• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Let's all invade Syria!

newyorkguy said:
Btw, according to an article in this week's New Yorker magazine, Obama -- despite the recommendations of his national security advisers to the contrary -- is apparently adamant we will not get involved in Syria.

President Obama doesn't even want to supply weapons. Only non-combat support. (e.g food, first-aid, etc.) The Free Syria forces include some very extreme elements. Not all are jihadists, but the majority are. Obama fears once American-supplied weapons get into Syria the US loses control over them. Obama believes we would wind up inadvertently supplying weapons to Islamic fundamentalist extremists.

The article revealed another interesting political reality. Washington insiders believe there is very little political capital to be gained by an American President in interventions. An example they gave was Clinton in Bosnia. The mission was very successful yet Clinton got very little political credit from that. Yet when 18 American military personnel were killed when Somalian insurgents brought down the Blackhawk helicopter, Clinton took a major hit.

Many people in the Administration believe there is very little upside to intervening in Syria and all kinds of risks.
Click to expand...

Interesting. Thanks.
 
newyorkguy said:
Obama -- despite the recommendations of his national security advisers to the contrary -- is apparently adamant we will not get involved in Syria.

President Obama doesn't even want to supply weapons. Only non-combat support. (e.g food, first-aid, etc.) .

Washington insiders believe there is very little political capital to be gained by an American President in interventions. An example they gave was Clinton in Bosnia. The mission was very successful yet Clinton got very little political credit from that.
Many people in the Administration believe there is very little upside to intervening in Syria and all kinds of risks.
Click to expand...
Nice points.

FWIW, Clinton's problems in Somalia preceded Bosnia. That mess made it very difficult to get support for ops in Bosnia, particularly under the inane dual key UN RoE or under UN command. In time, he sorted that out politically thanks to the Bosnian Serbs going out of their way to paint themselves as the bad guys, a few atrocities and mass killings being critical to that. The Kosovo thing was, from where I sat (aside: I was involved in a small part in the initial Op Plan drafts (some of the annexes to the Op Plan) in 98) politically wrong on this level: NATO out of area ops were new, and the sixteen nations of NATO subjecting Serbia (see this through non-American eyes, if you can) for seventy days of air attack painted NATO and its political posture in a new and (to some) disturbing light.
I was never convinced that the alleged rights of Albanians and Kosovars were an American strategic interest, nor that our intervention in an internal matter in Serbia was necessarily justified. Contra my opinion, however, the juxtaposition of the Bosnian/Yugoslavia break up and its civil war had made it easy, political momentum wise, to retain Serbia as the problem to be solved in that area. There are some points pro that position that are valid.

We had some success working with Russia in Bosnia. The Kosovo bit, however, screwed the political progress we'd made with Russia in terms of warming up through Partnership for Peace and a few other initiatives.

On the other hand, it gave the USAF a chance to claim that you can win a war purely with air power. <-- That, had long lasting bad effects within the DoD and US political circles, which were made obvious by the Iraq War. The silver bullet nitwits used that as a talking point while a lot of us who disagreed got shouted down. Further Remarks Censored, because I have long considered D Rumsfeld to be in the Silver Bullet camp, and his advice sadly was far too loud in the Iraq (and to a certain extend Afghanistan) operational development. Sure, he was Sec Def, but he was tone deaf in all the wrong places.

Secretary Gates was not keen on intervening in Syria. I hope Secretary Hagel learns from his example.
anglolawyer said:
So? All my best opinions come from retards.
Click to expand...
For the sake of posterity. ;)
 
Last edited:
Some troubling facts the article brought up were, Obama is under great pressure to intervene. Many of the people pushing it are doing so on humanitarian grounds. It's hard to ignore too. The Assad regime has been extremely brutal. Besides military actions, the regime is using mass arrests, torture and even summary executions against people who are believed to be even sympathetic towards the rebels.

Another reason advanced, especially by Sen. John McCain, is by ensuring the Assad regime is toppled we would ensure Iran was deprived of one of their top allies.

Reportedly Britain and France are pressuring the US to intervene as well.

So far the Obama Administration has been able to withstand the pressure. I hope he continues to resist. I have always felt the Assads were dictators of the worst kind. The problem I have with intervention is, as we see in Iraq, when outsiders depose one of these brutal regimes it often only manages to substitute one set of problems for another. The resistance needs to come from within. Until the opposition can organize and mobilize their fellow citizens I don't think outside intervention is the answer.
 
I once heard a man say:

"It is more lasting to build a democracy from the ground up than to try to impose it from the top down."

The hard part there is in setting the conditions to get it to germinate and grow. When an autocrat is faced with that sort of reform, a common reaction is to kill it before it grows.

This strikes me as leading to Catch - 22 situation. For the democratic process to prosper and spread, people need some confidence it its effectiveness, and they need to see it work. That takes time and opportunity and a chance to learn from errors. You can declare a democracy, but if the process isn't sound, people lose confidence in it and democracy, or representative government in general, can lose support in favor or "security" or "stability."
 
Last edited:
The other problem in Syria, and I think this a growing a sentiment within the Obama Administration, there's not that much evidence that what we are seeing is a democracy movement.

