Syria: a civil war (closed)

[J Wolfsberger]

Those that failed to demonstrate a phlegmatic disposition would be sent on their way.

So, is your characterization of the U.S. as a vacillating, dysfunctional, cowardly, declining empire evidence of your "phlegmatic disposition?" Or perhaps the ad hominems tossed off at Bob and Dayuhan?

Let me try and summarize: You think the U.S. should intervene in Syria, and seem to recognize that such would have to be military. The rest of us believe it would be pointless to do so. You disagree, strongly.

You have yet to make any strong case for why the U.S. should take up that burden, the cost to us, what the likely outcome will be in Syria, what the consequences might be for the U.S., what the domestic and international blow-back will be, etc.

State your case, absent the ad hominems, and let's see where it goes.

[Ken White]

...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...

We have known knowns, unknown knowns...

Some familiarity with the region and its peoples and with the US and its people leads me to not discount the neighbors but to place them in minor impediment rather than deterrent status. Similarly, some time observing the US and its actions in the world as well as those of China and Russia leads me to place them as significant impediments but -- even collectively -- not as total deterrents. Not even, not ever...

We do what we think we need to do and have always done so. If anything, we are way too prone to act precipitously and / or to over do things, not back off or fail to act.

Of course, it occasionally takes an inordinate amount of time to get ourselves in gear...

[Surferbeetle]

Posted by Ken White: We have known knowns, unknown knowns...

…and we all go to war with what we have

Everybody,

I am going to take a quick look at recent and upcoming elections among Syria, Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Lebanon, Iraq, Russia, China, France, the USA…I wanna keep things simple ha.

It’s a statement of the obvious that democracies, monarchies, theocracies, single-party republics, kleptocracies, dictatorships, etc. all rely on the will of the people since there are more people than there are ‘leaders’ in charge. 2012 is a volatile one with respect to elections and the tone and tenor of respective populaces, which drive this expression of national will and desire. Syria (a single party state), believe it or not held local elections in Dec of 2011, held a Presidential Referendum in 2007, and will hold another in 2014. (1) (2) (3). Israel will hold Parliamentary Elections in 2013 and Presidential ones in 2014. (3) (4) Turkey held Parliamentary Elections in June of 2011 and will hold Presidential Elections in 2014. (3) (4) Saudi Arabia, although a monarchy, held legislative elections in September of 2011. (3) Iran held Parliamentary Elections on March 2012 (the count is still coming in) and Presidential Elections are scheduled for June 2013. (3) (4) Lebanon holds Parliamentary Elections in 2013 and Presidential ones in 2014. (3) Iraq, ah Iraq, is scheduled for Parliamentary Elections in 2014. (3) (4) Russia held Parliamentary Elections in December of 2011 and held Presidential Elections on March 4, 2012. (3) (4) China uses direct elections for village councils and the local Peoples Congress, while indirect elections are used by the People’s Congress. (5) Hu Jintao is the current Paramount Leader and will be succeded by Xi Jinping in 2013. (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) France holds it’s first round of Presidential Elections on April 22, 2012 and the second round in May 6, 2012. (3) (4) The USA holds Legislative and Presidential Elections November 6, 2012. Given the ferment that the world is currently in, it would seem to me that a long-term war would mostly likely be politically costly (in a negative sense) while a raid might be politically beneficial given the right set of circumstances. Keep in mind that 'good' politics does not necessarily translate to success on the battlefield.

Another statement of the blinding obvious - key personalities, someone once said history is written by key personalities by the way, to watch might include the formal and informal leaders among Syria, Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Lebanon, Iraq, Russia, China, France, the USA...wish SWJ had a matrix function for posts so that we could run some breakouts to include perceived constraints and motivators... The concept of permutations might bear also review at this point.

And for JMA…South African Parliamentary and Presidential elections are scheduled for 2014.

1. Elections in Syria, Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_in_Syria
2. Syria unrest: Local elections held despite fighting, BBC News, 12 December 2011 Last updated at 15:29 ET, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-16135298
3. Election Guide, http://www.electionguide.org/
4. The World in 2012, The Economist, http://www.economist.com/theworldin/2012
5. Elections in the People’s Republic of China, Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electio...ublic_of_China
6. Paramount Leader, Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paramount_leader
7. Hu Jintao, Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hu_Jintao
8. Xi Jinping, Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xi_Jinping

Maybe later I’ll take a quick look at national import and export destinations among the same countries…

[JMA]

So, is your characterization of the U.S. as a vacillating, dysfunctional, cowardly, declining empire evidence of your "phlegmatic disposition?" Or perhaps the ad hominems tossed off at Bob and Dayuhan?

