Syria: a civil war (closed)

[Dayuhan]

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.

The decline of the US, to the infinitely arguable extent to which it exists, is a consequence of domestic economic failure. Overseas interventions are a largely irrelevant sideshow and have little or nothing to do with US influence on the larger scale. Sending troops or cruise missiles into disordered backwaters is not going to boost American influence or reverse any hypothetical decline, no matter how it's executed. It just doesn't matter very much.

I see no particular reason to fear the Chinese, but since you evidently do, and seem to see the capacity for military intervention as a critical indicator of ascendancy, you might ask yourself how the Chinese have inspired such fear despite a notable disinclination toward military intervention.

Why would the US want to intervene in Syria? What have we to gain?

The default US position on military intervention overseas logically must be "just don't do it". That default might be set aside if there's sufficiently compelling reason... but is there any compelling reason for the US to intervene in Syria? Any reason at all?

[davidbfpo]

The latest Strategic Comment:http://www.iiss.org/publications/str...nto-civil-war/

It ends with:

Such trends as the militarisation of the opposition and the entry into the fray of Syria's neighbours would be immensely difficult to stop or shape. The real challenge for the international community is to decide how to contain a possibly contagious collapse of Syria.

[J Wolfsberger]

The latest Strategic Comment:http://www.iiss.org/publications/str...nto-civil-war/

A typically knowledgeable, well reasoned and incisive product from IISS. Two things stood out the most:

To mobilise his own community and scare other minorities into supporting him, Assad has had to fracture the Syrian polity in irremediable ways: the state purposely cultivates tensions and rifts within society, and its security services often operate as occupation forces. Syrians of all political persuasions are finding ways of circumventing the state apparatus in order to cope, organise and survive.

Which reinforces the likelihood Assad will win the current round, with much bloodshed. But the additional cost will be the complete and most likely permanent fragmentation of civil society. The consequence will be for things to become much, much worse in the inevitable next time around. Assad will eventually lose power, the questions are when, and how much damage will he do in on the way out.

The prospect of foreign intervention has proven very divisive among Syrians, Arabs and the international community. Desperate Syrians are calling for intervention to protect civilians, often without defining its scope, requirements or the possible identity of the intervening party; others resist this idea on principle or because of the experience of Iraq.

Which is precisely why I've been arguing against any U.S. involvement. There is no way we can do anything without becoming, yet again, the villains of the piece.

[Ken White]

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.

True. However, I suggest the "Having one's cake and eating it too" syndrome is alive and well and not restricted to the US. You might also note that we often confuse the 'can't' and 'screw it up' issues...

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

You're funny. It's not an excuse, it is a simple statement of fact which I've made repeatedly, you keep trying to make into an apologia. It is not. I and most Americans are very much aware of that dysfunction, more so than most overseas but most of us are not apologetic about it nor do we state the obvious as an excuse, it just is. The process works acceptably for most of us and while many of us regret the turmoil thus induced in other nations, we don't regret that enough to dispense with the internal to us benefits. Functional, efficient government has been proven to be unhealthy or uncomfortable for many citizens. Look at it not as an excuse but as a shoulder shrug and "Yep. Tough..." Selfish of us but that's the way it is.

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.

We not only covered it we agreed. Apparently still do.

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).

Probably -- I have to keep reminding him of that dysfunctional governmental model as well.

My point is essentially that if the (US and the Brits) have proved to be ... pathetic)

Guilty as charged. The fact that no one else could have done a bit better is not much solace.

Which leads us to the Colin Powell statement 'if you break it you own it' (or something like that). Nonsense ... All it would take is two cruise missiles (the third one you would never need to use). Cheap at the price.

Agree on the nonsense. On the other, you get what you pay for...

As J Wolfsberger wrote: "...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 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." Just so.

Merits also echoing Dayuhan's words. This should be noted by many, not least the policy wonks in DC, all the humanitarianly R2P types and the so-called Strategists of the world:


""Sending troops or cruise missiles into disordered backwaters is not going to boost American influence or reverse any hypothetical decline, no matter how it's executed. It just doesn't matter very much.""

.

[Uboat509]

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.

