Syria

[Hank001]

The Bay of Pig was thought up and executed by CIA para types and the JCS basically said, "You're off your gourd". But the politicos liked it so... Syria? Somalia was bigger, BUT we've got Russians in the mix? Hey they were there before we were. Like you said, Thanks Obama.
Trump's comment on cutting his UN Ambassador off at the knees about sanctions had me ready to barf. "We'll do it when Russia does something to deserve sanctions" Now at the local U watching CNN where Jake Tapper is interviewing James Comey. Interesting.

[Morkonan]

The Bay of Pig was thought up and executed by CIA para types and the JCS basically said, "You're off your gourd". ...

We went in supporting a rebellion against the sovereign government, no matter how Assad got there or stays there. Russia was always a ally, if not terribly enmeshed with Syria at the time, and now they're there, rattling sabres. The threat of direct, even if incidental, conflict between any number of parties involved is a read danger. (US/Allies, Syria, Russia, Iran, Israel, etc..)

So, here we are, sitting in the territory of a sovereign nation, even if we don't like 'em enough to call them that, supplying rebels, fighting insurgents, trying to pick off whoever the "bad guys" are without hitting someone who's just temporarily wearing a black hat, and what, exactly, are the "victory conditions" we're supposed to be striving for? Which ones are they? Overthrow a government or fight ISIS and radicals and protect civilians... the latter of which may even be incompatible definitions.

We shouldn't be there like this. We shouldn't have jumped at the chance to undermine Syria, and thus Iran, by supporting "rebel" groups in the Middle East. The only ones that it seems we can reliably work with are the Kurds and nobody seems to like them, either. We might as well be throwing hand-grenades in a phone booth as this is bound to end badly.

[Hank001]

Morkonan wrote:

We went in supporting a rebellion against the sovereign government

Exactly. A policy of landing on and holding ground inside "injun country" is starting a war in the middle. It puts the US in the position of insurgency. That was a position the military strove to avoid and had been religated to the CIA. Until Nicaragua.

Now it's became almost the standard. Toppling established govermaments in Iraq and Afghanistan. No real clue on what to do
after that's accomplished. Handing it over to whatever faction is least reprehensible to American voters seems to be the outcome.

[Morkonan]

... Handing it over to whatever faction is least reprehensible to American voters seems to be the outcome.

The problem is that the people standing in line, and most capable of maintaining order and stability, aren't usually the sorts of people we would like to see taking the reigns.

In the "Cold War" we were guilty of doing some shady stuffs with mini-dictatorships, corrupt governments, "communist regimes", etc. The solution was pretty simple - $$$ and a few well-placed bullets, maybe some rifles here and there so it looks like the locals are doing everything. We put whoever we thought would be friendly to us and would be against the spread of communism. Well, that was then and it was wrong then and is wrong now. Of course, these days, that's not something that's as easy to do. "Communism" is dead.

We can't change the regime in Syria through military means. Even if we could, and it would work, Russia is going to take a stand there. (I am not sure they'd take a really hard stand, but they'd make it look good.)

IMO, the only way out of there in a win scenario is if we get Russia on board with regime change or pwoer-sharing (giving protected representation to the current rebel groups). And, either way, we'd have to guarantee Assad's safety in some way, I would think. (Basically, pay him off with some cash and transport to Dubai/Bahrain/wherever it is he dumped a lot of cash building a mansion/castle.) The same would have to go for his immediate family, too. There all a big clan over there. There might be some issues with the Alawite minority in Syria that would have to be secured as well.

The point is that the sort of "best case solution" we have doesn't involve the military. Sure, they should be there to help establish some safe zones, without threat of breaking those off into independent regions, and to finish whatever is left of ISIS or whoever we're shooting at atm..

Anyway, I know I'm belaboring the point. But, it's the most screwed up mess we've got going on right now and there isn't any "direction" that we seem to be headed toward. We're spinning wheels, spending ammo and putting our soldiers at risk... for what objective?

The longer we are there, the more chances there for something to go terribly wrong.

[Hank001]

Morkonan, I'm beginning to strongly believe there is no "objective".
It's the "Vietnam Endgame" where a nebulous and ever changing set of political considerations make any clear objectives impossible other than "To win". Unfortunately we have the Russians on the other side and they have to win also. Stalemate. We're back to, "You can't bomb Hanoi because... You can't cross the DMZ because... " You can't win because that means that the powers on the other side are have as many nukes as we do and are VERY sore losers. Welcome to Cold War II.

Edit: God there are times when I really HATE being right.

