Puppet War in Syria

[Gaspar]

So after 80,000 have been killed, and 1.5 million fled to other countries, we have decided (yesterday) to go ahead and arm the rebels.

Meanwhile, Russia continues to arm the Syrian government.

Does anyone see a problem with this?  It's the exact same scenario that's bitten us in the Assad before!

The syrian government has limited resources and relies on Russia.  The rebels, who have allegiance to Al Qeada, are now being armed by us.

Perhaps we should turn our focus to negotiating a settlement with Russia instead of both of our countries pumping more weapons to the players?

I'm very limited in my ability to predict the future, but if I were to rely on history, perhaps the history of Afganistan, I could probably predict where this will go.

[cannon_fodder]

Or, in the alternative, buy pumping up the conflict in Syria we are giving the tension in the middle east a release valve.

It seemed clear that we were happy to have a slow and steady transition to the rebels, but that we don't really trust them.  Thus, we are giving them enough arms to fight on - BUT not to be a threat when the war is over.  A lesson we learned from arming the bejesus out of Saddam.  When he stopped killing the people we wanted (Iran) he then invaded the people we didn't want him to.

Bad Saddam.

Certainly the scare is that the rebels in Syria turn on Israel, or Turkey, or Iraq.  BUT - we have Hezbollah aligned with Assad.  Turkey helping the rebels.  And Iraq twiddling its thumbs not taking sides.

If we then effect a regime change with minimal armaments, we significantly reduce the threat to Israel.  Hurt Iran and Russia.  And have influence over the new government via Turkey and our previous assistance. 

It is a repeat of what has happened in the past, but hopefully we have learned from the past.  We seem to be positioning ourselves better.

[Gaspar]

Or, in the alternative, buy pumping up the conflict in Syria we are giving the tension in the middle east a release valve.

It seemed clear that we were happy to have a slow and steady transition to the rebels, but that we don't really trust them.  Thus, we are giving them enough arms to fight on - BUT not to be a threat when the war is over.  A lesson we learned from arming the bejesus out of Saddam.  When he stopped killing the people we wanted (Iran) he then invaded the people we didn't want him to.

Bad Saddam.

Certainly the scare is that the rebels in Syria turn on Israel, or Turkey, or Iraq.  BUT - we have Hezbollah aligned with Assad.  Turkey helping the rebels.  And Iraq twiddling its thumbs not taking sides.

If we then effect a regime change with minimal armaments, we significantly reduce the threat to Israel.  Hurt Iran and Russia.  And have influence over the new government via Turkey and our previous assistance.  

It is a repeat of what has happened in the past, but hopefully we have learned from the past.  We seem to be positioning ourselves better.

"Minimal armaments" is difficult to quantify, because as with what happened in the past, minimal today is very different than what it will be in a month or year.  As a result of our pledge of participation, Russia is firing back by pledging to increase their participation.  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323734304578545062769525132.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTTopStories

We will send arms and mortars and missiles, they will send missile defense systems, and anti-personnel devices, so we will send drones and hellfires, and they will send big green monsters, and we will send flaming unicorns, and they will send the Kraken, and we will send . . .

Then when the war is over we will ask very nicely for the rebels Al Qeada to return everything and they will be more than happy to comply.

or

We will send only small arms and shoulder-fired ground to air equipment, and Russia will send tanks, planes, helicopters, missiles, drones, and laser guided velociraptors, and we will say "sorry". . .
 
. . . and the rebels will lose and blame us, and return many of our weapons, but not in the way we would like to receive them.

or

The moment Russia moves to give Syria the ability to strike a Isreal, Isreal will lash out, and we will find ourselves expected to provide support, and we will be in another war.

I don't see a win in any of the scenarios (of course there may be many others).  Had we initiated a no-fly-zone in the beginning before Syria was armed to such a state from Russia, the Syrian government would likely be a thing of the past, 80,000 people would likely be alive, and 1.5 million would not be homeless refugees.  Not that another Egypt style scenario would be a good thing, but at least we wouldn't' be back in the war business.

In other words, we were offered several opportunities to nip this in the bud, and chose not to.  Now we deal with the blossom, and history teaches us where that leads.

[swake]

That's a vast over simplification of the issues. You think we really wanted Assad out? Israel certainly didn't and is a large part of why we have been so cautious. Israel has had a safe border with Assad for decades, they didn't want him to go anywhere.

Also, Afghanistan and Syria are not at all alike. Afghanistan is a very poor, rural, primitive nation with very low education levels. Most adults have had little to no formal education and most cannot read. Little of the country has any kind of infrastructure. They are a simple people easily misled and fearful of us.

