Syria under Bashir Assad (closed end 2014)

[Bill Moore]

I find that list self serving, particularly the following:



(2) is in direct conflict with (3) and (4) and seems to stand in violation of the idea os using military force in a limited manner to deter further agression, a perfectly reasonable use of the military. Military victory may be independent of political objectives. In addition, if you begin a fight with the intent of finishing it that stands in contradition to the idea of reassessing the situation and adjusting the means you use to achieve your goal.

While it seems like a platatude that you never start a military fight without the intent of military victory, I think it is better to say that you should never start a military action without the realization that you may have to take it to its natrual conclusion.

Are you implying our involvement would be part of its "natural" evolution and a foreign imposed solution is natural. The list reflect the wisdom of lessons observed repeatedly throughout history, but they are not lessons learned. What exactly do you think the military can accomplish there?

[TheCurmudgeon]

Are you implying our involvement would be part of its "natural" evolution and a foreign imposed solution is natural. The list reflect the wisdom of lessons observed repeatedly throughout history, but they are not lessons learned. What exactly do you think the military can accomplish there?

I never said anything about anything being "natural." I only disliked the way the quote limited the idea of using military force as part of a collective group of way and means to pursue our national interests. Based on that quote we would never conduct a NEO action - we must be prepared to invade and control the entire country.

[Bill Moore]

I never said anything about anything being "natural." I only disliked the way the quote limited the idea of using military force as part of a collective group of way and means to pursue our national interests. Based on that quote we would never conduct a NEO action - we must be prepared to invade and control the entire country.

I didn't read it that way, this is classical so-called Powell Doctrine and a NEO is a specific task that the military can accomplish. In Lebanon the military successfully evacuated the Palestinians, but when they went back to enforce a non-existent peace agreement between the fighting parties they failed. I'm for using the military, perhaps more than we do now to achieve certain objectives. I have grown to be pretty critical our occupation/transformation efforts.

[TheCurmudgeon]

I am with you on limited use. I believe the military can be used as to offer both a carrot and a stick, but I fear the American mindset is similar to how I interrupted your quote and how you interpreted my response - it is all or nothing.

On a separate note:

This situation is far more complicated than we simple American's, with our "shot-out" mentality to solutions, are capable of understanding. What "may" have started as a democratic revolt has clearly morphed into something different with multiple societal and political cleavages feeding the fire. The opposition cannot agree on a government in abstentia and the Muslim Brotherhood are changing the narrative to a ethnic/sectarian fight, one more apt to gain ground in a middle east where conflicts are fueled by identity not ideology.

Whether we should get involved is a question of national interest. Since it is doubtful that one could argue that intervention on the side of the insurgents is justified as a means of spreading democracy, I doubt that we could continue to justify our actions as part of a plan to remove a dictatorial leader since whomever comes to power next will probably be no better, and potentially far worse. Whether national interest now includes humanitarian intervention is part of a broader question of whether humanitarian intervention is justified at all. Security interests seem to be primarily around what will happen to the chemical weapons should a terrorist affiliated group ultimately end up in power, or at least in control of some of those weapons. The Israeli solution may be our best choice. I just don't want the US to believe that limited air strikes must inevitably lead to a full scale invasion and occupation or that under the right circumstance the US could not be part of a broader peacekeeping mission in the former country of Syria.

[TheCurmudgeon]

I didn't read it that way, this is classical so-called Powell Doctrine and a NEO is a specific task that the military can accomplish.

The Powell Doctrine is wholly inappropriate in this case. The Powell doctrine says if you broke it, you own it. We did not break Syria. It is already broke. We have no obligation to fix it, so we do not have to restore a working government. Our interests and the actions we take to further those interests, can be far more limited.

[carl]

Bashar says the S-300s have arrived.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/31/wo....html?hp&_r=1&

I wonder if he is trying to bluff the Israelis.

[davidbfpo]

Carl,

This AM on BBC Radio Four an Israeli commentator was asked about the arrival of the SAMs, his response was noteworthy; these are not his exact words:

Our concern is not over the arrival of the missiles, which may not be ready to use for sometime. It is whether they provide cover for our enemies to launch attacks and if should they fall into the hands of our enemies. Israel has taken a very clear stance on what is happening in Syria. We support no-one.

Given the internal situation such weapons - when ready - do not help the regime to win the civil war. Nor do they deter foreign or more accurately US intervention. What is their actual value is unclear. They may act as a visible sign within Syria that Russia remains a helpful friend; which I am sceptocal about.

Note Russia this week was reported as evacuating all Tajik nationals, after their government said leave.

[Bill Moore]

Bashar says the S-300s have arrived.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/31/wo....html?hp&_r=1&

I wonder if he is trying to bluff the Israelis.

Quick draw another Red Line and dare someone to cross it , when they do take three steps back and draw another one.

Most of our strategic assessments point out that we live in a multipolar world and while the U.S. is still the sole superpower its power is relatively less and increasingly less year by year. This means other nations are not going to dance to our music just because we ask, or tell, them to. Some of our leaders still seem to have a hard time grasping this and are quick to recommend flexing our economic and military muscle to get our way. If Sen McCain and others in Congress want us to pursue military action in support of one faction of the resistance then they should be prepared to apply all necessary force needed to achieve whatever clear policy objective they come up with and accept the potential escalation of the conflict into a much broader conflict involving other states who will wage war in a way we are probably not anticipating. Even a limited military action on our part can potentially lead us into something much larger, or create a situation that is worse than the current one in the region.

[davidbfpo]

A short paper, lovely graphics and a selection of obituaries. This US paper's correct title is 'A Joint Study Charting the Evolving Role of Sunni Foreign Fighters in the Armed Uprising Against the Assad Regime in Syria'.

The role of foreign fighters has appeared before, there's even a thread.

On a quick skim read some nuggets here:https://flashpoint-intel.com/upload/...yrs_Report.pdf

[carl]

Most of our strategic assessments point out that we live in a multipolar world and while the U.S. is still the sole superpower its power is relatively less and increasingly less year by year. This means other nations are not going to dance to our music just because we ask, or tell, them to. Some of our leaders still seem to have a hard time grasping this and are quick to recommend flexing our economic and military muscle to get our way. If Sen McCain and others in Congress want us to pursue military action in support of one faction of the resistance then they should be prepared to apply all necessary force needed to achieve whatever clear policy objective they come up with and accept the potential escalation of the conflict into a much broader conflict involving other states who will wage war in a way we are probably not anticipating. Even a limited military action on our part can potentially lead us into something much larger, or create a situation that is worse than the current one in the region.

I agree with you in broad principle, but often I think we judge other countries to have far more power than they have because we are spineless putzes. Russia is an example. They are in the midst of a demographic disaster. Their armed forces are a wreck. Their leadership is composed of kleptocrats. In sum, they got mostly nothing much but nerve. Yet, we allow Putin to keep our Secretary of State cooling his heels for 3 hours before a meeting. That kind of thing does not impress the hard men of the world. No, it does impress them, rather a lot. It impresses upon them that we are putzes and they can pretty much do as they please. That is not a good thing.

Now I am not saying that the 843rd Bomb Wing should launch over that but at least Mr. Kerry should have left and gone to the movies and turned off his cell phone for a few hours.

[Bill Moore]

The Powell Doctrine is wholly inappropriate in this case. The Powell doctrine says if you broke it, you own it. We did not break Syria. It is already broke. We have no obligation to fix it, so we do not have to restore a working government. Our interests and the actions we take to further those interests, can be far more limited.

That was Secretary of State Powell, not Gen Powell. That was never part of the original Powell doctrine.