I would have to agree, more or less. I am not sure that the reason is so clear as a refusal to play the patsy. That supposes that our government has learned a clear lesson about intervening in the internal problems of another state in which we have no tangible interests. I suspect that reluctance to be seen as the party that got the US involved in another war has more to do with the "refusal to act" than does anything else. The interventionist impulses are still there but suppressed by the current political climate. How long they will remain suppressed is anyone's guess, probably as long as the economy is still a concern and as long as Iraq and Afghanistan are still fresh in people's memories at the very least.

[Ken White]

Domestic politics are the determinant. There are some hard heads who aren't willing to play that patsy bit but there are some who are more than willing to do so. Who wins in that argument depends quite heavily on the current mood in the US. Sad but true.

[Bob's World]

Go away for a couple days and come back to all kinds of crossfires and verbal fratricide. Appears that everyone knows exactly what the right answer is, what the Syrian people and leadership are thinking, and yet all are in very divergent camps as to what that is.

Is it too late for them to step back from the abyss? Perhaps. Perhaps not. I suspect most on both sides of the issue would prefer a peaceful solution if they felt they could trust in some process to get there. Trust is perhaps the commodity in shortest supply.

Is there a credible third party who could step in and become an agent adequately trusted by both sides to get to some compromised position? Perhaps. France has a growing influence in the region in recent years, but also has a very direct history in this particular location. I don't know if that is good or bad, but I would suspect the latter. Turkey also has a very direct history and shares a closer connection. Perhaps both are too close. As Ken says, the US has no direct interests in Syria. Sometimes knowing the third party has no alternative agenda of using this role to better their own interests in one's backyard is an advantage in getting to trust.

By simply offering the US risks little. By simply urging the parties to step back and consider negotiated options the US risks little. By such actions the US also can take the position that it did what it could to help short of actions violating the sovereignty of the Syrian nation, and if the Syrian people and government neither one are interested, then fine, good luck. We've got other things to worry about elsewhere.

If the President overreacts its one more "war" and that is not good. If he does nothing he is acting counter to our recent strategic theme of "US global leadership" and looks weak. Agree or disagree with US global leadership (I personally find it to be hubris to assume, and wish senior leadership would back off of that theme all together), if one declares oneself the be the leader, one had better lead.

We live in dynamic times. Not to be too "think-tanky," but I don't think anyone has all the answers, and if fact, most are still trying to sort out what the right questions are.

[JMA]

We live in dynamic times. Not to be too "think-tanky," but I don't think anyone has all the answers, and if fact, most are still trying to sort out what the right questions are.

Spoken from the comfort of an air-conditioned office somewhere in North America... while the Syria regime moves into Homs to carry-out another massacre.

But hey! Don't let anyone dear say the US or the international community should do something about it. So all the world sees is talk, talk, talk and a little finger wagging. My, my, my how the once mighty have fallen.

[Dayuhan]

Spoken from the comfort of an air-conditioned office somewhere in North America... while the Syria regime moves into Homs to carry-out another massacre.

Well, speaking from a mountaintop several thousand miles from north America and a a long way from the nearest air conditioner, I see no reason whatsoever for the US to be involved in Syria.

But hey! Don't let anyone dear say the US or the international community should do something about it. So all the world sees is talk, talk, talk and a little finger wagging. My, my, my how the once mighty have fallen.

Fallen? Fallen from where? When has it ever been US policy to blunder into other people's conflicts where we have no shred of an interest? Can you name me a decade when the US hasn't sat back and watched a massacre somewhere in the world? Not that massacres are wonderful, but we are not the world's cop, and the fastest route to global impotence is to burn your capacity and wear yourself down by shoving your equipment into all kinds of messy places where you have no business.

You seem terribly concerned about what you see as an American decline... do you not see that great powers are more likely to decline through overextension and overreach than by minding their own business and staying focused on their own interests?

[Bob's World]

Spoken from the comfort of an air-conditioned office somewhere in North America... while the Syria regime moves into Homs to carry-out another massacre.

But hey! Don't let anyone dear say the US or the international community should do something about it. So all the world sees is talk, talk, talk and a little finger wagging. My, my, my how the once mighty have fallen.

Get in line with the rest of the Chickenhawks with no personal stake to risk who clammor to send US troops into every little brushfire around the globe. Thankfully the administration appears to be learning to tune that brand of senseless noise out.

