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

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

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

Oh, I agree. That's part of the reason this isn't in our national interest. Just because we might earn brownie points with France and Britain doesn't mean that it is in our national interest overall.

[Every]

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?

Everything I've seen has been quite the opposite - very adamant that there will be no boots on the ground, that if there is active engagement it will be extremely limited, 2-3 days of strikes at most.

I can't say that I've seen the US taking a lot of flack over Libya, but it isn't something I've been following.

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.

I doubt arguments about legality and ethics would cut much ice with you, but from a realist perspective it should be clear that experience and basic common sense show there are negible gains to be made from assassinating the leaders of hostile countries. It's not as though you murder one hostile leader and the entire regime just sits around looking at each other blankly, as the country falls over itself to express its gratitude. There may be chaos, there may be stability, but either way the people who hated you before will hate you even more now, and some of the people who maybe didn't care before now also hate you.

And that's not even touching the sticky mess that is when the leader of a sovereign state crosses the line into being a 'fierce enemy' when daring to criticise the US.

[sToNED_CAT]

We'll be accused of being stooges for the Israelis, etc..

The funny thing is, I'm not even sure Israelis want Assad gone. He's an enemy, but new govt could be much worse, especially if they ally with Egypt (if Muslim Brotherhoood prevails there).

[Every]

The funny thing is, I'm not even sure Israelis want Assad gone. He's an enemy, but new govt could be much worse, especially if they ally with Egypt (if Muslim Brotherhoood prevails there).

I thought this article was interesting: http://jordantimes.com/the-arab-springs-unlikely-winner

[Werthead]

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?

No, but your statement was that the United States does everything by itself and everyone else just tags along without contributing. The USA and its allies benefit from their mutual alliance, and just as the USA sometimes asks its allies to support it when it is not overtly in their interests so the reverse is also the case.

In this case, taking action in Syria is very clearly in the United States' interests on all manner of fronts.

And who gets to decide that?

No-one gets to 'decide' that, it's a simple fact. Al-Qaeda, which the United States is at war with, is operating in Syria, an unstable country which possesses WMDs. If the United States can't be held back from invading a country for which there is zero evidence that it has WMDs, it seems ludicrous it has to be argued into invading one that not only has them (and has pretty much used them live on television) but where there is a considerable danger of them falling into the hands of an organisation which the USA is at war with.

On this basis it doesn't even matter who used the WMDs. Their unsecured existence in Syria represents a considerable risk to western interests in the region (and perhaps beyond), let alone the humanitarian argument.

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.

Yup, just like George Bush Jnr. did as well. So I'm not sure why it's necessary to play that card here.

this feels a lot like Libya to me. Is the US really taking that much "you broke it, you own it" heat on Libya?

Not that I've seen. The US in fact kept a relatively low - as low as you can in a major air campaign - profile and the UK and France undertook a lot of the attacks themselves. The problem there is that doing so used up the UK's military budget for the year. In fact, one of the reasons military action with regards to Syria was kept right off the table at the start of the conflict is that Britain couldn't physically afford it and the USA didn't want to have to do it by itself (two years on, we can now afford to get involved).

The other problem is that Syria has a much more sophisticated AA net than Libya did, although if it's true that they don't have S-300s after all, nowhere near as formidable as I think some in the news have been making out.

[sToNED_CAT]

No-one gets to 'decide' that, it's a simple fact. Al-Qaeda, which the United States is at war with, is operating in Syria, an unstable country which possesses WMDs. If the United States can't be held back from invading a country for which there is zero evidence that it has WMDs, it seems ludicrous it has to be argued into invading one that not only has them (and has pretty much used them live on television) but where there is a considerable danger of them falling into the hands of an organisation which the USA is at war with.

Except AQ is fighting against Assad. If US really wanted to fight AQ they should back Assad, not oppose him. In fact it could be an interesting diplomatic opportunity - help Assad, crush AQ and convert Syria from Russian/Chinese/Iranian ally into American one. Realpolitiker like Reagan or Nixon might have done something like that (in fact Bush jr did it with Libya, until Obama and co screwed it up), but current leadership doesn't have the balls and vision (they don't seem to have any long term strategy in Middle East at all).

And BTW where's the proof Syrian govt used chemical weapons? Why should they do it? They are winning now, they don't need to use chemical weapons especially such (relatively) small scale use and risk foreign intervention. It is far more likely that if they were used, they were used by rebels.

