Home › Forums › Open Discussion › Really? The pawn in another Middle East conflict? Are we Syria's this time?
- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
September 6, 2013 at 10:54 pm #796901
PLSParticipant@EdSane – you are correct that no solid proof has come out about the rebels holding chemical weapons, other than some serious amounts of chlorine and such. Lots of theory and some strong indications, but no proof. As for the ability, it is more clear that they have the capacity – the FSA was started by and is largely staffed by Syrian military defectors. Of the other rebel groups, upwards of 5,000 foreign fighters with serious battleground experience from the region have come in. I’d imagine sufficient knowledge and hardware with them.
What I keep coming back to is why in the world would Assad or any of his leadership be so foolish as to fire sarin (again, potentially) on an area not strongly rebel-held with the world watching and a stated red line out there? He does NOT want Western involvement and the attack bought them nothing strategically. They have shown pretty strong battlefield control and tight planning – this would go way beyond a small tactical error. They would know it would immediately change the entire dynamic of the war against them, likely for good. They are keeping the upper hand where they need and are supplied and strong with no significant opportunity for negative change. They can hold out a long time with Iran and Russia behind them.
The various less-moderate and anxious rebel groups, OTH, could easily see the attack on an area they didn’t really need/inhabit/hold, if perceived as coming from Assad, as a serious positive game changer for them. Contrary to Assad, they NEED the West to get involved and tip the balance – they know they will not win in the long run with status quo. They would thrive on the chaos.
Cui bono, as the good investigators would say? Who benefits?
Until I see incontrovertible evidence one way or the other it’s only speculation. But that said, as long we are are still speculating we have no business putting missiles in the air. I’m not an isolationist by any means but this government can’t even get beyond sequestration and myriad other problems at home. We have no dog in the Syrian fight and should not waste money – and heaven forbid the lives of our fighting men and women – on the cluster in Syria.
September 6, 2013 at 11:15 pm #796902
Myr-myrParticipantLeave it to Colbert! :)
September 7, 2013 at 1:23 am #796903
dobroParticipantA alternative to military strikes has been put forth by Senators Manchin and Heitkamp. They suggest giving Syria 45 days to sign onto the Chemical Weapons treaty and renounce further use. If this goes unheeded, strikes would be forthcoming. This would give more time to build an international response that wouldn’t leave the US hanging out by itself. More details here…
September 7, 2013 at 6:00 pm #796904
waynsterParticipantThe biggest and hardest questions have been met and once again the world has agreed yet once again no one wants to do anything about it until it affect’s them. Had they used a nuke and laid to waste a city in their own country would the world wait.. don’t think it would never happen somewhere in the future.. think again ….Lets cut off this and that aid.. yet they still get what the want and need… I’m not saying nuke em turn Syria in to glass the military needs a good spanking and not a hand slap to make them think about using gas again……more must be done then just cutting them off example look at Iran they built a nucular reactor with sanctions put on them toughest in the world yet they did it……again we wait for a world counties to do something and once again they turn a blind eye…..
http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/07/politics/syria-kerry-meeting/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
September 8, 2013 at 12:43 am #796905
SmittyParticipant“look at Iran they built a nucular reactor”
Careful Waynster! People consider you an idiot if you pronounce it incorrectly once. I can’t imagine the scrutiny going forward if you actually spell it wrong!
Good luck!
September 8, 2013 at 3:43 am #796906
JanSParticipantlol…nucular…Yes, have used that more than once, even though I know better…
September 8, 2013 at 6:15 pm #796907
waynsterParticipantSo I didn’t use nuclear oh well I don’t care what ever…that’s what I get for going to school in the seattle school district lmao (just joking) spell check……. still got the context of the post……
September 9, 2013 at 6:28 pm #796908
dobroParticipantMore changes. Russia is pushing Syria to remand chemical weapons to international control and Syria is agreeing with their proposal. Seems like a good way out of military action and could actually solve the problem rather than exacerbating it. More details…
September 9, 2013 at 8:12 pm #796909
dobroParticipantA statement from Hilary Clinton that sounds like something a secretary of state might say…
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/09/09/1237638/-Syria-Hillary-Clinton-s-Careful-Words
September 10, 2013 at 2:42 am #796910
dobroParticipantIf we manage to pull this off with no military activity, I would give credit to Obama for some smart sabre rattling combined with diplomacy. What do you think? Lucky or good?
September 10, 2013 at 3:45 pm #796911
dobroParticipantConfirmation from Russia that Obama and Putin spoke of this turn of events last week via the Guardian…
Russia has backed up US claims that Barack Obama and Vladimir Putin discussed the idea of putting Syria’s chemical weapons under international control at the G20 summit last week.
