Syria under Bashir Assad (closed end 2014)

[Bill Moore]

"I'm not sure how the CIA types that ran the operation against the Soviets get away with their narratives completely unchallenged. The brave freedom fighters turned out to be a complex mix, to put it mildly.

The biggest lesson is that our running the operation through our allies became problematic in addition to, "we will end up owning regime change." More problematic than self-aggrandizing CIA types allow. Myth and reality are two different things. They didn't know where the money was going and they didn't really know what was going on. Freedom fighters my $%#. Nice job, Foreign Policy. No one else on the digital rolodex to write op eds?"

Agree with all. Seems they forget our assistance helped oust the Soviets combat forces but Moscow still supported the government while Pakistan was focused on radicalizing the Talibs to pursue their interests in Afghanistan. That makes you wonder who we were supposed to provide aid to? The various Afghan tribes killing each other, the Soviet sponsored government, or the Talibs? Typical CIA rhetoric: blame, deny, and counter accuse.

[carl]

Bill M.:

I think going in would be a good thing, but with provisos. If we knew enough about the players to pick a side. If we were willing to run that side strongly. if we were really willing to back that side with whatever it took to win. if we actually decided we really wanted to win. If we would determine that we would persevere despite inevitable setbacks. If we were willing to change sides depending on how the situation played out. If we were willing to tell the Russkis to go stuff it. If we told the Iranians they ain't seen nothing yet if they keep horsin' around. If we told Israel that the days of us dancing to their tune were over, they will survive as a state but we play the music. Same thing with the Gulf States, especially the Gulf states. And finally if we were willing to frankly explain all this to ourselves and how these efforts would benefit us and the whole region. The Americans would see it and go along in my opinion. The Americans would.

The problem is the inside the beltway elites won't do any of this stuff, so we shouldn't do it. But we will do it because there are bureaucratic bones to be made in the spook and State worlds; and political bones to be made elsewhere. They don't serve us anymore. They serve themselves.

[omarali50]

Its unrealistic and snarky ,but considering what great evils the US may be about to unleash in Syria, i did think of a rant that goes like this:
I think its a net positive for the US and the world if the US stays completely out of distant conflicts. I realize that there are several scenarios in which US intervention may appear desirable. But they are frequently mutually incompatible and contradictory. And in almost every case (from Afghanistan to Iraq to Syria and beyond) it seems that the US has no coherent policy and people trot out one or the other justification as needed and then play bait and switch or forget their own previous stance. For example:
1. World cop. This obviously works if most of the world's powers actually agree a cop is needed and that the US is that cop. Its a great idea, but is it really what the US does well or can do?
2. Imperialism. Suppose the US is an imperialist power making a move that will HELP said imperialist power in terms of money, influence, goodwill, whatever. Well, 2 trillion in the hole, what is there to show? IN any case, since many Americans WITHIN the ruling elite are conflicted about the notion of being an imperial power its hard to see how this could ever work. A lot of officials will not be clear about what they are doing. So they will make mistakes.
3. Israel. Even this explanation is wearing thin. Suppose (for the sake of argument) that the US is actually doing all this to help Israel become X percent bigger. Does it actually help? Wouldnt it be cheaper to just buy Israel some more land.
4. Do-gooder. Well, we need not bother with that story.
So why not stay out? The only solid argument in favor of doing something is that otherwise a lot of people will become unemployed. But is there no way we can have all these people digging holes in their backyard and filling them in at 150 dollars an hour? that would be cheaper and less painful than mucking around in Syria as part of some confused imperialist plot.
Seriously.

[Dayuhan]

I think going in would be a good thing, but with provisos. If we knew enough about the players to pick a side. If we were willing to run that side strongly.

Do you really think we're in a position to "run" a side at all, let alone strongly?

if we were really willing to back that side with whatever it took to win. if we actually decided we really wanted to win.

We would need a clear idea of what a "win" would be. Have we got one?

If we were willing to tell the Russkis to go stuff it. If we told the Iranians they ain't seen nothing yet if they keep horsin' around. If we told Israel that the days of us dancing to their tune were over, they will survive as a state but we play the music. Same thing with the Gulf States, especially the Gulf states.

We can tell the Russians, the Iranians, the Israelis, and the Gulf States any damned thing we please. They can and will tell us to go stuff it, and there will not be a thing we can do about it. What makes you think we're in a position to play the music and expect anyone else to dance? If you tell the Russians, Iranians, Israelis, or Gulf Arabs what to do and they tell you to stick it where the sun don't shine (which they will), what do you do about it?

And finally if we were willing to frankly explain all this to ourselves and how these efforts would benefit us and the whole region. The Americans would see it and go along in my opinion. The Americans would.

I can't see how we'd explain that, because it wouldn't benefit us, or the region. You might get the notoriously credulous Americans to go along if you spun them a good enough tale, but why would the rest of the region go along, especially if part of the package is us telling everyone else what to do?