Syria is a well educated country, largely urbanized, largely secular with good (prewar) infrastructure for the region and while not a rich country by any means it's far wealthier than Afghanistan. That said, it's probably an even worse idea for us to get involved at any real level in Syria than it was in Iraq.

This is a true and ugly civil war divided largely on religious and tribal lines. The ruling Alawite sect is a religious offshoot of Shi'a Islam and is linked to and supported by Iran and Hezzbolah. They are at war with the long oppressed Sunni majority, some of whom have links to radical Sunni groups like Al Queda and the Muslim Brotherhood. The Alawites are correctly terrified that they will be massacred if Syria falls so they are not going to go easily and they have substantial backing from Iran and also from Russia who sees Assad has it's only true friend in the Middle East.  This is the reverse of Iraq which was a largely secular nation run by a Sunni minority suppressing a Shi'a majority. Both Syria and Iraq have large Kurdish areas that largely are trying to stay out of the conflicts. Syria also has a large Christian minority that largely backs the government, they are also fearful of a Sunni takeover. The rebels are not all religious, some of Syria's rebels are allied with Al Queda but most are not  linked to Al Queda or other radical groups. That said, getting in middle of a civil war is almost always a bad idea.

There's also larger game here going on, it's a battle between the Sunni Arab world, mostly the Saudi's and other gulf states, fighting for regional dominance against Shi'a Islam which is dominated by Iran. Iraq was a piece in this puzzle and Bush was stupid enough to hand Iraq over to the Iranians. Now the Saudi's are trying to take Syria from Iran in the same manner using the Arab Spring. We support the weakening of Iran's influence, but at the same time we want Israel safe and we are fearful of radical Sunni groups taking over.  The other real danger here is if the war spreads, or rather spreads more. Watch Lebanon.

[cannon_fodder]

Whoa there, we are all over the board.  Lets break it down:

1)  Do we want the rebels to succeed against Assad?

That is question #1.  Succeed can be quantified in many ways (win the war, drag the war on, take control of the government, destabilize Assad but never take power themselves).   If you don't want the rebels to fight Assad the conversation ends here.  If you do want the rebels to do anything other than die then...

2) Do we give them support?

As it stands the rebels are being supplied on the down-low by France, Turkey, and a couple other countries.  USA is supplying intelligence and logistic support (medical supplies, humanitarian aid).  The battle is currently jets, tanks, artillery, and a trained army/equipped army vs guys who sometimes have rifles.   If we want them to succeed to any degree (i.e. not all die within another 6 months) then we need to give them support overtly or covertly.  The question becomes...

3) How much support?

From what we are currently doing, to providing more intelligence, to providing small arms (machine guns, bullets, maybe anti-tank weapons)to outfitting them in a more serious mission (artillery, anti-aircraft missiles.... tanks?  Helicopters? ), or an indirect intervention (no-fly zone, a few strategic cruise missiles, training, "advisers"), unleashing an ally (Turkey, Israel, go get 'em), or direct support (See, e.g., Iraq [twice], Afghanistan , Panama, Nicaragua, Grenada, Vietnam, Korea, Japan, Germany, Mexico, Spain, etc.).  

I don't think I have heard anyone advocating direct support.  I have not heard the administration advocating indirect intervention or even heavy weapons.  It appears the decision at this point is to provide light weapons and allow our allies in the region some level of autonomy (bombing every now and then, turkey a few retaliations).   As it currently stands the battle is between a real army and people lacking basic equipment - if Russia sells more tanks the our support is still helping the rebels more than Russia's continued support for Assad (as a matter of changing the odds).  Russia has been sending planes, tanks, drones, helicopters for decades.  A little support will go a long way with the rebels.

If the situation changes, we will need to reevaluate.  If Russia sends a new squadron of fighter jets to Syria we may need to ask Israel to declare them a nuclear weapons site or send in a team with some shoulder fired anti-aircraft missiles covertly.  We can adapt.

The #1 rule in global conflict is never be afraid to adopt a foe as an ally.  Britain, Spain, Germany, Japan, Canada, Mexico, Turkey - all former enemies.  Iran, China, Venezuela, Cuba, Russia - all former allies.  Conflict makes strange bed fellows.  If we can use Al-Queda to take out Assad great.  Two American enemies killing each other?  That's some serious good politicking by the ole' USA!

[Gaspar]

Whoa there, we are all over the board.  Lets break it down:

1)  Do we want the rebels to succeed against Assad?

