Middle East/North Africa 12 - Armageddon Anyone?

[Ixodes]

(no one has yet said in whose eyes we would lose credibility or what the consequences of such would actually be, it's apparently just being accepted as true that this credibility is extremely valuable and worth millions of my dollars and hundreds of Syrian lives)

I wonder if Obama looks at the Nobel peace prize hanging on his mantle. What goes through his mind? Does he just laugh hysterically? Does he laugh maniacally, rubbing his hands together? Does he just ignore it uncomfortably?

My guess is he doesn't look at it at all.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

I'm not so sure. Hell, what about Assad? Assuming he did this, could we not conclude that he was largely unafraid of the US response? But I also concede I'm still confused a bit by why Assad would even do this if it were the surest way to get US involvement. Simply because he's in a bloody civil war and shit is going to go down?

So what's Assad going to do with the US alleged toothlessness now? Invade Lebanon? Claim the moon for Syria?

[NoneofYourBiz]

Here is my apparently eagerly anticipated “magnum opus”. I must apologize for my silly desire to put some thought into my response. I didn’t have a 3 sentence answer and had no idea of the apparent urgency of a response and mistakenly thought I could casually put together my thoughts in between meetings at work, and not have to type it on my iPhone on my break, because I can’t access the internet at work. I frankly am completely amused by the name calling, assumptions, and demands that I ANSWER IMMEDIATELY. I have participated in many political forums and never experienced anything like the responses of some of the people on this thread. I can only surmise that some people don’t get out much and feel very smug and powerful from behind their computer screens. There were some interesting posts by others on the thread that I enjoyed reading though.

Let’s start with “your statement that Obama supports the Brotherhood is stupid” There’s a pretty widespread view in Egypt right now that Obama supports the Muslim Brotherhood, so if POTUS is not, in fact, going for the appearance that he supports the Brotherhood, maybe he should rethink what he is projecting. For instance, Dr. Mohamed Abou El-Ghar said recently that he fears, “America is losing Egypt…There is a very strong perception that they are supporting the Muslim Brotherhood and they are against other parties,” I don’t think Dr. El-Ghar listens to Glenn Beck and he’s certainly not a Teabagger, so I guess he might have come to this conclusion on his own, based on Obama’s policies in the Middle East, and he is not alone in that opinion.

So let’s get to why I think Obama supports the Muslim Brotherhood. It’s a long answer so for starters, I look at his overall trends when it comes to uprisings in the Middle East. When the uprisings are against Islamist regimes, the Obama position is not to back the uprising. When the uprising will create a power vacuum that Islamists can step into, he’s all in:

· The Green Uprising in Iran got a “the U.S. will not meddle” from Obama.

· When the uprising was against Mubarak, however, he was willing to meddle and immediately get cozy with the Brotherhood.

· He intervened in Libya militarily to oust Gadaffi. Who is in charge in Libya now? Why, our friends the Muslim Brotherhood!

· When the people revolt in Egypt and oust the Muslim Brotherhood, again Obama was willing to meddle, but on behalf of the Brotherhood. Why doesn’t he support the will of the people? Yes, they were democratically elected, but when the Egyptians realized they didn’t want their very own version of the Taliban they revolted. Why is Obama condemning that?

· He wants to involve himself in Syria against Assad and on the side of Muslim Brotherhood backed rebels

· The White House said a couple of days ago that Obama and Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan, had “agreed to have their teams continue to coordinate closely to promote our shared interests.” Erdogan is also a supporter of…wait for it… the Muslim Brotherhood and furthermore said that his goal is regime change in Syria.

Trends, my friends, follow the trends. I don’t dispute that the Middle East is full of crappy, brutal dictators, but Islamist regimes are not in the U.S’s best interests, so if one feels the need to meddle in their foreign affairs you would think our interventions would go in the other direction.

Do I have to go on? I will but I don’t really want to waste my time since I don’t really think there is any interest in my answer but rather some bizarre desire to make me prove I am not on Glenn Beck’s speed dial.

