Middle East/North Africa #11 - now with added Theoretical Collapse

[Phaing]

Define war.

Well, for this purposes of this item, a Govt dropping bombs and firing missiles at another Govt forces.

And, I guess the real irony here would be the fact that US forces would be fighing to support a rebellion that is 50% in the hands of Al Queda.

[KAH]

Edward N Luttwak is a Very Serious realist scholar whose advice is the US should prolong this conflict indefinitely

By tying down Mr. Assad’s army and its Iranian and Hezbollah allies in a war against Al Qaeda-aligned extremist fighters, four of Washington’s enemies will be engaged in war among themselves and prevented from attacking Americans or America’s allies.

IMO Mr. Luttwaks analysis may be correct wrt Assad, Hezbollah and Iran, but it fails with regard to the generic extremist volunteer fighters. The 'franchisers' benefit from prolonged conflict, and are far less tied down to the conflict compared to the others.

Say 10000 extremists go to Syria from all over the world, joining diverse Jihadi groups. After a prolonged period of fighting, a surviving quarter of the total return to their respective homelands. That's 2500 Johnny Jihad's spreading all over the place, supporting new franchises. Instead of remaining disaffected nobodies and wannabes, they have hero status. Extremist leaders will attach themselves to them for their status. Young people will listen to them.

And when they proclaim "I fought that vicious babykiller Assad for a year, wtf are you going to do?" - well...

Of course, the US would have to decide if that is enough to enter into the conflict more actively. I would think it probably is not (I suspect that the fallout of such franchising will be a far greater problem for the Middle East and Europe than the US).

[Free Northman]

The Middle East is such a massive clusterf**k.

There's just no correct course of action there.

[Horza]

IMO Mr. Luttwaks analysis may be correct wrt Assad, Hezbollah and Iran, but it fails with regard to the generic extremist volunteer fighters. The 'franchisers' benefit from prolonged conflict, and are far less tied down to the conflict compared to the others.

Say 10000 extremists go to Syria from all over the world, joining diverse Jihadi groups. After a prolonged period of fighting, a surviving quarter of the total return to their respective homelands. That's 2500 Johnny Jihad's spreading all over the place, supporting new franchises. Instead of remaining disaffected nobodies and wannabes, they have hero status. Extremist leaders will attach themselves to them for their status. Young people will listen to them.

And when they proclaim "I fought that vicious babykiller Assad for a year, wtf are you going to do?" - well...

Of course, the US would have to decide if that is enough to enter into the conflict more actively. I would think it probably is not (I suspect that the fallout of such franchising will be a far greater problem for the Middle East and Europe than the US).

That's a good point, but his wrongness extends further than that.

He's trying to make a virtue of a necessity by arguing that the US's trepidation about getting bogged down in the conflict should form the basis of a strategy of containing and feeding it.

The problem being that no matter how optimal zugzwang is, ultimately you have to move. The US has to employ what resources it has - within careful limits - to pursue its favoured outcome because the conflict is going to come to an end.

[Werthead]

In any case, how easy would it be for the rebels to use captured WMD, anyway? A modicum of training in handling them would seem to be a natural precondition, but is that forthcoming?

During the war, thousands of Syrian army personnel have defected to the rebel side. It is possible that those trained to use such weapons are among them.

Look I'll be honest. I don't see the difference between shooting 1000 civilians to death and gassing them to death with nerve toxin. Dead is dead.

You have to physically get close to people to shoot them. WMDs can be used from many miles away, are indiscriminate and it's easy to lose control of them. They are a much greater threat.

Also, someone smuggling a Syrian-made gun into a western nation is not going to do a huge amount of damage with it. Someone smuggling a barrel of nerve toxin into a port somewhere is going to cause an large number of deaths.

By tying down Mr. Assad’s army and its Iranian and Hezbollah allies in a war against Al Qaeda-aligned extremist fighters, four of Washington’s enemies will be engaged in war among themselves and prevented from attacking Americans or America’s allies.

Whilst thousands of civilians continue to be killed.

And, I guess the real irony here would be the fact that US forces would be fighing to support a rebellion that is 50% in the hands of Al Queda.

The problem here being that the al-Qaeda forces only entered the conflict in force months after it broke out. If the same kind of support we gave to Libya had been given to the Syrian rebels at the start of the conflict, it may (although that's a big may) have been ended much more quickly (though Libya hasn't exactly been a utopia since).

