Syria: a civil war (closed)

[jmm99]

19% Support Increased U.S. Involvement In Syria:

...
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely U.S. Voters shows that only 19% believe the United States should get more directly involved in the Syrian crisis. That’s up from 12% last August and nine percent (9%) in May. However, 56% say the United States should leave the situation in Syria alone. Twenty-five percent (25%) are undecided. Opposition to increased U.S. involvement in Syria is down from 66% last August. ...

Some meat for Fuchs.

Regards

Mike

[Fuchs]

Anything up to 20% is not so important.
You can get the most outrageous nonsense polled with up to 20% support about everywhere. It happens.

There are 5-10% dangerous a-holes in all populations and on top of that several per cent of what statisticians at times call 'clowns'.

[jmm99]

Not quite Scott Rasmussen's style, but what the H - Thou art what thou art.

Got to leave Syria (TG) and address AG Holder's speech re: targeted killing.

Regards

Mike

[Watcher In The Middle]

OK, we're seeing an approx. 1% per month increase rate in support, and a 1% per month decrease in opposition. But we're still only at 20%....

But.... (and there's ALWAYS a 'but' in politics)...

It's pretty much (for the American people) an academic question at the current time (no current US involvement). But once you have/take an active part in the 'event', that's when your support levels starts to get impacted - and usually negatively.

Many (not all, but many) political pro's have kind of a rule of thumb - If you can't start the 'campaign process' (and Syria would certainly be a 'campaign process') with a formulated idea/approach having at least 35 to 40 percent support at the front end (the starting gate), you are probably backing a loser.

Also. don't be at all surprised if this wasn't John McCain backing Hillary Clinton up. This may very well have been one time where personal politics overrode partisan politics.

[Dayuhan]

"More directly involved" is fairly vague, have to wonder what the numbers would be if the question had specifically referred to military intervention.

A lot will depend on the CNN effect. There wasn't much support for intervention in Libya until the reports from Benghazi started coming in. We'll see how people respond. With an election coming up, politicians will be watching the polls closely.

[jmm99]

19% + 1% per month over 6 months ain't spit in my experience (managing several congressional district level campaigns).

On the other hand, the folks who will decide on a Syrian intervention are those in the WH and Congress, where the %s should be much closer. The Syrian issue could become a non-issue if the Iran question flips one way or the other within the next 6 months.

Regards

Mike

[JMA]

WW2 would be close. Might be a few others, haven't time to go through case by case. Not many, certainly. "Required" is a big word: intervention would only be "required" in the event of a grave and imminent threat could be averted in no other way. I can imagine circumstances in which intervention would be desirable, though not required, though not many.

Thank you for your opinion on the matter. As stated before you are so far out in left field on this that there is no point is discussing the matter further with you.

I'm curious, what exactly do you find objectionable in the criteria I cited? Compelling national interest, an opportunity for action under advantageous circumstances, and a clear, practical, achievable goal... how is that unreasonable? Seems a bare minimum one would ask for before getting into a military engagement overseas. What would you propose as criteria to be met before commitment to military intervention?

I really don't care what criteria you cite because quite simply nothing (in your opinion) would meet those criteria. No point in discussing the the matter further with you.

Since when has it been "arrogant" for participants in a discussion to expect other participants in that discussion to present and support their views? Kind of hard to have a discussion if people aren't willing to "present their case", no?

You may expect what you like but people passing through any discussion board are not required to answer to your beck and call.

In this thread it goes beyond arrogance and into the realms of stupidity in that despite my saying repeatedly that the US should not intervene in Syria I get asked why should the US intervene in Syria. Pointless to respond to that sort of insanity.

You can wait for an invitation to "present your case" to Congress if you want, but it might take a while.

As Bob would say (quite rightly in this case)... grow up.

Since when has an absence of intervention equaled isolationism? There's a whole range of ways to be internationally engaged without military intervention. The Chinese haven't taken up military intervention, are they "isolationist"?

