some idea of what action is being suggested, which of course has not been provided.

As far as I can determine, the suggestion is that American leaders are "incompetent" because they failed to provide support for undetermined actions by unspecified "others", none of whom ever showed any desire to act. I must have that wrong, though, because it makes no sense.

[TheCurmudgeon]

What if our only objective is to begin a dialog with the rebels, who, if successful, will begin to form a new government? What are our options for initiating contact and providing limited assistance to build good will with them? Or should I just assume that this is already happening.

[JMA]

IMHO there has been no desire, let alone intention or will in France or the UK to 'act' in Syria. Nor do either nation or in concert have the capability to intervene against Syrian state opposition.

That's right and that's why nothing happened. Thankfully the US did not decide to get involved otherwise we would see a worse situation right now. It is too late now for military intervention so I wish the US and Europe would just shut the .... up.

What's the guess on the final body count, anyone?

[TheCurmudgeon]

What's the guess on the final body count, anyone?

Does it matter if the dead are a result of our (outsiders') action or inaction?

[Bob's World]

The blood of patriots...

Any Syrian solution, no matter how bloody, is better than any external solution.

No way to prevent the Saudis, Iranians and Turks (to name but a few highly interested neighbors) from attempting to shape the mix, but no reason for the US to get the blame pinned on us for what emerges by attempting to shape a "US approved" solution.

The artificial structures of power shaped post-WWI by the Europeans, and post-WWII by the US are being thrown off by populaces across the Middle East. We can attempt to mitigate the violence, but we should really resist the temptation to shape the outcomes.

We need to remember that these are efforts to remove what exists, much more than they are to elevate any single ideology or form of government. These revolutions are the end of the beginning, not the beginning of the end. There will be a great deal of jockeying for power, retributions, and "Influence grabs" by a wide range of state and non-state actors.

The artificial systems of stability we helped shape and nurture could not endure. This is a natural cleansing of artificial political ecosystems, much like a forest fire is a cleansing of a forest ecosystem. We have a scorched moonscape before we get to a healthy new ecosystem. That is how nature works.

[Wyatt]

Does it matter if the dead are a result of our (outsiders') action or inaction?

Not for the dead, they can't tell the difference. Both sides will fight their war with the conditions that they find themselves in, outsiders or not. The unfortunate people in the middle would likely die at a greater rate with large foreign intervention whether that be accidental or turning fence sitters into fighters ala' iraq.

To me it looks like a bar fight. You could stand back and watch, and the black eyes and loose teeth that result could hardly be considered your fault. Or, you jump in for the party without any need to and the fun could quickly turn into bad time.

Worrying about second and third order responsibility to the point of taking a first order role seems like a bad idea when you have to search for the reason.

[TheCurmudgeon]

Not for the dead, they can't tell the difference. kind of my point ... what difference does it make, they are just as dead either way.


Worrying about second and third order responsibility to the point of taking a first order role seems like a bad idea when you have to search for the reason. There are a multitude of reasons; connecting with the new leadership, learning the techniques of the insurgency, having a presence if/when WMD's are found (OK, we have a ####ty history on this, but we can't keep getting it wrong forever). The question isn't do we have a reason. The question is "do the reason's we have justify the risk? What level of risk are we willing to accept in exchange for what level of benefit?" The answer does not always need to be, "just don't get involved."