I don't see either as good enough reason for U.S. military intervention. A recent poll shows that even if use of chemical weapons is proven, only 25% support military action versus 46% opposed.

We're now out of Iraq, and out of Libya. There is no reason to stick us with another tar baby where we have no idea what the end result would be absent committment to a long occupation -- which isn't happening -- and where we'll likely get blamed for anything that doesn't work out.

Time to let the rest of the world address this shit if they want to. If not, it's not our problem.

If this was pre-9/11 you'd have a point. However, right now it is a major problem for the United States. Having promised to take action if certain criteria were met, Obama and the US government cannot now back down. It would be an admission of weakness and, much worse, it would encourage the repeated and free use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government. If WMDs can be used to end the conflict quickly and if they know that the outside world is going to do nothing, the Syrian government is emboldened to take more drastic action.

The United States also backing down from its formerly-held position will also likely be taken as a green light for Iran to continue developing a nuclear weapon ("Hey, the US doesn't give a shit about countries havig WMDs any more!") and will also be taken as a victory by al-Qaeda. These things will definitely come back to hurt the United States later on.

[Free Northman]

Tell me, I hear one Tomahawk Cruise Missile costs something like $1m.

So what I want to know is did the other coalition nations compensate the US for the cost of all the ordinance expended on ousting Ghadaffi from Libya?

Everyone keeps moaning about the US having such a large military budget, but I recall at the time of the Libya crisis the conclusion was that none of the allies - including Britain and France - had the capability of destroying Ghaddaffi's military purely through an aerial bombardment campaign, without the US.

The point is, why must the US carry the costs of these type of operations all the time, and yet still remain the "big bad guy" in the eyes of much of the international community.

Tell them to get stuffed unless they pay up. Else they're just getting stuff for free which the US taxpayer has to pay for. Meanwhile Britain cuts billions from its defense budget and spends it on healthcare and other social issues instead. Because why bother with a strong military if you can just count on America to do your work for you for free, shouldering the bulk of the costs on their own?

Something's wrong with this picture.

[Horza]

Whilst thousands of civilians continue to be killed.

He's got an answer to that:

That this is now the best option is unfortunate, indeed tragic, but favoring it is not a cruel imposition on the people of Syria, because a great majority of them are facing exactly the same predicament.

Which is a good argument for finding ways to de-escalate the conflict and impose a workable cease-fire, not prolonging it to drain Iranian coffers and kill jihadis.

[Werthead]

Everyone keeps moaning about the US having such a large military budget, but I recall at the time of the Libya crisis the conclusion was that none of the allies - including Britain and France - had the capability of destroying Ghaddaffi's military purely through an aerial bombardment campaign, without the US.

Except that Britain and France did join in and pretty much led the military involvement (after the first couple of weeks anyway), and Britain does have its own cruise missiles as well.

Tell them to get stuffed unless they pay up. Else they're just getting stuff for free which the US taxpayer has to pay for. Meanwhile Britain cuts billions from its defense budget and spends it on healthcare and other social issues instead. Because why bother with a strong military if you can just count on America to do your work for you for free, shouldering the bulk of the costs on their own?

The USA chose to be the world's policeman and chose to spend its money on building the most formidable military the world has ever seen. If it hadn't put itself in that position, then the issue would not arise. We'd also all be speaking either German or Russian, or living in a nuked-out hellhole, so you have to take the rough with the smooth ;)

Britain does what it can with the resources it has. The USA can do a lot more because it has six times the population, seventeen times the economic strength and seven times the military strength, so of course it can do a hell of a lot more and is expected to do as much.

[Hereward]

Alternatively, the US could think of it as some small measure of repayment for its free riding on the back of the Royal Navy during the 19th century. :cool4:

[Free Northman]

Look, I don't know how the financial matters are negotiated during such a crisis, but I would be in favor of something like:

"OK, Britain and France, you guys want to use 2 of our Aircraft Carriers and their support fleets, and 200 of our Cruise Missiles. That will be $1m per cruise missile and the running costs of the Carrier Battle Group for the duration of the conflict. We will deduct from this bill whatever you contribute from your own militaries, and then we split the bill in the end."

Maybe this happens. I don't know. But in my ignorance, I suspect it's simply a case of: "You have the carrier fleet, please bring it. Also bring your Integrated Satelite Command Center, to coordinate the entire campaign, and a couple of $2bn a piece B2 Stealth Bombers for good measure.

I'll bring a few Harrier jets and one frigate. France will fly a few sorties from Cyprus and drop a few bombs. And we call it quits."