Now is not the time for a US who rushes in blindly with guns blazing to every little conflict around the world. I realize diplomacy has taken a back seat to state sanctioned violence as our primary tool of foreign policy. High time we get that relationship back into the proper order.

Oh, and while not the saltiest character in the world, I think I can stand on my 26 years of military service in combat arms, 20 in Special Forces with deployment to three separate combat theaters and politely tell you to go F yourself with your silly little AC and think tank comments simply because not everyone thinks starting illogical wars, or fighting conflicts illogically is the best approach. Grow up.

[Ken White]

... from the comfort of an air-conditioned office somewhere ... : "...So all the world sees is talk, talk, talk and a little finger wagging..."

Yes. Proclivity in that regard is noted...

[J Wolfsberger]

Spoken from the comfort of an air-conditioned office somewhere in North America... while the Syria regime moves into Homs to carry-out another massacre.

But hey! Don't let anyone dear say the US or the international community should do something about it. So all the world sees is talk, talk, talk and a little finger wagging. My, my, my how the once mighty have fallen.

The U.S. went through 8 years of criticism for its "cowboy diplomacy" and "illegitimate wars." Following that, we elected a president who promised to "restore" our standing in the world through "resets" and working with and through the international "community." i.e. "talk, talk, talk and a little finger wagging."

This resulted in the U.S. "leading from behind" in Libya, and letting the international "community" decide to do not much of anything about Syria. You may not have been one of the voices, domestic and international, screaming about the U.S., but I'm sure you heard about it. It was in all the papers.

You seem to be very critical of the U.S. for not doing anything unilaterally in Syria. Are you, sitting in your presumably air-conditioned home in Durban, advocating that the U.S. engage in "cowboy diplomacy" and start an "illegitimate war" with the legal government of Syria? Sorry, but we decline your generous offer to waste our lives and treasure in a thankless task. You can call our current inaction a symptom of U.S. decline. I see it as giving the world exactly what it said it wanted for most of the Bush presidency. If that leaves anyone unhappy, I can only suggest they get familiar with the concept of "consequences."

Forget the monetary cost. If you, or the rest of the world, want the U.S. to risk the lives of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines, then you, and the rest of the world, have to expect what I outlined above about the conditions. You, and the rest of the world, also have to expect that people will make mistakes along the way, because that is part of the price of acting. I don't see any sign that those expectations are going to be understood, acknowledged and accepted.

In case any of this hasn't helped clarify my attitude, consider this: At present, Afghans are rioting over the burning of their scripture. The proper response should have been along the lines of "Sorry our troops improperly disposed of the sacred texts your co-religionists desecrated. Want to tell us how to do it right next time? Oh, by the way, here's the desecrators. Feel free to try them." Instead, the commanding general and our president have apologized to the post turtle* president of Afghanistan, who responded by calling for trials of the soldiers involved.

Excuse me if I don't want to see our men and women exposed to even more of this lunacy. People like Bob have given far more than you or I have in an effort to make the world a safer place, and received sweet f--- all in the way of gratitude. I'll be d----- if I want them asked to give more.

* An old rancher is talking about politics with a young man from the city. He compares a politician to a "post turtle". The young man doesn't understand and asks him what a post turtle is.

The old man says, "When you're driving down a country road and you see a fence post with a turtle balanced on top, that's a post turtle. You know he didn't get up there by himself. He doesn't belong there; he can't get anything done while he's up there; and you just want to help the poor, dumb thing down."

[JMA]

Why would the US want to intervene in Syria? What have we to gain?

I generally ignore your posts because you just can't help yourself. You continue to post as if you are speaking on behalf of the US people.

You don't speak for anyone but yourself. Try to preface your comments with 'in my opinion' or 'as I see it' etc etc.

As such I won't even ask who the 'we' is in this instance.

[JMA]

... tell you to go F yourself with your silly little AC and think tank comments ... Grow up.

To think all it took to set you off 'effing and blinding was the mention of 'think tank'.

It matters naught that you have 20 odd years of service and reached senior officer rank when such emotional instability is evident.

Those who selected and trained me created contrived situations to test for this particular character defeat (in all of us). Those that failed to demonstrate a phlegmatic disposition would be sent on their way.

I am sure I will 'grow up' as I mature with age but for those with a character defect there is no hope.

