Syria under Bashir Assad (closed end 2014)

[Dayuhan]

The way we do it, yes. And that is probably true in some cases no matter what. But I still think that if we played the game hard enough, we could exercise much much more control than we think possible.

There are real world limits to how "hard" we are able to play, especially if playing hard means significant commitment of military or other resources. I'd submit that "playing hard" is only sensible if you have a clear, practical, and achievable goal, and I'm not at all sure we have that. I'm sure that with sufficient application of resources we could force certain events (like the fall of Assad) to happen. The extent to which we could exercise meaningful "control" of that process or its aftermath without undertaking an unacceptable commitment (occupation) remains very doubtful.

Yes but what power they have I think is really a function of what we allow them to exercise, at least in Russia's case. That doesn't make it any less real on the ground in Syria, but it is what we allow.

Have we the capacity, realistically, to disallow any Russian action? We're not going to get into a shooting incident with the Russians over Syria, and they know it, which makes bluff a pretty pointless game. It's silly to issue ultimatums or draw lines in the sand if you don't have the means and will to take real meaningful steps to back them up and enough interest at stake to justify the costs and risks of backing them up.

There are a lot of things we could do that don't involve troops on the ground. One thing that comes to mind is approving multiple LNG export terminals here in the US. That would be very bad for Russia because a few years after that, no more blackmailing the Europeans.

I don't see the US exporting enough gas to Europe to significantly reduce dependence on Russia, and the Russians know that the current US gas glut will not last, given the overall US energy equation. I doubt they'd be deterred at all.

Our Navy could be a bit of a lever too. There is lots of precedent for shoving people around, to be blunt about it, at sea without getting close to shooting.

Only works if they believe you'd be willing to escalate. We aren't willing. They know it.

Yep, to an extent. I fear ultimately our interests will be very much at stake, but I can't think of any good way, that the US leadership would actually do, to affect things.

Interests will be affected no matter what the outcome, but I don't see how intervention will make that picture any better. It could make the picture a whole lot worse. Again, the first thing you need to justify intervention is a clear, practical, and achievable goal. Have we got one?

In an ideal world, turn Syria into Malaysia, but that ain't gonna happen. Or at least keep the thing from spreading too far, prevent an AQ emirate in east Syria and west Iraq and install a regime (not PC for sure) that wouldn't slaughter too many people and cause a lot of trouble. But we ain't capable of achieving that given our leadership. So it is a moot point.

I'm not sure those are achievable with any leadership. It's easy to complain about lack of political will, but lack of the will needed to stick your tender bits into a meatgrinder seems to me eminently logical. Even the most peripheral mention of "installing" regimes should throw up a whole forest of red flags. Us getting involved is as likely to cause spillover and escalation as it is to prevent it. It's not a question of leadership. We have neither the desire nor the capacity to govern Syria, directly or by proxy, nor is it in our interests to try to govern Syria.