Here We Go Again – Part II?
I wrote about the possibility of US intervention in Syria recently. Well, it looks like it’s not only the CJCS who’s hinting at potential US intervention in Syria. Now we hear much the same from the US Ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice.
Earlier, Susan Rice, the American ambassador to the UN, said that Russia’s veto-wielding membership of the Security Council would not necessarily prevent international action. If the violence worsened and the peace plan proposed by Kofi Annan, the former UN secretary general, made no progress, some countries would consider whether to bypass Russian and Chinese opposition in the UN.
“Some countries would consider whether to bypass Russian and Chinese opposition in the UN.” Hmmm. A public statement like that by the US Ambassador to the UN seems to me to be a reasonably clear signal. But then again, I’ve never been accused of being a diplomat.
The US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, also appears to have obliquely alluded to potential US intervention, albeit differently and of perhaps a different type. In the linked article, Clinton is quoted as saying that the US State Department has told the Russians “their policy (regarding Russian support for Syria) is going help to contribute to a civil war.” Yes, this could refer to Russia’s steadfast diplomatic support for the current Syrian government. But it could also refer to a change in policy on the part of the US – specifically, that the US will now provide diplomatic and/or material support to Syria’s rebel factions. That’s a different type of US involvement in Syria – but it still constitutes a US intervention. And US material support for one side of a war often has a way of ending up involving those wearing a uniform sooner or later.
As I said previously: there may well be a good case to be made for US intervention in Syria. But to date, I’ve not seen that case made by the POTUS or his administration. And until that case is made, I’m reluctant as hell to support a US intervention there. Unless it’s shown to be in the US national interest to intervene in Syria – and that the expected cost of intervention is commensurate with the expected gain to US security – IMO we should leave well enough alone. Sometimes “the devil ye know” really is better than the devil ye don’t.
As Vietnam showed, the time to have such a discussion is before we’re decisively involved in a foreign war. Not after.
Category: Foreign Policy, Military issues
I do not claim to be an expert on international affairs, however, I do have a couple of questions. Where the heck are the German, French, Italian and other free world leaders on this? I say – Let it play out… Your thoughts?
I’m far more enthusiastic of having American arms and ammunition show up in Syria than having American servicemen showing up in Syria. The question then becomes just to whom have we given all those weapons and where will they be pointed if/when the Syrian government falls.
1stofSeven: I personally don’t give a flying fornication what the German, French, Italian, and other free world leaders think.
If it’s not in US long-term strategic interests, IMO we have no business intervening in Syria. Period. That holds true whether or not it pisses off our erstwhile “allies”. After all: they’ve shown no compunctions about telling us to “go piss up a rope” in the past regarding foreign interventions when it served their purposes to do so. They’ll get over it.
We don’t necessarily have to stop other nations from intervening in Syria. But if intervention doesn’t benefit the US national interests, we don’t have to help them either.
Bobo: that is indeed the key question. As Libya shows, you don’t always know that a priori.
And you should have at least a damn good idea of that before you “jump in” to such a situation.
Unless there is a specific benefit to my United States of America, there should not be a single American GI sent there. They wanna kill themselves, each other, that’s their business. As a parent/grandparent I abhor the murder of children but this is their culture. This is the type of animals they are.
I am all for picking a side and arming it and not because I give a shit about savages and their kids; I dont. But Sryia made life hell for us in Iraq and is responsible for US deaths there.
Sryia is the proxy that supports Hizbollah in the Bakaa Valley and Lebanon in general in that it serves as a conduit for Iranian troops, weapons and know how.
It would benefit us greatly if Sryia fell, and even more so if a bloody civil war followed the fall of the current government. It would also hurt Iran, a win win for us and our allies in the region.
That said, we need to do what we can to find the lesser evil of all possible options and support that side.
Jack, if all the “possible options” are evil, then I don’t think we need bother supporting any of the sides. The “resistance” may turn out to be no better than the “oppressors”.
I love how all the same people who were falling all over themselves 10 years ago to tell us how swell of a guy Saddam was are now beating the drums to depose another Baath Party Arab dictator.
What happens when we invade Syria and find a shit ton of Iraqi WMDs?
