Syria: a civil war (closed)

[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?

[Dayuhan]

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.

That may be your opinion, but can you support it? What situation since WW2 can you cite in which US intervention was (your word) required. Not justifiable, advisable, or desirable, but required

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.

I thought initial intervention in Afghanistan was justified and desirable, though not required. Of course it was hopelessly messed up by the transition into "nation building" but that doesn't change my opinion that intervention was in that case justifiable and desirable. So there's one, which takes "simply nothing" out of the picture.

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

Supporting your opinions with evidence and/or reasoning isn't answering to someone's beck and call, it's accepting a fundamental principle of rational discourse. If you're not willing to do that, don't expect anyone to take your opinions seriously.

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 previously wrote:

If I personally believe there should be an intervention in Syria (as I did in Libya) I am entitled to say so.

intervention is necessary and justified

You are entitled to say these things, of course. If you fail to say why you believe these things, don't expect anyone to take the opinions seriously.

Saying you think there should be an intervention in Syria but the US should not be involved is like saying you want to eat beef without a cow being killed.

Tibet 1951?

Or Vietnam '79. If you place China's minimalist history of messing along its borders beside the US history of global projection, though, what do you see? Do note, as well, that during China's surge in global presence and influence over the last 20 years there have been no military interventions, suggesting that intervention is not in any way necessary for a nation to gain global influence and prominence.

Unless you're prepared to cite some sort of evidence and reasoning to support the point, I don't think you can reasonably argue that the US is declining because it has not conducted enough interventions abroad, or that failing to intervene in any case has hastened or will hasten its decline. If you're going to link decline to overseas intervention, that opinion has to be supported if you want anyone to take it seriously.

So you missed the main issue with Libya then?

The "main issue" for who? MG is gone and the US isn't responsible for the inevitably messy aftermath. Goals achieved. Where's the "debacle"?

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

I suspect and hope that the US administration will take its cue from the 56% of odd bod US voters who don't want intervention in Libya. The world will make of this what it will, as always.

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

I'm sure that even those who agree with you, were there any, would be interested in hearing the reasoning and evidence behind your opinions.

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

I suggest that you've tossed out an unsupportable opinion and are declining to support it because you can't.

Fight? Can fear only be linked to a fight?

What else would there be to fear?

That's your opinion

Yes, it is. Look at the poll numbers cited earlier: 56% of surveyed voters "say the United States should leave the situation in Syria alone". Do you think that American politicians in an election year are going to ignore that? Don't you think that figure poses a more immediate and potent restraint on the temptation to intervene than some imaginary connection to Russia or China? If you think not, please say why.

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?

A cause, not the cause. One among many.

Look at your own words:

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.

If domestic spending is an issue, than overseas spending has to be an issue also: spending is spending, and domestic spending has at least some residual economic benefit. The money spent on Iraq, Afghanistan, and the means required to prepare for additional such prospective escapades is not the sole cause of the US spending problem, but it's in no way chump change, return on investment has been minimal to nonexistent, and if spending is a problem this has to be part of it. On the ledger a dollar spent in Iraq is no different than a dollar to a welfare recipient in Detroit, except that the Detroit dollar is re-spent in the domestic economy and most of the the Iraq dollar isn't.

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

If you believe that "intervention in Syria, or anywhere else, would put the US in a better position", why won't you tell us why? If there's no point in discussing matters with those who disagree, this place will get very quiet very quickly. Surely you cannot expect people to entertain your opinions if you're not prepared to reveal the reasons why you hold those opinions.

[JMA]

If you believe that "intervention in Syria, or anywhere else, would put the US in a better position", why won't you tell us why? If there's no point in discussing matters with those who disagree, this place will get very quiet very quickly. Surely you cannot expect people to entertain your opinions if you're not prepared to reveal the reasons why you hold those opinions.

I am ignoring the majority of your post because your are obviously looking for someone to argue with... and I'm not taking the bait.

