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

[Horza]

linkdump?

linkdump.

More eggheads who have studied this sort of thing warn against what the White House is pretty likely to end up doing

"Can you do damage with cruise missiles? Yes," said Anthony Cordesman, military analyst with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington think tank. "Can you stop them from having chemical weapons capability? I would think the answer would be no. Should you limit yourself to just a kind of incremental retaliation? That doesn't serve any strategic purpose. It doesn't protect the Syrian people, it doesn't push Assad out."

No really, you can't take out CW from the air.

George Packer argues with himself.

Wider intervention? Landis says no, Ibish says yes

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

The U.S. apparently has decided that the bombs/missiles will be dropping soon.

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/08/27/20209022-military-strikes-on-syria-as-early-as-thursday-us-officials-say?lite

Shit. So if these strikes don't do any significant damage to Assad, they're pointless. And if they do, and cripple him enough to lead to a rebel victory, we'll then be on the hook to help with reconstruction/stabilization.

Double shit.

[Werthead]

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?

The defections have been all over the place. Even some in the government have jumped ship to the rebels. On that basis, there's no such thing as the 'most dependably loyal units'. If anything, the units most loyal to the old regime have the most to loose if the opposition wins, so will be ready to jump ship as soon as the momentum really gets going against them. We saw this happen in Libya and Egypt, that once the opponents got some speed the goverment's supposedly most loyal supporters started abandoning the sinking ship with alacrity. In Syria the opposition nearly got that momentum going when they were able to directly attack Damascus and Aleppo, but then got bogged down in a stalemate. If at that moment, much earlier in the war, there'd been a limited series of strikes by outside forces, that could have been much more decisive in helping take down the Assad regime.

I'm not sure I get this point. We can have the world's preeminent military, and choose to use that military only when we see it as benefitting our national interests,not just because he rest of the world thinks something "should be done" and wants us to do it because they're unable. Those other nations might not like that, but I hardly think they have cause to complain given that they're not the ones paying the tax dollars to sustain that military.

It should be noted that those allies do contribute to the USA's military capability, however. The USA has substantial air bases, garrisons and other assets in the UK, Germany and Italy (not sure about France) and has use of ports in those countries for resupplying. The USA's considerable force-projection capabilities are enhanced by having those resources to call on. Not to mention how many of those allies accompanied the USA on its ill-thought-out invasion of Iraq and sacrificed hundreds of lives to what was essentially George Bush Jnr's pointless military adventure. I don't think asking the USA to use its resources for a conflict which actually appeas to be more necessary is outrageous in those circumstances.

Our obligations are limited to our alliances, and to our allies if attacked. That does not extend to every other foreign adventure those allies may think it is a good idea.

Which is fair enough if, say, France wanted the USA to help it invade Greenland on a whim. However, the USA being asked to use its military to stop a regime opposed to it and several of its allies (most notably Israel and, more recently, Turkey), and to destroy WMDs (y'know, what the USA invaded Iraq to do, except there weren't any there and there are in Syria), either from being used against civilians or to stop them falling into the hands of groups like al-Qaeda.

Syria has become another front in the war on terror, the war the United States started back in 2001. Following through on it does not seem unreasonable.

[Atreides]

The U.S. apparently has decided that the bombs/missiles will be dropping soon.

http://worldnews.nbc...icials-say?lite

Shit. So if these strikes don't do any significant damage to Assad, they're pointless. And if they do, and cripple him enough to lead to a rebel victory, we'll then be on the hook to help with reconstruction/stabilization.

Double shit.

Goddamit. I agree nearly completely with your assessment. One thing though: all that non-military aid that we've been giving to the rebels, has any of that been related to governance practices? Maybe we could just tell them to rebuild their own state, citing our relative failures in Iraq and Afghanistan as reasons why they shouldn't want our aid after the bombs stop falling. Sure there would be Syrians angry at us, but that's already true, and if we're bombing that's going to be doubly true.

Syria has become another front in the war on terror, the war the United States started back in 2001. Following through on it does not seem unreasonable.

Except for that fact that there are terror groups who we are opposed to on both sides of the Syrian conflict.

