Syria's worst case scenario is the current one.
August 26, 2016 10:39 PM Subscribe
Syria’s Paradox: Why the War Only Ever Seems to Get Worse. " The average [civil war] now lasts about a decade, twice as long as Syria’s so far. But there are a handful of factors that can make them longer, more violent and harder to stop. Virtually all are present in Syria."
Scenes on a road trip from Damascus to Aleppo. Photos and video taken by NYT Cairo bureau chief, Declan Walsh.
The Syrian Civil War: Backgrounder. Who is fighting who, who is supporting who.
The Syrian Civil War Map. Who controls what.
Scenes on a road trip from Damascus to Aleppo. Photos and video taken by NYT Cairo bureau chief, Declan Walsh.
The Syrian Civil War: Backgrounder. Who is fighting who, who is supporting who.
The Syrian Civil War Map. Who controls what.
That’s right. The Americans, al Qaeda’s minions and the autocratic regime in Turkey are fighting on the same side in Syria. It does explain the need for Jabhat al Nusra’s cosmetic name change, and for the nominal severing of its ties with al Qaeda. For obvious reasons, the White House wouldn’t want Donald Trump to be able to say that the US is arming al Qaeda, right? (And thereby causing the humanitarian disaster now unfolding in Aleppo.) This is entirely in accord with US policy, which has always favoured a bloody Syrian stalemate – in which neither side wins – as being the most desirable solution of all the bad options on the table. Thus, the US shares intelligence with the Russians to co-ordinate bombing operations against Jabhat al Nusra, while also arming it on the ground.
Plagarised from http://gordoncampbell.scoop.co.nz/
posted by Narrative_Historian at 2:41 AM on August 27, 2016 [8 favorites]
Plagarised from http://gordoncampbell.scoop.co.nz/
posted by Narrative_Historian at 2:41 AM on August 27, 2016 [8 favorites]
In a way, the Syrian Civil War is the end result of decades of Western fuckification of the middle east. Supporting "lesser evils" to advance Western interests at the expense of locals eventually results on situations where there's no "lesser" to support.
Meanwhile, people are dying, and nobody has a clue what to do, because substantially supporting any side has political consequences.
Well done, everyone.
posted by lmfsilva at 4:13 AM on August 27, 2016 [2 favorites]
Meanwhile, people are dying, and nobody has a clue what to do, because substantially supporting any side has political consequences.
Well done, everyone.
posted by lmfsilva at 4:13 AM on August 27, 2016 [2 favorites]
In a way, the Syrian Civil War is the end result of decades of Western fuckification of the middle east.
Western countries probably had less influence in Syria than most places in the Middle East. It was a militarised dictatorship, strongly associated with the USSR/Russia, and then basically sold out to Iran. So the people to blame would be the Syrians themselves, followed by those other two nations. Not that this blame-laying helps anyone, of course.
posted by Joe in Australia at 4:37 AM on August 27, 2016 [16 favorites]
Western countries probably had less influence in Syria than most places in the Middle East. It was a militarised dictatorship, strongly associated with the USSR/Russia, and then basically sold out to Iran. So the people to blame would be the Syrians themselves, followed by those other two nations. Not that this blame-laying helps anyone, of course.
posted by Joe in Australia at 4:37 AM on August 27, 2016 [16 favorites]
I think pretty much everyone who was (a) properly familiar with the history of the Lebanese Civil War and (b) more interested in peace than partisanship was aware of this from the start. As soon as you start thinking fairly about the politics and history of the Levant, and recognise the common themes of interference (from the Gulf, the West, Russia and from the Muslim world generally) and proxy conflict, the conclusion that, in this case, non-intervention is the least-worst approach becomes unavoidable. That doesn't make it palatable (or even not terrible), because lots of specific and identifiable individuals will end up dead as a result of non-intervention, but the utilitarian calculus is entirely compelling.
posted by howfar at 4:44 AM on August 27, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by howfar at 4:44 AM on August 27, 2016 [5 favorites]
In a way, the Syrian Civil War is the end result of decades of Western fuckification of the middle east.
Mmm, I gotta agree with Joe here: I would be reluctant to portray Syria in particular (but the MIddle East in general) as merely a chess piece on a board game played by the West. It kind of rob Syrians, and all the different people that live there, of any agency.