I skipped the talking head Sunday shows and was busy fixing a busted computer today, but switch on the radio in time to find out Sen. Corker the head of the Joint Sevices Committee said on a CNN inerview that the US and Russia are "On the brink" and we're in another "cold war" and so on and what got me was how shocked the newsreader was with this "revelation". DUH.

[Warenwolf]

IMO, the only way out of there in a win scenario is if we get Russia on board with regime change or pwoer-sharing (giving protected representation to the current rebel groups). And, either way, we'd have to guarantee Assad's safety in some way, I would think. (Basically, pay him off with some cash and transport to Dubai/Bahrain/wherever it is he dumped a lot of cash building a mansion/castle.) The same would have to go for his immediate family, too. There all a big clan over there. There might be some issues with the Alawite minority in Syria that would have to be secured as well.

But what would compel Putin and Assad to agree to a power-sharing or regime change? Military speaking Assad is winning the war with Russian help...

Reason I ask this is because I have seen several times the subject of power-sharing or regime change being mentioned last few months (in media mostly) and I am wondering if anyone is seeing something I don't.

[Morkonan]

...But what would compel Putin and Assad to agree to a power-sharing or regime change? Military speaking Assad is winning the war with Russian help...

The US is there. It doesn't matter if he "declares victory" - The US isn't going to leave because Assad declares victory. As to his "winning of the war" that's debatable, since the only way he can "win" is to remove all threats to his power and, well, the US is there. Sure, the US is also fighting ISIS and insurgents and the like, but it's still "there" and he's got to deal with it diplomatically in order to get rid of it.

Reason I ask this is because I have seen several times the subject of power-sharing or regime change being mentioned last few months (in media mostly) and I am wondering if anyone is seeing something I don't.

It's the only way to reach some sort of political stability in Syria that doesn't involve firing squads and late-night incarcerations in remote prison-camps for dissidents/rebels/people-who-want-a-voice. The situation in Syria might be a little like it used to be in Iraq, under Saddam, at least in the case of a minority group holding power over majority groups. In this case, it's Assad's Alowite heritage that is seen by many to be controlling the other majority ethnic groups in Syria. Well, they want "a say" and want representation, one way or another. Assad may, and I don't recall reading any information on this, have been brutally enforcing order or persecuting dissidents just like Saddam had done when people didn't like his Bathist party or when he focused persecutions on Shia.

The only "peaceful" way to stop this civil war is to ensure that, one it is over, there's not suddenly going to be some mass purge going on. If for nothing else, to ensure that the rebels are going to want to have, as a concession, some sort of representation with real power behind it. (As if... )

[Warenwolf]

The US is there. It doesn't matter if he "declares victory" - The US isn't going to leave because Assad declares victory. As to his "winning of the war" that's debatable, since the only way he can "win" is to remove all threats to his power and, well, the US is there. Sure, the US is also fighting ISIS and insurgents and the like, but it's still "there" and he's got to deal with it diplomatically in order to get rid of it.

But USA is not really "there", is it? 1000 soldiers at most in 2018, supporting factions that are fighting ISIL but are not really engaged fighting Syrian Army. And with Turkish invasion fighting some of those same guys, waters are really muddy as to viability of factions in the North. In the end - Assad may simply go for the waiting game with USA which he will win imho.

It's the only way to reach some sort of political stability in Syria that doesn't involve firing squads and late-night incarcerations in remote prison-camps for dissidents/rebels/people-who-want-a-voice.

Heh, I think we both agree that this is indeed what will produce a stable state.
BUT dictators, who are more likely to see solutions through prism of fear (because this solved the problems in the past - Hama massacre being a fine example of this) usually prefer for more primitive solutions.
Of course, what goes around comes around, so in 2030 (+/-) when another uprising/"coup de etat" comes (and they will come - dictatorship is inherently not static form of government), alawites would be massacred in drowes and dictator's family's bodies dragged through the streets. And then another dicator will set up shop or perhaps 10-15 year of instability follows which results in democracy if they are lucky (or another dictatorship/autocracy). Assad is smart enough to know this but he probably also recons he will be long dead by then and his family safely abroad.

[Hank001]

Whatever the outcome in Syria is it's perhaps too little to late.
I'm watching a report on World Channel News (one of the broadcast offerings from the local university).

A report to UN on the humanitarian crisis puts the CIVILIAN dead since the war started at over half a million.

This report put before the UN didn't seem to get any coverage on the major broadcast stations. I suppose that's it's not something that they point fingers at someone about or worse, it's as Stalin said about statistics. So I have to ask myself if there will be anything left of the country before this madness somehow ends?

