Syria: a civil war (closed)

[JMA]

And with a choleric nature, a menace... something we should recall when considering inherently choleric recommendations involving "solving" problems by sending troops, or cruise missiles.

Lets see what Sheriff Wolfsberger makes of this post... wonder if he sees it as a test of integrity?

[JMA]

I've not stated any such position. What I've said is that I believe the default US position should be non-intervention. I've also said that there are circumstances in which that default could be overridden, it there are sufficiently compelling interests at stake, if there are mechanisms at hand for intervention that have a strong probability of success and a realistic chance at not producing undesirable unintended consequences, and if the goals of the intervention are practical, realistic, and achievable. Obviously these are subjective criteria, but many recent (and less recent) US interventions have been far off those criteria by any standard, and I've seen nothing even vaguely resembling a coherent argument suggesting that intervention in Syria would meet those criteria. If you have seen such an argument, please direct us to it.

Yea, yea, yea (and said with a straight face too). I have read you correctly so it is unnecessary to write a paragraph to spin out exactly what I said in the first place.

It would be interesting to hear if you believe there has ever been a situation that has required US military intervention.

There are calls for those who consider intervention in Syria necessary/needed/desirable to present their case to a handful of people who are no more than mere US citizens. The sheer arrogance of it. The sheer arrogance of people you want to withdraw into isolationism yet still want to be always 'sitting at the top table'.

I have said this before here (a few years ago) that the US and various citizens (where ever they may be found) want to be the 'the bride at every wedding' and the 'baby at every Christening' ... while not realising that you can't be a player unless you are prepared to 'put your money where your mouth is'.

The world is weaning itself off the US hegemony of the past at a speed rapidly increased after the Libya debacle.

Who is the 'us' you speak of here?

I will tell you one more time that the US must not intervene in Syria as it would be guaranteed to be a class one cock-up (with the tragic loss of life of many US soldiers).

As the US politicians are too $hit scared to face down Russia and China your efforts should (IMHO) rather be directed towards getting that inept White House and the incompetent State Department to shut the .... up (and to get out of the kitchen).

The US is on the wane, to the extent that it is, as a consequence of internal economic policy and other domestic policy issues, helped along by overambitious and largely pointless interventions abroad. Reluctance to intervene is not a cause of decline, it's a consequence of decline: I think it's generally recognized that the US can't afford pointless interventions, and that to reverse or at least slow the decline the US needs to focus on its own interests and its own business, not burn its strength messing about in other people's fights.

Nonsense. The problems the US faces is as a result of a mega leadership failure.

The costs of these interventions (as stated by others before) is not at the heart of the problem.

So lets summarise what you took a paragraph in an attempt at obfuscation in a sentence.

The current situation in which the US finds itself is as a result of a massive political leadership failure and accompanying inability to constrain domestic spending.

Get the idea?

[J Wolfsberger]

Lets see what Sheriff Wolfsberger makes of this post... wonder if he sees it as a test of integrity?

Respectfully declining the position of Sheriff.

[Dayuhan]

Yea, yea, yea (and said with a straight face too). I have read you correctly so it is unnecessary to write a paragraph to spin out exactly what I said in the first place.

It would be interesting to hear if you believe there has ever been a situation that has required US military intervention.

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.

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?

There are calls for those who consider intervention in Syria necessary/needed/desirable to present their case to a handful of people who are no more than mere US citizens. The sheer arrogance of it.

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

The sheer arrogance of people you want to withdraw into isolationism yet still want to be always 'sitting at the top table'.

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"?

I have said this before here (a few years ago) that the US and various citizens (where ever they may be found) want to be the 'the bride at every wedding' and the 'baby at every Christening' ... while not realising that you can't be a player unless you are prepared to 'put your money where your mouth is'.

The US has put so much money where its mouth is that it has none left in its wallet. 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 world is weaning itself off the US hegemony of the past at a speed rapidly increased after the Libya debacle.

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.

Who is the 'us' you speak of here?

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

If you have seen such an argument, please direct us to it.

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

As the US politicians are too $hit scared to face down Russia and China your efforts should (IMHO) rather be directed towards getting that inept White House and the incompetent State Department to shut the .... up (and to get out of the kitchen).

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

Nonsense. The problems the US faces is as a result of a mega leadership failure.

The costs of these interventions (as stated by others before) is not at the heart of the problem.

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.

So lets summarise what you took a paragraph in an attempt at obfuscation in a sentence.

The current situation in which the US finds itself is as a result of a massive political leadership failure and accompanying inability to constrain domestic spending.

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. 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

[davidbfpo]

I recall one very close, wise observer of Libya, who a day before Western intervention did not think Washington would act. So who knows whether the USA will surprise itself and the world again?

The strident R2P lobby has had a "whacking" of late, including by the SWJ Editor;see the links and summary on:http://zenpundit.com/?p=6108

I am puzzled, especially for Europe as it was rather too close, that few mention the parallels in the break-up of Yugoslavia and the years of slaughter in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

FP Blog has a timely reminder how effective media reporting can be limited, if not made deadly, by drawing upon the Russian approach in Chechen War:http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article..._the_messenger

My media watching is limited, but I've yet to see signs of the Arab public in mass protests. IIRC there have been some protests at Syrian embassies.

