The situation in Syria is tragic but there is one small consolation. It’s not a problem of our making. We aren’t responsible for what is happening there. We don’t own the problem. Syria is a client state of Russia and Iran. We have a humanitarian interest in stopping the bloodshed there, but since there are no ready solutions, we really don’t have to do anything beyond mitigating the suffering where we can.
As far as I am concerned, we are already too invested in the outcome. But it hasn’t grown to the point where we are necessarily going to get sucked in. It’s precarious right now. It sounds like we are going to start sending some arms shipments in August but, at the same time, the administration is using the Joint Chiefs to pour as much cold water on the idea of escalation as possible. This is morally problematic because we’re basically signing on to play a role in an ongoing civil war which we do not seriously believe we can resolve. Yet, this is preferable to mistakenly believing that we can resolve it by getting more deeply involved and spending billions of dollars a month.
I feel like the administration is adopting a small policy that it knows will not fix anything in order to avoid a big policy that it rightly fears would be a disaster. Yet, with Secretary of State John Kerry making a big push to restart peace talks in Israel, perhaps the Syrian policy makes some sense. As bad as the status quo is in Syria, it isn’t currently interfering with our ability to get peace talks going. But it’s a gamble. If it works out, it will possibly be worth it. But playing any role in ramping up the violence in Syria is morally dubious, especially if we don’t believe that we will achieve our goals there.
The Syria policy I see is letting Europe sanction imports from the Occupied Territories in exchange for a hollow blacklisting of the Hezbollah military, which is tightly integrated with the Lebanese army. And slow-walking any arms and training in Jordan while pressing Kuwait, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia not to support the radical Islamist fighters in Syria.
Peace talks with Netayahu are a sham. Unless the US puts the withdrawal of the $3 billion aid on the table. Netanyahu is just buying time until the apartheid state is a fait accomple and the settlers can begin ethnic cleansing.
Miss Lindsay has moved on to plumping for full-scale war with Iran this summer (without counting up that Iran has a population of 76 million people). Major crazy talk.
“Peace talks with Netayahu are a sham.“
Yes, exactly.
“Netanyahu is just buying time until the apartheid state is a fait accomple and the settlers can begin ethnic cleansing.“
The ethnic cleansing began in 1967 with the expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from selected areas of the West Bank (including East Jerusalem), and Gaza. Some of them were trucked or bussed to the borders of neighboring countries, tens of thousands were forced to wade across the Jordan river with only whatever they were wearing and could carry high enough to keep it out of the water. The ethnic cleansing has continued until this very moment using the “put a frog in boiling water and slowly heat it up” method.
Yes, because we know in the run-up to this civil war there was no intelligence involvement by anyone American or operating on behalf of the US.
What?
General James Mattis did speak out earlier in 2012 on Strategic Liability.
Whaddaya mean, “what?” Do you actually think that our hands are clean in terms of serious intelligence actions in any Muslim nation on this earth?
Please!!!
AG
You can’t make us responsible for Assad, no matter how hard you try. Only morons in Washington can do that, retroactively.
Our recent (last 12 years) relationship with Syria and Assad is obviously much more complex that you are depicting: we sent extraordinarily rendered detainees to Syria to be tortured on our behalf. Not exactly the behavior of enemy/distrustful regimes.
Bob Baer has zero credibility.
But, it’s true that we did send at least a handful of people to Syria where they were mistreated. That does not mean that we are in any way sponsors of the Assad regime or responsible for his repression or complicit in any way with his crimes against his country. And we are not responsible for the uprising against him, and have mainly let the Turks, the Qataris, and the Saudis handle it in their own way, only restricting the repurposing of heavy weapons.
It does mean that our relationship is far more complex that the common conceptions. Explain WHY we sent people there of all places if we have the relationship with them that we claim to and they truly are a merely client state of both Iran and Russia.
Well, our foreign policy mandarins would love to kick both Russia and Iran in the teeth.
By having Syrians involved in our “intelligence gathering”?? More probably by getting them involved in centuries old conflict that we’ve re-ignited and hope to extend as long as possible. Mr. Putin, meet Quagmire. Quagmire, meet Putin.
Gee, Booman, do you suppose THAT, and not “humanitarian interest” might have just a teensy bit to do with the Obama administration’s interest in becoming involved in the civil war in Syria?
No, of course not.
I think both are involved. Our State Department is filled with very idealistic people who have an infinite faith in this country’s ability and duty to do good.
Our intelligence agencies are filled with people who just want payback against Russia or Iran for whatever insult is currently sticking in their craw.
Your State Department may or may not be filled with people who are delusional enough to believe that taking steps to increase violence is a humanitarian act. However, your State Department is not now and has never been dedicated to anything but helping exert U.S. power in the world, no matter who has to suffer the consequences.