Tibet 1951?

The US has put so much money where its mouth is that it has none left in its wallet.

This is not accurate to the point of being a deliberate untruth.

Possibly there are some Americans out there who want to be "the bride at every wedding and the baby at every Christening", but I see no reason why anyone here should answer for them, unless someone here has expressed such views... are you perghaps generalizing about what "Americans" collectively think or want?

The US Administration certainly does.

That brings me back to the perennial problem of just about every American having a different view of what is in the US's best interests. Yet all stated as if they were the truth and the only truth.

The world has been weaning itself off US hegemony for decades. That's not a bad thing; hegemony wasn't good for the US or anyone else. The greatest hit to US hegemony in recent years was probably the Iraq debacle; Libya, which was a debacle of minor proportions if it was one at all (I'd argue that it wasn't though that's a subject for another thread), pales by comparison.

So you missed the main issue with Libya then?

The world tends to watch the actions of the current US Administration and not listen to odd bod US citizens with different opinions.

If you refer to the "us" in this line:

that's referring to the rest of the participants in this discussion. I'd have thought that obvious.

OK... so like us against him (like in the school yard?)

China has nothing at all to do with intervention in Syria, and Russia very little.

I suggest that that is a very ignorant opinion... suggest further study on your part.

US politicians aren't staying out of Syria because they're afraid of the Russians and Chinese, who aren't going to fight for Basher Assad in any event,

Fight? Can fear only be linked to a fight?

they're staying out because they're afraid of the American voter, and of the legacy they'd incur in the likely event that they bog the US down in yet another pointless, expensive, and messy in a fight that has nothing to do with the US. Is that really an unreasonable fear?

That's your personal opinion.

Agreed... the heart of the problem is not the silly interventions, but a set of domestic economic issues that does owe a great deal to a leadership deficit, though the followership hasn't exactly covered itself in glory. That doesn't mean the money spent in Iraq and a great deal of what was spent in Afghanistan couldn't have been put to any number of better purposes.

Good, now lets have no more innuendo that the cost of these interventions are the cause of the US's current economic woes from you then, OK?

Constraining domestic spending is but a fraction of it. Constraining spending on unnecessary and wasteful interventions is an even smaller fraction. In any event, I can't see how intervention in Syria, or anywhere else, would put the US in a better position.

Yes you can't see it, won't entertain it... so there is no point in discussing it with you, yes?

The US is declining (to the extent that it is) for many reasons, but I can't see how an intervention deficit can be called one of them

I said it could?

[JMA]

I'd say persons, plural...

Wow... so that means that in this obscure discussion group more than one person shares the same opinion? That makes the small group of like minded 'persons' right?

Could be. If so, likely a function of the cataract in my left eye...

Not one of your more intelligent comments, Ken... maybe you are indulging in a little bit of grandstanding? Unbecoming.

Oh, I care but I also know we've, on balance, done more good than harm. Shame others cannot say that. Equally regrettable that some who know that purposely elide.

Don't agree that more good than harm has been done... but I appreciate that you need to feel that way. You have my sympathies.

I think the one eyed slant is actually in which view is really the "fringe."

You've lost it.

My position has been clear in that I believe that intervention in Syria is required and can be justified... but should not be carried out by the US.

This is a 'fringe' view?

Because I read all they write and most of them expand on that; you just ignore that bit as you tend to do to all things inimical to your positions.

No, I suspect it is more that you choose not to challenge your constituency... know what I mean

"Worry" is an extremely poor choice of words. Tickled is more appropriate.

Whatever. You obviously missed it in D's post which you appear to have salivated over.