I have told you on a few occasions that you lack comprehension skills and this is once again evident in the final piece of your post (quoted above).

My position on Syria is simple...

I would support intervention in Syria (for much the same reasons I did for Libya) but would not support that intervention being carried out by the US (due to their extremely poor record with such interventions) neither would I support arming the opposition (for much the same reasons I stated for Libya).

That said... now go find someone else to play with.

[Dayuhan]

I would support intervention in Syria (for much the same reasons I did for Libya) but would not support that intervention being carried out by the US

So who do you think should do it, or is that also destined to remain a mystery?

If you insist on presenting strongly worded opinions, expect people to ask you to support those opinions with evidence or reasoning. That's not being argumentative, it's an established convention of rational discourse. It may be awkward, especially if you can't support the opinions with evidence or reasoning, but that's not the fault of those asking you to support your opinions.

Regarding this...

If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way.

There was a time (we were all young once) when I was a great advocate of humanitarian intervention... of course nobody cared or listened, but I believed. Most Americans raised in liberal progressive environments have that cultivated instinct to help. It was only with the passage of time, and some painful scrutiny of a rather large body of evidence, that this instinct was gradually replaced by a much more restrained set of opinions.

Most of us have changed our minds on something, at some time.

[JMA]

So who do you think should do it, or is that also destined to remain a mystery?

If you insist on presenting strongly worded opinions, expect people to ask you to support those opinions with evidence or reasoning. That's not being argumentative, it's an established convention of rational discourse. It may be awkward, especially if you can't support the opinions with evidence or reasoning, but that's not the fault of those asking you to support your opinions.

Regarding this...

There was a time (we were all young once) when I was a great advocate of humanitarian intervention... of course nobody cared or listened, but I believed. Most Americans raised in liberal progressive environments have that cultivated instinct to help. It was only with the passage of time, and some painful scrutiny of a rather large body of evidence, that this instinct was gradually replaced by a much more restrained set of opinions.

Most of us have changed our minds on something, at some time.

Yes we were all young once... and some of us were soldiers too... now listen to me... go find someone else to play with!

[Dayuhan]

now listen to me... go find someone else to play with!

You'll want to recover that phlegmatic disposition long enough to recall that you don't give orders 'round here.

You've expressed certain opinions that need to be supported to be taken seriously. It's up to you to support them, is it not? If you're not willing to do that, why should you be ordering anyone else to listen to you?

[JMA]

You'll want to recover that phlegmatic disposition long enough to recall that you don't give orders 'round here.

Last time I said something like that to someone I got suspended.

You've expressed certain opinions that need to be supported to be taken seriously. It's up to you to support them, is it not? If you're not willing to do that, why should you be ordering anyone else to listen to you?

Let me help you here.

I am obviously different from the emotionally fragile USians of your generation and younger.

I am happy to be taken seriously by people I care about. I am not driven (it should be obvious by now) to attempt to seek acceptance by people I don't know and will never get to know and really don't need to know.

This discussion group is interesting and I have learned much here... but it gets trying when people without even rudimentary knowledge of the military speak as if they do. Always better to stay within the bounds of your expertise which in your case is what?

[Fuchs]

The Israelis are "not suitable" for an intervention in Syria.

The Turks would possibly face imperialism rumours, as if they wanted to re-establish the Ottoman Empire.

The French would have no entry point, and their expeditionary forces would have troubles with the quite heavily-armed Syrian army. Their only option would be air strikes from the CdG (if the ship is operational at the time; dunno), but that wouldn't be much. Alternatively they might be allowed to use Cyprus as base for AdA strikes.

Same for the British; they couldn't do more than Cyprus allows.

Russia has rather been a supporter of Syria and will certainly not intervene.

Saudi-Arabia is an absolute monarchy that's more interested in getting over with the Arab Spring and the secular Syrian baathists than in protecting the Syrian people.

Jordan is too weak for intervention.

Iraq is too weak for intervention.