On Monday the idea appeared to emerge from a slip by US secretary of state John Kerry, which was then seized on by Moscow.
But in TV interviews Obama insisted that he had first raised the idea at the G20 summit as his administration scrambled to claim credit for the Russian deal and insisted Syria was responding to US pressure. “It is unlikely that we would have arrived at that point without a credible military threat,” Obama told CNN.
Now Obama’s version of events has been backed by Putin’s spokesman Dmitry Peskov. “The issue was discussed,” Peskov told Reuters. He would not say who raised the issue or give other details.
September 10, 2013 at 6:26 pm #796912
TanDLParticipantGerman Intelligence reports that they intercepted calls from Syria’s field commanders to Assad requesting permission to use chemical weapons and Assad repeatedly told them “no.”
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/08/syria-chemical-weapons-not-assad-bild
Syria is a sticky wicket and I was concerned when our President and Secretary of State started calling for bombing strikes. I’m feeling a little better now that they seem to be taking a closer look at other options. If anything, Obama and Putin probably cooked up the “bad cop – good cop” thing when they met and are just playing out those roles. The important thing to me is that we not rush to war in a far off country again without some serious contemplation of what the hell we’re doing!
September 11, 2013 at 8:41 am #796913
HMC RichParticipantMyr-Myr. President Obama mispoke multiple times on this issue. This has been a PR disaster. If he launches strikes against Syria, you can kiss the Democratic Presidency Goodbye in 3 more years.
Assad probably knows who launched the Syrian Chemical Agents. He needs to bring those people forth and kill them, or at least imprison them. Killing by bombs, bullets, gas, is killing.
I wish we would use sleeping gas on all foes and tie them up and imprison them.
We do not need this military action. Iran is a bigger problem. I am so glad the Israelis bombed Syria’s nuclear program.
We also need to modernize our military again. We have been fighting for a decade. No more deployments for the 5th or 6th time for our soldiers. America is tired and we don’t need this Rookie Foreign Policy Hack of a President escalating this. He should answer to us. Not his whims.
I just kind of figured he might do something on 9/11 to make up for Benghazi too!! Lord help us if he does. He shouldn’t.
September 11, 2013 at 3:21 pm #796914
IsaacParticipantChemical weapons aren’t why the president is interested in Syria. The US has actually been interested in helping the Syrian rebels for a long time.
The US has brought several motions to the UN. Things involving military force, military aid, or war in general are brought to the UN Security Council, a 12 member group consisting of 5 permanent members: US, UK, France, China, and Russia. The permanent members of the council have a special privilege: if any one of them vetoes a motion, it fails automatically. As I said, the US has brought several motions to the UN. All of them have failed, and all of them have failed because Russia (and China) have vetoed them using their veto powers.
So the US has long been interested in helping the Syrian rebels– why is Russia concerned with vetoing efforts to help them? This is what it’s all about: the politics of power. Realpolitik.
Syria, ruled by Bashar al-Assad (who functions basically as a dictator) is Russia’s only ally in the Middle East region. The Russians sell a lot of arms to the Syrian government, and importantly the Russian’s only naval base in the Mediterranean is based in Tartus, Syria. So, for geostrategic reasons alone, we can see that Russia is interested in keeping the friendly Syrian government in power. Though this isn’t the Cold War, Russia is a competitor, so to some extent the US is interested in seeing the Syrian government fall because it would reduce the influence of a competitor in the region.
Another ally of Syria is Iran. You see, al-Assad is an Alawite– a sect of Shiite Islam. Iran is majority Shiite Islam. The history is too long to recount here, but basically: Islam is divided into two major branches, Sunni and Shiite, which are not friends with each other. Iran and Syria are the only countries in the Middle East with Shiites in power, and Iran is the only country that actually has a majority of its citizens Shiites. It’s in Iran’s interest to keep the Syrian government in power, as they are the only other Shiite buddy in the region. This, too, is a reason why the US wants the Syrian government to fall; one of our longstanding goals is to remove the Iranian theocracy and prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Removing a friend of Iran reduces their power and influence. Recently to this end of stopping Iran, the US has spent several years encouraging international adoption of economic sanctions against Iran.
Then, there is Israel to consider. Syria borders Israel to its north, and the two have had quite a lot of tension before; during the Six-Day War, Israel occupied the Golan Heights and effectively annexed it, in contravention of international law. The two have not been on good terms. In 2006, Israel got into a short war with its other neighbor to the north, Lebanon, during which time Syria threatened to join the war on Lebanon’s side. Naturally, Israel would rather the Syrian government fall. As the US is an ally of Israel and Israel in turn provides an ally to us in the region, it’s in our interest to help Israel’s interest.
