Syria potential for escalation and damage to US

[mooreupp]

I've always loved this website and don't write enough saying that. I think it's much better at looking at long term issues than just about anywhere else and seeing how things play out along generational lines.

That said, I think being the world's police man (from the context we've taken since World War II) does not warrant action in Syria for a few key reasons.

1. The Syrian opposition isn't necessarily any better than the Syrian government. There is conflicting evidence about who used what and it's far from inconceivable that rebel groups have used chemical weapons. In the event that's the case, you can bet the Russian are going to make a big deal about that after any action we take. Beyond that, Al Nusrah is at least a big part of the rebel organization and it is Al-Qaeda. We will actually be supporting an Al-Qaeda movement by going against Syria.

2. There have been a number of civil wars since World War II, several including genocide, and we have been somewhat selective in what we get involved with. As a general rule, we have gotten involved when the potential for escalation is large or in areas that are of greater concern, but getting involved in the civil wars has to be something we are very careful with as they are hard to get out of and can be draining. Vietnam was a great example of picking the wrong battle. It drained us without being strategically valuable, only being partially about communism in the first place, and in a generational era that made winning very difficult.

Most importantly:
3. The US acting alone here is a definite risk that can be exploited by Russia and other opposition. Here is one analysis on the worst case senario, http://www.informationdissemination.net ... ckers.html

"When I take the red team perspective of action unfolding in the Middle East, if I am Iran and Syria supported by Russia, my calculation is that I may never have a better opportunity to change the regional security conditions and balance of power in the Middle East than the opportunity being presented in this situation unfolding. By throwing every military asset possible in attack of the surface action group of 4 destroyers in the Mederterranian Sea, and throwing the entire armed forces of Iran against the Eisenhower Carrier Strike Group off the coast of Pakistan, the entire US policy for the Middle East would be dead in the water if Iran and Syrian attacks were to be successful. As red team, I would attack these targets specifically because they are sovereign US targets and don't inherently escalate tensions by giving any other nation a reason to join in."

While I find the likelihood of it going as serious as this article lays out extremely unlikely, I also don't find it completely impossible and even a small risk of serious damage to the US Middle East position would require significant justification to warrant getting involved in and given what was laid out above, I just don't see it.

Edit: A new great war is coming (whether we call it World War III or something else) and we have to be careful about appeasement and it's definitely right to question whether avoiding war itself has become a goal in itself which is going to lead to disaster. This particular case though, is not one I think can possibly benefit the United States by getting involved in.

[at99sy]

When looking at the selection process that American political administrations have used to justify interventions, they tend to consist of picking dogs that end badly for us and those we are supposed to be liberating including:
Korea, Vietnam, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Cuba, Libya, Philippines, all the central and South American proxy wars,........

and those situations we chose to ignore completely:
Rwanda, Darfur, Mali, Sri Lanka, Chechnya, Balkans................

If wholesale slaughter of hundreds of thousands is diminished because a few hundred die from chemical weapons...?

If Syria falls who will lead? What happens to the stockpiles of weapons? Who will secure the state? Where will the outcry be when the Muslim Brotherhood begins the mass conversion or die program? Freedom of religious expression, misguided youths, acting stupidly?

Syria will explode in our faces if Obama gets us directly involved.
Question: Why is the League of Arab Nations not stating that THEY will act? you know the answer.

cheers

sy

[John]

I can't really disagree with anything that the two of you are saying,
but I believe that the forces driving the American strike are too
powerful to stop.

There are powerful forces gathering momentum across the world,
converging on Syria -- Sunni jihadists from Pakistan to Nigeria to
Dagestan are going to fight in Syria, Shia jihadists from Iran and
Hezbollah are going to fight in Syria, Russia is pouring advanced
weapons into Syria, millions of refugees are pouring out of Syria into
neighboring countries, the entire Sunni/Shia and Arab/Jew fault lines
are inflamed throughout the Mideast, and in the middle of all this,
the psychopath Bashar al-Assad shocks the entire world by perpetrating
a horrific chemical weapons attack.

Syria has passed a tipping point, in my opinion, headed for a major
conflict that will engulf the entire region. A U.S. strike could be
viewed as an attempt to stop this trend, and that would have worked
two years ago, but in my opinion it's now too late. Like it or not,
America is still Policeman of the World. The U.S. will go through
with the strike because it MUST, and it may well slow down the
"gathering storm" trend, but it's too late to stop it.

[mooreupp]

I agree that's it's going to happen at this point and there's little that will stop it. Obama has gotten himself in too deep not to go for it. I think it was an idiotic spot to make a stand in this particular place and the administration could have easily passed (even if wider conflict is going to happen, this wasn't a spot worth getting into to let it start).

How far do you think it will go John? There's a lot invested in this, but I could see it going a lot of ways. It could easily be that we end up with a few bombs thrown and then Obama calls it a victory against use of chemical weapons and the US retreats. Internationally that's a defeat, but it might let save face at home (he acted, but in a limited way). If it goes deeper than that, it's difficult to predict. Without sending in ground troops, we probably increase the chances of the regime falling, but I'm not entirely sure it will given all of its international support from Russia, Iran, etc. That's a lot more the Taliban had in Afghanistan and that still took awhile to overthrow.

There's definite potential for the crisis to go beyond Syria itself, but outside of some prestige, I don't think I'm leaning that way just yet. What about you?

[John]

Do I think that a few American missiles are going to trigger a wider
war, as threatened by Putin, al-Assad, Hezbollah, and Iran? No.
Everyone's expecting this strike, and everyone's positioned for it
politically, and most of the threats are just posturing. I would
expect things to continue after the strike just like before, though I
would expect al-Assad to refrain from chemical weapons for a while.
However, the region is headed for a major war anyway, and how the U.S.
will get even more involved after the strike is the great unknown.

[at99sy]

Syria has passed a tipping point, in my opinion, headed for a major
conflict that will engulf the entire region. A U.S. strike could be
viewed as an attempt to stop this trend, and that would have worked
two years ago, but in my opinion it's now too late. Like it or not,
America is still Policeman of the World. The U.S. will go through
with the strike because it MUST, and it may well slow down the
"gathering storm" trend, but it's too late to stop it.

With the exception of "slow down" I believe all of this is true and will come to pass.

sy

[gerald]

nice
"State Department reveals Hillary Clinton received $500K worth of jewelry from Saudi king" http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politic ... -1.1441301

[at99sy]

nice
"State Department reveals Hillary Clinton received $500K worth of jewelry from Saudi king" http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politic ... -1.1441301

what is that line about dressing up a pig?

sy