Finally he has articulated his position with some clarity ... took him paragraphs to say what should have taken a few sentences. In so doing he has undermined his earlier cost argument (which you failed to note) and has now reach the position where it is all a matter of personal opinion as to what conforms to compelling national interest. You USians may well find it fun to argue amongst yourselves as to what constitutes compelling national interest but out here in the colonies we just watch what the 'suit' in the White House does. Seems lost on this talk shop that like in the case of Libya despite local consensus that there should be no intervention, intervention went ahead anyway. So who is the fringe opinion now?

Of course my opinions are not necessarily the truth -- nor are yours.

The difference is that I never present anything in any other way.

Staff training would have taught you (and others around here - maybe) that you reach an end point (decision) by considering a number of factors along the way... and not by selecting an end point then building a case to support it. Common problem... always leads to a fail grade.

Okay, consider your self duly "flipped," to use your word.

Expected US arrogance.

There's that "fringe" bit again -- I think you might've misplaced it. Well, WWII is the last one I can recall -- and I went to most of the others, not one of which merited the force applied. As for wasting time, I'm retired and can piddle away like this for days doing little or nothing of consequence.

You forgot to add in my opinion after 'not one of which merited the force applied'.

In my opinion it is less about that force was used than about how it was used. With repeated incompetent execution it should be clear that the US political / senior military planning for such intervention ensures failure and more national humiliation.

The political and often humanitarian motives behind these interventions were often (in my opinion) sound. I suggest that repeated failure has blinded USians to the merits of the intervention and as such like a Pavolv's Dog respond to the memories of previous failure.

I think we've degenerated into nothingness. I'd love to continue to play but must unfortunately go and do things of consequence for a bit. You be nice, hear...

Back to the thread. Syria.

Speak for yourself. If you wish to continue you need to up your game.

[Entropy]

My position has been clear in that I believe that intervention in Syria is required and can be justified... but should not be carried out by the US.

So who, in your opinion, should do it, and how, in your opinion, should it be done and what, in your opinion, should be the political goal for the intervention? Just to be clear, this is just asking your opinion and not demanding that you heed anyone's beck and call.

[JMA]

So who, in your opinion, should do it, and how, in your opinion, should it be done and what, in your opinion, should be the political goal for the intervention? Just to be clear, this is just asking your opinion and not demanding that you heed anyone's beck and call.

When there are people with sufficient maturity and of a phlegmatic disposition around here who are able to see this issue and discuss it without seeing everything in terms of the US then we (them and I) can talk. At the moment while everything is revolving around a US-centric approach such a discussion is pointless.

Think humanitarian... if you are able.

[Entropy]

When there are people with sufficient maturity and of a phlegmatic disposition around here who are able to see this issue and discuss it without seeing everything in terms of the US then we (them and I) can talk. At the moment while everything is revolving around a US-centric approach such a discussion is pointless.

Think humanitarian... you you are able.

I'm not thinking in terms of the US, which was the point in my asking your opinion. Humanitarian? Ok, can you provide any details? I'm "all ears" to use an American phrase.

[Surferbeetle]

Andy,

Something that might be of interest...

Don’t despair of democracy, by Gideon Rachman, March 5, 2012 8:26 pm, Financial Times, www.ft.com

This weekend offered a rogues’ gallery of phoney democracy in action. In Russia it was announced that Vladimir Putin had been swept back to the Kremlin, after a suspiciously smashing first-round victory in the presidential election. Iran staged its first parliamentary elections since the rigged presidential poll of 2009 and the violent suppression of the Green movement. And in China, the National People’s Congress – the country’s rubber-stamp parliament – assembled for its annual meeting. It is a coincidence – but perhaps no accident – that these are the three nations that have emerged as the closest protectors of Syria’s murderous one-party state.

The combined spectacle should give pause to those who like to believe that an irresistible wave of democracy is sweeping the globe. But events in Russia, Iran and China should also give a perverse form of encouragement to democrats. For even as they decry the flaws and hypocrisies of western democracies, the world’s autocrats feel compelled to ape their practices.

...consider the comments section as well if you get a chance, there are some very interesting tidbits floating around.

