MENA, MENA, Tekel, Parsin (Middle East, North Africa & other Geopolitical Hotspots) 2018

I mean, read that Cockburn-piece jiv just posted. It should quite clear that the US has made decisions that has been disastrous, and not all of them are on Trump and Tillerson.

there's def going to be some sort of bombing campaign with the U.S., U.K., France, GCC maybe in the next couple days it feels like.

some sort of bombing campaign

performative acts of war are not very effective at anything but blowing up some things and killing some people who might not have otherwise died. to the degree such a bombing campaign is not performative, it would be an escalation of the violence, so that even more things are destroyed and still more people are killed, but with what end in view?

in the context of a raging civil war that has killed hundreds of thousands and displaced millions, this bombing campaign is likely to be the wartime equivalent of hitting a dog on the nose with a rolled-up newspaper. Assad will not desist from atrocities, because they serve his war aims. It will not matter if our goal is noble, if we lack the means to achieve anything but a surge of meaningless violence.

oh yeah i agree it is not going to be a good thing, but it seems it will be a thing. would be incredibly surprised if it doesn't go ahead.

Does Iraq provide a good model for what wd happen in Syria as a result of a western intervention? Some differences are striking, like Saddam sitting on all the sects (factions?) then with him gone they erupt into civil war, meaning more violence overall in the country ... whereas in Syria the sects are already in a civil war

Not really the same though, because of demographics. Syria is a majority Sunni country, ran by an Alawite dynasty that, due to the small number of Alawites in the country, does not act in a sectarian manner.

In Iraq the majority are Shia and Saddam's regime was primarily Sunni-led and engaged in sectarian oppression of the Shia majority.

The only really sectarian element to the Syrian Civil War is the fact that the rebels are extremely sectarian Sunni islamists

In the aftermath of the Persian Gulf War, there were uprisings in Iraq, both Kurds in the north and Iraqi Shiites in the south. Saddam squashed them quickly and violently and iirc, only after that was a no-fly zone imposed over much of Iraq.

My memory tells me a similar no-fly zone was contemplated at the early stages of the Syrian Civil War, but was not instituted, in part because of political pushback in the USA. My assessment is that Assad's early survival and present ascendancy has mainly been due to air power, now supplemented greatly by Russian warplanes.

But the short answer is probably 'no', viewing Iraq as a model for Syria is not especially helpful. For one thing, there's no sizeable US army presence on the ground there.

To maintain a no fly zone a large amount of ground force would have to be committed. Would require really ratcheting up involvement, which nobody (well not nobody, Clinton was all for it) was too interested in at the time.

Trump was pretending he was an "America first non-interventionist" at the time under the influence of Bannon

How many airfields does Assad have?

Hillary also suggested in 2017

I really believe that we should have and still should take out his airfields

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Syrian_Air_Force_bases

some 'expert' on NPR this morning said we should absolutely bomb Syria but then continued to stress we need an actual plan there going forward. wtf man? just indiscriminately bomb them to show our dick size but for what else exactly? its also not lost on me that we're all mad that civilians are getting killed in syria in this one specific way but generally are ok with them getting slaughtered by conventional weapons.

putting aside whether it's a good idea maybe we'd bomb them as deterrence against using chemical weapons and not to "show our dick size"

Yup. And for fucks sake, the left needs better foreign policy ideas than 'what's wrong with chemical weapons anyway?'

maybe we'd bomb them as deterrence against using chemical weapons

But effective deterrence requires Assad knowing he will pay a price much heavier than the benefits he would expect from the use of chemical weapons. That requires among other things, the certainty provided by a clear and consistent policy spelled out in advance. It also requires that the price he expects to pay is one that deprives him of a thing he values far more highly than the benefits he believes chemical weapons will provide him. Neither of those elements seem to exist and therefore the bombing cannot be expected to deter him.

Yup. And for fucks sake, the left needs better foreign policy ideas than 'what's wrong with chemical weapons anyway?'