[Fez]

The U.S. apparently has decided that the bombs/missiles will be dropping soon.

http://worldnews.nbc...icials-say?lite

Shit. So if these strikes don't do any significant damage to Assad, they're pointless. And if they do, and cripple him enough to lead to a rebel victory, we'll then be on the hook to help with reconstruction/stabilization.

Double shit.

Well, maybe we'll luck out and Congress will pass a rider to whatever final budget deal there is blocking the US from allocating any funds to reconstruction in Syria. That way we can't do anything but drop some bombs.

In today's austerity environment, its not out of the realm of possibility.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

It should be noted that those allies do contribute to the USA's military capability, however. The USA has substantial air bases, garrisons and other assets in the UK, Germany and Italy (not sure about France) and has use of ports in those countries for resupplying. The USA's considerable force-projection capabilities are enhanced by having those resources to call on.

Do you think we get those assets purely out of the goodness of their hearts, and not because those nations benefitted from the U.S. defense umbrella for the past 60+ years or so? Is the deal really understood as " you have to use your military where we see fit because we let you use these bases?" Is that the basis for those arrangements?

Not to mention how many of those allies accompanied the USA on its ill-thought-out invasion of Iraq and sacrificed hundreds of lives to what was essentially George Bush Jnr's pointless military adventure.

Yeah, the march of the panzers and poilus into Baghdad was an impressive sight. Snd nice of France to not give us overflight rights for bombing Ghaddafi back in the 80's too.

Nations participate in non-alliance military actions based on their own perceived national interests. Tony Blair argued that it was the right thing to do, and that Saddam needed to go. He didn't say "well, we really don't believe in this at all, but we're going just because the Americans asked." And a great deal of other allies chose not to participate, which was certainly their right. So why is it that France, Germany, etc. are entitled not to participate in U.S. military ventures, but we're somehow obligated to intervene in third party military actions just because they want us to?

I don't think asking the USA to use its resources for a conflict which actually appeas to be more necessary is outrageous in those circumstances.

I don't think it is outrageous to ask. Asking is fine. But we shouldn't feel any obligation to intervene militarily in a situation that doesn't directly involve any of our allies, just because some of those allies decide they want to intervene.

However, the USA being asked to use its military to stop a regime opposed to it and several of its allies (most notably Israel and, more recently, Turkey), and to destroy WMDs (y'know, what the USA invaded Iraq to do, except there weren't any there and there are in Syria), either from being used against civilians or to stop them falling into the hands of groups like al-Qaeda.

If Turkey wishes to invoke NATO, that would be a different thing. If Israel was asking us to honor a specific military obligation, that would be something different as well. But neither seems to be the case here.

Syria has become another front in the war on terror, the war the United States started back in 2001. Following through on it does not seem unreasonable.

And who gets to decide that? You? If Britain and France think that it is, and we think it is not, should their considered opinions override ours, and require the commitment of U.S. military forces? Should we have joined them in Suez in 1956, simply because they felt their actions were right and justified, or did we maintain sovereignity to decide differently?

Again, Afghanistan was the result of a formal invocation of NATO obligations. That has not happened in Syria. If France, Britain, or whomever wish to invoke NATO for the purposes of addressing Syria, they're entitled to do so and to open that debate. Otherwise, we have the same right as do all of those allies not to join in military expeditions that are outside the purview of NATO.

[Every]

Imagine if all world leaders that are fierce enemies of the US start dying off one by one in targeted strikes through some unknown technological means (x-rays from space borne weapon arrays, to use a fictitious example for arguments sake).

Imagine if that just happened to Saddam and Ghadaffi.

How many lives and how many billions of dollars would have been saved?

I actually agree with Tywin Lannister in this instance. "Explain why killing one man is worse than killing 10,000 on a battlefield."

I would not do it while he was my guest, however, but I would go out and announce that he is now officially on our target list and his number is up. And then carry out my threat. Until the message hits home.

That's... terrifying. You can't really believe that it would be justified for the US to start killing off heads of state who stand opposed to them.

[Free Northman]

That's... terrifying. You can't really believe that it would be justified for the US to start killing off heads of state who stand opposed to them.

Opposed? No. Everyone's got a right to an opinion.