I think the financial burden should be shared equally by all participants that back the action.

[Clueless Northman]

Well, if the USA really have enough and want this to stop, it's quite easy: cut down by 50% the military budget, unilaterally, and then tell everyone else they're on their own and will have to build up their own military and pay for it,

[Free Northman]

Well, if the USA really have enough and want this to stop, it's quite easy: cut down by 50% the military budget, unilaterally, and then tell everyone else they're on their own and will have to build up their own military and pay for it,

Why should you have to do that? Why not KEEP your military budget, but let others contribute equally? What's your military budget got to do with anyone else's decisions on what their military budgets should be?

Keep your military budget for your own benefit, not to provide others with free assistance.

[Werthead]

The USA wants to remain the pre-eminent world superpower and having the largest military, both of which do (no matter US public opinion) meant it does become the world's policeman. If it doesn't want to do that, fine, it doesn't have to. But if it wants to retain that position, it has to pay for it. Other countries do what they can. Britain and France, simply put, would not be able to afford to pay the USA's costs of such an operation, not whilst retaining their own military forces.

[Horza]

No, I think Free Northman's Rent-A-Hegemon model is a great idea, I just hope he realises it would mean the end of an independent US foreign policy.

[Free Northman]

The USA wants to remain the pre-eminent world superpower and having the largest military, both of which do (no matter US public opinion) meant it does become the world's policeman. If it doesn't want to do that, fine, it doesn't have to. But if it wants to retain that position, it has to pay for it. Other countries do what they can. Britain and France, simply put, would not be able to afford to pay the USA's costs of such an operation, not whilst retaining their own military forces.

I don't see the connection between the two issues. The US can maintain its status and military strength, AND it can be more selfish with regards do when it employes that muscle.

If it is primarily the US who wants to engage in military activities in a specific case, then the current modus operandi is fine.

But in the case of Libya, for example, it was primarily France and the UK who were pushing for action. But they needed American muscle to do it. In that case, I would have said France and the UK should each pay a third of the costs, just like the US. Or whatever ratio made sense, given the lesser involvement of other countries like Germany and some tiny Gulf states etc.

[Horza]

More on the deterioration of the Syrian regime from a state to just the biggest, nastiest militia coalition.

[Galactus]

I don't see the connection between the two issues. The US can maintain its status and military strength, AND it can be more selfish with regards do when it employes that muscle.

No, it cannot really. Not without facing consequences in other areas.

The US is *already* acting in as selfish a manner as it can get away with without losing out on other fronts.

But in the case of Libya, for example, it was primarily France and the UK who were pushing for action. But they needed American muscle to do it. In that case, I would have said France and the UK should each pay a third of the costs, just like the US. Or whatever ratio made sense, given the lesser involvement of other countries like Germany and some tiny Gulf states etc.

Except that letting the french and brits do it was, essentially, a way for the US to get away with intervention without actually intervening much themselves, something that was apparently worth it to the US policymakers. If the US didn't want to contribute, it wouldn't have.

[Free Northman]

No, it cannot really. Not without facing consequences in other areas.

The US is *already* acting in as selfish a manner as it can get away with without losing out on other fronts.

Except that letting the french and brits do it was, essentially, a way for the US to get away with intervention without actually intervening much themselves, something that was apparently worth it to the US policymakers. If the US didn't want to contribute, it wouldn't have.

I understand the political maneuvering behind these alliances, but I just wonder whether the cost issue and possible financial compensation is ever discussed in the afermath. Or is it just a case of Big Brother will come and help you out, every time.

[KAH]

During the war, thousands of Syrian army personnel have defected to the rebel side. It is possible that those trained to use such weapons are among them.

While I suppose that is within the realm of the possible, would it not be likely that Assad assured that only the most dependably loyal units got this kind of training, rather than soldiers likely to jump over to the opposition?

[Fez]

I really don't support getting involved in Syria in any capacity; but at the same I time I think its very important to show that the use of chemical weapons is completely unacceptable. So I guess the US has to do something. Although, rather than spending hundreds of millions of dollars on missile and air strike (except against known chemical weapon depots), why can't we just have the CIA put out some heavy bounties and get involved in some assassinations of key regime personnel*?

I know that didn't work out so well with Castro, but, in general, it seems like we have a pretty good track record of things like that (albeit, usually against democratically elected regimes who we thought were a bit too 'red').

*Yeah, I know we have that law Carter signed; but we've ignored that before and there's plenty of ways around it.