Syria: End Game

[thecryptile]

From reason.com:

Can We Really Do Better In Syria Than We Did in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya?

If we still can't make these countries right, why do we assume we'll do better in Syria? It could easily turn out worse. McCain says U.S. ground troops won't be needed, but what if we take on Assad and he survives? Once we commit to his removal, interventionists will demand that we expand the fight rather than abandon it.

And what if a limited intervention does work? Our reward could be a government worse than the current dictatorship. One of the chief rebel factions is publicly affiliated with al-Qaida -- and others are equally extreme in outlook. U.S. intervention may deliver victory to people we wouldn't dream of letting through a TSA checkpoint.

If we go to war in Syria, it will be without any real assurance of what it will take, how long it will last, how many lives we'll lose and what the outcome will be. But if the past is any guide, we'll do it, and we'll be sorry we did.

http://reason.com/archives/2013/05/30/can-we-really-do-better-in-syria-than-we

[Ramsay Gimp]

^Reason's a great site

It's really too bad McCain didn't get hit by a mortar or something during his meddling over there

[Every]

He did pose for photos next to a known kidnapper. You'd really think someone would be vetting the fighters a politician does photo ops with in a war zone, but apparently not.

[Horza]

Was he for intervention in Libya? I haven't been keeping track of the bombhappy old coot.

[Yoadm]

That's what I figured. Unsurprisingly, American politicians aren't nearly as rational - they think helping Sunni Jihadists to victory will somehow work out in the end

Well, our proximity to the civil war makes us far more careful in making kneejerk reactions.

[Usotsuki]

Was he for intervention in Libya? I haven't been keeping track of the bombhappy old coot.

Libya, Narnia and he's reportedly concerned about events at the Twins that may necessitate American intervention in Westeros.

[Prosesskrift]

This is where the progressive left and the libertarians or "non-interventionists" agree.

I was and still am mixed on Libya; I'm open-minded to the notion of humanitarian intervention. But I'm not completely sold on it. I really think it's a case-by-case basis type of thing. I know that this opens me up to the critique of moral relativism, but only slack-jawed gawkers and hypocrites actually believe that moral relativism is a truly valid critique.

Syria has so many variables and so many pitfalls that I don't want to touch it. What is happening there is awful. What replaces it would quite possibly be awful as well.

Though I am typically of the same mind, namely that intervention usually cause more damage than it helps, I do think there are instances where intervention is both justified and necessary, and Libyia, I think, falls into that category.

Intervention in Libya, after all, had broad international support, including the Security Council and the Arab League. Furthemore, the Libyan rebells had a functioning leadership, and because of the geography it was fairly easy to apply air superiority to the conflict in a meaningful manner.

[thecryptile]

Reports: Michigan woman killed in Syria

Syrian news reports say that Mansfield and two other westerners killed with her were fighters for the opposition to Syria's government.

In an earlier statement, a State Department official had said: "We are aware of the case. As we do in all such cases, we are working through our Czech protecting power in Syria to obtain more information, and we appreciate the efforts of the Czech mission on behalf of our citizens."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57586979/american-woman-killed-in-syria/

Report: Syrian forces kill American, British citizen accused of fighting alongside rebels

The report said the three were ambushed in their car in the flashpoint province of Idlib in northwestern Syria, where government forces have been battling rebels for control.

TV footage showed a bullet-riddled car and three bodies laid out. It also showed weapons, a computer, a hand-drawn map of a government military facility and a flag belonging to the al Qaeda-affiliated al-Nusra Front.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/30/world/meast/syria-civil-war

[Shryke]

If they sold the system for full market price, they might not care. Or they might issue a diplomatic complaint that, for obvious reasons, no one in the west will support. Our response is a wait and see because both sides are as bad as the other. Only difference is that Assad, as a state actor, is more rational in his approach to us. He wont fire chemical weapons or move them to Hezbollah if his regime is stable because his main concern is his regimes survival. Once non state actors take control of these weapons, then we have replaced an enemy we know, and have mutually learned the rules of the game, to one we don't.

I don't see what non-state actors are gonna do with a huge anti-air system. It ain't like shoulder-mounted rockets or anything, these things are huge and are trucks.

[Horza]

Libya, Narnia and he's reportedly concerned about events at the Twins that may necessitate American intervention in Westeros.

You lay these as charges against him, but I find there is much to admire in this pursuit of freedom across the multiverse.

Though I am typically of the same mind, namely that intervention usually cause more damage than it helps, I do think there are instances where intervention is both justified and necessary, and Libyia, I think, falls into that category.

Intervention in Libya, after all, had broad international support, including the Security Council and the Arab League. Furthemore, the Libyan rebells had a functioning leadership, and because of the geography it was fairly easy to apply air superiority to the conflict in a meaningful manner.