Fierce enemies like Chavez, Castro, Saddam, Ghadaffi, Kim Jong Ill etc? Sure, why not. If there are real gains to be had.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Well, maybe we'll luck out and Congress will pass a rider to whatever final budget deal there is blocking the US from allocating any funds to reconstruction in Syria. That way we can't do anything but drop some bombs.

In today's austerity environment, its not out of the realm of possibility.

That's true, but that's not going to change the expectation on the part of the rest of the world that because we broke it, we've got to fix it. And I'm rather sick of the rest of the world blaming us for shit that goes wrong, and then using that to drum up anti-American sentiment that bites us in the ass somewhere else.

Or, we get in a a situation where the expectation that we'll bring democracy collides with the reality that islamists might win in some post-war struggle --electoral or otherwise, so we either get accused of being undemocratic, or we end up supporting/enabling a regime anathema to our interests/beliefs.

I'm relatively gratified to see that a majority of my fellow citizens are opposed to this.

[Phaing]

I'm relatively gratified to see that a majority of my fellow citizens are opposed to this.

It won't matter to Barry and his supporters, it never does.

He's even going to by-pass the UN, and the Band will play right on.

[Free Northman]

Democracy is kind of a bitch, if the majority of a country's citizens really are fanatics that hate your guts. Then you kind of don't want democracy there.

That's kind of what the Middle East is turning out to be. Which leaves the US with a bit of a dilemma.

[Galactus]

And I'm rather sick of the rest of the world blaming us for shit that goes wrong

Well, you might not have gotten into the entire empire-building global domination game then. So take it up with the Founding Fathers.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Democracy is kind of a bitch, if the majority of a country's citizens really are fanatics that hate your guts. Then you kind of don't want democracy there.

That's kind of what the Middle East is turning out to be. Which leaves the US with a bit of a dilemma.

I'd have less of a problem if it was clear that whatever replaces Assad is going to be clearly superior to him. But as of now, it is fair to say that is quite uncertain.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Well, you might not have gotten into the entire empire-building global domination game then. So take it up with the Founding Fathers.

There is quite a difference between engaging in foreign policy actions that you believe -- rightly or wrongly -- are in your national interest, and engaging in foreign policy actions just because other nations think you should.

[Galactus]

There is quite a difference between engaging in foreign policy actions that you believe -- rightly or wrongly -- are in your national interest, and engaging in foreign policy actions just because other nations think you should.

The assumption here is that "What other nations think" does not affect what is in your national interest. It does.

[Galactus]

Yeah, honestly, "boots on the ground" beyond perhaps a special forces unit or two is highly unlikely.

I can definitely see an air campaign ala. Kosovo or Libya though.

[sToNED_CAT]

Not to mention how many of those allies accompanied the USA on its ill-thought-out invasion of Iraq and sacrificed hundreds of lives to what was essentially George Bush Jnr's pointless military adventure. I don't think asking the USA to use its resources for a conflict which actually appeas to be more necessary is outrageous in those circumstances.

Not many really. Just UK (and Poland, don't forget Poland! )And France and Germany especially bitched non-stop about legality of invasion and such. Why should US even consider to further their interests?

[Galactus]

Not many really. Just UK (and Poland, don't forget Poland! )And France and Germany especially bitched non-stop about legality of invasion and such. Why should US even consider to help then further their interests?

Nonsensical question.

[The Progressive]

Time to unleash the drones.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

But just to be clear, no one has seen any suggestion yet that there will be boots on the ground, so to speak, right? Not that there's any perfect comparison, but this feels a lot like Libya to me. Is the US really taking that much "you broke it, you own it" heat on Libya?

We've tossed a couple of hundred million at Libya, so maybe that's why there isn't as much of an outcry for more. And of course, there was the whole deal with us keeping that CIA presence in Libya to try to gather up all the weapons we'd provided that blew up in our face. But Libya also is a backwater compared to Syria, which is dead smack in the middle of the ME shitstorm. It's got 4 times the population. And if what we do goes wrong, the blowback is likely to be a lot worse. We'll be accused of being stooges for the Israelis, etc..

(by the way, FLOW, I wish there were a less serious topic in which I could say this, but nice av)

Really? Thanks. You do know the movie and scene, right?