[Observe]

I've thought all along, that it's none of our business what kind of government Syria has. I have no reason to doubt that Assad is a cruel dictator, but so what? I imagine Assad would have squelched the rebellion by now, if not for foreign involvement. Probably that's what will happen anyway. Let the Syrians sought out their own politics and everyone else get the hell out!

[Morkonan]

But USA is not really "there", is it? 1000 soldiers at most in 2018, supporting factions that are fighting ISIL but are not really engaged fighting Syrian Army. And with Turkish invasion fighting some of those same guys, waters are really muddy as to viability of factions in the North. In the end - Assad may simply go for the waiting game with USA which he will win imho.

We have high-profile supporting assets that are active in the region. Those "count" even if some think the individual lives of soldiers don't. We have a "presence" and that matters, especially since this whole issue has been a political hot-potatoe in the US. If "something happens" people will react.

Heh, I think we both agree that this is indeed what will produce a stable state.
BUT dictators, who are more likely to see solutions through prism of fear (because this solved the problems in the past - Hama massacre being a fine example of this) usually prefer for more primitive solutions.

Agreed. By the way, the "prism of fear" line? That's gold, it really is. I'm stealing it! Wonderfully constructed bit of imagery that is, right there. Nicely written!

Of course, what goes around comes around, so in 2030 (+/-) when another uprising/"coup de etat" comes (and they will come - dictatorship is inherently not static form of government), alawites would be massacred in drowes and dictator's family's bodies dragged through the streets. And then another dicator will set up shop or perhaps 10-15 year of instability follows which results in democracy if they are lucky (or another dictatorship/autocracy). Assad is smart enough to know this but he probably also recons he will be long dead by then and his family safely abroad.

I agree, wholeheartedly. That is the same fear that any dictator has. They know they're just one more rebellion away from ending up like Mussolini.

That's one reason I think that a political solution is the only way possible that some sort of long-term stability can be assured. IF a truly functional, representative, government can be attained, then there could be some hope for continuity of stability. It's also the only possible route to achieving some sort of guarantee for Assad that he won't end up swinging from a telephone-pole that doesn't involve abdication and exile.

[Hank001]

Morkonan wrote:

That's one reason I think that a political solution is the only way possible that some sort of long-term stability can be assured. IF a truly functional, representative, government can be attained, then there could be some hope for continuity of stability. It's also the only possible route to achieving some sort of guarantee for Assad that he won't end up swinging from a telephone-pole that doesn't involve abdication and exile.

The question there is; Is any such solution in Putin's best interests considering? There's the rub. It would be nice to think such a solution could happen. With the present leadership of US and Russia? Not very likely. Unfortunalely, because I agree with you about a negotiated peace being the answer.

[Morkonan]

The question there is; Is any such solution in Putin's best interests considering? There's the rub. It would be nice to think such a solution could happen. With the present leadership of US and Russia? Not very likely. Unfortunalely, because I agree with you about a negotiated peace being the answer.

What is Putin's "Win Scenario?"

1) Russia must have continued port and base access.
2) The government must be friendly to Putin and Russia, preferably with some nice arms deals.
3) There must be the possibility for Russia to continue to exploit its relationship with Syria. Russia is enjoying its foray into world-politics and wants to continue that, I'm sure. It will not be satisfied with a "one-off" victory - It wants more, especially if that extends to other countries in the ME. (Iran, mostly, I'd imagine. It doesn't have a lot of hope in furthering friendly penetration into other countries.
4) No matter the outcome, it must be inconvenient for the US, hopefully pissing them off in the process.

So, can we provide that during negotiations while also achieving our own "Win Scenario?" I think we can. And, if we truly can, then this thing is "doable." The question is whether or not those in power will "allow" us to suffer the consequences of what may appear to be a reward to Russia/Assad. Too many may see such things as not a US victory for peace, but as US concession being evidence of a continued loss of pre-eminence in world affairs. Locally, politicians would take a negative hit as US citizens, constantly having the "threat of everything" being thrust repeatedly at their faces, rebelled against what they might see as "weak" foreign policy.

Personally, I don't give a @^@&$^ - Peace is the best answer if it can include a more stable, more egalitarian government for Syria. The only likely way that can happen is not going to be reached on a battlefield that powers simply play with on the weekends or when their newspapers are watching. (IF we had stronger commitment there with the forces necessary, I have no problem with steamrolling right on over Assad's front-lawn to provide that "Win Scenario.")

[Mightysword]

Now it's became almost the standard. Toppling established govermaments in Iraq and Afghanistan. No real clue on what to do
after that's accomplished. Handing it over to whatever faction is least reprehensible to American voters seems to be the outcome.