Already there are many elements involved in the rebellion who are anti-democratic and pro-Islamic republic. There is a growing involvement with al Qaeda-oriented members too.

It was written that al Qaeda drew lessons from Iraq where their devotion to extreme violence managed to alienate many Iraqis. They're not making the same mistake in Syria. But they're there.
 
Don't you also need some fundamental consensus about what democracy is for? After all, democracy has many drawbacks. In a society divided into hostile factions (Sunni and Shia, say) democracy can work in such a way that when one faction gets in the saddle they use their position to persecute the other one, like the Nazis did under Hitler in the 30s. I suspect this is missing from many Arab countries, the acceptance that one must put up with being in a minority from time to time.

You also need political parties that do not just represent factions or regions. I know far too little about Arabia but I wonder whether this is a problem too. I have heard of the Ba'ath party but that's it. And aren't they sort of left wing, nominally anyway? If so, that would be a pointer to why the west consistently takes sides against them. Same with Serbia.

I don't believe, as the neo-cons did, you can go in to a place, smash it to smithereens and then expect peaceful, pluralist democracy to rise from the rubble.
 
One troubling aspect of the Syrian conflict -- from Assad's perspective -- is that despite having a huge Sunni Muslim majority (70%) the country has long been ruled by the tiny (12%) minority Alawites, a Shia Muslim offshoot. Most of Assad's senior political and military officials are Alawites. Link

I think even the thought of the Sunni majority taking over is probably very scary for the Alawites in command positions.
 
Nobody likes ethnic cleansing. I have no use for B Assad, but I can understand why he wants to avoid Rwanda in Syria. Rock. Hard place.
 
What do folks make of the bombs on the Turkish border?

It seems to me obvious that the people with most to gain in planting those bombs are the rebels. The Assad regime no doubt has many ways of provoking a war with Turkey (and NATO) without resorting to the bombing of civilians. It is highly unlikely that Assad does not give a fig for world opinion. Yet it seems to be uncritically assumed by everybody that the Syrian government is responsible. Where is the evidence?
 
I think when it comes to Syria we need to ask ourselves what the best achievable outcome is. I don't particularly care for anglolawyer's forthright indifference to the massacre of Syrians and determination that it doesn't matter how many Syrians are killed in this conflict. But, if there is to be an international intervention, I think the worst motive for it is that "we can't just do nothing!" because there could be far worse things than doing nothing. We could end up prolonging a civil war in which more people could be killed. Or we could end up empowering al-Qaeda-like groups who will then massacre hated minorities.

So, what do we consider to be possible and worth working for here?
 
angrysoba said:
I think when it comes to Syria we need to ask ourselves what the best achievable outcome is. I don't particularly care for anglolawyer's forthright indifference to the massacre of Syrians and determination that it doesn't matter how many Syrians are killed in this conflict. But, if there is to be an international intervention, I think the worst motive for it is that "we can't just do nothing!" because there could be far worse things than doing nothing. We could end up prolonging a civil war in which more people could be killed. Or we could end up empowering al-Qaeda-like groups who will then massacre hated minorities.

So, what do we consider to be possible and worth working for here?
Click to expand...

Look, the 'forthright indifference' is a bit of a corrective, first against insincere mass 'caring' which doesn't actually amount to much in terms of practical action and, second, against a propaganda machine that cynically exploits the fundamental good nature of a gullible populace. I also use 'care' to mean something quite strong, like caring for my partner or son, for things I would make real sacrifices for. It's way too easy to purport to be concerned about this or that but it usually costs nothing and, as I say, exposes you to being manipulated by those for whom 'caring' plays no part in policy making, rightly IMO.

Just wanted to clear that up.

And as to what should be done - many tools in the box: diplomacy, influencing world opinion, UN sanction, economic blockade or embargo, asset-freezing, no-fly zones and so forth. No one gets to die because of these.
 
Last edited:
anglolawyer said:
Look, the 'forthright indifference' is a bit of a corrective, first against insincere mass 'caring' which doesn't actually amount to much in terms of practical action and, second, against a propaganda machine that cynically exploits the fundamental good nature of a gullible populace.
Click to expand...

I have a problem with some of the propaganda that is supportive of the rebels and some of that which is supportive of Assad. But, if you think that the "caring" is nothing more than posturing then what makes you think that your ostentatious shoulder shrugs over how many people die is any different?
 
angrysoba said:
I have a problem with some of the propaganda that is supportive of the rebels and some of that which is supportive of Assad. But, if you think that the "caring" is nothing more than posturing then what makes you think that your ostentatious shoulder shrugs over how many people die is any different?
Click to expand...

It's honest.
 
This is what happens when you work day and night for decades to destroy secular socialist movements in the Middle East. You create a world with only two alternatives: semi-secular Arabists and Islamic extremists.
 
anglolawyer said:
What do folks make of the bombs on the Turkish border?

It seems to me obvious that the people with most to gain in planting those bombs are the rebels. The Assad regime no doubt has many ways of provoking a war with Turkey (and NATO) without resorting to the bombing of civilians. It is highly unlikely that Assad does not give a fig for world opinion. Yet it seems to be uncritically assumed by everybody that the Syrian government is responsible. Where is the evidence?
Click to expand...

