The Gathering Storm in Syria

[Adak]

I don't see us getting anything by going into Syria. Arm the rebels - seems like a reasonable response if the Sarin gas incidents are probably true.

Anything after that, should be humanitarian aid for the refugees, and later on, funds to help them survive as they rebuild their devastated country.

No other involvement.

There are NO "friends" to the US, in Syria, and Israel *should* act independently, for it's own defense and interests.

[Undertoad]

A line has been laid down not just for Syria, but for every other country in the world as well:

If you use chemical weapons, you will face some vague amount of reprisal, such as your runways may be cratered.

I do not feel competent enough to decide whether this is a good idea. I will leave it up to you guys.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

I do not feel competent enough to decide whether this is a good idea. I will leave it up to you guys.

I would imagine that every possible action in this situation will be viewed as a bad idea in hindsight.


The big factor in this "intervention" will be how much assistance we actually give the Syrian rebels. Right now we are just giving small arms and Obama has made it clear that this assistance is not a blank check. This amount of assistance will be cheap with a low potential for blowback. I would get worried if we really start escalating our involvement.

[piercehawkeye45]

Another possible explanation for the minimal assistance is that this intervention is more about Iran than Assad. Right now Iran is helping fund Assad and has a large stake in Assad winning. The longer this civil war prolongs, the higher the price-tag for Iran.

To your humble blogger, this is simply the next iteration of the unspoken, brutally realpolitik policy towards Syria that's been going on for the past two years. To recap, the goal of that policy is to ensnare Iran and Hezbollah into a protracted, resource-draining civil war, with as minimal costs as possible. This is exactly what the last two years have accomplished.... at an appalling toll in lives lost.

This policy doesn't require any course correction... so long as rebels are holding their own or winning. A faltering Assad simply forces Iran et al into doubling down and committing even more resources. A faltering rebel movement, on the other hand, does require some external support, lest the Iranians actually win the conflict. In a related matter, arming the rebels also prevents relations with U.S. allies in the region from fraying any further.

So is this the first step towards another U.S.-led war in the region? No. Everything in that Times story, and everything this administration has said and done for the past two years, screams deep reluctance over intervention. Arming the rebels is not the same thing as a no-fly zone or any kind of ground intervention. This is simply the United States engaging in its own form of asymmetric warfare. For the low, low price of aiding and arming the rebels, the U.S. preoccupies all of its adversaries in the Middle East.

The moment that U.S. armed forces would be required to sustain the balance, the costs of this policy go up dramatically, far outweighing the benefits. So I suspect the Obama administration will continue to pursue all measures short of committing U.S. forces in any way in order to sustain the rebels.

Now let's be clear: to describe this as "morally questionable" would be an understatement. It's a policy that makes me very uncomfortable... until one considers the alternatives. What it's not, however, is a return to liberal hawkery.

So, to conclude: the United States is using a liberal internationalist rubric to cloak a pretty realist policy towards Syria.

http://drezner.foreignpolicy.com/pos...realism_stupid

[Lamplighter]

oxymoron? ...or just plain

[piercehawkeye45]

Its a term for liberal interventionists. Essentially promoting military intervention for humanitarian purposes. Think Balkans and what Susan Rice believes should have been done in Rwanda.

Examples of liberal internationalists include British Prime Minister Tony Blair.[1] In the US, it is often associated with the American Democratic Party[citation needed]; however, many neo-conservative thinkers in the United States have begun using similar arguments as liberal internationalists and, to the extent that the two ideologies have become more similar, it may show liberal internationalist thinking is spreading within the Republican Party.[2] Others argue that neoconservatism and liberal internationalism are distinctly different foreign policy philosophies and neoconservatives may only employ rhetoric similar to a liberal internationalist but with far different goals and methods of foreign policy intervention.[3]

Commonly-cited examples of liberal interventionism in action include NATO's intervention in Bosnia and Herzegovina; their 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia; British military intervention in the Sierra Leone Civil War; and the 2011 military intervention in Libya.[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_internationalism

[Perry Winkle]

I usually avoid the politics threads. Can I just drop in and make the smart-ass comment that firearms are technically chemical weapons being both composed of matter and requiring a chemical reaction to launch the projectile?

(I know it's ridiculous. Don't take it seriously.)