[NoneofYourBiz]

I don't think it is a stretch to say we were on the MB side as the possibility of a coup increased. We were both making the same argument -- the result of that particular election should be respected. It's like saying we were on the same side as the Soviet Union during WWII. We were, in the sense that we were both opposed to Hitler, but there were a lot of disagreements as well.

Look, the point is that everyone is leaping all over the use of the word "friends" in a feeding frenzy, when the real issues may actually be interesting to discuss. I mean, it's not like the use of hyperbole is exactly uncommon around here.

The underlying issue that Istakr is raising may generate a more interesting debate than arguing word choice and hyperbole. How much should the U.S. support the concept of democracy if the result is islamist governments that repress basic rights? That is an question that is relevant to Egypt, Iran, and perhaps Syria as well. It potentially puts us in the position of defending a government that is opposed to our ideals, beliefs, and geopolitical interests.

Agreed completely. The last paragraph is completely worth discussing.

[the_one_who_was_promised]

The problem is that we still seem a little fuzzy on whether the Syrian government ordered the use of chemical weapons, or if it was parts of the military. Granted, I don't think it's any more comforting to have the Syrian military deciding on their own to use chemical weapons than if Assad ordered them.

The thing is, I'm not sure how this is any argument against intervention.

I don't agree that this is no argument against intervention. This appears to have been the basis for war - namely that Assad allegedly used weapons against his own people.

In an ordinary trial, the evidence is supposed to be sufficiently compelling as to reach the "beyond reasonable doubt" threshhold - yet for starting a war of this magnitude, it doesn't matter who within Assad's military ordered this attack?

I've read in a couple of places leaks about the intercepts, that they couldn't trace it to Assad, and that it might have been a subordinate command taking authority it did not have. That has been printed in newspapers, so it is certainly something that can be alleged with some support. Whether it was actually the CIA as opposed to someone else, I don't know.

Actually, I think I remember reading that it was an Israeli intercept, which would enable themm to replace "CIA" with "Zionist pigs". Doesn't really change the point much, does it?

Do we all know on here with a reasonable amount of certainty that someone within his military ordered this attack? Do we know with a reasonable amount of certainty that the source who divulged this information was credible? Do we know with a reasonable likelihood of certainty that it was not a rogue element within his military who ordered this attack? And, do we know with any reasonable degree of certainty that the rebels were not involved in this attack?

Perhaps his government was responsible for this attack or someone within his chain of command was responsible but forgive me - unless someone here has access to information not known to the rest of us, I don't know how any of us can be certain who ordered this attack and for what purposes.

It is not just the US' credibility at risk here and IMO it would be inherently foolish to launch a war without UN approval just based on whether the US want to maintain their credibility.

This action could have many profound and dangerous consequences:-

- The US and UK (although thankfully we are no longer involved) have military bases in Turkey and Cyprus who could face retaliation

- Israel could face retaliation

- Iran could become involved

- The number of dead could dramatically increase depending on whether the strikes are extended beyond the first strike

- The number of refugees to neighbouring countries could dramatically increase and challenge those countries' abilities to accommodate them

- How can the US and their new allies ensure that any action does not worsen the current situation by for example hitting CW storage facilities causing CW properties to disperse

- Military action could further facilitate a breeding ground of discontent against the West

- There is no guarantee that Russia will not seek to become involved at some point in time

Furthermore, what is the exit strategy in place? If Assad falls, who is to replace him - the rebels? We have received reports that they are rather fractious - consisting of fundamental as well as moderate elements. How can these be reconciled, in order to ensure a smooth transition of power? Will they at least be able to uphold fundamental freedoms for women, minorities and different religious groups in the region? How can we ensure that extremism does not then take foot, and spread beyond? Syria is next to Turkey - considered by many to be the gateway to Europe. Inviting or allowing extremism to take hold in Syria could present serious ramifications for other countries in the region - and beyond - in the years to come.