[JMA]

If you, or the rest of the world, want the U.S. to risk the lives of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and marines, then you, and the rest of the world, have to expect what I outlined above about the conditions.

In your haste to respond you missed the point.

As a personal opinion if I state that I believe that intervention in a particular situation is warranted or justified it remains just that ... a personal opinion... and not a plea or demand for US action.

As Ken has repeated stated the US has proved to be incapable to intervening with any success just about anywhere.

US intervention in Syria (like in Libya) would be sure to be a class one 'cock-up'.

It is therefore important that the US does not intervene in Syria.

What will restrain any temptation to intervene is the opposition of Russia and China.

I think that should clear things up.

Now it seems to me that all that remains is for you and other US citizens to come to terms with the current situation where your politicians and military do not have the balls (nor ability) to stand up to either/or or both Russia and China. I sympathise. How the once mighty has fallen.

[Bob's World]

To think all it took to set you off 'effing and blinding was the mention of 'think tank'.

It matters naught that you have 20 odd years of service and reached senior officer rank when such emotional instability is evident.

Those who selected and trained me created contrived situations to test for this particular character defeat (in all of us). Those that failed to demonstrate a phlegmatic disposition would be sent on their way.

I am sure I will 'grow up' as I mature with age but for those with a character defect there is no hope.

Still shooting blanks; with your insults and your simplistic "one size fits all" violent tactical approaches to virtually any tactical, strategic or political problem.

Now, if you are prepared to discuss some specific aspect of the situation in Syria, I'm all ears. They are not at war, and there is no tactical solution to "win" in the fighting taking place between the government and segments of the populace; and there is arguably no violent solution of any sort that will solve the problems at the roots of this unrest either. There are arguably no direct US interests at stake in Syria, but certainly an opportunity to shape events elsewhere in the region where such interests are very much at stake.

So, impress me with your selection, training and maturity, how do you play this hand?

But I've not much time for this.

[Dayuhan]

You don't speak for anyone but yourself. Try to preface your comments with 'in my opinion' or 'as I see it' etc etc.

I can't see how any of those can be reasonably affixed to the question of what Americans could possibly gain from intervention in Syria... even if they could "do it right", assuming on no evidence whatsoever that there is a "right" way to do it.

Everything anyone says here is their opinion, it's obvious and goes without saying. Silly waste of pixels to go inserting "IMO" into every paragraph to remind people of what they already know. If I say "there is no compelling reason for the US to intervene in Syria", that of course is my opinion. If you think there is a compelling reason, tell us what it is, by all means.

Why would America, or any American, or any combination of Americans want to intervene in Syria? What would be the point? What would they have to gain? Those seem reasonable questions for anyone to ask, American or not, if US intervention in Syria is under discussion.

Now it seems to me that all that remains is for you and other US citizens to come to terms with the current situation where your politicians and military do not have the balls (nor ability) to stand up to either/or or both Russia and China. I sympathise. How the once mighty has fallen.

How did Russia and China get into the picture? Completely irrelevant.

[JMA]

Still shooting blanks; with your insults and your simplistic "one size fits all" violent tactical approaches to virtually any tactical, strategic or political problem.

Insults? You are too thing skinned. But there's another thing Bob, you can dish it but you can't take it... just now we will see some 'quick draw' moderator running to your assistance.

Secondly I will restate my position (as I am not arrogant enough to believe you have followed my postings around here) which is simply that the lack of consistency and stability in US foreign policy is more of a threat to world peace than the growth of China into a super power.

The White House over my lifetime (the last 60 years) has shown not capacity intelligent strategic thinking and action leaving the world (that is everyone other than US citizens) what the hell the US are on about.

Adding to this circus is the Laurel and Hardy show (the State Department and the CIA) which together bring a whole new meaning to the word incompetence.

Now based on the folly of the three-ring-circus hundreds of thousands of young US soldiers continue to be placed in harms way for no logical (or intelligent) reason.

I will just ignore your comment on my suppose 'one-size-fits-all' approach... because it is nonsense.

Now, if you are prepared to discuss some specific aspect of the situation in Syria, I'm all ears. They are not at war, and there is no tactical solution to "win" in the fighting taking place between the government and segments of the populace; and there is arguably no violent solution of any sort that will solve the problems at the roots of this unrest either. There are arguably no direct US interests at stake in Syria, but certainly an opportunity to shape events elsewhere in the region where such interests are very much at stake.

