Thursday, August 22, 2013
Political Mayhem Thursday: Syria
Things continue to get worse in Syria as rebels fight against the longstanding Assad government there. The latest reports are that the government has used poison gas against its citizens. The rebels seem to be no angels, either; their ranks include Islamic extremists who have executed prisoners of war.
The hard question is this: What should the United States do?
Doing anything, of course is predicated on which side you choose to support-- the Assad government or the rebels.
Naturally, I throw these two questions over to you: First, which side should we support (if any), and second, what should we do?
Comments:
<< Home
The Middle East is burning. As bad as Syria is, Egypt is even more serious (albeit not as chaotic, currently). The Pax Americana is crumbling. It is unfair to blame the President for this mess (as it is a mess that has been a long-time in the making), but I am going to go ahead and blame him anyway for his egregious statecraft in the face of impossible dilemmas.
Bottom Line: you have asked a question, Mark, without a pleasing answer. Do you want to die today in a car crash or a horrible industrial accident? Both options stink. And, frankly, like Egypt, we really don't have a lot of influence in the future course of Syria.
Fortunately, our options are so limited (by lack of consensus) that our increasingly obvious impotence gets lost just a bit in the international tug-of-war (thank Goodness for the Russians). So, we will most likely stay on the sidelines and watch Syria burn.
What to do? Realistically.
Pray?
Bottom Line: you have asked a question, Mark, without a pleasing answer. Do you want to die today in a car crash or a horrible industrial accident? Both options stink. And, frankly, like Egypt, we really don't have a lot of influence in the future course of Syria.
Fortunately, our options are so limited (by lack of consensus) that our increasingly obvious impotence gets lost just a bit in the international tug-of-war (thank Goodness for the Russians). So, we will most likely stay on the sidelines and watch Syria burn.
What to do? Realistically.
Pray?
I think we should stay the hell out of another war. Especially as outsiders in another place where “friend” and “foe” is not just super nuanced volatile, it is explosive. Not to mention it can change at the flick of one lost in translation switch.
Stay out of Egypt; cut off military aid.
Syria is tougher; if Assad has used chemical weapons (and a healthy skepticism about whether he has is appropriate here), isn't the international community bound to act by Convention?
Syria is tougher; if Assad has used chemical weapons (and a healthy skepticism about whether he has is appropriate here), isn't the international community bound to act by Convention?
Stay out, but find a way to offer humanitarian aid to all involved. They are all suffering and fighting for reasons beyond my comprehension.
I'm with Marta and Mark - from a military standpoint, at least, we should stay the hell out of both countries. I see no boots-on-the-ground scenario that ends well for the United States. Especially in that part of the world, today's friend can become tomorrow's enemy.
Plus, we're less than two years removed from Iraq and still have people in harm's way in Afghanistan - is another armed conflict REALLY what we want/need right now?
Plus, we're less than two years removed from Iraq and still have people in harm's way in Afghanistan - is another armed conflict REALLY what we want/need right now?
# posted by 
: 8:12 PM
: 8:12 PM
If we learn anything from our fiascos in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afganistan it should be "stay far, far, away." We never learn. We cannot do a bit of good for either side. We have to just let it burn because there is no chance for any other outcome. We could make it much worse as we have in all those other places. I hate to be so negative, but we can do nothing to fix any of this.
I probably agree, but for arguments sake, why not exercise some air-power, and strategically place a few cruse missiles. No boots allowed. Lets just put our thumb on the scale. And it does not even have to be our thumb. It could be NATO's.
Or imagine this alternative history. Having not invaded Iraq, and having done Afganistan quickly and well, Obama pulls out the G.H.W. Bush playbook on liberating middle eastern countries well. (Remember those days.)
NATO does Airpower while, Jordan and Egypt lead the ground assault(the Egypt of two years ago) We take care of logistics, and intell, special ops, command and control, all that stuff. A fither jet is one thing. A fighter jet plus in-air refueling, an AWACS, and some good intel... that gets work done. What a pipe dream.
Back to reality. Politically, what follows the Assad regime may not be in the US interest. But then neither was the past regime, nor is the future. So ironically, for the sake of lessoning human suffering, you kill people. War is bad. But a war that goes on and on (Iran-Irag) is more bad.
The thing is, this ship has already sailed. This is the conversation that the Obama administration was having, or should have been having 2 years ago.
The perspective I have heard on this that I thought was the most haunting, was what a Syrian opposition women said on the BBC. "In our hour of need, you did not help us. We will remember."
Last thought, "ought implies can." Can we?... I don't know. Define can.
Or imagine this alternative history. Having not invaded Iraq, and having done Afganistan quickly and well, Obama pulls out the G.H.W. Bush playbook on liberating middle eastern countries well. (Remember those days.)
NATO does Airpower while, Jordan and Egypt lead the ground assault(the Egypt of two years ago) We take care of logistics, and intell, special ops, command and control, all that stuff. A fither jet is one thing. A fighter jet plus in-air refueling, an AWACS, and some good intel... that gets work done. What a pipe dream.
Back to reality. Politically, what follows the Assad regime may not be in the US interest. But then neither was the past regime, nor is the future. So ironically, for the sake of lessoning human suffering, you kill people. War is bad. But a war that goes on and on (Iran-Irag) is more bad.
The thing is, this ship has already sailed. This is the conversation that the Obama administration was having, or should have been having 2 years ago.
The perspective I have heard on this that I thought was the most haunting, was what a Syrian opposition women said on the BBC. "In our hour of need, you did not help us. We will remember."
Last thought, "ought implies can." Can we?... I don't know. Define can.
Apparently they are still talking.
Obama Officials Weigh Response to Syria Assault
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/23/world/middleeast/syria.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20130823&_r=0
Post a Comment
Obama Officials Weigh Response to Syria Assault
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/23/world/middleeast/syria.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=edit_th_20130823&_r=0
<< Home