Indeed, given the stakes involved, is it not desirable - even sensible and reasonable - to ensure that the links to Assad, and his government are as compelling as possible, and doesn’t hinge on an intercepted telephone call or the like??

[Shryke]

I don't agree that this is no argument against intervention. This appears to have been the basis for war - namely that Assad allegedly used weapons against his own people.

In an ordinary trial, the evidence is supposed to be sufficiently compelling as to reach the "beyond reasonable doubt" threshhold - yet for starting a war of this magnitude, it doesn't matter who within Assad's military ordered this attack?

No, not particularly. If Assad did it, it's the reasoning as before. If Assad didn't directly order it, then the top level of the Syrian government is no longer in direct control of it's own CW, which makes some sort of action even more necessary, since now anyone could be ordering them used.

[KAH]

At this point, I think the ship has sailed - any action, short of a fullblown invasion of Syria followed by a massive peacekeeping effort, is going to amount to nothing much. That's not going to happen, so Syria's going to remain a basketcase for years.

Russia and China; we take comfort in the knowledge that 100 000 people and counting are dead, not because the Security Council members have any real strategic interest in Syria, but because you wanna put your tongue out at the west.

[ThinkerX]

Is it just me, or does the WMD use is Syria seem so weird as to be a possible 'false flag'?

I mean...Syria gained *NOTHING* from the attack. If anything, they lost big time, at least in the international sphere.

They could have used them a year or two ago, in far, far, larger quantities, to much more effect. Heck, they could have used a *LOT* more of them this time around and permanently crippled the rebel movement, possibly beyond saving.

Instead, we get what looks almost like a test, or giant accident of some sort.

Also, just how trustworthy and accountable are the intelligence agencies involved in making these claims? Maybe we got a bunch of Neocons with ties to spooks or special forces running amok?*

*And if this is the case, would it be treason for a leaker to go public with documents backing this assertion?

To me, it looks like somebody at the Oligarch level here really wants the US in Syria.

Again, I suspect this will be a combination of publically acknowledged 'advisors', with a largely secret or secretive campaign by tens of thousands of 'contractors' (mercenaries).

[ThinkerX]

They may have known that a US response was possible, but they probably, correctly, think that an actual invasion / occupation is highly unlikely, so they could be in a "win the civil war and cling to power at all costs" mindset because the stakes are so high.

Doesn't work, though. That situation you either:

A) unleash EVERY chemical weapon you got against rebel strongholds - and ME dictators have a long, and occasionally US supported/ignored history of slaughtering many tens of thousands of their own subjects; OR

B) you don't use chemical weapons at all.

Option A might have had a fair chance of killing off the bulk of the rebel movement, maybe enough to put the regime back in full control.

Option B prolongs an already existing stalemate.

But this route gains them NOTHING.

So...legit question...is somebody else playing deadly games here, hoping to provoke escallation or even an invasion?

[jarl the climber]

The US is not very popular in Egypt. I think its fair to say that we are perceived as having given the Brotherhood some support all though I can't see anything really tangible that we have done for them. On the other hand I think there is some sense in the US using its influence to protect them from being persecuted in Egypt and having their human rights violated. The real problem seems to be that other powers like Russia and Saudia Arabia who are capable of stepping into the opening left by a lack of a coherent policy on the part of the Obama administration.

Obama has also commited himself to an extent in changing the regime in Syria. At the same time he does not seem to have any real plan in place to accomplish this. It seems like the Syrians and their supporters are forcing Obamas hand on this and he is reacting to them instead of forcing them to react to US policy at least so far. The most sriking thing is the lack of diplomatic groundwork, the vote in the British Parliment was embarrasing, it should have never been submitted to them if it was going to be rejected. The joke going around in the Middle East is that the US plans to fix this with another round of negotiations between the Palestinians and the Israelis.

[snake]

I do know what you mean, but here's the possible explanation that stems from the first Zakaria video.