[J Wolfsberger]

The strident R2P lobby has had a "whacking" of late, including by the SWJ Editor;see the links and summary on:http://zenpundit.com/?p=6108

A good article and roundup by zenpundit. Dr. Slaughter, understandably, will forever by motivated by her commitment to prevent another event like the Rwanda Genocide. However, the R2P advocates don’t seem to realize that as long as they require international approval/authorization/"legitimacy," their efforts will always be blocked by outside actors who seek advantage or gain from the turmoil.

Furthermore …

I am puzzled, especially for Europe as it was rather too close, that few mention the parallels in the break-up of Yugoslavia and the years of slaughter in Bosnia-Herzegovina.

Most R2P advocates want to ignore it because it leads to unpalatable conclusions. The UN intervention was almost totally ineffective at preventing the slaughter, and the NATO intervention not much better. A large part of this is due to, again, outside actors who have a vested interest in continuing the turmoil or do-good busy bodies (both governments and NGOs) with a childish understanding of the use of force. The result is ROEs that prevent the interveners from taking any useful or effective action.

At the same time, most of the R2P advocates (but not, I believe, Dr. Slaughter) would stridently oppose unilateral action led by the U.S.

This leads to the problem that the only realistic option to achieve their desired outcome depends on an approach they vehemently oppose. Examining Bosnia-Herzegovina too closely proves that point, and thus it’s mentally and emotionally safer to just drop it down the memory hole.

[ganulv]

FP Blog has a timely reminder how effective media reporting can be limited, if not made deadly, by drawing upon the Russian approach in Chechen War:http://www.foreignpolicy.com/article..._the_messenger

Thanks for the link. I would have assumed that Marie Colvin was saltier. I don’t mean that as a criticism, it just surprises me given how long she had been in that particular line of work.

[Ken White]

Nothing wrong on my side.

Heh. Check that mirror...

You are indeed funny -- and apparently somewhat deluded. You are quite often wrong and usually blatantly deny it. Not a particular problem to me or to this board, it's rather droll but can be mildly entertaining on occasion. Unless of course you're serious as opposed to merely being confrontational for the fun of it...

I suggest that you are beginning to realize that your stock answer to matters of US intervention does not fully deal with the complexity of a super power on the wane struggling to come to terms with it's decline.

Actually, your constantly taking my quite plain statements of minor facts as 'excuses' or 'justification' would seem to indicate a predilection on your part to ignore what others write unless they are in total agreement with your views -- or worse. That's why I earlier in this thread wrote: "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." I've written along that line in responses to you for a couple of years in several threads and you apparently still cannot accept that I (and many others) are aware that decline is extant and aren't too concerned about it. Several of us have repeatedly acknowledged and agreed with your constant carping about American decline and acknowledged our dysfunction, conditions of which most here seem to be aware but not nearly as concerned about as you appear to be.

You wrote:

The current situation in which the US finds itself is as a result of a massive political leadership failure and accompanying inability to constrain domestic spending.

Yep. Most in this thread have agreed with that, I certainly do and long have and have so written -- so what's your point?

One could almost suspect that your petulant attitude toward that issue is engendered by the mere fact that I and others often state that most, not all, Americans likely do not care what you -- or the rest of the world thinks. Surely that can't be the case...

Or, based on this, maybe it is:

;;;The sheer arrogance of it. The sheer arrogance of people you want to withdraw into isolationism yet still want to be always 'sitting at the top table'.

Yep, we're arrogant (a not unheard of attribute elsewhere in the world...). Frosts your mess gear, huh?

If it is, you probably oughta work on those fixations. For one of your advanced years, I've heard they're unhealthy...

ADDED: Forgot. You might want to re-read Dayuhan's Post number 284. He quite neatly and concisely answers -- skewers -- all your 'points.'

[JMA]

Respectfully declining the position of Sheriff.

Don't blame you... the requirement to be evenhanded can be a real bitch.

[JMA]

Heh. Check that mirror...

You are indeed funny -- and apparently somewhat deluded. You are quite often wrong and usually blatantly deny it. Not a particular problem to me or to this board, it's rather droll but can be mildly entertaining on occasion. Unless of course you're serious as opposed to merely being confrontational for the fun of it...

My being wrong most often is merely in the opinion of some person with a different view.

Ken, sadly you often cross the boundary and demean yourself through displays of blind loyalty to what appears to be standard US opinion (possibly due to some form of misguided subliminal tribal loyalty).

To late to improve on that I guess.

Actually, your constantly taking my quite plain statements of minor facts as 'excuses' or 'justification' would seem to indicate a predilection on your part to ignore what others write unless they are in total agreement with your views -- or worse.

You state this as if this does not happen with monotonous regularity around here. Sadly you also take a one eyed view.