Looking more broadly, there are regional issues. As I mentioned earlier, Syria’s government is Shiite, while the majority of the Middle East is Sunni. Another element is that the majority of Syria is also Sunni; the Shiites comprise 10-20% of Syria’s population, while Sunnis are 60-70%. However, Bashar al-Assad and his father before him (also a dictator) are Alawite Shiites, and so Shiites have reigned supreme in Syria, building up resentment among the Sunni citizens because of decades-long minority rule by a group that the Sunnis consider to be heretical. This tension in the Middle East as a whole, Sunni vs. Shia, and in the country of Syria specifically, have provided sectarian lines for the population to divide themselves among. And because people in other countries want to see their particular side win, this means that foreign-based sectarian groups have rushed to help their side win the war, making it a regional proxy for the division between Sunni and Shia. Those groups, by the way, include Hezbollah, a Shia paramilitary group who has long been an enemy of Israel, as well as the Al-Nusra Front, a Sunni Islamist paramilitary group who are associates of Al-Qaeda. Obviously, this situation could easily cross borders outside of Syria and develop into a regional war. Since the US depends on the Middle East for oil, this would obviously be a bad situation for the US.
BUT WAIT! THERE’S MORE! And as always, it involves oil (and natural gas).
Qatar, a small country next to Saudi Arabia, (and coincidentally a good US ally) sought a few years ago to build a natural gas pipeline from itself up to Turkey, and from there on to Europe. Turkey (also a good US ally) was also interested in this deal, as it would make Turkey a key player in Europe’s energy sector by being the transit conduit for a large component of Europe’s oil and gas, which would go through the proposed Nabucco pipeline connecting Turkey to Europe. However, this all fell through. Instead, Iran, Iraq, and Syria came to a deal to transport gas from the South Pars gas field in Iran through Iraq and then to port in Syria, from where it could be sold to Europe, bypassing Turkey. The kicker? The South Pars gas field is shared between Iran and Qatar, so if Iran got a pipeline in place first, there would be no need for a pipeline from Qatar to Turkey, meaning both Qatar and Turkey don’t get the money and influence they desire. So, obviously, Turkey and Qatar are interested in seeing the Syrian government change its mind, and unsurprisingly, have both condemned the Syrian government and encouraged support for the rebels. So, being that Turkey and Qatar are both allies of the US, it is once again in US interests to help their allies. But the US is interested in the Turkish-Qatari gas line for an entirely separate reason as well.
Russia is a big natural gas exporter. In fact, they supply much of Europe with its natural gas, to the point where they are a monopoly in most Eastern European countries, and double-digit percentages to France, Germany, and Italy. This dominance has also given them monopoly-pricing, which has caused friction between Russia and other European countries. In 2009, this got so bad that Russia cut all gas deliveries to Europe for 13 days, creating an energy crisis in Europe that was only resolved after Ukraine (the main country Russia’s pipelines go through) basically folded to Russian demands. Now, this is obviously terrible for our European allies, as they have little or no options when it comes to Russia’s demands. So, Europe has been trying to diversify its natural gas suppliers. Unfortunately, it has not done so successfully so far. Guess who was one potential supplier? That pipeline from Turkey. Europe badly needs another supplier of gas, though, so they’d likely be willing to accept gas from the Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline even though that would involve buying gas from Iran, helping its economy. This is bad for the US, precisely because we sought economic sanctions on Iran to stop Europe from buying oil and helping its economy. So, once again it is in the United States’ interest for Syria to change its mind on the pipelines. Additionally, since Russia is a rival, reducing its control over European energy markets is a strategic goal for the US in and of itself, so helping our European counterparts also helps us. Helping them, of course, means overthrowing the Syrian government.
September 11, 2013 at 5:44 pm #796915
dobroParticipant“America is tired and we don’t need this Rookie Foreign Policy Hack of a President escalating this. He should answer to us.”
You mean like he just did by consulting Congress before ordering strikes and then didn’t escalate by continuing diplomatic efforts in the wake of new initiatives?
September 11, 2013 at 6:27 pm #796916
JoBParticipantIsaac..
thank you
unfortunately, there are too many who won’t bother to read your careful analysis..
September 11, 2013 at 7:09 pm #796917
wakefloodParticipantAs Isaac so clearly points out, there’s always elements of “Alice Through the Looking Glass” plus “Von Clausewitz, war is an extension of diplomacy by other means”, and the ever-present, “the enemy of my enemy is my friend (for the moment)” to any of these foreign policy issues. Add the inevitable “law of unintended consequences” and you truly have a quagmire to sort through. Arab Spring, anyone??