Unpopular opinion as this may be, I wish the US will stop trying to remove dictators around the world. Unless we really commited to go all the way. Out of all the wars the US involved in the 21st century, there is only one that I fully stand behind is Afgan. They were harboring the group that just killed ~2000 of our citizen, there is no other response. And we did manage rebuild the country. Yes it's not stable, but we left behind something resembling a sovereign entity. Can't say I really supported the Iraq war and removal of Saddam, for me it is a mistake, but at least it is a mistake that we see all the way through. But Libya, Syria ... they are mistakes, I think the world would have been a better place if we didn't get involved. I think we dodge a bullet with Egypt with Mubarak, his removal was a mistake but thankfully the Egyptian managed to sort their own shit out by installing another dictator (Sisi) right after.

IMO don't try to remove people living in their shack UNLESS you're willing to follow up with the cost of providing them with better housing. Some of these situation feel a lot like we are removing people from their shack because we pitied their suppose "horrible" living condition (by our own elevated standard). But after paying for the eviction cost we kinda just stop there: hey, at least now you're not living in a horrible shack, but now the sky is your proof and the grass is your bed. I'm sure those people really appreciate our afford /s

Funny seeing you guys debating about what is the US's best interest or Russian's best interest instead of what Syria's best interest. I'll tell you what it is, at least coming from the mouths of a few Syrian I spoke too: it would be nice that all foreign power get the **** out of their country, they will be more than happy to stay under another 100 years of Assad rule in exchange for this nightmare never happen, or waking up from it.

[Observe]

Funny seeing you guys debating about what is the US's best interest or Russian's best interest instead of what Syria's best interest. I'll tell you what it is, at least coming from the mouths of a few Syrian I spoke too: it would be nice that all foreign power get the **** out of their country, they will be more than happy to stay under another 100 years of Assad rule in exchange for this nightmare never happen, or waking up from it.

I agree.

Why do so many people find it necessary to endlessly engage in complex analysis of political dynamics, moralization, economics, balance of powers and on and on - when all we need to do, is get the hell out and leave the people in that region of the world to sort things out for themselves.

We may not like witnessing the human tragedy resulting from actions taken by what we perceive as a ruthless dictator; but on the other hand, seldom does our interference end well. Even without Assad, there will still be deep divisions among the Syrian people. Those divisions can only heal when the Syrians are left to themselves for however long it takes them.

[Usenko]

Even occasional military intervention would be okay if it had been well thought out.

Hint to the politicians of the world:

"Just shoot the bad guys" isn't a workable military strategy. There's always more bad guys than you have bullets, bombs or missiles.

Instead, military should be used when the objective is something like:

* Protect a specific group of people (I don't mean "Protect the Kurds" or "Protect the people who aren't ISIS"; I mean "Protect the concentration of civilians at map coordinates 34E." Specific groups, that's the ticket).

* Take and hold a particular site.

* Destroy this specific target.

* Prevent this specific group of soldiers from succeeding in destroying their target.

Note this: LIMITED OBJECTIVES. This is what we learned from WW1 - 100 years ago now!

Sending a military in with the job of "Fix this situation" is never going to work.

[Hank001]

Mightysword wrote:

Funny seeing you guys debating about what is the US's best interest or Russian's best interest instead of what Syria's best interest. I'll tell you what it is, at least coming from the mouths of a few Syrian I spoke too: it would be nice that all foreign power get the **** out of their country, they will be more than happy to stay under another 100 years of Assad rule in exchange for this nightmare never happen, or waking up from it. :Shocked:

Observe wrote:

I agree

Would it suprise you... No it should have been evident. THE US SHOULD HAVE EXITED SYRIA LONG AGO. Why they aren't? That's the point I was trying to debate. It's already a no win situation like this:

We can't effectively fight ISIS without supporting Russia's adversaries; the Syrian rebels.

[Morkonan]

...Funny seeing you guys debating about what is the US's best interest or Russian's best interest instead of what Syria's best interest. I'll tell you what it is, at least coming from the mouths of a few Syrian I spoke too: it would be nice that all foreign power get the **** out of their country, they will be more than happy to stay under another 100 years of Assad rule in exchange for this nightmare never happen, or waking up from it.

This is how history gets rewritten.

Since there are some major powers there, they get blamed for the problem. Well, we didn't start their Civil War, the Syrians did. And, for the past seven or so years, they and millions of others have been fleeing the conflicts that began with the Arab Spring. The unrest in Eqypt fueled by the "Arab Spring" resulted in Mubarak's stepping down from power. Syrians unhappy with Assad and his party, who had kept Syrian in state of martial law for the past fifty years, took heart and began protesting in earnest. After violent clashes and midnight arrests of protesters and critics, major portions of Syria's military defected to the side of the "rebels" and the conflict began in earnest.