Assad and the Alawites are a minority ruling class in a Sunni nation with borders drawn up decades ago by outside forces. Their hold on power is tenuous, and flight is probably the only option should they lose power. They are in a civil war now, and the stakes for them are basically everything.

They may have known that a US response was possible, but they probably, correctly, think that an actual invasion / occupation is highly unlikely, so they could be in a "win the civil war and cling to power at all costs" mindset because the stakes are so high.

But they were winning. That's what makes this seem so insane for me. The rebels were losing ground every day. Assad's forces were taking back key areas. Egypt was all the news. Everything was going Assad's way. It just doesn't make any sense. At all!!!

[NoneofYourBiz]

Obama had placed sanctions against the very people the green revolution was against.

How did Obama meddle with Mubarak and aid the MB? You're asserting in one line but not explaining how it was done in any way. And once the MB was in power, the first democratically elected government in Egypt, was he supposed to tell them to piss off? And are you aware that the US has been sending aid to the people that deposed the MB?

And if the MB runs Libya now, that is news to me. Ali Zeiden, the Prime Minister, is not from the Muslim Brotherhood.

I didn’t assert anything about not imposing sanctions or anything about Obama supporting Ahmadinejad. I asserted that he did not support the Green revolution. His response was pretty widely regarded as muted.

Obama basically told Mubarak to step down. He stopped just short of those words but he basically told him he had to go. The Israelis were rather shocked by what they termed “a bullet in the back from Uncle Sam”, because of the obvious implications for them. Ambassador Patterson’s actions and statements in Egypt are seen by many Egyptians as pro-Muslim Brotherhood. General Sisi was certainly no fan. Do I have to type out everything that she said/did or is that enough of an explanation? If you are really curious I am sure there are a plethora of articles on the internet about how Ambassador Patterson was viewed.

I am aware that the U.S. has been sending aid to Egypt for decades. The aid currently being sent to Egypt doesn’t represent support for the current interim government, it’s simply a continuation of the aid we have been giving for years. Ironically though, the U.S. is now considering suspending aid, and has made that clear. I don’t think your implication that U.S. aid to Egypt right now is somehow a show of support to the interim gov’t stands, especially when they have explicitly threatened to take it away.

Ali Zeiden is not Muslim Brotherhood. Deputy Prime Minister Awad al-Baraasi, who very recently resigned, is. Zeiden’s government is extremely shaky and the Muslim Brotherhood has a lot of influence, although Libya is so split along political, regional and tribal lines that I will concede it is difficult to say who is in control.

[NoneofYourBiz]

Yup. Fully agree. I was born in a country ruled by a US-backed right wing dictator who was ostensibly "fighting communism." My father was part of the effort by moderate opposition politicians to show the US that the country wouldn't become a Soviet satellite if the dictator went away. And he was murdered by a warlord working for that dictator about two weeks before Reagan finally pulled the plug.

The Soviet Union is no more. There is no Evil Empire to disband. The US should stop supporting strategically useful monsters.

Well this explains a lot of the hostility. I am truly sorry about your father.

You might be surprised to know that I am Persian also.

[Horza]

But they were winning. That's what makes this seem so insane for me. The rebels were losing ground every day. Assad's forces were taking back key areas. Egypt was all the news. Everything was going Assad's way. It just doesn't make any sense. At all!!!

Not really.

The regime managed to repulse the Latakia and Qusayr offensives in the North but the insurgency has gained ground around Deraa and Deir eZor over the same period, thanks in part to the influx of arms from the Gulf. The regime has proved much more resilient than people thought, but victory is nowhere in sight.

I think people need to consider that the Ghota gas attack might not have a rational explanation at a strategic or tactical level. It is entirely possible that someone in the regime fucked up, either by accident or miscalculation.

EDIT: oh and the Obama <3 Muslim Brotherhood stuff is this weird case of Egyptian and US paranoid styles feeding each other

[Horza]

Heh. I remember once that Tormund said something of Iskaral on the topic of econ/finance along the lines of "it's great when he comes in on your side...it's like your big brother just backed you up."