Registration will get one ten free articles a month, but the resulting addiction is tough to break...

[J Wolfsberger]

In today's Wall Street Journal: The Case for Arming the Syrian Opposition by Mark Palmer and Paul Wolfowitz. I don't think it's behind a pay wall, but if it is PM me.

It starts with this:

While the slaughter continues in Syria, the U.S. is in danger of repeating the mistake made 20 years ago when we refused to arm the Bosnians.

They go on to advocate making the same mistakes we made in Bosnia 20 or so years ago.

This gem stood out:

Material support must also include weapons. But that does not mean tanks or artillery or other weapons that would escalate the violence. What the opposition needs are defensive weapons so it can protect its own people, particularly defectors from the Syrian army.

So I guess we give them rifles, but no tanks or artillery to protect against tanks and artillery because that would escalate the violence? It's scary that these are supposed to be smart people.

[Entropy]

So I guess we give them rifles, but no tanks or artillery to protect against tanks and artillery because that would escalate the violence? It's scary that these are supposed to be smart people.

I'd laugh if not for the fact that lives are on the line. The whole notion that there are such things as "defensive" weapons is bunk anyway.

[Fuchs]

I'd laugh if not for the fact that lives are on the line. The whole notion that there are such things as "defensive" weapons is bunk anyway.

AT mines and most SAMs happen to be rather defensive (OK, those are munitions, but pols don't see the difference anyway).

[Entropy]

AT mines and most SAMs happen to be rather defensive (OK, those are munitions, but pols don't see the difference anyway).

Yes, but what if they are used, for instance, to protect an offensive? Weapons that are used for tactical defense can help on the offense.

[Surferbeetle]

Assad May Lose Russia, China; McCain Calls for Airstrikes, By Nicole Gaouette - Mar 6, 2012 2:10 AM MT, Bloomberg News

Russia and China are shifting on Syria because they haven’t been “particularly happy with the position they’ve adopted in the region,” said Robert Danin, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington. Their UN vetoes scuttled a resolution authored by the Arab League calling for Assad to hand power to a deputy.

“They’re lined up against popular sentiment in the Arab world,” Danin said. “That’s just not a great place to be. They have a lot of reasons to reconsider their position.”

In a March 4 six-point statement about a political resolution on the “Syria issue,” the Chinese Foreign Ministry pointedly distanced itself from the Assad government, noting the regime’s violence against civilians. China called itself a “friend of the Arab people,” and urged an end to “all acts of violence, particularly violence against innocent civilians.”

[Tukhachevskii]

Rod Liddle, The Syria Delusion, The Spectator, 1st March 2012

[Bob's World]

Rod Liddle, The Syria Delusion, The Spectator, 1st March 2012

Nice find. I will forward to some of my co-workers. There is still room for cooler heads to prevail on this issue. Though as more US senior leaders come to see Syria as a cheap and easy way to take a jab at Iran, I fear that could slip away.

[JMA]

Rod Liddle, The Syria Delusion, The Spectator, 1st March 2012

OK lets look at this piece. This Ron Liddle person asked the following question:

What proportion of the Syrian population is fully in support of the continued uprising against the country’s authoritarian leader, Bashar al-Assad?

...then he pontificates for 930 words through which one must sift for what he sees as the answer to his question in 79 words:

...the Free Syrian Army has claimed that ‘50 per cent’ of the territory of Syria is no longer under government control. However, this 50 per cent does not seem to include any towns apart from Homs — just vast swaths of that reddish scrubland they have out there. On the other hand, the Syrian government’s referendum on a new constitution claimed a turnout of 57 per cent and a vote in favour of the constitution of almost 90 per cent.

Does Liddle answer his question?

Not close. Maybe he passed journalism school with junk like this but would not pass staff writing at any half decent army college.

If decisions are made based on crap like this little wonder so many policy decisions are a screw-up.