Syria, isolationism, and world police?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/08/pentagon-internal-review-syria-killing?newsfeed=true

Aside from the obvious "If you see someone getting killed, you should consider intervening", what is the relationship we have with syria that requires us to act in this case?

Russia and China both vetoed taking any multi-lateral action.

Is there strategic value in helping the opposition (which is cheaper and easier than sending in our own troops) or are we merely acting the part of the world police, which many people around the world simultaneously hate us for, and expect us to perform?

I don't know much about the syria situation beyond that spoken of in the article, and am not familiar with the regoin and related politics, so perhaps the answer is simple. Either way I'm interested in understanding it better.
 
Syria's biggest economic advantage is location. They don't have much in the way of natural resources. Syria just sits in the middle of the World's crossroads. Syria is a bit unstable after long, cruel rule of his father, then his own rule that seemed to turn the evil dial up to 11.

Syria is also knee deep in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, and the greater Jihadist movement overall. While Syria is a bit more Western than other nations in the Middle East, they still want Israel to stop existing. While they don't have much of a history of State Sponsored Terrorism, they have had a long history of ignoring Terrorist Organizations that set up camp in their country(as long as they leave Syria alone and attack only Israel and Lebanon.) Early in the Iraq War Syria let those same organizations and other insurgents train there and attack US interests in Iraq.

Syria is important to us because they are next door neighbors to two (now 3) of our close allies in the middle east, Turkey, Israel and Iraq.

Syria holds a lot of blame for all the death and destruction that has gone on (off and on) in Lebanon since the late 70's.
 
Honestly, I don't know what to think about this. On one hand, the violence needs to stop and we're probably the only ones who could do it. The Arab League certainly isn't going to man up and police it's own members.

On the other hand, any move to do so would probably trigger a war with Russia, which has a military base there and makes billions off dollars selling the Syrians weapons.
 
Aside from the obvious "If you see someone getting killed, you should consider intervening", what is the relationship we have with syria that requires us to act in this case?

Russia and China both vetoed taking any multi-lateral action.

Is there strategic value in helping the opposition (which is cheaper and easier than sending in our own troops) or are we merely acting the part of the world police, which many people around the world simultaneously hate us for, and expect us to perform?

In my opinion, the best advantage for the US in toppling the Assad regime in Syria would be the severing of the Iran-Syria-Hezbollah triangle. Syria has supported Hezbollah and Hamas, and provided a throughfare for iranian equipment reaching these groups. Also the israelis seem not to mind seeing Assad go; though they were a lot more cautious before, as Assad has kept the syrian-israeli border quiet even through some tough times (Israel cautioned against a GWB advocated regime change in Syria in 2005), the israelis seem to have changed tack recently.

As to possible negative consequences of toppling Assad, I'll list a couple of ideas:

1. He might not go quietly. In May and June, palestinian protesters crossed the normally heavily patrolled syrian frontier zone and tried (sometimes successfully) to enter Israel for the first time in decades of quiet. This was probably Assad sending a message.

2. Much of Israel's earlier reluctance to endorse an overthrow of Assad seems to be uncertainty over who will take charge after he is gone. Though he was certainly no friend of Israel, he was a known quantity whom they could live with. In 2005, israeli PM Ariel Sharon said Assad was "the Devil we know" and expressed fears that his regime might be replaced by the Muslim Brotherhood.

3. If Assad falls and his administration is replaced by the majority sunnis, there will possibly be large numbers of refugees consisting of Alawites,
possibly also christians, fleeing Syria and the victor's vengeance. Israel has stated that they are taking steps to prepare to handle the influx, though.

4. The syrian military possesses some serious firepower, reportedly also chemical and biological weapons. If the syrian military establishment comes crashing down uncontrollably, it is anybody's guess as to where those goodies will end up.

5. Iran may focus it's attentions to Iraq in order to compensate for it's loss of influence in the region, leading to the situation in Iraq deteriorating.
Honestly, I don't know what to think about this. On one hand, the violence needs to stop and we're probably the only ones who could do it. The Arab League certainly isn't going to man up and police it's own members.

On the other hand, any move to do so would probably trigger a war with Russia, which has a military base there and makes billions off dollars selling the Syrians weapons.

I very much doubt things will go that far.

I'd say it is unlikely the US will take any overt military steps against Assad; you just got out of Iraq, you have a possible situation brewing in the Hormuz, and you will cut your defence spending and focus your resources in the Pacific. The US could do without another flare-up in Syria - much less one against Russia.

As to the russians, they know they have insufficient assets in the area to contest a serious US involvement. And even if they had enough force there, any interests, whether commercial or military, that Russia might have in Syria are dwarfed by the risks associated with going to war with a major power. They might make some slightly tough noises now that it's presidential election year over there, but they aren't stupid.
 
War with Russia you say? Why that sounds like just the thing to jump start a new cold war and really get our country back in gear!
 
Hmmm, I agree with Tommi, Russia and the US aren't going to war over Syria, they'll probably just fill up the newswaves with vitriol and propaganda programming that will make the creators rich...