Moreover, it elides tremendously long and complicated histories, cultures, identities that in some cases play a direct role in what is happening now, and in some cases underpin or influence what's happening now.
It can be quite easy - and appealing, and understandable - to look at the West's awful, awful history of meddling in the Middle East and casting it (us) as a kind of bete noir stalking the desert, but in doing so we are really erasing the people that live there. This kind of thinking I feel is quite common when a kind of jaundiced game theory dominates discourse on international relations and its coverage, but I think it's a very incomplete view.
posted by smoke at 4:59 AM on August 27, 2016 [23 favorites]
Mmm, I gotta agree with Joe here: I would be reluctant to portray Syria in particular (but the MIddle East in general) as merely a chess piece on a board game played by the West. It kind of rob Syrians, and all the different people that live there, of any agency.
Moreover, it elides tremendously long and complicated histories, cultures, identities that in some cases play a direct role in what is happening now, and in some cases underpin or influence what's happening now.
It can be quite easy - and appealing, and understandable - to look at the West's awful, awful history of meddling in the Middle East and casting it (us) as a kind of bete noir stalking the desert, but in doing so we are really erasing the people that live there. This kind of thinking I feel is quite common when a kind of jaundiced game theory dominates discourse on international relations and its coverage, but I think it's a very incomplete view.
posted by smoke at 4:59 AM on August 27, 2016 [23 favorites]
An interesting thing I noted in many comments on the NYT article was the criticism of the concept of Syria as a legitimate nation state - or the price being paid for its continued existence. As a westerner, it's something I've noticed when I've spoken to people from the Middle East.
It's by no means uniform, but many have expressed a... flexibility about ideas of nation states and their perpetuity. I suspect this may be a result of relatively recent shifts in borders and states in the region, but I also think it relates to other identities that are strongly held in these areas - religious, or ethnic predominantly. These identities weave around, across, through, within nations like veins of ore, and can be the foremost identity for some people, more important to them than the current national identity.
I often think of my cosmopolitan Sydney as a bit of a melting pot, but compared to the heterogeneity present in other areas of the world, it's really very whitebread, and when I see stuff like this it makes me realise just how arbitrary many borders are.
posted by smoke at 5:16 AM on August 27, 2016 [6 favorites]
It's by no means uniform, but many have expressed a... flexibility about ideas of nation states and their perpetuity. I suspect this may be a result of relatively recent shifts in borders and states in the region, but I also think it relates to other identities that are strongly held in these areas - religious, or ethnic predominantly. These identities weave around, across, through, within nations like veins of ore, and can be the foremost identity for some people, more important to them than the current national identity.
I often think of my cosmopolitan Sydney as a bit of a melting pot, but compared to the heterogeneity present in other areas of the world, it's really very whitebread, and when I see stuff like this it makes me realise just how arbitrary many borders are.
posted by smoke at 5:16 AM on August 27, 2016 [6 favorites]
Kudos to the NYT for interviewing actual scholars of civil wars and not whateverthefuck some talking head has to say. Walter and Fearon are simply brilliant scholars who have spent lifetimes studying civil wars, and people should listen to them.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 5:22 AM on August 27, 2016 [6 favorites]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 5:22 AM on August 27, 2016 [6 favorites]
One early explanation/excuse for the protests that led to a crackdown and civil war was extensive crop failure due to drought from climate change/global warming. I'm just wondering how much that was a perhaps convenient story rather than a significant element?
Really, average civil war is a decade? They're clearly not average, couple standard deviations and this could be ongoing to mid-century. How sad is that.
posted by sammyo at 6:02 AM on August 27, 2016 [1 favorite]
Really, average civil war is a decade? They're clearly not average, couple standard deviations and this could be ongoing to mid-century. How sad is that.
posted by sammyo at 6:02 AM on August 27, 2016 [1 favorite]
Walter and Fearon are simply brilliant scholars who have spent lifetimes studying civil wars, and people should listen to them.
is it more "dispassionate" pseudo-scientific rationalization, as displayed in the nytimes article? it's full of sage quotes like:
the proper way to read this sort of navel-gazing is to imagine yourself repeating the bullet points at a cocktail party. unfortunately, if you say things like:
I would be reluctant to portray Syria in particular (but the MIddle East in general) as merely a chess piece on a board game played by the West. It kind of rob Syrians, and all the different people that live there, of any agency.
