Syria: a civil war (closed)

[Dayuhan]

I have not idea what "neither party wants", and neither do you. That is your opinion.

Observe the actions of the parties involved. Do they suggest to you that anybody in the picture is terribly amenable to compromise?

my opinion is that most Syrians prefer a peaceful way of getting to a better future; and Assad is showing indications of being open to some degree of reasonable compromise.

How exactly has Assad shown "indications of being open to some degree of reasonable compromise"? I see no such indications. Do note that offering paper "reforms" or changing some words in a Constitution isn't compromise.

This is not about Assad winning or losing, this is, for Syrians, about getting to a better situation of governance. If they can do that without breaking what they have in place now they will be better off. The idea that creating a power vacuum is the best first step to getting to better governance is not one I would advocate.

I think it's gone beyond the point where talk and compromise are going anywhere. The regime has killed thousands of its own citizens: that's not a place you can step back from. It's all about Assad now: either he stays and wins or goes and loses. The lines are drawn and people have taken sides. There may have been a point when compromise was possible, but it's long past... yes, that's my opinion, but really, is any other conclusion possible?

US backing for any "solution" that involves Assad continuing in power will be interpreted and perceived as US support for Assad, no way to avoid that no matter what the fine print says. At this point if we don't want to take sides we have to say nothing at all, and even that will be seen as support for the status quo.

For the US it is simply about not having an unstable situation expand to where it disrupts vital interests in the region.

Too late for that; the disruption is already there and it's not going away.

[Ken White]

However, I have no doubt there are a slew of folks inside and just outside the Beltway who want us to have an interest.

Governance is not the issue and the Assad family isn't going to compromise. It'll get worse before it gets better...

Not our yob.

[JMA]

However, I have no doubt there are a slew of folks inside and just outside the Beltway who want us to have an interest.

Governance is not the issue and the Assad family isn't going to compromise. It'll get worse before it gets better...

Not our yob.

Two cruise missiles is all it will take...

[ganulv]

Two cruise missiles is all it will take...

to open the floodgates, I am afraid. The Assads are the sheriff of a rough town. That doesn’t mean Syria couldn’t do better. But the Assads’ supporters are probably considering the Lebanese Civil War and Iraq five years ago and thinking they could do worse.

[Ken White]

Two cruise missiles is all it will take...

It also evades the point that there are no US interests involved...

All two Missiles would create is power vacuum. Those currently exist in Egypt and Libya and you want to add another? I have no quarrel with the point that Assad needs to be dead -- it's just not beneficial for anyone in the world for the US to make that happen. It's up to the Syrians to do that, hopefully assisted by others in the neighborhood.

All you folks from other nations rail about the dysfunctional, overweight, over wealthy, overbearing US that affects most of the world adversely all too often -- and then scream for US intervention in places and doing things that are none of our business and which generally exacerbate local problems instead of solving them.

One can say that if we 'did it right' that would not be a problem. The fact is that we can rarely if ever 'do it right' due to our governmental systems and processes. They were designed for US internal use and work well for that; they were designed to AVOID foreign entanglements and they also work well for that. Trouble is encountered when those design parameters are ignored...

Even Bob's World too often ignores that harsh reality by insisting that we can do things elsewhere, we just need to do it his way -- that's wrong, too -- the US is too big to ever do much in any one person's way and the system is purposely designed to preclude long term efforts of any type. We can do sharp quick raids for immediate policy concerns. We have never successfully been able to engage in long term efforts in or with other nations -- and I say that as one who has spent a good many years assisting in the implementation of US efforts in a number of other nations on four continents. The best of intentions elsewhere will always get trumped and changed by US domestic political concerns and that lack of ability to provide continuity mean we should endeavor to not interfere elsewhere unless the effort will be quick. Difficulty and costs are not issues, speed and success are -- or should be.

[J Wolfsberger]

Two cruise missiles is all it will take...

Then by all means ask your SANDF to launch them.

If you are suggesting the U.S. take the lead, then no thanks. Because then it will be our weapons, fired by our sailors and airmen, under our rules, to achieve our goals. I'm fairly certain that isn't what you want. We tried to be the world police and quite a few of us are not very happy with how that worked out. It seems to cost us much treasure, the most important element of which is the lives of our men and women in uniform, only to be met with scathing condemnation.