Pure nonsense. Yes ad hominems seems to work only in one direction around here... I keep forgetting.

What is it about an absence of a phlegmatic disposition being a disqualifying factor in officer selection do you not understand?

Let me try and summarize: You think the U.S. should intervene in Syria, and seem to recognize that such would have to be military. The rest of us believe it would be pointless to do so. You disagree, strongly.

No... Read my posts before you misrepresent my position.

You have yet to make any strong case for why the U.S. should take up that burden, the cost to us, what the likely outcome will be in Syria, what the consequences might be for the U.S., what the domestic and international blow-back will be, etc.

Again you really need to read my posts before you shoot from the hip.

I am saying that while intervention is necessary and justified the US should not intervene because (of political and senior military ineptitude) such intervention will end in tears (and the unnecessary loss of soldiers lives).

State your case, absent the ad hominems, and let's see where it goes.

I have long since ceased to take orders from people and certainly from those who have no authority over me.

[JMA]

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.

Given that the chances of a successful intervention by the US is close to zero your questions are worth asking.

I suggest the first questions that need to be answered is wether intervention is necessary and can be justified.

The likelihood of a failed US intervention (if attempted) would not detract from such a justifiable need... IMHO

[Dayuhan]

I suggest the first questions that need to be answered is wether intervention is necessary and can be justified.

So answer it... why exactly do you think that intervention is "necessary and can be justified" for any potential intervening power?

The likelihood of a failed US intervention (if attempted) would not detract from such a justifiable need... IMHO

The probability of unintended adverse outcomes and reasonable assessment of the capacities of the proposed intervening power are a necessary part of any effort to justify intervention, are they not? Why would anyone want to intervene in a situation where the probability of an advantageous outcome at an acceptable cost is low and the probability of a disadvantageous outcome and/or unacceptable cost is high?

You can't have an intervention without an intervening party, and the internal interests, constraints, capacities and motivation of the proposed intervening party have to be included in any discussion of intervention, otherwise the discussion is completely irrelevant.

[JMA]

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

Pointless to justify the poor record of the US on the basis that everyone is equally incompetent, yes?

[JMA]

So answer it... why exactly do you think that intervention is "necessary and can be justified" for any potential intervening power?

The probability of unintended adverse outcomes and reasonable assessment of the capacities of the proposed intervening power are a necessary part of any effort to justify intervention, are they not? Why would anyone want to intervene in a situation where the probability of an advantageous outcome at an acceptable cost is low and the probability of a disadvantageous outcome and/or unacceptable cost is high?

You can't have an intervention without an intervening party, and the internal interests, constraints, capacities and motivation of the proposed intervening party have to be included in any discussion of intervention, otherwise the discussion is completely irrelevant.

I'm afraid you are merely being argumentative (probably for the sake of it)... Answer your own questions

[Dayuhan]

Answer your own questions

The question in question was yours, I believe:

I suggest the first questions that need to be answered is wether intervention is necessary and can be justified.

You asked it, why don't you answer it?

Pointless to justify the poor record of the US on the basis that everyone is equally incompetent, yes?

The historical record suggests that intervention in the internal affairs of others is for the most part is a nasty, pointless, and counterproductive business... what has "incompetence" got to do with that? Have we had any reason to believe that there was some magically "competent" recipe that would suddenly make such intervention something other than what it's always been? If so, where is the empirical evidence that any such recipe exists?

If "competence" assured successful interventions at acceptable cost, surely there should be more examples of such interventions around...

[Ken White]

Pointless to justify the poor record of the US on the basis that everyone is equally incompetent, yes?

No justification intended or needed, just correcting another of your errors.

Again you really need to read my posts before you shoot from the hip.

You wrote that above. Physician, heal thyself...

[Entropy]

I suggest the first questions that need to be answered is wether intervention is necessary and can be justified.

Necessary for what and necessary for whom?

Justified by what criteria and justified for whom?