Adding to the death and destruction does not improve anything on a humanitarian level – ever.
Explain WHY we sent people there of all places if we have the relationship with them that we claim to and they truly are a merely client state of both Iran and Russia.
Because the Bush administration demoted our competition with Russia and Iran in the service of the War on Terror, at least for a while. Remember, they were working with Iran on overflights, border checks, and pilot rescues during the early phases of the Afghan War, and Bush agreed that Russia’s actions in Chechnya were part of the War on Terror.
A lot has changed since 2002.
Our recent (last 12 years)
What you mean is, five year ago.
And what is that supposed to have to do with whether or not the US was stoking the rebellion? George Bush rendered suspects to Syria, so therefore, the CIA is behind the rebellion?
We seem to have reached the “random bad shit about the United States” phase of this argument quite early.
Seems like we’ve gotten to the putting words in someone else’s mouth phase rather early.
The point to take is that we have always had a much more complex relationship than we’ve claimed, as evidenced by this bizarre cooperation and many other incidents that just don’t jive with the idea that Syria was beyond our sphere of influence. To pretend we haven’t maintained as much influence as possible in all the nations of the region is fine, but probably not a credible stance.
Simply removing our efforts to maintain stability (think large cash deliveries) would have been enough to stoke revolution in an authoritarian, minority ruled state. By now, we can plainly see that it doesn’t take direct, active participation to change the balance of political power in a manner that allows for a long-maintained yet fragile political balance to fall apart.
Perhaps all it really took was to get the Shia/Sunni schism well-armed and active again. That one is pure us (Iraq anyone?). If anyone wants to claim that has nothing to do with the Syrian revolution, they are welcome to. Or we can pretend that we first heard of Syria went the first shots were fired.
“Seems like we’ve gotten to the putting words in someone else’s mouth phase rather early.”
Joe has difficulty forming arguments against things people actually say, so he kind of has to put words into their mouths.
Oddly enough, I’ve never felt the slightest urge to write any similar comments about you, Hurria.
I wonder if this might have to do with how our conflicts have turned out for you in the past.
Seems like we’ve gotten to the putting words in someone else’s mouth phase rather early.
I trust if I had misrepresented anything you wrote, you would have pointed it out. You didn’t.
The point to take is that we have always had a much more complex relationship than we’ve claimed, as evidenced by this bizarre cooperation and many other incidents that just don’t jive with the idea that Syria was beyond our sphere of influence.
You’re taking actions that occurred during different phases and describing them as a single policy. America’s policy towards Syria was different in 2002 than it was in 1999. It was different in 2009 than it is today.
Simply removing our efforts to maintain stability (think large cash deliveries)
I suppose it would be beyond the pale for me to ask for something approaching evidence of “large cash deliveries” from the United States to the Syrian government.
Arab Spring is real. It happened. Stop writing the people of Syria and Libya out of their own history.
.
One of the worst of excuses and defense of any crime is indeed the recital: “I don’t recall.”
You write:
No, we are only responsible for our own actions. Or at least we should be responsible. We should be held responsible by the best among us if by no one else. Where will you end up standing, Booman? In the supplicant’s queue at the surveillance state/intelligence state breadline or among those who opposed what is going on before it became somewhat fashionable?
Let’s go back a bit. Saaaay….to 1937, OK? Hitler is obviously strutting his stuff in the hopes of conquering large parts of Europe and maybe the rest of the world as well, but the U.S. is “neutral,” right? Officially, anyway. So what would you think if you found that this “neutral” U.S. was sending political prisoners to the Gestapo for some old-fashioned, ass-kicking kinds of interrogation because it simply wasn’t done in the polite circles of DC at the time?
Of course this didn’t happen, but the same principle holds true today. You are always going on about the U.S., its “humanitarianism” and how we are the fucking good guys. It simply ain’t so, Booman. We use the “bad guys” to do our dirty work. Like the NYC mafia used to use the Irish Westies to do their dirty work. Like Lucky Luciano used to use the Dutch Schultz mob. Like Al Capone ran his game in Chicago.
How’d that work out in the long run for the bosses?
Exile and syphilitic death in prison is how it worked out for those two.
How do you think it’s gonna work out for the U.S.?
Same, same.
As above, so below.
Watch.
C’mon…
‘Fess up.
You know better!!!
AG
You want to know who is a bad guy?
Bashar Hafez al-Assad is a bad guy. Most of the people who are fighting his regime? Also bad guys.
So, give me a break.
I think you need a class in symbolic logic to rejigger your reasoning skills.
Bush sent people to Syria for some good old fashioned torture does not equal Obama is the bad guy. It doesn’t even have anything to do with why people are fighting Assad or why he’s killed tens of thousands of people in his quest to hold onto power.