Estimates of the death toll in Syria are around 400,000+ people killed.

Around five million refugees have fled from the conflict.

Nobody knows how many refugees have died due to misfortune, murder, trafficking, drowning in a vain attempt to seek refuge in countries that don't want them, starving or freezing to death. The millions that have been displaced and the strain on the region due to the refugee situation has fueled massive movements, reactions, restrictions, refusal of normal humanitarian aid, debate over EU humanitarian policies and even a resurgence of "nationalism" in Europe, with countries bickering over who should accept refugees, where they should go, or even if refugees should be friggin' rescued from drowning as they flee the conflict in boats that aren't seaworthy or can't cope with so many passengers.

The refugees have become prey for criminals, human traffickers, and anyone who doesn't mind profiting from another's misfortune. Their lives are cheap.

And, then there's ISIS/ISIL and a slew of would-be petty warlords and extremists trying to take advantage of the situation, hoping that the instability in what was, and still is, a country that is now "ripe for the picking" will present them with opportunities.

But, as soon as someone mentions world powers trying to step in to stem the flood of refugees and attempt to achieve some sort of stability, then those who love to remember the Age of Imperialism crack open their dusty history books and proclaim "they need to stop meddling in our affairs."

So, please, ask your contacts how well they were doing at solving the problem before anyone else become involved. Ask them how many coupons they can save so they can feed the millions of refugees that the rest of the world must now deal with. Ask them how the world should be expected to sit back and watch as hundreds of thousands of people die in an advanced, modern, country that had been under martial law for the past fifty years. Ask them what answers they will give to those who attempted to eek out a bit of freedom in the wake of the Arab Spring as it touched Syria. Ask them how they plan to deal with this problem without anyone else's help. Or, are they just hoping that some magic pixie-dust would suddenly "make everything alright" if every foreign power left Syria to continue to cough up blood and shout loudly in the dark as the monsters closed in.

Get out? How many countries are saying that, right now, about Syrian refugees? Is it "right" for them to say that to people who are simply trying to keep living another day? What about the extremists groups clawing their way towards the conflict, hoping for a tiny bit of power and a mailing address? Is that "right?" And, would it be right for us to just "get out" and leave Syria to destroy itself, becoming another Libya, Tunisia, Yemen...

I suppose the rest of the world should just sit idly by as the days of the Arab Spring fade into the Arab Winter.

The consequences of leaving Syria up to its own devices are too terrible to contemplate and no matter what eventual outcome prevails, many other countries will pay a price for their complacency.

[Observe]

How about if we get the hell out AND stop selling weapons to anyone in that part of the world? Might the fact that the Middle East accounts for $62 billion in U.S. arms sales (2017) - far exceeding any other region, have something to do with the carnage going on there? Naturally, if we sell weapons to our guys, Russia has to supply their guys too and the misery multiplies.

No wonder there are so many refugees! How about making the arms dealers and producers pay for the refugee cost? If we did that, our $80 billion weapons industry would go from huge profit to huge loss in a flash.

[Morkonan]

How about if we get the hell out AND stop selling weapons to anyone in that part of the world? Might the fact that the Middle East accounts for $62 billion in U.S. arms sales (2017) - far exceeding any other region, have something to do with the carnage going on there? Naturally, if we sell weapons to our guys, Russia has to supply their guys too and the misery multiplies.

No wonder there are so many refugees! How about making the arms dealers and producers pay for the refugee cost? If we did that, our $80 billion weapons industry would go from huge profit to huge loss in a flash.

I'd be just fine not meddling in anyone's affairs or selling them weapons. But, then again, just because we have an awakening of common sense doesn't mean others will, too. Plenty of nations sell weapons to Middle Eastern countries. Why? Because they're so friggin' keen to use them, that's why.

There is a strong demand for weapons. So, there will be a strong demand for suppliers.

/sigh

You know what the crazy thing is? While reflecting on this and, obviously, getting agitated, I caught myself in an internal rant "Yeah! Screw those people! I'm tired of them always killing each other or declaring a friggin holy war! Screw them! In fact, we should just go over there and kick their asses for them so they'll shut up and stop.... Oh, I'm an idiot..."



This is a "real thing." Plenty of people do feel that way. Of course, that's an initial reaction, a release of frustration, a quick "People who are dead don't cause you any more trouble" sort of animal response to continued anxiety produced by horrific world events.

And, that has to stop. It just has to. We've got two directions we can go, either we marry diplomacy and warfare or we refuse one of them. Which will it be, 'cause one ends in sage "dying by the sword" quotes.