That's why I earlier in this thread wrote: "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.

If it is not... it should be.

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."

Yes it is known US arrogance to flip the rest of the world even after they have really screwed so much up. I say again even if you don't give a damn about what the US has done to the world... maybe you should.

I've written along that line in responses to you for a couple of years in several threads and you apparently still cannot accept that I (and many others) are aware that decline is extant and aren't too concerned about it. Several of us have repeatedly acknowledged and agreed with your constant carping about American decline and acknowledged our dysfunction, conditions of which most here seem to be aware but not nearly as concerned about as you appear to be.

I am certainly entitled to restate my opinion just as those on the non-interventionist fringe do with monotonous regularity. You are surely not telling me that you can't see your one eyed slant in all this?

You wrote:Yep. Most in this thread have agreed with that, I certainly do and long have and have so written -- so what's your point?

Simple. I am stating the obvious. It clearly gets up your nose despite your assurances that you don't give a rats ass. I don't see you correct any of your misguided fellow countrymen when they state idiotically that the cost of these minor interventions is behind the economic woes currently facing the US. Why would that be Ken?

One could almost suspect that your petulant attitude toward that issue is engendered by the mere fact that I and others often state that most, not all, Americans likely do not care what you -- or the rest of the world thinks. Surely that can't be the case...

I suggest you worry less about what I am thinking and concern yourself with more accurately articulating your opinion... and yes... also accepting that your opinion is just that and not necessarily the truth.

Or, based on this, maybe it is:Yep, we're arrogant (a not unheard of attribute elsewhere in the world...). Frosts your mess gear, huh?

...but currently the US and the odd person around such discussion groups set the international standard in arrogance. I guess you just have to learn to live with that .... once again flip the world.

If it is, you probably oughta work on those fixations. For one of your advanced years, I've heard they're unhealthy...

Huh?

ADDED: Forgot. You might want to re-read Dayuhan's Post number 284. He quite neatly and concisely answers -- skewers -- all your 'points.'

LOL ... then that places you way out on the ... fringe with him.

"WW2 would be close" he says and you agree. Sad. Now you understand why I don't waste much of my time on him. Maybe you are getting too much of my time as well.

[J Wolfsberger]

"John McCain: U.S. should bomb Syria"

“Providing military assistance to the Free Syrian Army and other opposition groups is necessary, but at this late hour, that alone will not be sufficient to stop the slaughter and save innocent lives. The only realistic way to do so is with foreign airpower,” McCain, a Vietnam war veteran and the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, will say in a speech on the Senate floor.

He is apparently calling for U.S. led air strikes.

More at "McCain to call for air strikes on Syria"

[ganulv]

"John McCain: U.S. should bomb Syria"

He is apparently calling for U.S. led air strikes.

More at "McCain to call for air strikes on Syria"

Just the law of the instrument as applied by an old pilot.

[Ken White]

My being wrong most often is merely in the opinion of some person with a different view.

I'd say persons, plural...

You state this as if this does not happen with monotonous regularity around here. Sadly you also take a one eyed view.

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

Yes it is known US arrogance to flip the rest of the world even after they have really screwed so much up. I say again even if you don't give a damn about what the US has done to the world... maybe you should.

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.

I am certainly entitled to restate my opinion just as those on the non-interventionist fringe do with monotonous regularity. You are surely not telling me that you can't see your one eyed slant in all this?

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

Simple. I am stating the obvious. It clearly gets up your nose despite your assurances that you don't give a rats ass. I don't see you correct any of your misguided fellow countrymen when they state idiotically that the cost of these minor interventions is behind the economic woes currently facing the US. Why would that be Ken?

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.

I suggest you worry less about what I am thinking and concern yourself with more accurately articulating your opinion... and yes... also accepting that your opinion is just that and not necessarily the truth.

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

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

...but currently the US and the odd person around such discussion groups set the international standard in arrogance. I guess you just have to learn to live with that .... once again flip the world.

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

Huh?

Pay attention...

LOL ... then that places you way out on the ... fringe with him.

Kewel. There's that "fringe" bit again -- I think you might've misplaced it.

"WW2 would be close" he says and you agree. Sad. Now you understand why I don't waste much of my time on him. Maybe you are getting too much of my time as well.

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.

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.

[Dayuhan]

The only realistic way to do so is with foreign airpower

And of course before we put our pilots in harm's way there has to be a full shock-and-awe thing to take out air defenses and command/control... we never learn, I guess.

I just hope common sense prevails somewhere.

[Entropy]

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...

Seems to be arguing about arguing at this point.

[ganulv]

Seems to be arguing about arguing at this point.

The hell you say!

[J Wolfsberger]

Seems to be arguing about arguing at this point.

I am shocked, shocked to find that arguing is going on in here!

[Ken White]

I'm tilting at wind...mills! So there.

[ganulv]

I am shocked, shocked to find that arguing is going on in here!

And by the usual suspects, at that!

[Fuchs]

And by the usual suspects, at that!

I feel superfluous...