Syria: a civil war (closed)

[jcustis]

"Dayuhan, my good friend Barack told me he was reading some superb stuff from this guy who understood the zen of the bicycle, and I had to take a peak. My good brother, it would seem you have won this debate handily, and can turn your hand to other things.

Bothering with those who have become irrelevant to the discussion is sort of like that one hand clapping thing..." Best regards, your homie DL

[TheCurmudgeon]

The Syrian/Iranian narrative that the events in Syria are not the result of internal discontent but the result of external meddling:

As Syria’s international isolation has grown, Western nations have accused Iran of continuing to provide Mr. Assad’s government with weapons and other support. Russia, which has said it has suspended weapons sales to Syria, remains Mr. Assad’s staunchest defender, blocking international efforts to remove him from power.

On the other side, Saudi Arabia and Qatar have led an effort to arm Mr. Assad’s opponents. Turkey is said to have allowed weapons to move over its border, and United States intelligence officials have helped select the recipients, according to American officials.

Mr. Moallem played down the domestic opposition to his government, saying that despite the “plot” by those countries — led, he said, by Israel — Syria did not need foreign help to defend itself.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/wo...html?ref=world

Even though the events may have started as an internal struggle, outsiders see this as an opportunity to advance their own agendas.

The commander in Saraqib said that when he invited jihadists into his military council, they rejected several proposed names for the expanded group that included references to Syria. “They consider the entire world the Muslim homeland, so they refused any national, Syrian name,” he said.

The attitude prompts grumbling from fighters used to the gentler Islam long prevalent in Syria. Adel, a media activist from Idlib interviewed in Antakya, Turkey, in June, complained that “the Islamic current has broken into the heart of this revolution.” When a Muslim Brotherhood member joined his group in Idlib, he said, inside of a week the man demanded that the slogans that they shouted all included, “There is no god but God.”

“Now there are more religious chants than secular ones,” Adel groused.

Behind the surface tussling over symbols lies a fight for power and influence. Those attacking the government in the name of religion want more say, while those who preceded them want to limit their role. As in Iraq, the longer the fight, the more extremists will likely emerge.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/wo...er=rss&emc=rss

So now the pieces are in place for this proxy war to become a direct fight between different parties, like the Iranians, the Israelis, or the Saudis although I have to admit I do not see it moving beyond the borders of Syria unless an outside actor, like Iran or Israel, takes a direct, overt role. Even with that It is hard to tell. Vietnam remained largely an internal struggle for years even though the external players came and went.

Just keeps getting better...

[davidbfpo]

An open source analysis by SIPRI; halfway through changes to EU diplomacy, who paid for this research by two IISS analysts and another.

Link:http://www.sipri.org/research/disarm...ation-paper-20

Added. A RAND commentary, note it covers safeguarding and disposal:http://www.rand.org/commentary/2012/07/25/GS.html

[JMA]

"Dayuhan, my good friend Barack told me he was reading some superb stuff from this guy who understood the zen of the bicycle, and I had to take a peak. My good brother, it would seem you have won this debate handily, and can turn your hand to other things.

Bothering with those who have become irrelevant to the discussion is sort of like that one hand clapping thing..." Best regards, your homie DL

when I read this post it reminded me of this:



Nothing personal... just think you should improve your input

[JMA]

The US is not the only country involved in meddling, or diplomacy, or aid, or whatever you want to call it.
...

Everyone with the capability meddles in order to protect their own interests.

We have the same failings as everyone else; we NEED to have the events fall into a narrative that supports our national identity. We should be smarter than that, but we are as human as the next meddler.

Let me share with you the general consensus among those looking at the US from outside (as best I can tell).

Policy wise the US is seen as bipolar. Even people who would like to be friends and allies of the US shake their heads in disbelief at the wild vacillations in foreign policy most often to the detriment of one time allies. Being supported by the US in a FID is almost certainly "the kiss of death".

The main difference is that the meddling of the US is consistently a failure - as the people in third world countries will mockingly tell you - which is terribly sad.

Yes indeed the US should be smarter in it foreign affairs.

[Wyatt]

Let me share with you the general consensus among those looking at the US from outside (as best I can tell).

Policy wise the US is seen as bipolar. Even people who would like to be friends and allies of the US shake their heads in disbelief at the wild vacillations in foreign policy most often to the detriment of one time allies. Being supported by the US in a FID is almost certainly "the kiss of death".

The main difference is that the meddling of the US is consistently a failure - as the people in third world countries will mockingly tell you - which is terribly sad.

Yes indeed the US should be smarter in it foreign affairs.

Colombia, Jordan and the Philippines seem pretty happy about the JCETs they get.

A scattered foreign policy is going to happen when domestic policy takes the top spot in a 4 year election cycle. We learned from our mistakes on that one and managed to keep our country together. that seems like something you could relate to...