Speaking only for myself, the great problem I have with the notions of the "world community" or the "family of nations" is that there is no community and the family is lethally dysfunctional. When that changes, my opinion might also.

Syria is a tragedy. It will get much worse. It is unlikely to get better for a long time to come.

But it is not OUR tragedy.

[JMA]

to open the floodgates, I am afraid. The Assads are the sheriff of a rough town. That doesn’t mean Syria couldn’t do better. But the Assads’ supporters are probably considering the Lebanese Civil War and Iraq five years ago and thinking they could do worse.

Don't think you were there when I first raised this in the 'Ivory Coast' thread, so here we go:

It is time to stop pussy-footing around and apply JMA's 3-Cruise-Missile-Option.

With some sections of the army wavering (it appears) the first missile targets the barracks of the most loyal unit to Gbagbo - do it now, tomorrow.

The second with 12 hours warning targets the current location of Gbagbo himself - he won't be there but will get the message strength 5.

Thereafter the word is put out that there's a $1m for the person who provides Gbagbo's location as a target for the third missile.

[JMA]

Then by all means ask your SANDF to launch them.

If you are suggesting the U.S. take the lead, then no thanks.

The SANDF is a joke. Why you felt the need to throw that into the conversation only you would know.

I do understand your sensitivity about the continued inability of the US to either figure out an intelligent way to intervene or to interevene in an effective manner. Chin up, learn from the Brit loss of empire and drift from 'hero to zero' gracefully.

I do feel so very sorry for US forces below the rank of Lt Col, their efforts and sacrifices should not have been fritted away as if they did not matter.

[JMA]

It also evades the point that there are no US interests involved...

I would have thought the US interests were clear. Avoid confrontation with China and Russia at all costs.

[J Wolfsberger]

The SANDF is a joke. Why you felt the need to throw that into the conversation only you would know.

"Location: Durban, South Africa"

If you want to intervene, feel free to do it with your country's armed forces, not ours.

I do understand your sensitivity about the continued inability of the US to either figure out an intelligent way to intervene or to interevene in an effective manner. Chin up, learn from the Brit loss of empire and drift from 'hero to zero' gracefully.

I do feel so very sorry for US forces below the rank of Lt Col, their efforts and sacrifices should not have been fritted away as if they did not matter.

Thank you for reinforcing my point.

[ganulv]

Don't think you were there when I first raised this in the 'Ivory Coast' thread, so here we go:

Actually! the Ivory Coast thread is what lead me to this forum. IINM the proposal in regards to LG was made in the context of the FN’s build up and/or movement towards Abidjan. It was clear that Gbagbo was going to be gone sooner or later regardless and it seemed reasonable to expect that his inevitable exit would be marked by an improved situation in the short term and possibly in the medium term, as well. (As for the long term, well, it is Africa so let’s not be too sanguine.) But I just don’t think the same is true in the case of Assad and Syria.

[JMA]

It was clear that Gbagbo was going to be gone sooner or later regardless ...

Regardless of the death and destruction in the meantime?

[JMA]

"Location: Durban, South Africa"

If you want to intervene, feel free to do it with your country's armed forces.

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

Sadly such interventions (no matter how noble in intent) get a bad wrap when they get screwed up (as the US led effort in Libya was). Seldom is it the intent that is the problem but rather the politicians and the generals/admirals who display incompetence on a grand scale.

As the balance of power shifts further away from the US you will see that the world will become used the the increasing impotence of the US.

Personally I am sad about the slide of the US (as I was when it happened to the Brits).

[ganulv]

[Gbagbo was going to be gone sooner or later r]egardless of the dead and destruction in the meantime?

Well, yeah. Every day Gbagbo remained obstinate (or delusional) was another day of a degree of death and destruction that wouldn’t have been present had he stepped aside or been put down. What I was trying to express was that your proposal has/had more merit in the context of the Ivorian conflict given that Gbagbo’s exit is/was a fait accompli. LG had spent the previous decade alienating the international community as a whole and his internal support was diminished to the point he was putting mercenaries on the books.* And there was at least a reasonable clue as to what the post–Gbagbo political and social framework would look like and it looked better than it did with him on the scene. I just don’t see how those conditions hold for the al–Assad family.