Alex, if the current POTUS is still around, the WMD’s won’t exist, even if they exist.
Jack: are you actually saying we should support regime change in Syria simply for the sake of regime change, with no realistic idea of how things will eventually turn out? No way I’m signing up for that.
If the Arab Spring uprisings have shown us anything, they’ve shown us that there’s a very good chance the follow-on government following an “intervention by proxy” will be worse from the US strategic perspective than the one it replaces. In Syria, that eventual follow-on government could conceivably end up led by either Hezbollah or another fundamentalist Islamic group that (1) hates the US, and (2) is even more friendly towards Iran than is the current Assad regime. In either case – no thanks. Assad’s a bastard, but he’s IMO preferable to either of those eventualities.
We really need to look at this one closely before choosing whether (and if so, how) the US should get involved. In Libya, we rushed in willfully ignorant, for no good reason. The situation there appears to be turning out much worse from the US strategic perspective than the one that preceded it. Ditto in Tunisia and Egypt. IMO, that could easily happen in Syria as well if we rush in half-cocked again.
We stood by and watched a regime reasonably cooperative with US interests fall in Tunisia. We did the same in Egypt. We actively helped topple Qadaffi – who since 9/11 had been quite cooperative with the West – in Libya. In each case, a regime less aligned with the West and more aligned with radical Islam has been the result.
I’m seeing a pattern, and it’s not one I like.
UpNorth, exactly my point.
I’m sure the timing of this has nothing at all to do with the fact that GWB’s opinion polls skyrocketed in the immediate aftermath of the Iraq invasion. Assad should beware the ides of October.
The thought of the UN disregarding the wishes of major member nations and doing any damnfool thing they want isn ‘t news. They’re ignored us for years, what makes China or Russia immune to getting snubbed?
While the situation in Syria “is complicated,” there is NO excuse that the organs of the US government have not identified the players, and end goals of the various parties after 15 months. KNOWN FACTS: The Assad Regime supports Hezbollah, and is a major, steadfast ally of Iran, our primary enemy in the region. Iran IS re-supplying the Assad regime with commercial overflight of Iraq, with the blessing of the Maliki government (in turn supported by Muqtada al-Sadr and Iran), and through the Suez Canal on Iranian ships. Al-Qaeda IS involved in the violent opposition to the Assad government. In fact, their role has expanded in the vacuum of alternative support, though they’ve been involved from the beginning. Other factions of the opposition to the Assad government are democracy activists, as well as communists. Assad is a foe of the US, and of Israel. Ba’athism and Islamism hold the joint tenet of eradication of Jews & Israel. The differences are that Islamism also opposes all things Western and Christian (as well as anything that doesn’t oppress women and support Sharia.) Ba’athism is Nationalistic Socialism while Islamism is International Religious Tyrannical Socialism. Both ideologies have a history of alliance with each other as well as other tyrannical dictatorships, including godless Communism (USSR), Catholic Socialism (Venezuela) and deitic Communism (NoRK) when it suits their interests, as well as violently opposing those of those ideologies when it appears they can seize power (Tehran 1979, Assad’s father 1990’s, Assad-Saddam 1991). Is there a National Interest in the outcome of the Syrian Revolution? Yes. Is it publicly known which factions are likely to win, or how to put the right faction (best option) in a position to win? NO!!! Like Egypt, Libya, & Tunisia, it would be very easy for the Administration to screw the pooch royally, and make things worse. Should the US government know what coffee shops which rebel leaders gather at to discuss the goals of the Revolution and who is lying to who at those coffee shops? YES, they’ve had 15 months to catch up on all that, but it wouldn’t… Read more »
Actually WOTN? The gubermint has pre-identified whom it is going to support via the OWS movement….Want some inside info on Twitter, Google, YouTube & FB during the “Egyptian uprising”?
Oh, Dept of State too…
How are the other Nations going to intervene without USA support(equipment, TROOPS and MONEY) Joe
As someone who has nothing other than contempt, I too long to see the fall of the Assad regime. He and his family have been little else than terror-supporting thugs and given who they count among friends (namely Iran and Russia) I see no reason to deny those friends another client state.