*goes to buy some News Corp*
 
I spend too much time reading comments on major news articles... One theme that gets a lot of support is "Obama is dragging us into yet another one of his wars..." or it gets compared to Bush invading Iraq on zero evidence. We are not even planing to invade.
 
I think the U.S. is tired of war. I know I am. I am tired of seeing our guys/gals killed and maimed. I am also tired of the insane amount of money being spent on it.

Let the U.N. handle it. If the Russians have a base there and aren't doing anything about it then it's on there head. Put pressure on Russia to do something.

As it is, I am ready for ALL of the U.S. troops to come home, but I've been feeling quite isolationistic for a long time.
 
Well their ally has been threatened by NATO and the UN.[DOUBLEPOST=1377800816,1377800702][/DOUBLEPOST]
I think the U.S. is tired of war. I know I am. I am tired of seeing our guys/gals killed and maimed. I am also tired of the insane amount of money being spent on it.

Let the U.N. handle it. If the Russians have a base there and aren't doing anything about it then it's on there head. Put pressure on Russia to do something.

As it is, I am ready for ALL of the U.S. troops to come home, but I've been feeling quite isolationistic for a long time.
Russia will not do anything about this. If anything they are probably upset that they have not used WMD in Chechnya, since it looks like the UN will chicken out.
 
Well their ally has been threatened by NATO and the UN.[DOUBLEPOST=1377800816,1377800702][/DOUBLEPOST]

Russia will not do anything about this. If anything they are probably upset that they have not used WMD in Chechnya, since it looks like the UN will chicken out.
I agree that Russia (or China) won't do anything. Why does it always seem like the U.S. has to do something? Australia? Great Britain? The entire European Union??? We should offer support (i.e. intelligence) for whoever decides to step up.
 
If you are getting mugged, do you want a security guard volunteer or a police officer to come to your aid?

We are the pro's at this. You do not want some second rate power to come in and carpet bomb the place, because that is all that their technology can handle.
 
If you are getting mugged, do you want a security guard volunteer or a police officer to come to your aid?

We are the pro's at this. You do not want some second rate power to come in and carpet bomb the place, because that is all that their technology can handle.
You telling the truth, but like I said, I'm tired. But, innocent kids are dying and that's a travesty. :(
 

GasBandit

Staff member
There's no easy answers. Russia and China are threatening to use their security council veto powers, so that pretty much means we can't wait for the UN to do anything. But do we really want to get involved? It's a power struggle between a blood-drenched dictator and implacable islamist jihadists (including Al Qaeda) where no matter who wins, Syria (and US interests) will be worse off. But Obama made the mistake of drawing a line in the sand with chemical weapons, and it was stomped on. So now if we DON'T intervene, other forces hostile to the US will be emboldened by the sign of weakness. Every moment we spend vacillating, more civilians die horribly - but any military strike from us will (despite our superior technology) inevitably also increase the civilian death toll. Damned if we do, damned if we don't.
 
There's no easy answers. Russia and China are threatening to use their security council veto powers, so that pretty much means we can't wait for the UN to do anything. But do we really want to get involved? It's a power struggle between a blood-drenched dictator and implacable islamist jihadists (including Al Qaeda) where no matter who wins, Syria (and US interests) will be worse off. But Obama made the mistake of drawing a line in the sand with chemical weapons, and it was stomped on. So now if we DON'T intervene, other forces hostile to the US will be emboldened by the sign of weakness. Every moment we spend vacillating, more civilians die horribly - but any military strike from us will (despite our superior technology) inevitably also increase the civilian death toll. Damned if we do, damned if we don't.
Gas nailed it. We can ether support the rebels and hope they don't let the theocrats take control (like Egypt is doing, poorly) or we can let a brutal dictator decimate his opposition with weapons that are/should be war crimes to use. THIS is why we set up puppet dictators whenever we can. But now we are obligated to act, which means we can expect the people we help to try and kill us in 20 years.

You know, like usual.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
That line in the sand has been there for over 30 years.
It was reasserted, forcefully, in a public presidential speech. But he called it a red line instead of a line in the sand.

In other news, my newsfeed just told me "Obama briefs Boehner on Syria" and I have to admit I snickered a little.
 
Ah, so Russia calling for a emergency closed door UN security council meeting (which has been going on for the last 45 minutes now) is more an attempt from them to stop the US, French, UK, and others from acting in Syria.

I was hoping Russia was having an about face...
 
Lord knows I'm tired of over a decade of never ending war and I don't want Syria to turn into another Iraq or Afghanistan but I really can't stand us just sitting by and watching ethnic cleansing and the widespread use of WMDs.

And it would be nice for us to stand up for our values once in the last 16 years. Don't know how many American lives that is worth but right now we've maxed out our moral credit card on stupid shit like torture and the Iraq war. If we ever want to be trusted as world leaders again we need to start leading.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
It would be a very curious about-face for them (the Russians) to do otherwise, as they have steadfastly backed Assad this entire time and also have absolutely no concern for trifling details such as civilian deaths or chemical weapon use. Like I said in another thread - the Russians have spent basically all of human history either being the world's villain or being in bed with whoever is at the time.
 