[JMA]

I'll leave that to those who advocate intervention, and who thus need to explain what exactly they advocate, what resources it will require, and what they expect it to accomplish.

Sadly it appears that you do not understand the meaning of the word "intervention". Your narrow focus is upon intervention of a military nature.

We seem to be in agreement that under no circumstances should the US attempt military intervention in Syria. You for hitherto unstated reasons and me for the simple fact that it will be yet another cock-up.

Non-intervention IMO requires no justification.

LOL... of course you would say that, otherwise you may be required to state your case openly and clearly. Now that appears to be something you are attempting to avoid at all costs.

In the absence of compelling national interests and viable options, it's the only reasonable course.

We have been through this 1,000 times before... who gets to decide what is in the US national interest. Only one person... the President of the USA. Yet time and time again we get the smart guys who believe that they are somehow able to decide what is in the US national interest.

The compelling interests and viable options need to be specified clearly before intervention is considered. Intervention does need to be justified - given the cost and risk it needs to be very well justified - and the onus is on those who think intervention is or was a desirable option to explain what they think should (or should have been) done and what they think it might have accomplished.

The current US meddling in Syria is intervention (of a non military nature at best or military intervention through the supply of arms through proxies at worst). This intervention as it is happening needs to be explained as much as those who advocate military intervention need to.

On the other extreme - seemingly your position - the non intervention at any cost needs to be explained and justified given the repercussions for the region of a Syrian collapse.

It's not as if there was ever some easy and obvious solution; we all know these situations are not at any stage going to be resolved by firing off a few cruise missiles.

Well I seem to have seen that the carefully targeted use of some HE was the game changer. Maybe you missed that?

I'm sure there's been a continuing stream of studies on potential outcomes and potential options. Given the domestic political environment they would have to be very convincing to be even considered, and it's not surprising that none have been adopted. I'm sure there are options for security of WMDs and other systems on the table, though I doubt that anyone here has enough information to support more than very general speculation on what those options might be.

You are just waffling now.

As a personal opinion... I hate the idea, but I could see how a very limited operation to secure, remove, or destroy WMD or other weapons systems might be desirable in an extreme case. There would have to be a very clear mandate and a very clear insistence that it not transmute into efforts at "nation-building" or "stabilization". Again, opinion.

Progress at last!

See its not so hard. Now try to expand your opinion piece to 500-600 words and take your chances with those are want wait to ambush thoses who dare to express their opinions fully.

(going to skip the rest as there is no substance there)

[JMA]

A scattered foreign policy is going to happen when domestic policy takes the top spot in a 4 year election cycle. We learned from our mistakes on that one and managed to keep our country together. that seems like something you could relate to...

That's my point. In focussing on the domestic public opinion the US leaves a trail of disaster around the world.

Its not a military problem, its a foreign policy problem.

[TheCurmudgeon]

Let me share with you the general consensus among those looking at the US from outside (as best I can tell).

Policy wise the US is seen as bipolar. Even people who would like to be friends and allies of the US shake their heads in disbelief at the wild vacillations in foreign policy most often to the detriment of one time allies. Being supported by the US in a FID is almost certainly "the kiss of death".

... two comments.

First, "general consensus among those looking at the US from outside" suffers from the same problem as the US has looking at them from the outside; a lack of cultural, historical, and political understanding. What seems to others to be bipolar makes complete sense to an American (despite the fact that it really might make no sense at all).

Second, Wyatt is right - America has a political shift every few years. It is the nature of our system. Plus democracies suffer from the whims of public opinion. We are not just bipolar, we are multi-polar sometimes to the point of being schizophrenic .

The main difference is that the meddling of the US is consistently a failure - as the people in third world countries will mockingly tell you - which is terribly sad.

Again, I agree with Wyatt. We have had successes. More correctly, we have assisted others in their successes. I will go out on a limb and make a dangerously wild generalization; the closer the country involved is to the US economically and culturally the more likely we are to understand and be able to assist. It would take a lot of work to verify this, and I am a lazy American so...

In any case, we are not perfect. Hopefully we at least learn from our mistakes.

[JMA]

... two comments.

First, "general consensus among those looking at the US from outside" suffers from the same problem as the US has looking at them from the outside; a lack of cultural, historical, and political understanding. What seems to others to be bipolar makes complete sense to an American (despite the fact that it really might make no sense at all).

Second, Wyatt is right - America has a political shift every few years. It is the nature of our system. Plus democracies suffer from the whims of public opinion. We are not just bipolar, we are multi-polar sometimes to the point of being schizophrenic .

I would suggest that one needs to look at the trail of disaster these politically inspired - sometimes of a military nature - interventions have left in their wake. It is the end result that counts and not the reasons why.

Everyone and every country has its problems but it is because the US has the ability to intervene militarily or merely diplomatically on a grand scale that the failures most often result in a massive human and material cost.

