Syria: a civil war (closed)

[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

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.

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...:

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...

The good news is that 'adequate' is acceptable and still puts us most always a notch or several above all potential adversaries.

[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/worl...ghter-jet.html

[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-Ne...#ixzz1yFPgb1U6