Yup, just like George Bush Jnr. did as well. So I'm not sure why it's necessary to play that card here.

Bush at least asked Congress for approval of "his" war. Obama doesn't bother, like he did in Libya. Obviously airstrikes are not really a war...

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

No, but your statement was that the United States does everything by itself and everyone else just tags along without contributing.

I said nothing of the sort. What I said was that the rest of the West benefitted from a U.S. defense umbrella, which I think is rather obviously true.

The USA and its allies benefit from their mutual alliance, and just as the USA sometimes asks its allies to support it when it is not overtly in their interests so the reverse is also the case.

Right. And sometimes they do, and sometimes they don't. Their choice. I'd say also that the time when you may owe a moral obligation is when the ally itself is in a sticky situation that doesn't impact the actual alliance. So, Britain in the Falklands. But if it is entirely a side adventure, that doesn't clearly impact the security of an ally, then I don't see a moral obligation. And neither do the majority of our NATO allies, for what it is worth.

In this case, taking action in Syria is very clearly in the United States' interests on all manner of fronts.

That's an opinion with which many people disagree. But that's really irrelevant to the particular argument you made about the U.S. being obliged to commit militarily just because allies want us to. If it is in our national interests, then of course we should do it. You raised the argument that even if it isn't, we should to it anyway just because our allies want us to. I disagree with that, and I suspect most of the alliance does as well.

No-one gets to 'decide' that, it's a simple fact.

I see. You get to decide it, because your opinion amounts to a fact. From your perspective, at least.

If the United States can't be held back from invading a country for which there is zero evidence that it has WMDs...

I disagree with the premise of that, but also, it's irrelevant. Presumably, you think the Iraq war was a mistake. Okay, then unless your argument is that we are obliged to continue committing mistakes just because we made that one, it is irrelevant. The merits of acting in Syria must stand on their own.

"Al-Qaeda, which the United States is at war with, is operating in Syria, an unstable country which possesses WMDs.

it seems ludicrous it has to be argued into invading one that not only has them (and has pretty much used them live on television) but where there is a considerable danger of them falling into the hands of an organisation which the USA is at war with."

So....your solution is to bomb those against whom AQ is fighting, without putting any boots on the ground to gain control of those weapons or to determine who runs the country afterwards? Brilliant plan, that.

On this basis it doesn't even matter who used the WMDs. Their unsecured existence in Syria represents a considerable risk to western interests in the region (and perhaps beyond), let alone the humanitarian argument.

The only way to do that would be with a massive, rapid ground invasion sufficient to locate and grab those munitions before they could be dumped into the back of non-descript trucks and spirited away. I happen to think that's very unlikely even if we wanted to attempt it, but I also don't think we should attempt it.

[Galactus]

, that doesn't clearly impact the security of an ally,

And you can't see how giving AQ-affiliated groups (or for that matter, a radicalized, hostile Assad regime) access to WMD's might not be a security risk for US allies in the region and in Europe?

Whether or not armed intervention is a valid tactic or not is a different matter, but the Syrian Civil War is clearly a potential risk-factor.

The merits of acting in Syria must stand on their own.

Well, that's not quite true. There is the merits of consistency, which certainly helps international relations just as much as anything else does. (whether or not that is practical is a different matter entirely)

[Fez]

Moving away from Syria and back to Egypt for a second, apparently the panel writing the new draft constitution (which will have to approved by popular referendum) is considering restoring the Mubarak-era ban on allowing religious-based political parties from participating in elections.

The new draft will also eliminate the upper house parliament, which is certainly better than the current system where the president appoints one-third of its members.

Well, that's not quite true. There is the merits of consistency, which certainly helps international relations just as much as anything else does. (whether or not that is practical is a different matter entirely)

The only consistency countries should hold in international relations is to always work towards the interests of their own citizens and not commit war crimes. Generally this means upholding alliances because alliances are valuable and if you break one countries aren't likely to trust you again; but it doesn't mean doing whatever the international community thinks you should be doing. Particularly if your own people don't want you to do it, and other countries want you to do it because their people don't want their countries to do it.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Moving away from Syria and back to Egypt for a second, apparently the panel writing the new draft constitution (which will have to approved by popular referendum) is considering restoring the Mubarak-era ban on allowing religious-based political parties from participating in elections.

Well, the U.S. does have the whole "Establishment of Religion" clause in our own Constitution, so that doesn't sound too unreasonable at first blush.