― Frederik B, Wednesday, April 11, 2018 11:59 AM (twenty-six seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

should just go along with thoughtless saber-rattling which on balance of probabilities - considering our interventions in the Arab world in the 21st century - will likely only do more harm instead? this would be a foreign policy i suppose, exactly identical to that of the republicans but sure, it would be "doing something"

I'm so tired of this fucking strawman bullshit, but even considering that, why would we only consider interventions in the 21st century as the basis of a foreign policy?

well we could consider all the really super successful ones from the 20th century all the way back to sykes-picot if you'd like but i don't think that would really help you much

International agreements that impose prior restraint on the creation or stockpiling of weapons, or which establish universally accepted norms ahead of wartime, seem to be about effective a tool as exists so far. The Geneva Convention held up for many, many decades. So have the conventions on nuclear proliferation and chemical weapons.

But warfare by its nature defies limits because the stakes are often escalated to survival itself, at which point external and conventional restraints tend to fail and only self-imposed internalized restraints apply.

I don't think it's unfair to suggest that things could get much much worse with yet another western intervention.

Plus, the fact that it's Trump and May in power... If that can't pause you then I don't know what can.

x-posts: Yeah, looking at the 20th century, the involvement of Russia or Turkey has clearly worked so much better.

Trump and May (and Putin) are responsible for Syria now to a large extent because Obama refused to take that responsibility upon himself. And it's also not unfair to suggest that the civil war in Syria has gone about as horrible as it possibly could. Again, the left needs to have a better response to the gassing of children than 'eh, could be worse'.

That's the thing. As long as western nations claim responsibility onto foreign nations then entire regions will be destabilized and civilians lives lost.

Okay. Let's take a moment and ponder the stupidity of that claim. On the one hand, it's obviously true. Sure. But on the other, it's absolutely, 100% meaningless. Will civilian lives stop being lost if western nations stop claiming responsibility? Fuck no! Then what's the fucking difference, unless the point is just to avoid feeling responsible for bad things?

the left needs to have a better response to the gassing of children than 'eh, could be worse'

First, I do not see this statement made by anyone I know or by any 'representatives' of the left, so if you attribute this as the left's response, I don't what that is based upon. However, responses are not confined to statements, but may be actions as well.

The problem I see is that, especially in the USA, the left has no effective control over the apparatus of national policy. As such, the avenues of action available to the left, at least here in the USA, are mainly symbolic actions, which are the equivalent of verbal statements, but coupled with some symbolic activity. I'd really like to hear what your ideas might be for a 'better response' than the moral condemnations being made by leaders and ordinary people across the globe.

Enlighten me.

You don't think Obama had control over national policy, or you don't consider him part of the left?

Okay. Let's take a moment and ponder the stupidity of that claim. On the one hand, it's obviously true. Sure. But on the other, it's absolutely, 100% meaningless. Will civilian lives stop being lost if western nations stop claiming responsibility? Fuck no! Then what's the fucking difference, unless the point is just to avoid feeling responsible for bad things?

― Frederik B, Wednesday, April 11, 2018 3:53 PM (six minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I think the last 60 years of american and european interventions point out the difference you are asking about.

The US felt responsible for South Viet Nam too you know.

You don't think Obama had control over national policy, or you don't consider him part of the left?

The latter, duh.

Sigh

Therein lies your problem.

Must be nice to shit this thread up with the most nonsense but still feel like you can just post sigh as a rejoinder to other posters

Would be so much nicer if everyone who thought the very idea of leftists influencing foreign policy was impossible would draw the logical conclusion from that and shut the fuck up.

I'm so tired of this fucking straw man bullshit...

― Frederik B, Wednesday, April 11, 2018 12:06 PM (one hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Would be so much nicer if everyone who thought the very idea of leftists influencing foreign policy was impossible would draw the logical conclusion from that and shut the fuck up.

― Frederik B, Wednesday, April 11, 2018 1:16 PM (twelve seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

You don't think Obama had control over national policy, or you don't consider him part of the left?

ffs, Fred. When did Obama ever say the equivalent of "gassing kids? eh. could be worse." He didn't. So citing him does not make your case. And as for actions, exactly which of Obama's options would you have chosen?

I'm so tired of this fucking strawman bullshit

Then why build your own strawman about the responses coming from the left?

I don't think it's unfair to suggest that things could get much much worse with yet another western intervention.

― Van Horn Street, 11. april 2018 21:28 (fifty-three minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Again, the left needs to have a better response to the gassing of children than 'eh, could be worse'.

― Frederik B, 11. april 2018 21:38 (forty-two minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Are you suggesting that a western intervention could not make things worse?

Otherwise, I've asked you several times for your own ideas about what sorts of actions would be effective to stop or mitigate the situation?

As to what Obama should have done differently, it should be pretty clear by now that his handling of the first Syrian chemical has been pretty disastrous, in that it not only didn't stop further chemical attacks, it also didn't stop the US from bombing. While of course also leading to more Russian involvement. Instead, he should have retaliated militarily. That's not only a fair suggestion, it should be absolutely obvious that in all likelihood things would be better today if he had. The outraged response this utterly banal statement will result in is nothing but bullshit purity posturing.

he should have retaliated militarily

define this

Things that should be part of leftist foreign policy: First and foremost financial reform aimed at limiting the ability of dictators and kleptocrats to move assets out of their own country. With regard to Syria, among things that should be on the table is putting pressure on Turkey and Russia to limit their involvement, and support to the Kurds in their fight for autonomy.

define this

― Louis Jägermeister (jim in vancouver), 11. april 2018 22:31 (two minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Why? In all honesty, it doesn't even matter, the disastrous consequence came just from refusing to act and letting Russia handle it. This led to more bombs over Syria, not less.

Why?

Because it's an extremely vague term

like do you mean symbolic bombing runs that would have killed as many or more Syrian civilians than the chemical attacks? Or troops on the ground, enforced no fly zone, regime change/regional war probably involving Iran and Israel? Or surgical strike of chemical weapons facilities (no expert on this but I'm not sure how good an idea this would be, blowing up chemical weapons may have some bad effects for those living in the vicinity of those facilities).

like do you mean symbolic bombing runs that would have killed as many or more Syrian civilians than the chemical attacks?

The main point I'm getting at is that even this type of symbolic and murderous bullshit would in all likelihood have been better than letting Russia handle it.

At this point, all of fred's comments and responses have added up to nothing positive. He's upset. He is certain things could be better. It doesn't matter that he can't say how. he just wants what he wants and doesn't know what that is other than 'something better'. Very helpful insights, there, fred.

Plus giving "the Left", whoever they might be, their usual kicking.

Or surgical strike of chemical weapons facilities (no expert on this but I'm not sure how good an idea this would be, blowing up chemical weapons may have some bad effects for those living in the vicinity of those facilities).

just remembered israel doing this quite effectively and with no civilian casualties last year

At some point the left needs to halt it with awful statements like 'regime change/regional war probably involving Iran and Israel' as if those two things are inherently connected. And just in general using 'regime change' as an obviously bad thing. Regimes change, it's a fact of history. It's inherently neutral. Hafez al-Assad himself participated in overthrowing three regimes in seven years, and somehow managed to build a strong and stable central government. The neoconservative drive for regime change basically everywhere was insane, and not just in hindsight, at the time itself it was pretty clearly insane, but regime change is inevitable, and sooner or later, the Assad regime will tumble, no matter what anyone does.

I've asked you several times for your own ideas about what sorts of actions would be effective to stop or mitigate the situation?

― A is for (Aimless), 11. april 2018 22:26 (twenty-eight minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

As to what Obama should have done differently, it should be pretty clear by now that his handling of the first Syrian chemical has been pretty disastrous, in that it not only didn't stop further chemical attacks, it also didn't stop the US from bombing. While of course also leading to more Russian involvement. Instead, he should have retaliated militarily. That's not only a fair suggestion, it should be absolutely obvious that in all likelihood things would be better today if he had. The outraged response this utterly banal statement will result in is nothing but bullshit purity posturing.

― Frederik B, 11. april 2018 22:30 (twenty-four minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Things that should be part of leftist foreign policy: First and foremost financial reform aimed at limiting the ability of dictators and kleptocrats to move assets out of their own country. With regard to Syria, among things that should be on the table is putting pressure on Turkey and Russia to limit their involvement, and support to the Kurds in their fight for autonomy.

― Frederik B, 11. april 2018 22:34 (twenty minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

At this point, all of fred's comments and responses have added up to nothing positive. He's upset. He is certain things could be better. It doesn't matter that he can't say how. he just wants what he wants and doesn't know what that is other than 'something better'. Very helpful insights, there, fred.

― A is for (Aimless), 11. april 2018 22:45 (nine minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Sigh