*Note to current and future strongmen: the moment at which you start seriously considering paying mercenaries to help keep you in the palace is exactly the moment at which you need to start shelling out to someone willing and able to help you sneak out of it under cover of darkness.

[Ken White]

I would have thought the US interests were clear. Avoid confrontation with China and Russia at all costs.

Nah, that's just your interpretation. We have and continue to actively seek confrontation short of war with them. War is sensibly avoided by anyone but probes and small jabs are acceptable and used. If you don't see them, you just aren't paying attention.

As to this:

I do understand your sensitivity about the continued inability of the US to either figure out an intelligent way to intervene or to interevene in an effective manner. Chin up, learn from the Brit loss of empire and drift from 'hero to zero' gracefully.

The issue is not how or if, it is what the US polity will support. That polity is fractured by design just to avoid petty and unnecessary interventions -- the majority of which fail in their purpose in any event. Think Iraq where we did go and Libya where, much to your chagrin and my satisfaction, we didn't go (as far as most know)...

As J Wolfsberger wrote, thanks for reinforcing his point with your admission of such interventions frittering away the troops for no good reason. That's a good assessment.

As for the drift from hero to zero; been predicted (wrongly) for years. Certainly bound to happen sooner or later -- but I bet it will not happen in your lifetime or mine. Nor even my kids; Grandkids -- maybe the youngest who's seven; Great Grandson, probably...

[JMA]

I just don’t see how those conditions hold for the al–Assad family.

Yes we are rapidly reaching the point where the shrill panicky voices screaming 'better the devil you know' are clamouring to save the Assad families ass. (Does anyone know whether the Assad family have hired some smart US PR company to sell this crock?)

[JMA]

Nah, that's just your interpretation. We have and continue to actively seek confrontation short of war with them. War is sensibly avoided by anyone but probes and small jabs are acceptable and used. If you don't see them, you just aren't paying attention.

Nah Ken, it seems that Americans desperately want to believe that there is someone 'at the wheel' of the US ship of state to the extent of delusion... when the rest of the world can clearly see that with that Laurel and Hardy show (State Department and CIA) guiding the ship the US is becoming less relevant by the year. It's a slow irreversible process but it is sure.

As to this:The issue is not how or if, it is what the US polity will support. That polity is fractured by design just to avoid petty and unnecessary interventions -- the majority of which fail in their purpose in any event. Think Iraq where we did go and Libya where, much to your chagrin and my satisfaction, we didn't go (as far as most know)...

Ken you keep talking as if interventions were a bad thing per se. While I have repeatedly said such interventions get a bad name because (through inept and incompetent handling) they continue to fail.

IMHO intervention was needed in Libya... so did the US Administration.

Where you and I differed (I believe) Ken was that I thought 'how can the US possibly screw this one up' while you knew they could and they would (boots on the ground or not). That is when the last flickering flame of hope I held for the US finally died.

The world watches (some with glee and some in horror) as the President of the US and the Sec of State etc prove to be totally inept in international affairs. The question is who will fill the vacuum... and how soon?

As J Wolfsberger wrote, thanks for reinforcing his point with your admission of such interventions frittering away the troops for no good reason. That's a good assessment.

Correction. My point is that it is the manner the intervention is executed that leads to lives of soldiers being frittered away and not the intervention itself (which may be warranted and justified).

As for the drift from hero to zero; been predicted (wrongly) for years. Certainly bound to happen sooner or later -- but I bet it will not happen in your lifetime or mine. Nor even my kids; Grandkids -- maybe the youngest who's seven; Great Grandson, probably...

There are none so blind as those who will not see. Being nearly 60, in my short life I have seen the US slide in power through my own eyes. It is obviously too humiliating for most Americans to acknowledge.

Don't worry about your great grandchildren, make sure your grandchildren are taught to say 'Sir' in Chinese and how to bow and scrape for what the world is witnessing are the last kicks or a dying horse.