Simple.

Study the history of Syria... in so doing all will be revealed.

With Russia, China, Iran and Lebanon supporting does anyone really think Assad with take notice of the finger wagging from the US, Britain and Europe?

The shooting has started, the massacres are happening so it will take more than a fireside chat to stop it.

The US already has urine running down its leg as a fear response to possibly being sucked into a shooting match in Syria. So what do they have to back up their finger wagging?

So the advice to the US Administration should be that unless they are prepared to put their money where their mouth is it is better to just shut up ... lest the rest of the world come to realise just how impotent the US really is (if they haven't grasped it already).

[Ken White]

Those who selected and trained me created contrived situations to test for this particular character defeat (in all of us). Those that failed to demonstrate a phlegmatic disposition would be sent on their way.

Mmm. Then what happened?

As Ken has repeated stated the US has proved to be incapable to intervening with any success just about anywhere.

Not quite right, as is quite common with thee...

Ken has frequently stated that successful interventions, generic, all parties, are rare. The US record is no better or worse than many others.

US intervention in Syria (like in Libya) would be sure to be a class one 'cock-up'.

Possible, also possible that it could be effective even in your opinion (though that's rather doubtful no matter how it turned out...). That's not the reason not to do it; the reason is that the Syrians have to provide a Syrian solution to a Syrian problem and that busybodies who like interventions -- but rarely themselves participate and instead kibitz from a comfortable distance -- generally do not understand all they think they know about the issue. As is shown...

What will restrain any temptation to intervene is the opposition of Russia and China.

Of course, just as it restrained intervention in the case of Afghasnistan and Iraq.

I think that should clear things up.

Bwahahhahahahaaaa...

The White House over my lifetime (the last 60 years) has shown not capacity intelligent strategic thinking and action leaving the world (that is everyone other than US citizens) what the hell the US are on about.

You kids are so impatient. If you'd paid attention in history class you'd know that the US has been doing that to one degree or another for about 225 years. The US is on about itself and doesn't give, in the words of my favorite Canadian Journalist, a rat's a$S what the rest of the world thinks. Poor attitude on our part, I know but that's life. Get used to it, not going to change in the short remainder of your life.

...my suppose 'one-size-fits-all' approach... because it is nonsense.

True. Two sizes, cutting off heads and cruise missiles.

Then there's this:

With Russia, China, Iran and Lebanon supporting does anyone really think Assad with take notice of the finger wagging from the US, Britain and Europe?

That's sort of simplistic, which is okay but it is also borderline ludicrous. You probably should not have added Iran to your usual blustery, certainly could have omitted Lebanon.

The shooting has started, the massacres are happening so it will take more than a fireside chat to stop it.

Isn't that always the case? How well do your fireside chats affect what even the RSA, much less the UK, the US or the broader world behave? Absolute shame others do nor react the way one dictates.

The US already has urine running down its leg as a fear response to possibly being sucked into a shooting match in Syria. So what do they have to back up their finger wagging?

I wouldn't know about urine running down a leg though that apparently happens to some who seem prone to project a bit. The issue is not fear, it is simply cost. We wasted too much money on those other interventions that China and Russia disapproved of. We also have a new generation that has learned the futility of interventions, so we're good for another 30-40 years before we get to relearn that...

...lest the rest of the world come to realise just how impotent the US really is (if they haven't grasped it already).

As that Canadian Journalist said...

[Surferbeetle]

JMA,

I was wondering how long your apparent new year's resolution of being diplomatic would last! You held out longer than I would have guessed...

Ken,

Found this one to be pretty interesting...

Then there's this:

With Russia, China, Iran and Lebanon supporting does anyone really think Assad with take notice of the finger wagging from the US, Britain and Europe?

That's sort of simplistic, which is okay but it is also borderline ludicrous. You probably should not have added Iran to your usual blustery, certainly could have omitted Lebanon.

Although I agree that it is a superficial treatment, I would add Iraq to JMA's list, wonder about your proposal to remove Iran (due to current elections?), and add that the nearby powers (in a geographic sense) are likely to help or hinder depending upon how the day/circumstance (internal & external) plays into their hands...Europe, Russia, China, and the USA's motivations and actions will take more coffee, and perhaps a walk of the dogs...