The problem is the inside the beltway elites won't do any of this stuff, so we shouldn't do it.

They can't do any of that stuff. They haven't the leverage.

But we will do it because there are bureaucratic bones to be made in the spook and State worlds; and political bones to be made elsewhere. They don't serve us anymore. They serve themselves.

We may not do it, though it looms perilously close. I hope somebody in the picture has the fortitude to just say no, because I can see no upside whatsoever to "going in". We have no clear desired end state, at least none we can reasonably hope to achieve. We haven't the capacity to control our allies or our proxies. We will probably be worked by both. What's to gain?

[Madhu]

It's likely that many of you have already seen the following piece:

Always bureaucratically adept, even if operationally incompetent in far too many cases, the CIA already has the Washington end of the action. But if weapons are to be supplied, it is essential to call on the only Americans who can tell the difference between Sunni bad guys who only want to oppress other Syrians and the really bad guys who happen to be waging their global jihad in Syria. What's needed are true experts, people who really speak the region's Arabic: the regular U.S. Army and Marine Corps officers who successfully sponsored and then effectively controlled the Sunni tribal insurgents in Iraq whose "awakening" defeated the jihadists who were attacking U.S. troops.

This sort of splits the difference between the Coindinista/Cointra argument but only at its very edges. Certain skills are useful in retention, it seems, but a civil war with the US supporting one side is something altogether different than a colonial pacification.

This is above my head, so interested in thoughts on the piece.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article...syria?page=0,1

[ganulv]

I’m not quite sure I buy that the CIA is operationally inept. I’m not saying that they aren’t, but given the nature of their operations, how would we know?

And given Mr. Luttwak’s consulting work with the military I’m not quite sure that his piece doesn’t amount to concern trolling.

[Madhu]

But everything seems like some kind of trolling when it comes to foreign policy commentary these days, given the contracts and contacts and backgrounds of so many people involved writing pieces. Everyone has a consultancy.

As for the CIA, I have no idea either but there is always a certain vibe from some writers that are former CIA that irritates - a certain vainglory. True for the military as well.

[ganulv]

But everything seems like some kind of trolling when it comes to foreign policy commentary these days, given the contracts and contacts and backgrounds of so many people involved writing pieces. Everyone has a consultancy.

I also think there is something inherent in the publishing biz, especially the publishing online biz. I have been trying to break into freelance writing over the past few months and the experience has lead me to see some of what is going on behind the curtain as pieces make their way out for public consumption. A lot of the material that ends up online is space-filler. And if it gets more views via pushing buttons, all the better (for the publisher, editor, and author, at least; not necessarily for the public).

As for the CIA, I have no idea either but there is always a certain vibe from some writers that are former CIA that irritates - a certain vainglory. True for the military as well.

I always wonder how representative those guys are. One of the things I know a lot about is anthropology. Most of the rock star anthropologists within academia and the few that from time to time get public notice are typically, at least in my opinion, good but not great. Chance and a talent for marketing themselves put them in the limelight.

[carl]

Mr. Luttwak stated:

What's needed are true experts, people who really speak the region's Arabic: the regular U.S. Army and Marine Corps officers who successfully sponsored and then effectively controlled the Sunni tribal insurgents in Iraq whose "awakening" defeated the jihadists who were attacking U.S. troops.

If he actually believes that, I think he is very mistaken as to what happened in Iraq when the Sunni tribes changed their minds. First off, those officers (like Cavguy) were experts in what was going on in their part of Iraq because they had been hanging around on the ground, in their part of Iraq, for a long time. And they were only so expert.

Second off, I am not sure the tribes were sponsored or "effectively controlled" by anybody but themselves. They came to their own conclusions and we had people on the ground at the time who had the knowledge and capability to take advantage of that. Patriquin, McFarland and the guys describe in 'The Snake Eaters' aren't hanging out in schwarma shops on the outskirts of Alepo right now.

Third off, the tribes in Iraq were, from what I've read, fairly cohesive social entities. When the sheiks changed their minds, it meant something. I don't know what the state of the tribes are in Syria. Does Mr. Luttwak?

This statement by Mr. Luttwak seems facile. He also said this:

Do not invite an equal and opposite response by another great power.

The great power he is referring to is Russia. The Soviet Union was a great power. Russia is a demographic disaster ruled by a kleptocracy with an economy that is dependent, still, upon selling extracted resources. They are afflicted with a simmering insurgency (cies) in their south that they haven't been able to make go away in decades. Their military is not so hot. They may have been able to beat up on Georgia but that does not a 'great power' make them. In my view this statement by Mr. Luttwak ascribes power to a state that mostly is nervy.

They will get away with that for only so long (hopefully).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7emAiiXpA8Y