I mean it's not as if we invaded a neighboring country and utterly destroyed the society that existed there, spawning armed militias of religious fanatics and upsetting the regional balance of power. no, i mean who would forget doing something as stupid as that...
posted by ennui.bz at 6:03 AM on August 27, 2016 [3 favorites]
is it more "dispassionate" pseudo-scientific rationalization, as displayed in the nytimes article? it's full of sage quotes like:
This is why, according to James D. Fearon, a Stanford professor who studies civil wars, multiple studies have found that “if you have outside intervention on both sides, duration is significantly greater.”which is somewhere between "neither a borrow nor a lender be" and "As long as the roots are not severed, all is well. And all will be well in the garden." on the scale of fatuous commentary.
the proper way to read this sort of navel-gazing is to imagine yourself repeating the bullet points at a cocktail party. unfortunately, if you say things like:
When asked what other conflicts through history had similar dynamics, Barbara F. Walter, a University of San Diego professor and a leading expert on civil wars, paused, considered a few possibilities, then gave up. There were none.you end up sounding like a twat. Now, Walters may be trying to make some esoteric point. But, difficult and inscrutable conflict that we couldn't possibly resolve happens to be the goto nytimes talking point when faced with something they don't understand or don't want to understand because it would be against the interests of the current US government. but, the bottom line is that talking about civil wars as if they might follow some sort of "natural law" or are analyzable as patterns rather than specific historical instances is the worst sort of clap trap that ultimately serves to justify the bottomless ignorance of the US public. The Syrian civil war exists within a specific historical and cultural frame and the job of scholars is to explicate that frame for those of us less well informed rather than fall back on headscratching tautologies.
“This is a really, really tough case,” she said.
I would be reluctant to portray Syria in particular (but the MIddle East in general) as merely a chess piece on a board game played by the West. It kind of rob Syrians, and all the different people that live there, of any agency.
I mean it's not as if we invaded a neighboring country and utterly destroyed the society that existed there, spawning armed militias of religious fanatics and upsetting the regional balance of power. no, i mean who would forget doing something as stupid as that...
posted by ennui.bz at 6:03 AM on August 27, 2016 [3 favorites]
the bottom line is that talking about civil wars as if they might follow some sort of "natural law" or are analyzable as patterns rather than specific historical instances is the worst sort of clap trap that ultimately serves to justify the bottomless ignorance of the US public.
I would suggest educating yourself on the research on civil wars and their dynamics. Walter and Fearon are always good places to start. I would also suggest educating yourself on current social scientific methodology as well--no one talks about natural laws and I don't know how anyone could actually come to that conclusion if they had even a cursory examination of the literature.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 6:16 AM on August 27, 2016 [19 favorites]
I would suggest educating yourself on the research on civil wars and their dynamics. Walter and Fearon are always good places to start. I would also suggest educating yourself on current social scientific methodology as well--no one talks about natural laws and I don't know how anyone could actually come to that conclusion if they had even a cursory examination of the literature.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 6:16 AM on August 27, 2016 [19 favorites]
Also I think your point would be better made if you didn't call women twats.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 6:17 AM on August 27, 2016 [24 favorites]
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 6:17 AM on August 27, 2016 [24 favorites]
the job of scholars is to explicate that frame
Oh, God. This kind of work tend to be* just the worst sort of twaddle in the best of circumstances, since it mostly boils down to "I went to $PLACE and had erudite conversations over coffee with leaders and now I'm going to regurgitate what they said." And this is far from the best of circumstances, because the only way that sort of twaddle could get done in any meaningful way is by scholars who have deep and long-lasting relationships with one set of murderous leaders or their mid-level minions.
*I mean, it doesn't have to be. To coopt your writing, it's not some law of nature that this work suck donkey balls. And there is some that has a strong enough theoretical basis that it can get real work done -- I would point at Ostrom but her most prominent work was mostly secondary research. But, lordy, does most of the kind of qualititative navel-gazing you're valorizing just suck.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 6:38 AM on August 27, 2016 [3 favorites]
Oh, God. This kind of work tend to be* just the worst sort of twaddle in the best of circumstances, since it mostly boils down to "I went to $PLACE and had erudite conversations over coffee with leaders and now I'm going to regurgitate what they said." And this is far from the best of circumstances, because the only way that sort of twaddle could get done in any meaningful way is by scholars who have deep and long-lasting relationships with one set of murderous leaders or their mid-level minions.
