I'm still caught on the chemical weapons trip-wire.

The war has killed maybe 93,000 people, to date. That's acceptable, apparently.

150 of them were killed be sarin, not shrapnel? OMG OMG OMG!

I wonder if this is more to do with the recent victories by the Assad forces in a couple of strategic towns whose names I have since forgotten.

That is the sort of idiocy which leads me to believe the President really wants this war, collision with Russia be damned.

Obama seems to either be a bumbling idiot or a strategic realist (see earlier article) with respect to Syria. If he is a bumbling idiot, his hand got played for him from surrounding peer pressure and when Syria called out his red line by using chemical weapons. If he is strategic realist, he is responding to the recent victories by Assad et al. and using their use of chemical weapons as an excuse to get minimally involved to keep the status quo.

I disagree. Obama has had more than enough chances to escalate in the past and he didn't. If Obama really wanted war, we would be already be training the rebels, arming them with heavy weapons, and enforcing a no-fly zone. He has a choice and he has chosen not to. Everything Obama has done (up to this point) has suggested that he wants minimal or no involvement in this.

What pisses me off is the rush by some in Congress to go to war. These are the same people who allowed sequestration and who demand offsets for every dollar spent on domestic programs.

How can they argue against most spending and suddenly find the money to involve us in a foreign conflict that may have strategic implications but that does not directly threaten us?

It is possible that Syria can be a 'hands off' war like Clinton ran in Bosnia or it can be like Bush's Iraq/Afghanistan quagmire. Noone gave Clinton enough credit for not getting us sucked into boots on the ground in Bosnia. Or it can be a proxy war against Russia with both sides giving heavy weapons and aid. What will happen when the first US aircraft is shot down by a fixed emplacement or man portable Russian missile? What will happen if in 5 years a US aircraft in Afghanistan is shot down by a USD-made man portable missile that was given to the Syrian rebels?

Mixed in with the 'freedom loving' rebels are anti-Western radicals who want a religious state and hate secular governments, US, and Russia. The whole 'enemy of my enemy is my friend' bullshit does not apply here.

Probably not so...

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/15/us..._20130615&_r=0
NY Times
PETER BAKER
16/15/13

Heavy Pressure Led to Decision by Obama on Syrian Arms

He wanted to get reelected.
Since the rebellion's inception, his administration has admitted that it doesn't know who to train, who to arm; or, that there is sufficient trust in the overall movement to implement a no fly zone. Lack of knowledge has dictated his actions.
Then why did he draw a red line in the sand. Was he not astute enough to realize that WMD can also be used in limited applications. The US even has tac-nukes that can be delivered in an artillery shell. Did Obama forget that Al-Assad is a medical doctor who knows very well that this can be done with chemicals and biologicals. Did Obama underestimate him?

Whether one believes Obama to be a hero or a traitor to Americans' best interests, he is a politician in his final term as President. Anyone in that position is a wild card. It isn't prudent to assess his post-reelection disposition by his pre-reelection actions anymore than it was to base first term expectations on campaign promises. Past human behavior is not necessarily a good indicator of future human behavior. And I voted for him, just sayin'.

Well said. He knew the voters would never sanction this war. To my permanent shame, I voted for him as well.


So when Mr. Obama agreed this week for the first time to send
small arms and ammunition to Syrian rebel forces,
he had to be almost dragged into the decision at a time when critics,
some advisers and even Bill Clinton were pressing for more action.

Except that he's the President. It is on him, no one dragged him, no matter what unattributed narrative the Times is selling.

Oops. According to the UN via the Washington Times, the sarin gas that was allegedly used ... was allegedly used by the rebels, not Assad.

Umm, does this mean we ought to arm Assad?


Oh and in other news, Iran reportedly is sending/has sent 4000 men from the revolutionary guard.

ETA in other other news, 8,000 troops - mostly US, Jordanian and British, but from 19 nations - are conducting a training exercise named operation Eager Lion about 120 kms from the Syrian border.

http://rt.com/news/jordan-multinatio...exercises-459/

Insufficient weapons. Criticism should start with those who are cost controlling while waiting for the world's policeman to take charge.

We have one obligation. To provide defensive forces for our friends. Especially our friends who are the border states of Jordan and Turkey.