It’s just a non-sequitir that allows you to say something negative about your own country while you compare the Middle Eastern regimes to a bunch of girl scouts.
Bullshit!!!
I don’t think the middle eastern regimes are “girl scouts.” They are bad motherfuckers, most of the people on both sides of most of the fights. But compared to to the U.S? Not even in the same league.
You say “Bush sent people to Syria for some good old fashioned torture does not equal Obama is the bad guy.”
I say Obama is simply doing a better job of running the Blood For Oil hustle than did Bush. Does that somehow make Obama “better” than Bush? Is a slick mass murderer somehow “better” than a bloody-fisted bar fighter?
I guess.
You win.
And in winning…we all lose.
AG
P.S. You also say:
I am sorry, Booman, but ever since the JFK coup this has not been “my country.” I am simply its subject.
So are you.
You just don’t know it yet.
Just so we’re clear, the country of Syria produces less oil than Louisiana and Ecuador. The Syrian conflict has fuck-all to do with Blood for Oil.
Bullshit. Control of the whole area “has to do with Blood for Oil.” Security for oil….the same as anywhere else is either a source or a threat to strategically important areas or supplies.
Why drop…and maintain for decades…that awful economic boycott on Cuba? They have no oil either. It was done because their position is strategically important to the economic imperialist U.S.A.
Why mess with Syria in any way whatsoever? Humanitarian reasons?
Please.
Their neighborhood abuts more important neighborhoods, and their alliances threaten our alliances
C’mon…
AG
The US has a non-declared policy of non-interference in the Middle-East since the second World War.
.
Yes, we had just a few client states in the region doing our bidding. Qatar cared for shipping the Libyan arms into Syria by way of NATO partner Turkey. Sure, for self-protection the US forces are present in Turkey with Patriot missiles. In Jordan we have given covert training to
mercenariesfreedom fighters bringing our democracy. The US was quite unsuccesful in building a Chalabi like opposition of future puppets which could run the government in Syria after Assad steps down. Hillary Clinton used her previous experience in Bosnia with the Croation arms pipeline undercutting UN sanctions in the 1990’s. Using the same allies SA-UAE-Qatar-Turkey which established Al Qaeda in Europe. Yes, the humanitarian crisis in Syria is the fault of those damn fascists and totalitarian states Russia and China which lacks our moral values and true principles of freedom, equality and brotherhood.President showed full commitment of neutrality giving hope to the Syrian people by stating the uprising will succeed in a matter of weeks. Kerry played no role in getting permission from Turkey for IAF planes to use a NATO airfield to attack and destruct Russian arms shipped to Latakia in Syria. The US plays no role in the NATO command structure in Turkey in preparation for further defending of western rights to interfere in a sovereign state. Not even Bill Clinton hinted to the US role in overthrowing a dictator in Syria.
It was the wisdom of President George Bush to discard the negative advice of both Mubarak and the Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah on the decision to protect
Israel’sUS interest and overthrow dictator Saddam Hussein. The Iraqi people hadn’t suffered enough under UN sanctions, so US brought some power to the theater. Saddam is gone and the state of affairs in Iraq can be summed up in a tri-partite manner. The Iranians control the majority Shia in Baghdad and the east, Al Qaeda has united with the Sunni people and the Kurds in the North have support from Israeli intelligence and vast economic investments by friend Turkey. Goal is the exploration and transport of Kurd’s Kirkuk oil to the Mediterranean.It is the same wisdom of Hillary Clinton and President Obama to discard the advice from Al-Maliki and did go in and interfere in Syrian internal affairs. No, the US has played no role inside Syria. It’s not our responsibility what happens in the Middle East. The US and Western powers are doing the right thing and sending humanitarian supplies to the refugees and displaced persons. Even our highest envoy at the State Department received flowers as he visited a refugee camp inside Jordan. Kerry was en route anyway in the area on a US mission of peace.
US heritage after the Vietnam War was established by use of Agent Orange. The US once again has a new heritage to account for 10 years after the start of the Iraq War. Birth Defects Plague Iraq, But Cause Unknown.
Once again, I’ll point out that the assumption that Qatar and the other Gulf states are doing the US’s bidding is based on absolutely nothing, and is contradicted by a mountain of evidence.
Qatar? Not compliant? So we put CentCom’s forward HQ in a hostile/non-compliant country?
Even if they didn’t feel like they owe their continued existence to us (Gulf War I anyone?), having radar evading bombers fly over your head all day long goes a long way to convince one to at least occasionally do US bidding.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Udeid_Air_Base
Let’s see this mountain.
Once upon a time, the little Gulf states were compliant.
Not anymore.