Pretty much anything can be deemed "necessary and justified" depending on perspective and circumstance. Asking whether it is justified or not is pretty much meaningless without knowing the details and assumptions behind the proposal. Additionally, there's no additional context regarding what "intervention" means exactly? Is it arming rebels? "Humanitarian" corridors? No-fly zones? Unlimited air support for the rebels? (BTW, which rebels?) A ground invasion? Some combination? What is the political goal for the intervention?

There are millions of combinations. I think I could come up with some combination of circumstances that I think would make a US intervention both necessary and justified. That's a fun game, but looking at actual circumstances in the present tense I don't think intervention by the US is either necessary or justified when compared to the costs and risks of intervention. The most I'd be willing to do at this point is assist the rebels.

I'm willing to change my mind, however. The problem is that you haven't presented anything beyond vague notions of doing something along with concern trolling about US impotence. It's easy to declare something necessary, justified and achievable and you've proven yourself quite capable of making such declarations. I can do that too. It's a bit more challenging to develop an actual strategy, much less operationalize it. So here's your opportunity to present your plan to make things right in Syria, however you define it. Doesn't have to be too detailed. Ann-Marie Slaughter did it in about 800 words in the New York Times a few days ago. Should be easy for you in half that. Hell, even a broad outline would be something.

[J Wolfsberger]

I'm afraid you are merely being argumentative (probably for the sake of it)... Answer your own questions

Speaking of which ...

Either you haven't gotten the point of a great many of our responses because you don't understand English particularly well, in which I suggest you work on your language comprehension skills, or you're "... merely being argumentative (probably for the sake of it) ..."

Pick one.

[jmm99]

A person of phlegmatic disposition who is a blockhead, would, with a sanguine nature, be a fool.

LINK

Entropy: In response to Anne-Marie Slaughter, I'd go with Gian Gentile's measured counter-point. Peter Munson reaches the same result as Gian - though with more hyperbole.

Regards

Mike

[Dayuhan]

A person of phlegmatic disposition who is a blockhead, would, with a sanguine nature, be a fool.

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.

[Watcher In The Middle]

Been a while...

I have a couple of dumb observations regarding Syria...but I would appreciate feedback on what I'm missing.

First off, it appears that Syria has put what might of been a developing relationship between Turkey and Iran 'on the rocks', with little hope of re-floating that particular vessel. I'd much rather see the development of a negative relationship between those two nations, rather than have the US jump in with our usual bumbling technique and give the Iranians an opportunity of having another player to manipulate.

Secondly, if the US jumped in, you know the "Dupe of Israel" card is going to get played. So why go there? Which leads directly into the next point...

Third, you have to take into account the US appetite for intervention. It's not there. And this viewpoint isn't current Administration driven. The current US economics, and gas prices, and all the other economic issues are just not going to allow for another foreign adventure. And that looks to be from just about any of the different major political viewpoints.

Lastly, Syria looks like sort of a blindfolded poker game being played in total darkness on a moonless night (NVG is fine, but it has it's limitations). When it's unclear as to the cards being dealt, and even who the other players are, why would you want to play? I see too many other nations (and smart money players among them) who are shying away from jumping into the Syria 'situation', so what would ever possess us to jump in?

If a Syrian 'Intervention' is going to be pushed, it's going to have to be one of the more unbelievable "Sell Jobs" to the American people in the last 20-30 years. Just don't see it happening.

[JMA]

Speaking of which ...

Either you haven't gotten the point of a great many of our responses because you don't understand English particularly well, in which I suggest you work on your language comprehension skills, or you're "... merely being argumentative (probably for the sake of it) ..."

Pick one.

I'll just ignore this post from you... you have now descended to the level of D

[JMA]

The question in question was yours, I believe:

You asked it, why don't you answer it?

That question was what I see as the basic consideration for intervention.

Since you have a position where no intervention by the US can be considered there little point in discussing the matter with you.

I am in agreement with you that the US should not intervene in Syria... Perhaps for different reasons.

[JMA]

No justification intended or needed, just correcting another of your errors. You wrote that above. Physician, heal thyself...

Nothing wrong on my side. 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.

[JMA]

Necessary for what and necessary for whom?

You are getting ahead of yourself (with some command and staff training you will come to realize that there is a question you need to answer before you get onto those two).

Surprise me.

[Dayuhan]

Since you have a position where no intervention by the US can be considered there little point in discussing the matter with you.

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.

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.

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.