[sexobon]

You forgot to mention that the bullets can cause lead poisoning.

[Griff]

Not so much the dose as the delivery...

I vote no to arming Al Q but I foolishly thought Iraq and Afghanistan would go badly so who knows?

[ZenGum]

Yes to UT'S point about the international precedent (remember how Libya started playing nice after Saddam got the boot).

And Yes to PH45's article about the greater strategy - although it is a dangerous game to play. Still, what is a good idea in this situation isn't clear to me.

However, what the Syrian Rebels need is something to counter Assad's air power. With a no-fly zone and bombing of the Syrian Air Force bases pretty much off the table, that leaves giving the rebels shoulder fired SAMs. These are well capable of bringing down a civilian jet, in whatever country they are used. Hmmm. You really want to give those to people who are friends with Al Q?

Maybe if we could make SAMs that have GPS chips that track where they are are and disable themselves if they are used outside an approved war zone...


However, I was a little puzzled by this (in PH45's article):

In a related matter, arming the rebels also prevents relations with U.S. allies in the region from fraying any further.

Israel? or the Saudis and "friendly" Arab states? How so? Why would any of them like more weapons drifting around in Syria?

[sexobon]

The Syria ship has sailed. We missed that boat when we didn't begin humanitarian aid early in the rebellion. Medical support in particular would have enabled us to establish rapport with indigenous people who could point out foreign interventionists and identify which rebel groups, if any, were seeking a free Syria as opposed to those which would simply replace one oppressive regime with another. We'd be playing Russian Roulette (pun intended) if we began arming factions now.

Soon after the rebellion began, I checked with a contact [old Army buddy and physician] at a government contractor whose services include providing former military special operations medical personnel for such purposes. Civilian veterans with specialized skill sets enable the government to accomplish what its military can do; but, without having to put boots on the ground. I was told that the government wasn't letting such contracts. There was no political will to get involved anywhere else in the region, not even on a humanitarian level, after the fiascos in Iraq and Afghanistan strained our relations with our allies in the region.

If we intervene now, at any level, it will be so that Barack Obama can save face after his red line was crossed just as George Bush Jr. got us into Iraq to save face after Hussein tried to knock his daddy off. At this late stage, it's better to let the players in the region handle it and clean up after them as necessary. We can always use our political influence in the region to have Syria's chemical weapons destroyed for us if WMD compromise becomes imminent.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by ZenGum

However, what the Syrian Rebels need is something to counter Assad's air power.

This is one of the main inconsistencies I've noticed when looking through different articles. Some say that Assad's air force is a major factor and other suggest that the air force is a really only a small part and it is the soldiers on the ground that is causing the largest amount of damage.

With a no-fly zone and bombing of the Syrian Air Force bases pretty much off the table, that leaves giving the rebels shoulder fired SAMs. These are well capable of bringing down a civilian jet, in whatever country they are used. Hmmm. You really want to give those to people who are friends with Al Q?

What could go wrong?

However, I was a little puzzled by this (in PH45's article):

Israel? or the Saudis and "friendly" Arab states? How so? Why would any of them like more weapons drifting around in Syria?

I think Europe, Turkey, and the other Arab states, namely Qatar and Saudi Arabia, are really pushing for the US to get involved.

[tw]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

I think Europe, Turkey, and the other Arab states, namely Qatar and Saudi Arabia, are really pushing for the US to get involved.

Long before the world has any responsibility, first local powers must try and fail. It is their job; not our's. We are not the world's policeman. When we go in, the entire world also goes in. Currently, responsibility only lies with regional powers. Who are crying rather than doing.

Nothing is stopping Saudis, Turks, Gulf States, Iraqis, Lebanese, or Jordanians from providing massively more aid. Many are also rich. But instead they want us to do their work?

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by tw

Nothing is stopping Saudis, Turks, Gulf States, Iraqis, Lebanese, or Jordanians from providing massively more aid. Many are also rich. But instead they want us to do their work?

The Saudis and Qataris have been arming the rebels for the past few years. I do agree with you that we can not "own" the situation in Syria. If we are going to give weapons, it has to be backseat to the support from other countries. If the rebels manage to overthrow Assad, then let them deal with it.

[Griff]

This thing seems designed for chaos. Its a nice distraction from what could become an American Spring.