That was one I was deeply ambivalent over. I could see the case for air power to prevent Gaddafi's army from sacking Benghazi, but that justification quickly turned into 'help the rebels all the way to Tripoli' when the mandate was solely to protect civilians.

That decision helped sour China and Russia on any deal over Syria (not that they needed much souring, but still) and while it's clear that subsequent events in Mali were the product of many factors, one of them was the diffusion of weapons from a stateless Libya.

And this is all from an 'easy' intervention.

[Yoadm]

I don't see what non-state actors are gonna do with a huge anti-air system. It ain't like shoulder-mounted rockets or anything, these things are huge and are trucks.

That's not as big a risk as chemical weapons falling into their hands, but I do see the possibility of Hezbollah potentially being able to field them if trained correctly, in the future.

[Shryke]

That's not as big a risk as chemical weapons falling into their hands, but I do see the possibility of Hezbollah potentially being able to field them if trained correctly, in the future.

Ok, yeah, Hezbollah could maybe do something with them. The rebels far less likely imo.

In general, the things are just too large and too expensive for anyone but a state-actor to do much with imo. Or not for long anyway. You can't really do insurgency-type warfare with them.

[Shryke]

That was one I was deeply ambivalent over. I could see the case for air power to prevent Gaddafi's army from sacking Benghazi, but that justification quickly turned into 'help the rebels all the way to Tripoli' when the mandate was solely to protect civilians.

That decision helped sour China and Russia on any deal over Syria (not that they needed much souring, but still) and while it's clear that subsequent events in Mali were the product of many factors, one of them was the diffusion of weapons from a stateless Libya.

And this is all from an 'easy' intervention.

The mandate to protect civilians in Libya wasn't gonna be worth shit as long as Gaddafi was around. And it ain't like a slightly better China and Russia situation would mean anything with regards to Syria (even assuming they gave enough of a shit about Libya to have any effect on future relations, which I think is a huge stretch. The Chinese and Russians only care about cockblocking American international power because they don't want the US getting even more powerful. They don't hold a grudge over this shit.) Syria is a clusterfuck of a situation no matter what the Russians are up to.

[Padraig]

That was one I was deeply ambivalent over. I could see the case for air power to prevent Gaddafi's army from sacking Benghazi, but that justification quickly turned into 'help the rebels all the way to Tripoli' when the mandate was solely to protect civilians.

I am not very ambivalent towards Libya. France/UK clearly didn't hold to their mandate but at least it resulted in Gaddafi falling relatively quickly. Syria has been dragging on for years now and even if Assad has turned the tide, I don't think he will wrap this up quickly. The losses in Syria make Libya look smallscale also.

Libya is far from a great success story but only those with rose-tinted glasses could have expected an idyllic peaceful country after decades of Gaddafi influence. Mali was very unfortunate but everything has consequences. Gaddafi grinding out a victory would have equally bloody ones I imagine.

Well, our proximity to the civil war makes us far more careful in making kneejerk reactions.

And Israel visibly supporting either side would be the last thing that side would want. :)

Unsurprisingly, American politicians aren't nearly as rational - they think helping Sunni Jihadists to victory will somehow work out in the end

Hah. The US isn't helping the rebels to win anything. Its the very presence of those Jihadists that has made the US reluctant to get involved (the lack of proper leadership doesn't help either). But of course, the lack of Western help has made the rebels depend more on those very Jihadists. Its one of those ironies of war.

People seem to miss those very important subtleties though.

[Horza]

The mandate to protect civilians in Libya wasn't gonna be worth shit as long as Gaddafi was around.

Could be, but it remains that UNSCR 1973 doesn't authorise the overthrow of the regime, and 'all necessary means to protect civilians' is broad but can't in good faith be used to support rebel attacks on regime-held cities. The possibility of a ceasefire and a Saleh-style de-escalation was probably remote but wasn't explored.

And it ain't like a slightly better China and Russia situation would mean anything with regards to Syria (even assuming they gave enough of a shit about Libya to have any effect on future relations, which I think is a huge stretch. The Chinese and Russians only care about cockblocking American international power because they don't want the US getting even more powerful. They don't hold a grudge over this shit.) Syria is a clusterfuck of a situation no matter what the Russians are up to.

This is wrong. Russia is quite invested in the Assads, but both it and China felt slighted by the interpretation of R1973 taken by Nato. In China's case it has been quite consistently noninterventionist (for its own self-interested reasons, but nonetheless). It made an exception with Libya, and subsequent events contributed to its veto decision over Syria last year.

[Usotsuki]

Shryke,

as Horza points out I think that probably understates the value of a patron-client state relationship especially one that's had the duration of the Russian-Syrian relationship.

Even during the Cold War when bloc competition was at its height defections between blocs were rare no matter how much was bid, relationships are to some extent self-sustaining.