I wonder if people would have been ultimately OK with the Iraq war if WMDs of significance were found? If so, it would be hypocritical of us to not perform some work in Syria. If people would still have wanted to avoid Iraq, then not touching Syria makes sense.

Do we really want, however, to be the idle bystander while the woman in central park is murdered?

I suspect the broader political problem is how to deal with Russia and China. They are the main reason no one has stepped in so far, and their support of the regime has continued, if not escalated, the violence.

Russia calls a meeting, clearly laying out what they will do if we interfere. We tell Russia what has to happen in Syria for us not to interfere, and Russia makes sure the bad things stop.

Seems to be the only way to move forward without a direct confrontation with Russia and China...
 
Obama talking about red lines does seem to have been an imprudent move. Now the options are either to intervene on behalf of a dictator who has always been an ally of Iran, or to intervene on behalf of jihadist rebels who also seem to have conducted chemical weapons attacks, or to do nothing and lose cred after making such absolute statements. Out of these, doing nothing might not be the worst option, though it might have been better to keep the rhetoric in check.

And things might be shifting into the direction of non-action, or for-show pinprick action. Obama gave an interview where he said that a decision on Syria has not been made, and the british seem to be backing down on the issue.
 
Yuck. I don't have a whole lot to say on the issue, really. I just wish countries would stop killing their citizens and being douches.
 
Yep, the British Parliament just (narrowly) voted against military action in Syria.
Saying it "narrowly" voted against, while true, doesn't quite cover the political realities. It's like a Democratic Congress (with a wide-enough margin to be "safe") voting against a Democratic president's laws. Sure it's happened, but it's a very, very painful signal. Cameron pretty much got punished for Blair's lies and manipulations.

About the chemical attacks...It's nice you're all saying it was Assad. it's also nice that some international NGOs are saying there's about a 50/50 chance it was either a rebel splinter group, or one of the bigger rebel groups, instead of the regime. Known fact is that both the government and, at the very least, the two most important rebel groups all posses several types of chemical weapons. Tests so far say it was probably saringas, which we know was in possession of the rebels but we don't have confirmed reports on being in the hands of the government (but who are we kidding? Of course they have it too! Probably bought in the same place!).

if the US wants European traction, the diplomatic focus needs to shift from "going in to help the rebels by [...]" to "going in to stop the fighting from all sides by [...]". A no-fly zone might help, just like it did in Lybia, but Syria's an even uglier conflict - and with less reason for most nations to get involved (except for Russia - and their reasons are even worse than usual!). Realistically, you'd need almost as many boots-on-the-ground in Syria as in Iraq - mostly because Iraq has been and continues to be chronically understaffed, and because the Syrian regime has far more modern military equipment than Iraq - even though it's only about 40% of the surface. It doesn't help that there's far more Syrians than Iraqi per square mile, and that Syria's much closer to a lot of important stuff, such as "Europe".

Anyway - drop a nuke on the whole lot, put down at least 50,000 troops and accept that they'll be there for 10 years or more, or don't go. Don't do the same thing as Afghanistan and Iraq - start things you can't or won't finish - and perhaps, just perhaps, try finding out why other countries aren't as eager to march in instead of going cavalier seul.

And drawn_inward...I knwo you're not the typical american and whatever, but the "Why is it always us who have to go and clean up everyone's mess?" comment is very much the type of line of thinking that ensures Americans are considered arrogant and self-centered bastards in pretty much every part of the world that isn't the West (and by most of the left wing of the West, too). There are plenty of huge armed conflicts going on in the world where the US is, at the very least, dragging its feet, and more often, pretending it doesn't exist or isn't as bad as all that. You are, of course, more aware of the wars/conflicts American media and/or politics have deemed important or terrible. This isn't strange, or weir,d or wrong, or whatever. It pays to be aware of it, though.


Eh, I'm being too "anti-American" and too ranty, I suppose, my apologies. Still. The fight in Syria is disastrous, and the situation, as per usual, has been left to rot so long that no matter what course of action is followed, we'll look back on it and say "why didn't we do something else?" in five years' time. heck, already.
 
About the chemical attacks...It's nice you're all saying it was Assad. it's also nice that some international NGOs are saying there's about a 50/50 chance it was either a rebel splinter group, or one of the bigger rebel groups, instead of the regime. Known fact is that both the government and, at the very least, the two most important rebel groups all posses several types of chemical weapons. Tests so far say it was probably saringas, which we know was in possession of the rebels but we don't have confirmed reports on being in the hands of the government (but who are we kidding? Of course they have it too! Probably bought in the same place!).
This is my main worry. The only evidence we've seen so far is that chemical weapons have most likely been used. We have no idea who did it. Before we put our troops at risk to take out a government and put some rebels in power, we better make damn sure those rebels didn't try to kill their own people with chemical weapons to force our hand. We have a shitty track record in that area, and I seriously doubt this will be any different.
 
There was a time when I feel like I would have championed us going in and finding a good old quagmire for us to roll around in but since our last decade long war I'm just weary AND wary of the idea now.
 
Top