Syria potential for escalation and damage to US
Posted: Fri Sep 06, 2013 12:20 pm
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.
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.