Kind of like that w/ Horza on FP.

That's kind, but Iskaral is a professional, he knows his shit inside and out.

I have zero professional or specialist qualifications in international relations, foreign policy, or regional history. I've done history at an undergraduate level and I read a lot (and nothing more exclusive than stuff behind academic paywalls), that's about it. If people want to start paying me I'd research more and better-er, but otherwise have no illusion that you are reading anything but a semi-autodidact who is wrong about stuff all the goddamn time.

[Istakhr]

And if the MB runs Libya now, that is news to me. Ali Zeiden, the Prime Minister, is not from the Muslim Brotherhood.

MB doesn't run anything, but recently Islamist militias surrounded the libyan parliament and forced them to pass an exclusion law, banning anyone who ever worked for Gaddafi from being in government, essentially banning most of non islamists who are former libyan politicians, civil servants and military commanders who turned against him during the civil war.

If I am not mistaken out of 4 main militias which are supposed to comprise the new so called Libyan army 3 are islamists. This of course doesn't count other smaller islamist militias that are outside of the so called army like Ansar al-Sharia who killed the US ambassador.

To me, the fact that US is not already pursuing an extensive drone attack program similar to Yemen or another form of overt military intervention, probably has more to do with Obama administration wanting to maintain the fiction that Libyan war has been a successful intervention, not a failure.

[ThinkerX]

So...at best, Obama is going to drag us into another murderous mess because some low level flunky had a panic attack and used WMD's?

This seems like lunacy to me.

This is where the more rational sorts back off, get REAL intel, and THINK before taking action. Apparently such people are not wanted in the US bureaucracy anymore.

[Phaing]

Here is my apparently eagerly anticipated “magnum opus”. I must apologize for my silly desire to put some thought into my response. I didn’t have a 3 sentence answer and had no idea of the apparent urgency of a response and mistakenly thought I could casually put together my thoughts in between meetings at work, and not have to type it on my iPhone on my break, because I can’t access the internet at work. I frankly am completely amused by the name calling, assumptions, and demands that I ANSWER IMMEDIATELY. I have participated in many political forums and never experienced anything like the responses of some of the people on this thread. I can only surmise that some people don’t get out much and feel very smug and powerful from behind their computer screens. There were some interesting posts by others on the thread that I enjoyed reading though.

Let’s start with “your statement that Obama supports the Brotherhood is stupid” There’s a pretty widespread view in Egypt right now that Obama supports the Muslim Brotherhood, so if POTUS is not, in fact, going for the appearance that he supports the Brotherhood, maybe he should rethink what he is projecting. For instance, Dr. Mohamed Abou El-Ghar said recently that he fears, “America is losing Egypt…There is a very strong perception that they are supporting the Muslim Brotherhood and they are against other parties,” I don’t think Dr. El-Ghar listens to Glenn Beck and he’s certainly not a Teabagger, so I guess he might have come to this conclusion on his own, based on Obama’s policies in the Middle East, and he is not alone in that opinion.

So let’s get to why I think Obama supports the Muslim Brotherhood. It’s a long answer so for starters, I look at his overall trends when it comes to uprisings in the Middle East. When the uprisings are against Islamist regimes, the Obama position is not to back the uprising. When the uprising will create a power vacuum that Islamists can step into, he’s all in:

· The Green Uprising in Iran got a “the U.S. will not meddle” from Obama.

· When the uprising was against Mubarak, however, he was willing to meddle and immediately get cozy with the Brotherhood.

· He intervened in Libya militarily to oust Gadaffi. Who is in charge in Libya now? Why, our friends the Muslim Brotherhood!

· When the people revolt in Egypt and oust the Muslim Brotherhood, again Obama was willing to meddle, but on behalf of the Brotherhood. Why doesn’t he support the will of the people? Yes, they were democratically elected, but when the Egyptians realized they didn’t want their very own version of the Taliban they revolted. Why is Obama condemning that?