Lebanon isn't even strong enough to ward off Syrian influence domestically.

Italy and Spain have no significantly better intervention potential than the UK.



So who should in your opinion intervene? The Americans were the only ones crazy enough to sink trillions of dollars in the ability to beat up a medium-sized, very distant country that has a large and obsolete military.

[JMA]

So who should in your opinion intervene? The Americans were the only ones crazy enough to sink trillions of dollars in the ability to beat up a medium-sized, very distant country that has a large and obsolete military.

Good summary.

Most can't while those who could either won't or should not.

How does this, if at all, detract from the need curb the excesses of the Assad regime?

[Fuchs]

Good summary.

Most can't while those who could either won't or should not.

How does this, if at all, detract from the need curb the excesses of the Assad regime?

Which need?

3,000 people died in inter-tribal violence in province Pibor, South Sudan, at the beginning of this year. We didn't even notice, much less did a Western public discuss the prospect of intervention.

Why is there a need for action in Syria, but not in other places?

Looks to me as if it's not a need, but a personal preference.
The Syrians are having a civil war. I can resist the urge for calling for an involvement.

[J Wolfsberger]

Which need?

3,000 people died in inter-tribal violence in province Pibor, South Sudan, at the beginning of this year. We didn't even notice, much less did a Western public discuss the prospect of intervention.

Why is there a need for action in Syria, but not in other places?

Looks to me as if it's not a need, but a personal preference.
The Syrians are having a civil war. I can resist the urge for calling for an involvement.

And as Rod Liddle pointed out, by asking an obviously rhetorical question, we know very little about who the people in rebellion really are, while we know a great deal about Assad, the Ba'ath Party, the Alawite minority in power, and so on. If events in Egypt and Libya are any indication, regardless of the current gush-gush over the insurgents in many quarters, only the hard core, radical Islamist groups have sufficient organization, resources and clarity of goals to shape the end state after the overthrow of the the Assad regime. The rest will be sidelined.

At least for the present, the situation seems to be that the Arab League would like somebody to intervene, so that the "somebody" will be the bad guy rather than them. Otherwise, those Saudi and Jordanian aircraft, tanks and infantry would already be on the scene.

Meanwhile, the choosing of sides is leading to a rift between Hamas and Iran - which I think most rational people would consider a Good Thing.

I'm with you, Fuchs. Resisting the temptation to intervene is proving very easy.

[JMA]

Which need?

3,000 people died in inter-tribal violence in province Pibor, South Sudan, at the beginning of this year. We didn't even notice, much less did a Western public discuss the prospect of intervention.

Why is there a need for action in Syria, but not in other places?

Looks to me as if it's not a need, but a personal preference.
The Syrians are having a civil war. I can resist the urge for calling for an involvement.

I see where you are coming from... but I did not say intervention in other areas/places is not needed. This is a thread about Syria, we are talking about Syria.

Would you agree that there are scales of potential involvement/intervention?

[jmm99]

If Turkey were to proceed with a conventional armed intervention - a 1 on 1 with Syria with full commitment of military forces by both states, who would win ?

No US-NATO support of any kind for the Turks; and Russia and China stay out of it completely (other than making noises about "aggressive war", etc.).

Regards

Mike

PS: This headline from TZ, ‘Turkey seeks parliamentary authorization to avert Syrian threat’ (7 Mar 2012), is seriously misleading because Davutoğlu speaks throughout in the conditional.

[JMA]

... a conventional armed intervention - a 1 on 1 with Syria with full commitment of military forces by both states, ...

Why would there be a need for an intervention on this scale?

Can you put your finger on where the problem lies?

[Dayuhan]

Why would there be a need for an intervention on this scale?

Realistically, do you think Assad, his military forces, and his substantial base of civilian support are going to disappear or give up in the face of anything less than an intervention on that scale? Surely you don't really believe that they will tuck their tails between their legs and submit to a foreign will simply because somebody fires a few cruise missiles at them...