The US really needs to take responsibility for its actions and make less excuses.

Again, I agree with Wyatt. We have had successes. More correctly, we have assisted others in their successes. I will go out on a limb and make a dangerously wild generalization; the closer the country involved is to the US economically and culturally the more likely we are to understand and be able to assist. It would take a lot of work to verify this, and I am a lazy American so...

In any case, we are not perfect. Hopefully we at least learn from our mistakes.

Nobody's perfect but it seems the US is slow to accept that the cost of these imperfections is transfered onto populations they initially attempted to help and then abandoned when the going got tough.

[jcustis]

See its not so hard. Now try to expand your opinion piece to 500-600 words and take your chances with those are want wait to ambush thoses who dare to express their opinions fully.

You get ambushed largely because you whine too much and, as SFAT described, are boring.

You still haven't offered the JMA option for Syria have you, yet everone else is buggering it up eh?

Steve, don't waste your time, it's a trap.

[TheCurmudgeon]

Is Assad and his Alawite supporters setting themselves up for the long fight.

On the other hand, says military analyst Jensen, the regime would make such a fallback decision in a time of desperation, and economic concerns wouldn't matter. He also says Russia would still have access to the port at Tartous, and Iran would still be able to project its influence in the region, especially if Assad brings enough firepower with him to the mountains.

"I would expect to see some consolidation — and you're already seeing some reporting of this," Jensen says, referring to chemical and biological weapons stockpiles, as well as movement of mobile launchers used to fire Scud missiles.

"Once you take those and haul yourself up along the coast in the mountains, you still have the threat to Israel, that's beneficial to Iran; you still have an ability to influence events in Lebanon — but not as much," Jensen says. "So that's what Iran loses if they fall back there, but it still is better than nothing."

http://www.tristatesradio.com/post/a...yrias-alawites

[ganulv]

On the other hand, says military analyst Jensen, the regime would make such a fallback decision in a time of desperation, and economic concerns wouldn't matter. He also says Russia would still have access to the port at Tartous, and Iran would still be able to project its influence in the region, especially if Assad brings enough firepower with him to the mountains.

The Alpine Fortress would seem a good bet if a government were trying to survive a zombie apocalypse. But it would seem a less good bet if a government were trying to outlast an opponent with friends with satellite intelligence they might be willing to pass along.

If the Assads were to be interested in going the well-regulated militia route they have friends who would be able to help out with that. They would seem an awfully hard sell given their penchant for centralization, of course.

[Dayuhan]

Sadly it appears that you do not understand the meaning of the word "intervention". Your narrow focus is upon intervention of a military nature.

Not at all. Any non-military option placed on the table should be considered. Have any attractive non-military options for intervention in Syria been tabled?

We seem to be in agreement that under no circumstances should the US attempt military intervention in Syria. You for hitherto unstated reasons and me for the simple fact that it will be yet another cock-up.

Intervening without any compelling national interest at stake and without any viable plan for intervention would certainly be a "cock-up". That's why I would not want to see any intervention take place. Since no viable plan for intervention has at any point been proposed, it's pretty difficult to suggest that there was ever a window of opportunity for intervention, by anyone.

LOL... of course you would say that, otherwise you may be required to state your case openly and clearly. Now that appears to be something you are attempting to avoid at all costs.

It's been stated openly, clearly, and repeatedly.

Non-intervention should - IMO must - be the default response to any international issue. That's common sense and it's so obvious I can't see any need to justify it. That default can be overridden if there is a compelling national interest at stake, and if there's a viable plan for intervention available, meaning a plan with a clear, concrete, limited objectives, reasonable prospects for success with the resources and within the time the intervening party is willing to commit, and without excessive risk of adverse unintended consequences.

If the compelling national interest and the viable plan can't be clearly demonstrated by those who advocate intervention, there's no reason to even begin discussing intervention.

In the case of Syria, neither the compelling national interest nor the viable plan have been credibly presented by anyone, hence my opinion that intervention should not be and should not at any point have been considered.

Is it really that hard to understand?

We have been through this 1,000 times before... who gets to decide what is in the US national interest. Only one person... the President of the USA.

Not he case at all. If you think the President of the USA can make that determination unilaterally, you really don't know much about US politics.

Obviously there's considerable debate over what the US national interest at any point is. Since nobody, anywhere, has ever made anything approaching a credible case that intervention in Syria would serve a compelling national interest, I think it's fairly safe to say that it's a decided issue. Stating that intervention has close to zero support among Americans is not an attempt to speak for the American people, it's a simple statement of what anyone paying attention to US domestic politics already knows to be true.

The current US meddling in Syria is intervention (of a non military nature at best or military intervention through the supply of arms through proxies at worst). This intervention as it is happening needs to be explained as much as those who advocate military intervention need to.