[Ken White]

Nah Ken, it seems that Americans desperately want to believe that there is someone 'at the wheel' of the US ship of state to the extent of delusion... when the rest of the world can clearly see that with that Laurel and Hardy show (State Department and CIA) guiding the ship the US is becoming less relevant by the year. It's a slow irreversible process but it is sure.

You don't pay attention very well -- I've been telling you just that for a couple of years. I've also been telling you that it is by design and most of us are okay with that. We realize it adversely impacts our conduct of foreign affairs but are willing to tolerate that for domestic purposes.

Ken you keep talking as if interventions were a bad thing per se. While I have repeatedly said such interventions get a bad name because (through inept and incompetent handling) they continue to fail.

Again, you aren't paying attention -- I've been telling you that interventions are a bad thing and don't work very well simply because they will usually end up with ineptitude ruling what occurs. IOW, that ineptitude and incompetence are precisely why they should be avoided. The response to that is fix the problems -- not going to happen; it is acceptable and idealistic to want them to be fixed but it is totally unrealistic to expect that they will be (note that they can be fixed, its just that they will not be...). Also again, the US political system is virtually designed to be that dysfunctional and even without that, normal human foibles insure that incompetency is prevalent in 50% of all endeavors.

IMHO intervention was needed in Libya... so did the US Administration...The world watches (some with glee and some in horror) as the President of the US and the Sec of State etc prove to be totally inept in international affairs. The question is who will fill the vacuum... and how soon?

Not going to happen. International affairs for the US are, rightly or wrongly (that latter in my view...), an afterthought to US domestic politics. The concerns and / or glee of the world are noted or known and are ignored because all those other six billion people don't vote in US elections. Many think that's stupid -- all should acknowledge it's reality.

To return to Libya, that was an example -- a predictable one -- of the lack of acumen of some US power brokers.

Yes, I did say it would be screwed up -- I'm still waiting for someone to name me any armed and combative intervention by third parties that did actually work...

Correction. My point is that it is the manner the intervention is executed that leads to lives of soldiers being frittered away and not the intervention itself (which may be warranted and justified).

True and I know that -- but my point is that interventions will ALWAYS be screwed up, thus the Troops will always be frittered away for no good result often and almost never for a result that justifies the costs in all terms.

As for warranted and justified, that is very much a personal preference determination. No government (and the US in particular) is ever going to come to a unanimous, consensual, no arguments position on such actions and those opposed will attempt to stymie, politically interfere or sabotage to one extent or another as best they are able. That factor will always intrude if history is any guide.

There are none so blind as those who will not see. Being nearly 60, in my short life I have seen the US slide in power through my own eyes. It is obviously too humiliating for most Americans to acknowledge.

With near 20/20 vision and over 20 years more experience observing, I've seen that as well. Unlike you, I see it as acceptable, predictable, and totally unavoidable. I have also noted that the slide is not a constant angle but a series of waves both upward and downward with an overall downward trend that gets reversed when we think we just have to do something -- that doesn't happen too often and we are maturing a bit -- slowly to be sure -- so we tend to not get overwrought about aging and declining abilities -- happens to all of us as you'll soon note if you have not already.

To my mind, most Americans are very much aware of that decline, there seems to be general agreement that it is occurring so it is seen and while painful to some, it is less so to others. What to do about it is another issue altogether and there is little consensus on what should be done barring an existential problem and none of those seem to be on the horizon.

Don't worry about your great grandchildren, make sure your grandchildren are taught to say 'Sir' in Chinese and how to bow and scrape for what the world is witnessing are the last kicks or a dying horse.

We can differ on that, no question of talking past each other. The "world" has been "witnessing" that since 1945 and to paraphrase Samuel Clemens, reports of our impending death have been greatly exaggerated. If the kids learn Chinese, it'll be most likely be in order to buy or sell something there.

Descendants engaged in petty commerce is more worrisome to me than Chinese world hegemony -- which, BTW, I doubt is wanted or will happen.

[JMA]

Coming back to address this:

All you folks from other nations rail about the dysfunctional, overweight, over wealthy, overbearing US that affects most of the world adversely all too often -- and then scream for US intervention in places and doing things that are none of our business and which generally exacerbate local problems instead of solving them.