That is question #1.  Succeed can be quantified in many ways (win the war, drag the war on, take control of the government, destabilize Assad but never take power themselves).   If you don't want the rebels to fight Assad the conversation ends here.  If you do want the rebels to do anything other than die then...

2) Do we give them support?

As it stands the rebels are being supplied on the down-low by France, Turkey, and a couple other countries.  USA is supplying intelligence and logistic support (medical supplies, humanitarian aid).  The battle is currently jets, tanks, artillery, and a trained army/equipped army vs guys who sometimes have rifles.   If we want them to succeed to any degree (i.e. not all die within another 6 months) then we need to give them support overtly or covertly.  The question becomes...

3) How much support?

From what we are currently doing, to providing more intelligence, to providing small arms (machine guns, bullets, maybe anti-tank weapons)to outfitting them in a more serious mission (artillery, anti-aircraft missiles.... tanks?  Helicopters? ), or an indirect intervention (no-fly zone, a few strategic cruise missiles, training, "advisers"), unleashing an ally (Turkey, Israel, go get 'em), or direct support (See, e.g., Iraq [twice], Afghanistan , Panama, Nicaragua, Grenada, Vietnam, Korea, Japan, Germany, Mexico, Spain, etc.).  

I don't think I have heard anyone advocating direct support.  I have not heard the administration advocating indirect intervention or even heavy weapons.  It appears the decision at this point is to provide light weapons and allow our allies in the region some level of autonomy (bombing every now and then, turkey a few retaliations).   As it currently stands the battle is between a real army and people lacking basic equipment - if Russia sells more tanks the our support is still helping the rebels more than Russia's continued support for Assad (as a matter of changing the odds).  Russia has been sending planes, tanks, drones, helicopters for decades.  A little support will go a long way with the rebels.

If the situation changes, we will need to reevaluate.  If Russia sends a new squadron of fighter jets to Syria we may need to ask Israel to declare them a nuclear weapons site or send in a team with some shoulder fired anti-aircraft missiles covertly.  We can adapt.

The #1 rule in global conflict is never be afraid to adopt a foe as an ally.  Britain, Spain, Germany, Japan, Canada, Mexico, Turkey - all former enemies.  Iran, China, Venezuela, Cuba, Russia - all former allies.  Conflict makes strange bed fellows.  If we can use Al-Queda to take out Assad great.  Two American enemies killing each other?  That's some serious good politicking by the ole' USA!

We don't have a history of playing this game of chess very well.  We made this bed earlier when we opted to stand back and observe Syria as they exterminated their people.  Now we are willing to lend a little help, but only because they forced our hand. 

1) and 2) are a yes.  3) is where we get into trouble.  No matter what our level of involvement in the beginning, we will likely be forced to sh!t or get off the pot eventually. I agree, we can adapt, but we don't move as fast as we used to, and the current political climate gives us very little wiggle room. 

I guess I would rather see this handled between puppet masters rather than through the blood of the puppets. 

[Gaspar]

As predicted, it's time to sh!t.

Prepare for Iraq II.  First the cruise missiles. . .  You know the rest of the tune.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/26/world/middleeast/syria-says-un-will-get-access-to-site-of-possible-chemical-attack.html?hp&_r=0

[Gaspar]

They are apparently firing on the UN Inspectors now.

http://news.sky.com/story/1133285/syria-un-inspectors-shot-at-by-snipers

[sgrizzle]

[guido911]

Kerry came off determined today. Looks like Syria will be fitted with a cruise missile rectal probe soon. I'll support this intervention. WMD use is the red line. Wanna know how badass America is. Our peace prize winners will kill you!!!

[Gaspar]

This is some amazing Deja-vu.  I wonder if we will find Assad in a spider hole?

Will this war be funded?

Is Kerry lying about weapons of mass distraction?

[Gaspar]

Only 9% support unfunded military action in Syria.

Liberals must be livid that the president would even consider such action.

[Townsend]

Liberals must be livid that the president would even consider such action.

Are conservatives jumping for joy?  I've not started my happy cocktailing.

[AquaMan]

For a guy who says he can't predict the future, Mr. Gas seems quite willing to do so. As well as recreate the past.

We've learned some from the past yet political hatred for "liberals" and Obama particularly keeps some from ever learning.

I support some kind of intervention now.

[Conan71]

Sending in missiles and drones which might kill more innocent civilians on top of those already killed or maimed by chemical weapons doesn't sound like a very good solution, now does it?

That apparently is what the Admin is mulling right now.