The Saudis and Qataris are not acting as US proxies. They are acting according to their own perception of their own interests, and the US is not in a position to restrain them. They do what they want to do.

On the other extreme - seemingly your position - the non intervention at any cost needs to be explained and justified given the repercussions for the region of a Syrian collapse.

I said nothing about "non-intervention at any cost". I said that intervention should not be contemplated in the absence of a compelling national interest and a viable intervention plan, neither of which have been presented anywhere that I've seen. I have yet to see the alleged repercussions delineated in any specific way. In any event the possible costs of those repercussions would have to be weighed against the probable cost of any intervention proposed to avoid them, which is hard to do without any even remotely viable plan for intervention on the table.

Well I seem to have seen that the carefully targeted use of some HE was the game changer. Maybe you missed that?

You can change the game, but that doesn't mean you can control where it goes once you've changed it... and once you've changed it you've become a player in the game.

Surely you're not still clinging to the vapid notion that all this could have been averted by tossing a few cruise missiles around...

See its not so hard. Now try to expand your opinion piece to 500-600 words and take your chances with those are want wait to ambush thoses who dare to express their opinions fully.

I see no need to repeat myself.

Anyone who accuses others of incompetence without explaining what they think could or should have been done is not expressing their opinion fully, and not saying anything of substance.

[Dayuhan]

Being supported by the US in a FID is almost certainly "the kiss of death".

Not actually the case. As has been discussed in various FID threads, there have been quite a few FID successes, generally in cases where the government being supported has substantial capacity of its own and where the FID effort is correspondingly of limited scope.

The grand-scale "FID" efforts that involve installation of governments or support for governments that have effectively ceased to exist in any functional form have generally failed. I don't think that's because the US did them wrong, I think that's because the US should never have gotten involved in those efforts in the first place. I can't see that there is a "right way" to "install" a government or reanimate a deceased government in many of the paces where the US has tried to do these things.

[Dayuhan]

You still haven't offered the JMA option for Syria have you, yet everone else is buggering it up eh?

I think he's still clinging to the old "3 cruise missile theory", but doesn't want to say so. I can't blame him, I wouldn't want to have to publicly defend that either.

Steve, don't waste your time, it's a trap.

I know, but it's pissing down rain and the zen of the bicycle is unavailable. Even the river's too blown out to paddle. License to waste time...

[JMA]

Not actually the case. As has been discussed in various FID threads, there have been quite a few FID successes, generally in cases where the government being supported has substantial capacity of its own and where the FID effort is correspondingly of limited scope.

The grand-scale "FID" efforts that involve installation of governments or support for governments that have effectively ceased to exist in any functional form have generally failed. I don't think that's because the US did them wrong, I think that's because the US should never have gotten involved in those efforts in the first place. I can't see that there is a "right way" to "install" a government or reanimate a deceased government in many of the paces where the US has tried to do these things.

LOL... every time a coconut! You just can't help yourself can you?

Still waiting for you to initiate a line of discussion ... but then that would set you up for a bunch of 'smart guys' to pull your position apart. Can't have that can we?

[JMA]

I think he's still clinging to the old "3 cruise missile theory", but doesn't want to say so. I can't blame him, I wouldn't want to have to publicly defend that either.

I know, but it's pissing down rain and the zen of the bicycle is unavailable. Even the river's too blown out to paddle. License to waste time...

This is two adults conversing? Last time I heard this sort of stuff was in the school yard.

[JMA]

You get ambushed largely because you whine too much and, as SFAT described, are boring.

You still haven't offered the JMA option for Syria have you, yet everone else is buggering it up eh?

Steve, don't waste your time, it's a trap.

Actually I suggest it is SFAT doing the whining.

Have you not been following this thread? Better read up on it before you embarrass yourself further.

Don't worry, your mate is incapable of original thought and could not even if he would lay out his position simply and clearly in 500-600 words. He prefers like his other mate to set others to rights - as if he is so anoited to do.

OK, now any chance of you putting pen to paper... or are you just going to join in the school yard game?

Oh and another thing. You don't get any points for not understanding this most simple of simple truths.

If a sports team is losing most every game if does not take a rocket scientist to realise and know something is seriously wrong with that team. And you know what, stating the blindingly obvious - that the team is failing - does not require that the critic must have the coaching and management ability to fix the problem. He is just stating the obvious.

In the case of Syria that the situation has spiraled into civil war indicates that there has been another diplomatic/proxy military cock-up. That is blindly obvious. Get it?

[JMA]

Anyone who accuses others of incompetence without explaining what they think could or should have been done is not expressing their opinion fully, and not saying anything of substance.

This is a classic!

I notice that this approach applies to others but never whenyou take a contrary position...

...that is because your positions self-evident to the degree that they need no explanation, right?

LOL... you are priceless.