"Occupation by Policy" - How Victors Inadvertantly Provoke Resistance Insurgency

[Dayuhan]

Dayuhan--here is the problem currently for the NCA---they make continuous red lines in the sand, which they feel will never happen then the red lines become pink and then white--when they reach white suddenly the NCA has no plan, but has been on record as having one.

Fully agree that "red lines" are a terrible idea and accomplish nothing. The only thing dumber than drawing a red line in the first place is walking into a fight with no clear objective, no clear plan, and no viable partner just because somebody crossed the "red line" you should never have drawn in the first place.

I really do pay attention to small comments that come via some good media reporters---the NYTs comments infer that there is no policy ie there is one "do not rock the boat"---have you ever seen that one work before?

What do you mean by "work"? Staying out of fights where we have no vital national interest at stake, no clear and achievable objective, no viable plan and no functional local partner seems a quite reasonable plan to me.

Right now we have through a series of policy decisions or non decisions created an image in the population that we have effectively sided with fundamentalists of the Shia variety which if one looks later the ME is mainly Sunni.

How do you reach that conclusion? How does staying out of the fight constitute taking anyone's side?

Had we pushed Israel extremely hard after the election of Hamas in Gaza to open the borders for growth and fishing off their own coast line---there was a phase when the Israeli security worked extremely well with the PLO security and not much happened but we let that program go down the drain as a confidence building mechanism---we are currently training PLO police in both Jordan and in the West Bank which some say is getting better.

What makes you think the Israelis will do what we say? They aren't exactly famous for following instructions.

By the way we were the ones that pushed for a fair election thinking the PLO would win---somehow again not realizing the PLO was corrupt and would lose.

Yes, that was dumb. Taking sides in ME conflicts usually is, a good reason to do it less often.

If you say that one country cannot go nuclear then be honest with the world and admit there is another country in the ME that is fully nuclear and that in the end they must disarm as well---that will never happen.

Yes, it will never happen. Trying to make things happen that we know won't happen is a poor basis for policy.

Syria---has been at it for now over three years when one counts the demos---we instituted a full embargo on Iran but we cannot institute a full naval blockade on Syria or stymie the air bridge that Iran is using to fly in weapons and fighters?-come on we flew a no fly zone for years over Iraq with all related costs. Cannot do that without clashing with the Iranians and Russians--open the intelligence and let the world see the verified over flights and the Russian weapon ships.

We have not imposed an embargo on Iran. We have imposed sanctions on Iran, a quite different thing. Iran trades freely with many regional and global partners.

Are you proposing a no-fly zone and blockade of Syria? Wouldn't that mean full scale suppression of Syrian air defenses, and probable clashes with Iran, possibly Russia? In short, going to war? For what? For what objective, and with what plan? Why would we want to do that?

Release verified intelligence on comments made by Iranian RG Generals that they are sending "troops" to fight in Iran---the Syrian anti-Assad groups did pickup 48 of them to include several Generals---release it openly to the world.

Anyone who's paying attention has assumed for some time that Iran is sending troops. So what? How does that mean the US should be involved?

Sometimes verified words/pictures in the open world does wonders and is non violent. But we cannot as we have decided that leaking of intelligence is a crime higher than say creating a lasting truce by all parties in the ME.

Creating a lasting truce by all parties in the ME? Surely you jest. Not a snowball's chance in hell of that happening, and a fool's errand to try to make it happen.

If one states a red line then hold to it as it sets perceptions in the region ie if I say something I will do it---counts in the eyes of some Arab countries. The Russians seem to have no problems in doing exactly what they say they will do in reference to Syria and Iran.

The Russians have been a bit more careful about what they say they will do. We should follow their example. As above, dumb to draw red lines, but even dumber to allow yourself to be forced into pointless and counterproductive actions just to back up a red line you should never have drawn in the first place.

Reinforce the image that weapons moving across the border to Hezbollah have to be stopped with violence if necessary---three attacks have already been carried out why not more if necessary to reinforce the concept and it sends a message.

Why should we reinforce that message? How is it our business?

Weapons --flood the market with small arms up to 57/106mm RR including mortars and some type of AAA to level the playing field--the anti-Assad groups have taken out the Air Force but are being hurt by copters---risk is that they flow to FF and we still have an AFG/Soviet syndrome ---so it does not happen.

Flood the market with small arms? Why? What are we trying to accomplish by pouring small arms into an area where we have not one shred of a chance of controlling where those arms end up and at whom they end up pointed?

One wins the perception game---currently viewed as that we do not care and will not actively support the anti Assad groups---also a win in the eyes of some Arab countries.

Then we get perceived as changing our policy to do as the Saudis are telling us to do. How does taking orders from the Saudis improve anyone's perception of us?

Why is it we have a redline for chemical weapons but Syrians are being killed now by "barrel bombs" fully documented---not a single comment have you noticed out of the US-why? Perception in the street is that we are split tongued.

Because Syrians killing Syrians is no more our business than Congolese killing Congolese. We are not the world's cop. It's about time people figured that out.

I could go on and on--BUT here is the problem and Robert hit it ---with Corporations and religious groups strength inside the US none of the above will occur as it goes against them---you must realize our foreign policy is driven by who has the money and who yells the loudest in front of Congress and who can finance electoral campaigns.

I agree that it won't occur, by why do corporations and religious groups have anything to do with it? Why would corporations care? I don't see it happening because there is zero political or popular support for intervention in Syria, because we have no clear, achievable policy objective, we have no vital national interest at stake and no internal partner we can trust. Why would we want to take sides in that fight? What have we to gain?

But that is not the problem---perception wise we are now being seen by a number of Sunni Arab countries of being slanted towards Iran and Shia--that is a dangerous view to create. I have seen a large number of media comments since 2012 "that we have a frank and open relationship with the KSA" --there is an old saying that if one repeats the same thing over and over then there is a problem--if that is true then why the frank and open in the media attacks by the Saudis against what they perceive to be mistakes in our policies---frankly they are now a tad p.....ed. at us.

Yes, they are pissed at us. They are pissed because we are not following their instructions and subordinating our interests to theirs. So what? I see no reason at all to assume that the US is slanting toward Iran. The US is slanted toward non involvement, which is a quite rational policy.

This is where I to a tad differ with Robert---we need both religious wings of Islam to be at least on "friendly" terms with us not one over the other.

Actually we don't "need" that. We might want that, but we can't make it happen. We can and should avoid getting caught up in their fight.

actually we seem to be doing that in Egypt but it was forced on us by their military--it was not our own decision. If one notices the military is clamping down on both sides to restore a sense of security which is what many Egyptians on the street really want right now in order to get economic growth going again.

Will our Corporations and our own religious groups allow that?

Seriously doubt it.

Our corporations and religious groups have zero capacity to allow or disallow anything in Egypt.

I'm still at a total loss as to what you want the US to do in Syria. What's the goal? What plan do you propose for achieving that goal?