· He wants to involve himself in Syria against Assad and on the side of Muslim Brotherhood backed rebels

· The White House said a couple of days ago that Obama and Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan, had “agreed to have their teams continue to coordinate closely to promote our shared interests.” Erdogan is also a supporter of…wait for it… the Muslim Brotherhood and furthermore said that his goal is regime change in Syria.

Trends, my friends, follow the trends. I don’t dispute that the Middle East is full of crappy, brutal dictators, but Islamist regimes are not in the U.S’s best interests, so if one feels the need to meddle in their foreign affairs you would think our interventions would go in the other direction.

Do I have to go on? I will but I don’t really want to waste my time since I don’t really think there is any interest in my answer but rather some bizarre desire to make me prove I am not on Glenn Beck’s speed dial.

Nicely done, but the small font is a bit of a PITA.

But, why would you apologize for Beck if none of the Lefties will apologize for Rachel Madcow?

Now, support for Obama going all O'bomber on Syria is about 9% in the US according to one poll, International support has dried up and it looks like the only people that still favor this are in the White House, and their most fervent worshipers here and there. And the Syrians have dispersed their assets already.

But what odds would you give that Barak Hussien decides to us the US military to give air-cover to Al Queda in Syria anyway?

[Shryke]

I didn’t assert anything about not imposing sanctions or anything about Obama supporting Ahmadinejad. I asserted that he did not support the Green revolution. His response was pretty widely regarded as muted.

That's cause Obama isn't fucking stupid.

The worst thing you can do for a revolution in Iran is say "The US supports it".

[Dragonmag170]

See... what puzzles me about the situation in Syria right now is motives. What motive could Assad's regime POSSIBLY have for using chemical weapons, when he knows full well that the US, France, and Brittain are all breathing down his neck? This question has been asked again and again here. I think most everyone who looks at this is skeptical at best- it just seems too much like a wild chance for an intelligent government to take. They already have a rebellion on their hands- why would they not only piss off their own people more by attacking innocents directly but also piss off the rest of the world by using chemical weapons?

Not to say that that is right- I personally think we have no business whatsoever getting involved in any capacity in Syria. If we do a "limited" drone strike, it will lead to another "limited" drone strike, then oops! We just killed the Syrian leader and oh, the rebels we seem to love so much suddenly won the civil war. Its miraculous! (heavy sarcasm intended)

But still the nagging question remains- why would a man as smart as Assad use a chemical weapon knowing that we would then attack? I don't buy it. To be honest? If I was the rebel leader, losing ground every day, and things looked really bad, I would WANT to do something terrible and blame the regime I am fighting, to get some help. This is the danger the president would put us in if he attacks- either the Assad regime still wins the civil war, in which case we are really screwed (because his regime would have every right to attack us based on just retaliation and fear for their own safety) or the rebels win and, it turns out, we helped a group which framed its old government for using chemical weapons.

We need to STAY OUT OF THIS CONFLICT. We have no business in Syria. I know that some chemical weapons attack clearly happened... but honestly? I dont care. that sounds horrible. But the way I see it any military action on our part could easily lead to a world war- we attack, the Syrians strike back, the Israeli's get involved, and then We go help them, and pull brittain and france in, and russia, china, japan, korea... I can see this situation balooning out of control very, very quickly. If our option is take that risk, or dont take action? I say don;t take action.

Even if tomorrow we got absolute evidence that Assad ordered this attack, I would still say this. I dont think we need to get involved any more than we are already in the already fragile middle east, not when both Egypt and Syria are currently in turmoil, the Iranians are waiting for an excuse to strike at Israel, and all of them hate us. That's the other puzzling thing here- I honestly dont see what Obama thinks he will gain by striking at Syria. Credibility? No, he'll look like an idiot- I am almost certain that an attack on syria will have far-reaching consequences for us. A rebel victory? At the risk of igniting the entire region into a war? That doesn't seem intelligent.

I don't know. But this whole situation makes me very, very nervous, because I see nothing good at all whatsoever coming out of a US strike on Syrian soil.