The Syrian regime will have any number of elite members whose careers have been fostered by their relationship with Russia and Russia will also have a large number of senior officials who have profited from the relationship with Syria, there will even be individuals whose entire existence is owed to the alliance.

At college I shared a flat with a guy who had an Alawite father and Russian mother and looked forward to a long and prosperous career accepting bribes in the Syrian Transport Ministry and holidaying with his mother's family in the Crimea. Ending the Russian-Syrian relationship isn't simply a matter of re-positioning, losing naval bases and military contracts it's also abandoning Cousin Haitham and his adorable kids to those jihadist lunatics, and he was so good about helping with those unexpected medical bills etc.etc etc.

Consider how endangered the al-khalifah family would have to be, and what they would have to have done for the UK to abandon them.

[Horza]

I am not very ambivalent towards Libya. France/UK clearly didn't hold to their mandate but at least it resulted in Gaddafi falling relatively quickly. Syria has been dragging on for years now and even if Assad has turned the tide, I don't think he will wrap this up quickly. The losses in Syria make Libya look smallscale also.

The war in Syria has gone on longer because the geography, politics and military situation is very different. Libya was quite unique in this regard, it really was just a few major cities strung along a long, relatively flat coastal road, with no significant ethnic or sectarian dimension to the conflict and a regime that lacked a standing army or significant political infrastructure.

Libya is far from a great success story but only those with rose-tinted glasses could have expected an idyllic peaceful country after decades of Gaddafi influence. Mali was very unfortunate but everything has consequences. Gaddafi grinding out a victory would have equally bloody ones I imagine.

That's a little strawmanish. What I'm suggesting is that after the push on Benghazi was broken it might have been possible for a power-sharing agreement to be forced on the Gaddafis by the Security Council which could have brought Libya to the present stage of relatively less bloody political upheaval without six months of grinding conflict.

[Every]

And Israel visibly supporting either side would be the last thing that side would want. :)

Now there's a thought.

Speaking of Libya, if Syria's getting some they want their Russian weapons too. As do the Iraqis. And the Iranians are pissed off that theirs aren't in the mail. All of this is in the Russian media on the same day as that weapons plant is opening in Jordan. They're busy little bees, those Russians.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Hah. The US isn't helping the rebels to win anything. Its the very presence of those Jihadists that has made the US reluctant to get involved (the lack of proper leadership doesn't help either). But of course, the lack of Western help has made the rebels depend more on those very Jihadists. Its one of those ironies of war.

People seem to miss those very important subtleties though.

I think the more accurate statement is that some Americans believe that helping generic rebels will somehow weaken the jihadis, which I think is lunacy. Even if you could limit military aid to specific secular groups (such as they exist), there is absolutely nothing preventing the jihadis from swallowing the secular rebels and their weapons after Assad were to fall. The exception would be if there was a strong, cohesive secular force already in existence that you thought could whip both Assad and the jihadis. But that would be incredibly wishful thinking on our part.

As far as I'm concerned, one dead Ambassador is enough. I don't want us to have anything to do with helping either side, or accepting even the tiniest shred of responsibility for what happens afterwards. Sure, there are some who would say we're responsible anyway, for whatever reason, but I don't care about that. I just don't want us to accept the idea that we are somehow obliged to "do something" afterwards simply because we chose to help one side.

[Padraig]

What I'm suggesting is that after the push on Benghazi was broken it might have been possible for a power-sharing agreement to be forced on the Gaddafis by the Security Council which could have brought Libya to the present stage of relatively less bloody political upheaval without six months of grinding conflict.

As you said earlier, it was a remote probability. And if and when it failed, it would only drag the war out. (Gaddaffi should have tried to bring it back to the UN but he seemed to lose all his allies and he seemed to think he could win).

And sure, France/UK got involved because of the favourable geograhy/location made them think they could get in and out quickly...but that's a circular argument. They were never going to get involved if they thought it was going to last a long time.

I think the more accurate statement is that some Americans believe that helping generic rebels will somehow weaken the jihadis, which I think is lunacy.

I don't think the idea is lunacy but as you say, the lack of a coherent force makes it very difficult. It might help but I can see why the US would be very wary of that risk. I don't think we really know how extreme the rebels are but even if the real extremists are a small part of that group, the minority could still end up holding the reins of power afterwards.

I just don't want us to accept the idea that we are somehow obliged to "do something" afterwards simply because we chose to help one side.

Do you think the US should remove the sanctions that are currently applying to Assad?

And about the Ambassador. There is no course that ensures that US Ambassador's wouldn't be hit from another terrorist strike.

Assad is never going to be popular in Syria again (outside his current core supporters). That makes me wary of what will happen if he does manage to hold onto support for years to come. The Middle East has had enough insurgency already. But I wouldn't argue that things wouldn't be worse if he left power.