My first reaction is, Wow! Forty-three people killed in two bombings. Remember what it was like here when three people were killed by two bombs in Boston?

Was it the rebels? Doubtful. Assad has good reason to give Turkey some pay back and Turkey knows it. Not sayin' it's right, just sayin' it is.

According to an article in the May 13th New Yorker Magazine, Turkey, along with Qatar and the Saudis, has been one of the main suppliers of weaponry for the Free Syria rebels. They supply rockets, guns and millions of rounds of ammunition. In addition there are rebel bases along the Syria-Turkey border.

The car bombings were in two Turkish border cities.

Btw, an unnamed "Middle Eastern official" interviewed for the New Yorker Magazine article, says the Saudis have stopped supplying the rebels with arms. The Saudis fear that increasingly the weapons are falling into the hands of Islamic extremists. One rebel faction in Syria is called Al Nusra, the most radical of any of the rebel groups. It was begun in January 2012 by six al Qaeda members from Iraq who took Syrian-sounding names and has grown to several thousand fighters.

Al Qaeda learned valuable lessons in Iraq where their extremist rhetoric and violent tactics alienated may Iraqis. The group in Syria is much more low key but is effectively considered al Qaeda in Syria. They mark their territory with the same black banner al Qaeda uses.
 
angrysoba said:
Ha! What a laugh! The Saudis are Islamic extremists!
Click to expand...

Then this one should have you rolling on the floor. (It's from a US Department of Defense press release.)

The recently announced $29.4 billion sale of F-15SA fighter aircraft to Saudi Arabia is just one part of a broader U.S.-Saudi military sales and defense cooperation effort that’s central to regional security, Pentagon Press Secretary George Little said. U.S. officials announced an agreement Dec. 29, 2010 to sell 84 new F-15 fighter jets and upgrades for 70 existing aircraft to Saudi Arabia. Little said the same represents less than half of the $60.5 billion in U.S. sales of aviation capabilities agreed by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia....
The United States is firmly committed to the security of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, as we have been for nearly seven decades, and … more broadly, the United States and Saudi Arabia have a strong mutual interest in the security and stability of the Gulf,” Miller said.
Click to expand...
Link
 
newyorkguy said:
My first reaction is, Wow! Forty-three people killed in two bombings. Remember what it was like here when three people were killed by two bombs in Boston?

Was it the rebels? Doubtful. Assad has good reason to give Turkey some pay back and Turkey knows it. Not sayin' it's right, just sayin' it is.

According to an article in the May 13th New Yorker Magazine, Turkey, along with Qatar and the Saudis, has been one of the main suppliers of weaponry for the Free Syria rebels. They supply rockets, guns and millions of rounds of ammunition. In addition there are rebel bases along the Syria-Turkey border.

The car bombings were in two Turkish border cities.

Btw, an unnamed "Middle Eastern official" interviewed for the New Yorker Magazine article, says the Saudis have stopped supplying the rebels with arms. The Saudis fear that increasingly the weapons are falling into the hands of Islamic extremists. One rebel faction in Syria is called Al Nusra, the most radical of any of the rebel groups. It was begun in January 2012 by six al Qaeda members from Iraq who took Syrian-sounding names and has grown to several thousand fighters.

Al Qaeda learned valuable lessons in Iraq where their extremist rhetoric and violent tactics alienated may Iraqis. The group in Syria is much more low key but is effectively considered al Qaeda in Syria. They mark their territory with the same black banner al Qaeda uses.
Click to expand...

The theory that the bombs are 'payback' is worth considering. I would be surprised if that were considered a good reason at the top for such an operation but maybe there are free pro-Assad elements who just go round bombing and shooting anyone who is remotely connected with the other side. Surely, the bombs will not have any effect on supplies to the rebels. I still think the biggest winners are the rebels themselves.

I saw something about the Turks saying they had intelligence is was a pro-Assad op. I wonder where they got that from? It was like right away.
 
I think circumstantial evidence points towards Syrian intelligence groups planning the bombings and possibly supplying the material while Turk sympathizers actually carried it out.

Turkey accused a group with links to Syrian intelligence of carrying out car bombings that killed 46 people in a Turkish border town, and said on Sunday it was time for the world to act against the government of President Bashar al-Assad...
Interior Minister Muammer Guler said the bombings - the deadliest incident on Turkish soil since Syria's war began - were carried out by a group with direct links to Syria's Mukhabarat intelligence agency.
Click to expand...
Link

The war in Syria involves a lot of different interests. Reuters reports on the reason Israel fighter-jets recently launched attacks inside Syria.

Reuters) - Israel has carried out an air strike targeting a consignment of missiles in Syria bound for Hezbollah in neighboring Lebanon, an Israeli official said on Saturday. The Jewish state had long made clear it is prepared to use force to prevent advanced weapons reaching Lebanon's powerful Shi'ite Muslim guerrillas from Syria. Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and Hezbollah are allied to Iran, Israel's arch-enemy.
Click to expand...
Link
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom