syria

I'm not sure which one is "no" but that one

*✗

If there's an argument for yes, it better look hard at Libya...

my vote is no

feel like odds of direct military involvement are pretty low anyway, but I don't see how any good would come of it. either with us or without us there's going to be some atrocities committed, and pretty much every side is gonna have their hands dirty by the end. if they all want to kill each other, there's very little we can do to stop it )outside of killing all of them).

I'd like to think that something could be done when ppl are getting gassed, but I'm not sure there is anything. That's a 'damning indictment' of western foreign policy for ya.

Alawites, mainstream Shia, Sunni majority, small Christian minority, Iran, Russia, Iraq, Turkey, Israel and possible spill-over into new Lebanese sectarian civil war... This is hyper-complicated.

Oh and Kurds in NE, iIrc

West's track record of trying to "fix" shit in the region hardly encouraging

yeah exactly

to say nothing of how complicated and tangled all the internecine struggles are, jabbing our sticky fingers in there has not worked out well historically

If there was a time for intervention, I believe it has passed.

if you're gonna start shooting you'd better have a reasonably high chance of a good outcome and we know that we don't.

The Free Syrian supporters really, really wanted Western help about a year ago or more (more than what they're getting now, I mean) but now I think they're so aggrieved at our indifference, that they've reverted to the usual anti-Americanism of the region and little we could do would change that.

the_west is not just america

http://cleanwebkids.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/gerome_bonaparte_before_the_sphinxb.png

No and France and the UK have already started making noises about the use of poison gas. They were involved in Libya and the UK and Germany gave France some help in Mali (mostly logistic). They are more concerned since Syria is on the Med and Turkey, a European nation, if not a member of the EU is a neighbor of Syria. Obama's comments today imply that he intends to do nothing without at least the support of European allies and probably now w/o UN Security Council support (which he'll never get).

Turkey, a European nation, according to about 10% of French people

ftr i sincerely hope none of the_west get involved

Shakey OTM. At this point it feels the best the West can do is just staying away.

The sad truth is that Russia, Turkey and Iran would rather see a stalemate than the total victory of the enemy of their proxy in Syria and they can live with a ruined and divided Syria with almost two million refugees externally and possibly twice that number displaced internally. It seems that the US just wants to make sure that chemical weopons don't fall into the hands of the most extreme jihadis and Israel probably doesn't mind if Syria's a complete basket-case provided Lebanon doesn't slide that way, too, since that would be a boon to Hizbollah. I imagine the US will use drones or cruise missiles if there's too much use of chemical weopons or there's a credible chance of them falling into the hands of radical sunni rebels/ Al Qaeda. Or maybe use proxies of their own... I can't see US boots on the ground right now. There's too much war weariness after our super successful interventions in Iraq and Afghansitan and the situation is that much more murky.

US boots on the ground never going to happen

'targeted strikes' by someone a possibility after this week

^^^

Otherwise known as:

"Look for something that's not already blown up. Blow it up."

"About that, Sir..."

USA or european intervention in Syria would basically be taking intermittent aerial potshots at any faction they don't like, whenever that faction looks to be succeeding too much. The factions most favored by the west are not nearly strong or cohesive enough to attract more backing than that. I have a hunch the US State Dept would prefer to see Assad resume control than see a victory for the majority of Assad's armed opposition. This is not a good time to be a Syrian non-combatant.

the option that would lead to fewest civilian casualties and displacements = covertly providing assistance to assad from the beginning

Automatic thread bump. This poll's results are now in.

http://i.imgur.com/jSUEikT.jpg

caucasian privilege in the mujahideen

this hews pretty close to my opinion on syria http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/girl-you-wish-you-hadnt-started-a-conversation-with-at-a-partys-summer-plans/n36354/

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/08/26/article-2401925-1B75DFF5000005DC-134_636x410.jpg

Louis, I have made terrible sexing decisions in the past indeed. But I can make better decisions in the future - you will always be a terrible person who gives leftists a bad name.

― boots get knocked from here to czechoslovakier (milo z), Sunday, 20 March 2011 20:39 (2 years ago)

^^^wonder how this guy voted

"There are rules to international law" is always a pisser in any US president's act, but this one delivers it with extra balls.

Three people voted for intervention. I think it would be interesting to hear their perspective.

what do u think treesh?

It doesn't seem like any sort of intervention would be able to accomplish much, and might further inflame the conflict (though i'm not sure it can get much worse than it already is.) Also there is no clear line of "when to intervene", which makes every "intervention" on humanitarian grounds suspect and complicated. So I guess I am for non-intervention, but I think it sucks that International Law exists but it can't do anything to stop a dictator's mass slaughter of civilians.

Really, what 'needs' to be done is establishing a no-fly zone, nobody is talking about invervention as in putting troops on the ground to take down assad. It's the planes and helicopters that needs to be stopped. I think this would have happened a long time ago if russia wasn't involved.

btw i didn't vote. I don't know what to do, but i think you guys are way too pessimistic.

do you think there should be international investigating magistrates in the civil law fashion, who can determine if violations have occurred and then authorize force under the imprimatur of the UN, thereby bypassing the vagaries of the security council or the intervionist whims of individual nations? xp

Maybe, but that seems like it would be a very long process and might not make sense if your goal is to stop an ongoing crisis.

so, kerry declares war, pretty much

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/2013/08/26/kerry-make-statement-syria/Z7ND7UdEp1OQSs9ZQH2v9H/story.html

i'm in favor of non-intervention but for the wrong reasons

which are?

so, kerry declares war, pretty much

airstrikes/drone strikes I guess

state interest in forcing commitment of iranian resources, bleeding of al-q, hezbollah, good distraction to keep radical fundamentalist attention away from the west, etc.

a nice lil quagmire without us in it, for once!

fairly grotesque but i can't disagree

treesh to employ the inane binary of robert kagan u seem to be a hobbesian realist distrustful of the kantian idealism of the UN

mordy is correct though

the distraction hypothesis is probably a bit of a zero sum fallacy because there seems to be an enduring supply of jihad bros, if 10000 of them die in syria then they are probably the same 10000 who were 'radicalized' by syria in the first place

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/files/2013/08/BSm0bOBCYAAAph6.jpg

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/08/26/the-middle-east-explained-in-one-sort-of-terrifying-chart/

why not? We publish Kissinger's.

yeah it's p strange abt buzzfeed. they started running hard news & reporting when the dude from politico took charge -- michael hastings was on staff there. the author of the piece above was the Times middle east correspondent for five years. running that story to look like a listicle makes things even stranger, it must be said

you'd think they'd identify the credentials of their writers so we can distinguish b/t "NYT ME correspondent of five years writes about syria" and "guy whose other posts are about miley cyrus and pet grooming"

...writes about syria"

Guys we should take syriasly.

no he isn't. he explicitly said that he thinks he doesn't have to. what he's "re-establishing" is the idea that the president can ask for congressional approval if he feels like it.

― (The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Wednesday, September 11, 2013 5:58 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I could see it being an unintended consequence of doing it though.

we know it'll depend on the president, on the circumstances of the potential conflict, etc, ie who knows. it should depend on none of those things

saw some speculation that he was greasing the wheels for an action where he'd need congress, i.e. going to war with iran

A local message board in my town of maybe 100-200 users got hacked tonight by the Syrian Electronic Army, or at least someone using their material. They must be all over the place.

Better Than Ezra predictably weighs in
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/09/10/the-white-house-may-really-be-about-to-win-on-syria/

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opinion/putin-plea-for-caution-from-russia-on-syria.html

Ryan Lizza's take.

lizza otm - diplomatic un solution could lead to stalling tactics from assad and an understood long term commitment from america in syria. any actions from obama would be yr desert fox type ops, i don't see him invading but by the time a president hillary or christie or whoever (besides rand) is dealing w/ it it could be something that 'credibility' demands. at the same time the non-diplomatic non-un solution we were hurtling toward a week ago could easily lead to the exact same spot.

phew?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/14/world/middleeast/us-wont-insist-un-resolution-threaten-force-on-syria-officials-say.html?hp&_r=0

U.S. and Russia Reach Deal to Destroy Syria’s Chemical Arms

Meanwhile, spiderman and captain America reach deal to destroy doc ock's mechanical arms

andy borowitz everybody!

Presumably Russia has some pull with Assad.

http://theam.cn/17NwNg2

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10311007/Syria-nearly-half-rebel-fighters-are-jihadists-or-hardline-Islamists-says-IHS-Janes-report.html

Wow, I'm not sure I would have wanted to be there for that straw poll...

Well, I read a Danish analysis of that question, and I think it's important to realize, that out of six provinces under rebel control, only one is controlled by the jihadists. It's probably what they talk about when they mention 'northern syria', and apparantly it's a desert area, not very populated, without any kind of structure. Really, it's a wide area, but it's less important in a nationalist view. It's like with mali, the jihadists have an easier time dominating less contested areas. Apparantly they are financed by Qatar and - surprisingly - Turkey. Turkey help them since they are fighting against kurds.

But I thought the only people who disliked Assad were fanatics, and that if we give them food they'll only spend the calories killing Christian babies...

That's one heck of a diet...

So, what do we think about the UN-report? The gas was delivered by advanced rocket-technology, with cyrillian letters on them at least two rockets was fired from area controlled by the regime (and the trajectory of the other rockets couldn't be determined). I think it is quite convincing.

It was always silly to suggest that, if chemical weapons had been used at all, they had been deployed by anyone other than Assad's government. So, a finding that the means of delivery points to the Assad regime is completely unsurprising. The more important question has always been, what kind of a response makes practical sense?

Yup. "One man can change the world with a bullet in the right place." Uh..."Give me a cruise missile long enough and a pivot and I shall move the world." "The World and Life are one. ... Ethics and Aesthetics are one." There must be an answer somewhere...

But really, in this case, the thread of violence had some pretty good consequences, right?

Depends on whether we end up at the same point in five years, except with roughly half the number of people left alive to save.

xp: It wasn't an advanced rocket. Both government and rebels have tons of 132mm launchers and rockets, a technology dating back to 1942, and they work just fine for delivering chemical agents where accuracy isn't all that important.

They may even be superior to artillery shells, as the launcher and round can use cheaper, developing world materials, rather than high strength forgings, and still hold more explosive or chemical agent than a similarly sized shell.

I don't know how the Syrian military marked their chemical rounds, the U.S. Army used distinctive green bands around their shells. If chemical munitions were being distributed to lower level units, many manned by militias, it was probably only a matter of time before a few found their way into a launcher by command or accident.

Yeah, according to what I've read, it wasn't 'a few' and it's pretty unlikely that 'lower lever units' would be entrusted with chemical weapons to begin with, as the chance of the shell being handled wrongly, leaking and killing many of your own soldiers is too high.

https://now.mmedia.me/lb/en/international/tunisia-to-fight-sex-jihad-trips-to-syria

Sy Hersh thinks Obama had some lies of omission about Syria non-shocker

Barack Obama did not tell the whole story this autumn when he tried to make the case that Bashar al-Assad was responsible for the chemical weapons attack near Damascus on 21 August. In some instances, he omitted important intelligence, and in others he presented assumptions as facts. Most significant, he failed to acknowledge something known to the US intelligence community: that the Syrian army is not the only party in the country’s civil war with access to sarin, the nerve agent that a UN study concluded – without assessing responsibility – had been used in the rocket attack.

But in recent interviews with intelligence and military officers and consultants past and present, I found intense concern, and on occasion anger, over what was repeatedly seen as the deliberate manipulation of intelligence.

The same official said there was immense frustration inside the military and intelligence bureaucracy: ‘The guys are throwing their hands in the air and saying, “How can we help this guy” – Obama – “when he and his cronies in the White House make up the intelligence as they go along?”’

Related: Sy Hersh doesn't have a better outlet than the London Review of Books?

oh, well here's why:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/08/seymour-hersh-syria-report_n_4409674.html

hersh prob OTM as per usual.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/11/opinion/use-force-to-save-starving-syrians.html

There's never been a shortage of armchair pundits advocating killing to avert famine. For those with short memories.

good article https://harpers.org/archive/2016/01/a-special-relationship/

A US air strike killed more than 85 civilians, including children, in Syria on Tuesday after the coalition mistook them for Islamic State fighters.

Some eight families were hit as they tried to flee fighting in their area, in one of the single deadliest strikes on civilians by the alliance since the start of its operations in the war-torn country.

Pictures of the aftermath of the dawn strikes on the Isil-controlled village of Tokhar near Manbij in northern Syria showed the bodies of children as young as three under piles of rubble.

The UK-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said the strikes appeared to have been carried out in error, with the civilians mistaken for Islamist militants.

It is thought Tuesday’s bombing was among the first by jets taking off from Incirlik air base in Turkey since it reopened after the failed coup.

The area has seen intense fighting between extremists and members of the US-backed Syria Democratic Forces (SDF) that have been advancing towards the Isil stronghold of Manbij under the cover of intense airstrikes by the US-led coalition.

The coalition has carried out more than 450 air strikes around the city since the operation to take the town began in May.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/07/19/us-air-strike-in-syria-kills-up-to-85-civilians-mistaken-for-isi/

is there another thread where we all freak out at the assassination of the russian ambassador to turkey.

closest: Q: are we not MENA? A: we are the rolling middle east, north africa and other geopolitical hot spots thread 2016!

no shit. https://t.co/kyq7746lwK

— Adam H. Johnson (@adamjohnsonNYC) August 17, 2017

"the West" still stands for blowing shit up......thank you pic.twitter.com/lAYXODksUP

— Adam H. Johnson (@adamjohnsonNYC) April 15, 2018

This language is directly from the Dick Cheney & Karl Rove playbook and script when they would attack Democrats in the Bush years who wanted to "cut and run" and leave the various Middle East wars. There's zero difference in rhetoric or mentality: "our enemies will not fear us." https://t.co/HJ7Lr7WRsW

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) December 20, 2018

Assad is bad imo

Yeah, but Iraqi Shia and Afghan crime lords were despicable allies. The YPG are cool.

Assad purposely bombed clinics run by Doctors Without Borders because they treated anyone who came to them, some of whom may have been combatants. Of course, all of the medical staff and most of the patients were non-combatants. So, yes, he is bad.

he sure is, and doesn't appear to be going anywhere, as Nobel winner Obama himself said

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2022/02/03/world/us-raid-syria-isis

Syria? ISIS? What the fuck?