Being a superpower isn’t what is used to be. Yes, now we’re stuck with our bases in “our son of bitch” countries that aren’t even reliably compliant anymore. It’s a bit of a headache.
So, you want to see the mountain that rebuts your gut-check that tells that the US and Qatar on on the same page? OK.
Here’s the NYT story that broke the news about the arms shipments a year ago: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/21/world/middleeast/cia-said-to-aid-in-steering-arms-to-syrian-rebels
.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
The story describes how the CIA is working to steer the arms coming from the Gulf states away from the worst, al Qaeda-linked jihadists, who the Gulf states are just fine supporting.
Here is the State Department’s statement about designating the Nusra Front, one of the groups being backed (at that time, anyway) by the Gulf states as an international terrorist group: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2012/12/201759.htm
Being a superpower ain’t what it used to be. It’s time to get past your Cold War-era, bipolar understanding of the world.
I have not seen any relevant discussion on the impacts of large numbers of Iraqi refugees on internal Syrian stability. If that was a precipitating factor, then W’s little Iraq adventure would have played a direct role in this. Thoughts?
And now there are large numbers of Syrian refugees fleeing to Jordan, well beyond their capacity to adequately care for them. The situation is a mess.
Given the existence of Arab Spring protests/uprisings from Tunisia to Bahrain, it’s a heavy lift to claim that the refugees caused the Syrian Arab Spring.
On the other hand, the opposition there has taken on a much more Islamist flavor than in any other country, and there is a strong connection between the Sunni radical factions in Syria and radical Sunni Iraqi groups. Since so many of the Iraqi refugees are Sunnis, there very well could be something to this idea.
No US hands on this either, right?
“hands” is a vague term used by someone attempting to obscure the truth.
What, exactly, are you asking? Do you even know?
You make me smile.
.
The root cause of the uprising in Syria is not linked to the Iraqi refugees. The protests started because of domestic issues and would soon be hijacked by foreign interference. IMO a religious element was part of the revolt from the beginning.
wvng, I have close connections to both Iraq and Syria, having lived and spent extended time in both places. I have worked with a non-profit based in Syria that assisted Iraqi refugees there. The large numbers of Iraqi refugees have had a palpable effect on the economy of the country, but I see nothing to suggest that they have been a precipitating factor in this civil war.
ramping up the violence
I don’t accept the implication that arming the opposition = ramping up the violence. Have you ever read about what it looks like when an Assad crushes a rebellion?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hama_massacre
The reason you give arms to one side is so that they have a technological advantage as expressed by more effective violence. Helicoptors in Afghanistan, etc. There is a remarkable contortion of probability required to agree with the idea that more effective violence (meaning loads more dead people in less time) is not a ‘ramping up’.
Perhaps there is some validity to the idea that a shorter, more violent conflict might result in less total deaths or something to that effect but the problem is that there will only be one sequence of events that actually occurs and one can never actually know how the alternative might have turned out.
Unfortunately for the people of Syria, US strategic interests (as the MIC sees them) would probably be best served by letting the baddies beat each other silly for as long as possible all the while fretting loudly about the human cost. Let Iran and Russian have their own quagmire. Sound familiar?
Heck, maybe we can sell arms to both sides too.
The reason you give arms to one side is so that they have a technological advantage as expressed by more effective violence.
Unless, of course, that side is greatly outgunned by a well-supplied enemy, as is the case in Syria. In a situation like that, you give arms to one side to eliminate a technological (sic) advantage. You do know that the Russia/Iran-supplied government outguns the rebels, right? You do know, for instance, that Syria has an air force, right?
Their advantage is so great that.. wait.
It sounds like we are going to start sending some arms shipments in August but, at the same time, the administration is using the Joint Chiefs to pour as much cold water on the idea of escalation as possible. This is morally problematic because we’re basically signing on to play a role in an ongoing civil war which we do not seriously believe we can resolve.
This analysis leaves out the notion of a negotiated settlement, something that will never happen as long as one side or the other has a decisive military advantage, and which (if it can be brought about) has a much better chance of producing a decent outcome than an outright victory by either side.
I started a reply. It grew. Now a stand-alone post.
You Say Syria and I Say Philadelphia. Let’s Call The Whole Thing Off!!!
AG
“We have a humanitarian interest in stopping the bloodshed there…”
“Less than optimal”. You sure can make a strong understatement!
“playing any role in ramping up the violence in Syria is morally dubious…“
More like morally bankrupt.
“…especially if we don’t believe that we will achieve our goals there.“
So, what would make it less morally “dubious” in your book is if you would achieve your goals in Syria (your goals being to indirectly smack Iran and Russia upside the head)? When it comes to getting more Arabs killed it is sometimes very difficult to discern the difference between Republicans and so-called “progressives”.