Deciphering the best path forward often starts with getting clarity on our own intentions, both short and long term. As Isaac suggests, our long term desire is to facilitate Turkey’s and European energy and economic stability. Notice that it’s about fossil fuels. Speaking of unintended consequences, might the Europeans be better situated long term by accelerating their renewable energy development at the cost of potentially enhancing Russia and Syria’s short term economic gains??
It’s often difficult enough to determine even how short term actions affect the longer term, to be sure. I assume that foreign policy and military folks are looking at short term actions that don’t preclude other options down line.
September 11, 2013 at 8:16 pm #796918
charlabobParticipantRookie? You mean unlike the “pros” Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Kissinger (to name a few)? Our foreign policy has been captive of nefarious (or at least misguided) pros, who still haven’t quite accepted the end of the cold war.
IMNHO, Republicans are the biggest danger, both foreign and domestic, to the United States today. Rumsfeld calling Obama the “so-called” commander in chief borders on sedition. Makes it real easy for him to do his job.
September 11, 2013 at 8:57 pm #796919
wakefloodParticipantThe folks you mention always had the best interests of the monied and powerful at heart and policy was dictated by enhancing the position of those interests. Sometimes – before the end of the Cold War – those interests coincided with the best interests of a more humane and peaceful planet. But those were generally coincidences…
September 11, 2013 at 11:11 pm #796920
JanSParticipantto my friend Rich…a comment from a “rightie” that was posted on Facebook thread abut John Boehner, leadership, and Benghazi (which continues to rear it’s head) ” Fact of the matter is, we need civility and actual debate to come back to politics, not Partisan mud-slinging.”
September 12, 2013 at 12:56 am #796921
Genesee HillParticipantI do not want to spend a nickel on Nickelsville. I want to spend even less on the Middle East.
I am done with earth’s garbage. Done.
I do recycle, though.
September 12, 2013 at 2:36 am #796922
JanSParticipantThanks for recycling. :) I have lately been of the opinion that, if we have to money to launch cruise missiles, etc. (which ain’t cheap), we have enough money to help at home…infrastructure, communities, making sure we all have health care, food, etc. No need to revamp Medicare or SS…in my opinion.
September 14, 2013 at 5:36 pm #796923
dobroParticipantAccording to the latest reports, it looks the ol’ amateur foreign policy hack prez has been working on this Syrian thing for awhile.
“Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov have reached an agreement for the destruction of all of Syria’s chemical weapons. Syria’s failure to comply will not result in unilateral U.S. military action, but UN enforced sanctions. This is a complicated framework that expects Syria to submit a detailed list of their chemical weapons within a week, UN inspectors be allowed to complete their work/the destruction of Syria’s production and mixing/filling equipment in November, and it calls for all Syria’s chemical weapons materials and equipment to be destroyed or removed by early 2014.
This is not the sort of agreement that comes together quickly. It is a complicated and detailed agreement that looks to have been in the works for a while. The structure of this agreement verifies the Obama’s administration’s claim that they have been working on this with the Russians for months, and it was first mentioned a year ago…” (from PoliticsUSA.com)
If you hate Obama and you think John Kerry is stupid then all the “amateur hour”, “gaffe machine” stuff makes sense. If, on the other hand, you regard them as intelligent public servants trying to do their job in a professional manner (knowing that a lot of diplomacy takes place behind closed doors, not in a public arena) then this latest development would seem to indicate some success. You may also have noticed that POTUS attempted to restore the regular order of the executive consulting Congress in advance of military adventures which has been lacking for many years thru several POTUSs.
September 14, 2013 at 5:56 pm #796924
JoBParticipantGenesee Hill
isn’t it good that not everyone shares your opinion of the earth’s garbage..
from a people perspective those could be defined as people who take from their world but don’t contribute to it…
i too believe in recycling
but only after re-imagining and re-using
something those you refer to as the earth’s garbage are good at :)
September 15, 2013 at 5:31 pm #796925
dobroParticipantFrom President Obama’s interview today on This Week…
“…And as a consequence of the steps that we’ve taken over the last two weeks to three weeks, we now have a situation in which Syria has acknowledged it has chemical weapons, has said it’s willing to join the convention on chemical weapons, and Russia, its primary sponsor, has– said that it will pressure Syria to reach that agreement. That’s my goal. And if that goal– is achieved, then– it sounds to me like we did something right.”
I would agree. Anyone see failure in that?
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.