The world (and therefore the US) only has an obligation when the local 'powers that be' screw it up. That obligation does not yet exist.

A best example of how to do this was by Clinton in Bosnia. Until deaths are large enough to even concern a hardass (ie me), Syria's war remains a local issue. It is only getting worse because the local 'powers that be' are not yet criticized (even in the Cellar) for their inactions.

It is their problem. It becomes our future problem if WE are not overtly critical now of their inactions. Nobody is discussing a major problem - near zero weapons and aid from neighboring countries.

Are you arguing that he hasn't gotten involved because of logistics or re-election purposes? Both are valid points and are not mutually exclusive but I have been under the impression that it is more logistics. If Obama and media started banging the war drums with Syria (and Iran) and focus on the extremely fucked up shit happening (chemical weapons, government forces raping women and torturing children, etc.), voter support for intervening could have increased.

Most of Obama's foreign policy decisions have put him in the realist camp and not the non-interventionist or interventionist's camps. From what I've seen, most "realists", or close to that label, have been reluctant to get involved or have proposed minimal involvement. This is due to logistics and a lack of large direct interests in the region (some national interests do exist). This is no guarantee how Obama will react, but based on his past decisions, I would expect minimal involvement unless some big game changer happens and the strategy shifts. Maybe post-election Obama will be different but we will have to see.

On a side point, does anyone remember how popular intervening in Libya was pre-intervention?

I agree. That was a big mistake for Obama. He was probably under pressure to say something and thought Assad wouldn't use them.

I don't think the public call for intervention is dependent on how many deaths have occurred, but more on a cost-analysis of what we would have to do to stop the killing. There are multiple competing rebel groups who will start killing each other if they dispose of Al-Assad. Arming the rebels won't prevent more deaths from occurring and will likely cause more. Plus, Al-Assad isn't a direct threat to US and is an only an indirect threat to Israel. Rebel groups such as Jabhat al-Nusra are more direct threats.


http://www.economist.com/news/middle...mes-forces-and


The article gives a basic overview of what the supposed rebels and their ideologies. This gives good reason for the US to stay out of Syria completely. However, on the other hand, if things spill to far out of control the US may be getting involved one way or another...

Those "things" must spill out so badly that local (adjacent) 'powers that be' *beg* for help. Literally *beg* by acknowledging how toothless and irresponsible they have been. (As European had to admit in Bosnia.)

How much public begging is currently happening? None. Therefore we have no business militarily involved in Syria. (But should be massively involved in collecting facts/intelligence and in discussing solutions diplomatically.)

Why no civil war in Libya? Because we did not intervene. Because enough deaths occurred in every family that 'big dic' thinking earned the contempt it deserves. Therefore ideologies on all side were replaced the intelligent (moderate) thinking. Moderates were empowered because that war was so long and devastating - a good thing.

How many years of civil war in Lebanon were required to finally replace 'big dic' advocates with moderates? So that religious stupidity was replaced with tolerance only found among moderates? Unfortunately, some really stupid Americans (ie Col Oliver North, et al) were so anti-American dumb as to intervene. Therefore America uselessly sent to their death some 200 Marines. Because we let extremists make policy. How many more times must that stupidity happen before enough Americans finally learn lessons from history?

The spillover must be so massive that local 'powers that be' all but openly *beg* in the UN. They are not yet because no where near enough people have died due to their inactions.

If and when we do respond, then moderates who make policy also announce that "We will be the meanest and nastiest dog in the region." Anything less would only be contempt for the American soldier. Which again means three necessary conditions. A smoking gun. A strategic objective. And an exit strategy. Also only possible when the local 'powers that be' finally concede and beg.

BTW, both Jordan and Turkey are slowly moving towards begging.

http://au.businessinsider.com/cia-se...-rebels-2013-6

The CIA and US special operations forces have been training Syrian rebels for months, since long before President Barack Obama announced plans to arm the opposition, the Los Angeles Times reported Friday.

Shocked, shocked, gambling, establishment, etc etc.

Democrats are leading the push for more intervention:

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/po...ategy_on_syria


Well, it now seems that Obama's decision to arm the rebels wasn't due to recent pressure or from the chemical weapons...