However, I cannot help but wonder if we even have the will, let alone a coherent strategy for what comes after. Who are these rebels? Can they be trusted? To my mind that limits us to indirectly influence the situation or if we have to get nasty, to enlist the cover of NATO or some other international body the left might fetishize to snap them out of their torpor as to the severity of the crisis.
Outside this happening, I don’t think we’ll really do anything and I myself have no desire, following HEAVY kinnetic activity, to get involved in a lengthy protracted civil war/COIN effort unless decision makers are a) aware that COIN warfare is low-intensity, low return type warfare and b) it does not run at the leisure of what’s politically expedient. Aside from this, we are not helpless, let’s get covert, collect as much intelligence as we can on both AQ in the country currently and the Assad’s strategy. If worse comes to worse however, I’ll take my chances with a weakened and questionably legitimate Assad, as opposed to the proverbial crap shoot of so-called reformers fomenting Allah-knows-what.
@7 and 10, I am saying that there is certainly a lesser evil sort of like Joe Stalin’s Russia was the lesser of two evils in Europe long ago. Pick a side, the best possible of all options and arm it.
Reading this (particularly @7) I guess you would not have shipped arms to Russia since they were certainly evil. Shit, Stalin killed more people than Hitler. My point is that sometimes we have to pick the lesser evil because it is in our best interests to do so. I do not care about their dead kids, I care about what is best for us.
Asad is an enemy of the United States and our allies and he is a close friend of Iran, destroying his goverment is payback for Iraq and it is good for us in the long run.
Jack: given the trouble the USSR (not Russia) caused us post-1945, one can make a reasonable argument that letting the Nazi regime destroy the USSR could have been preferable. Not sure I buy that, but the case is hardly as open and shut as you seem to believe.
While Assad is indeed a bastard, at this point I don’t believe we know that he’s indeed the worst possible option regarding US interests in the region.
Assad is secular. Hezbollah is not, and is also a close friend of Iran. If Assad leaves, it’s not beyond the realm of possibility that a Hezbollah-oriented successor regime could emerge in control of Syria.
Al Qaeda also reputedly has its supporters among the Syrian rebels. A new Syrian regime dominated/controlled by al Qaeda supporters – reputedly in possession of WMD and delivery systems – is in my view a decidedly worse situation in terms of US and regional security than Assad remaining in power.
The best option would be the emergence of a West-leaning democratic regime after Assad were deposed. Don’t hold your breath. That hasn’t happened in Egypt, Tunisia, or Libya – and Yemen appears to be hanging by a thread. I don’t see a West-leaning successor regime happening in Syria, either.
Bottom line: sometimes the devil you know may well be far better than the devil you don’t. I’m not sure that’s the case in Syria. But recent events don’t exactly make we confident of a good outcome should we assist in Assad’s ouster. We’re batting 0 for 3 so far.
Most would say that arming Russia, which fell of its own weight, was far preferable to allowing the Germans to defeat them which they would have had it not been for US aid. I do not believe that we could have won the war without Russia so I stand by using them as an example of picking the lesser of two evils and I believe we need to do teh same now.
Obviously, Jack, we’ll never know. But considering the amount of damage the USSR did to US interests (and the world) between 1945 and 1991 – and the evil done by Stalin/his successors and Mao – I’m not completely convinced that they really were the lesser of two evils.
Had the USSR fallen during World War II, Mao would likely never have achieved power in China. Korea and Vietnam would never have happened. Ditto in all likelihood the Dominican Republic or Grenada. Whether these would have been replaced by far more costly conflicts, or if the US would have ended up in a worse position, we’ll never know. But that’s far from a foregone conclusion.
My “bottom line” is that we appear to be rushing to judgement towards intervention without doing our homework first. Intervention without being very sure that we (1) actually have identified the best option, and (2) actually can accomplish what we wish to accomplish IMO would be a monumentally bad idea. And the rest of the Arab Spring hasn’t exactly given me the proverbial “warm and fuzzy” about how an intervention in Syria that topples Assad will turn out regarding US long-term interests – or that we really have a clue as to what’s going on there.
When you sow the wind, sometimes you really do end up reaping the whirlwind.