Then quite simply, the US should stop talking and posturing as if it is the 'leader of the free world'. The world is merely calling your bluff, saying if you are the world leader you profess to be... then do something... and quite often (sadly) you can't or if you do you screw it up.

One can say that if we 'did it right' that would not be a problem. The fact is that we can rarely if ever 'do it right' due to our governmental systems and processes. They were designed for US internal use and work well for that; they were designed to AVOID foreign entanglements and they also work well for that. Trouble is encountered when those design parameters are ignored...

Not a good enough excuse. The US system is dysfunctional and that's the end of it.

We have covered this before at the the political/military interface and at the lower command levels within the military where it appears to have reached the status of a national characteristic where people (I don't want to use the word leader here) are unable to delegate (the execution) without interference and micromanagement. There IMHO lies the problem.

Even Bob's World too often ignores that harsh reality by insisting that we can do things elsewhere, we just need to do it his way -- that's wrong, too -- the US is too big to ever do much in any one person's way and the system is purposely designed to preclude long term efforts of any type.

Bob's World takes us into the world of the think-tanks and talk-shops. Its all hypothetical and nothing is real. I mentioned to him before that he is thinking at a level above the realities on the ground (which I think he took as a compliment).

My point is essentially that if the (US and the Brits) have proved to be unable to beat the IED threat (or at least significantly mitigate against it) then the message sent to the world is that the US is good only for a 'Thunder Run' into Baghdad or massive bombing like in the early days in Afghanistan.
(The rest of NATO deal with the IED problem by not leaving camp very often - which is quite pathetic)

Which leads us to the Colin Powell statement 'if you break it you own it' (or something like that). Nonsense. So if Gadaffi and/or Assad go (or are visited by some precision guided HE) and Libya/Syria revert to feuding tribes whose problem is that? All it would take is two cruise missiles (the third one you would never need to use). Cheap at the price.

We can do sharp quick raids for immediate policy concerns. We have never successfully been able to engage in long term efforts in or with other nations -- and I say that as one who has spent a good many years assisting in the implementation of US efforts in a number of other nations on four continents. The best of intentions elsewhere will always get trumped and changed by US domestic political concerns and that lack of ability to provide continuity mean we should endeavor to not interfere elsewhere unless the effort will be quick. Difficulty and costs are not issues, speed and success are -- or should be.

We have agreed on this before.

[J Wolfsberger]

So if Gadaffi and/or Assad go (or are visited by some precision guided HE) and Libya/Syria revert to feuding tribes whose problem is that? All it would take is two cruise missiles (the third one you would never need to use). Cheap at the price.

Since this is the central issue, I'll offer an answer.

It will be the problem of the people caught in the middle of those warring tribes. And I'll bet that they'll blame whoever launched the cruise missiles and upended what ever degree of safety, stability and predictability their lives used to hold.

It will be the problem of the country that launched those cruise missiles. I'll bet even more that the warring tribes will alternate between blaming whoever launched the missiles and trying to get military and economic aid from them. And they will lash out at the country they've decided to blame for their problems.

It will also be a huge problem for the U.S. if we launch the missiles. I'll set aside our dysfunctional domestic politics because this isn't an appropriate forum. I, nternational I don't see any groundswell of public support for the U.S. getting involved in Syria. But I'm absolutely certain that if we did, we would see a groundswell of international condemnation.

No, but thank you anyway.

One lesson from Iraq, Afghanistan and any number of third world interventions should by now be crystal clear to everyone: None of these third world horror shows, on any continent, are going to change until the people who live in them bring about the change on their own.

The problems are defined by a lot of interrelated factors and manifested in a variety of symptoms, but the reality is that for the inhabitant of those countries, they are caused by his government, his tribe, his friends, his neighbors, his co-workers, and the people he worships with on the weekend. The only thing accomplished by third party intervention is providing him a convenient outsider to blame so he can avoid facing up to that reality.

You can go on until the cows wander home about our refusal to act as evidence of U.S. decline. I see it as a refusal to play the patsy.