*I mean, it doesn't have to be. To coopt your writing, it's not some law of nature that this work suck donkey balls. And there is some that has a strong enough theoretical basis that it can get real work done -- I would point at Ostrom but her most prominent work was mostly secondary research. But, lordy, does most of the kind of qualititative navel-gazing you're valorizing just suck.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 6:38 AM on August 27, 2016 [3 favorites]
the bottom line is that talking about civil wars as if they might follow some sort of "natural law"
A bit of a derail but the field of math (poorly named but John Nash won the Nobel Prize for a theorem) named Game Theory should shed some light on structural elements of any type of conflict. It handles limited information, unexpected events and non-honest competitors. I expect it's used by analysts on an ongoing basis. I suspect even a simplified model would show that Bashar al-Assad has few intrinsic forces to abdicate and many to continue his egregious course.
posted by sammyo at 7:15 AM on August 27, 2016 [1 favorite]
A bit of a derail but the field of math (poorly named but John Nash won the Nobel Prize for a theorem) named Game Theory should shed some light on structural elements of any type of conflict. It handles limited information, unexpected events and non-honest competitors. I expect it's used by analysts on an ongoing basis. I suspect even a simplified model would show that Bashar al-Assad has few intrinsic forces to abdicate and many to continue his egregious course.
posted by sammyo at 7:15 AM on August 27, 2016 [1 favorite]
it mostly boils down to "I went to $PLACE and had erudite conversations over coffee with leaders and now I'm going to regurgitate what they said."
you missed my point. even that sort of garbage reporting would be more informative than things like:
there is a lot of room between "malice" and "structural incentives." but, if the conflict is driven by "structural incentives" then why should you bother learning the specific interests of the parties involved... including those of our own government(s). it's lazy structuralism used to convince the reader something they already suspect, which is that the specific history of a place and people far away from America is less important than the impersonal structural laws that any good businessman could pick up from a power-point presentation.
posted by ennui.bz at 7:27 AM on August 27, 2016 [2 favorites]
you missed my point. even that sort of garbage reporting would be more informative than things like:
The incentives push them to “utilize collective violence and terror to shape the behaviors of the population,” the researchers found. The images we see of dead mothers and children may represent not helpless bystanders but deliberate targets, killed not out of madness or cruelty but out of coldly rational calculation.ie. getting your FreakonomicsTM on... in Syria! is intellectual masturbation at best and at worst a way of deliberately obscuring the very real political issues behind impersonal academic jargon. your cocktail-party-goer is *less* well-informed after reading this "research" reported on than before because they have the sense that every "civil war" is comparable to any other and all of these details aren't as important:
Syria has seen repeated indiscriminate mass killings of civilians, on all sides. This is not driven just by malice, but by something more powerful: structural incentives.
In most civil wars, the fighting forces depend on popular support to succeed. This “human terrain,” as counterinsurgency experts call it, provides all sides with an incentive to protect civilians and minimize atrocities, and has often proved decisive.
there is a lot of room between "malice" and "structural incentives." but, if the conflict is driven by "structural incentives" then why should you bother learning the specific interests of the parties involved... including those of our own government(s). it's lazy structuralism used to convince the reader something they already suspect, which is that the specific history of a place and people far away from America is less important than the impersonal structural laws that any good businessman could pick up from a power-point presentation.
posted by ennui.bz at 7:27 AM on August 27, 2016 [2 favorites]
I mean, this is entirely typical of nytimes reporting, but the article reports the "fears" of the Alawite community that Al-Nusra would perpetuate a genocide against them as if this was some sort of general feeling, maybe even a justification for brutal measures from the Syrian Army, but:
OUR ALLIES.
a person could argue that advocating the fall of the Assad regime is tantamount to advocating for genocide, which is what likely would have happened if the Russians hadn't intervened not out of any humanitarian interest, but because of their specific long-standing interests in the Syrian regime... all of which is far mroe relevant than any amount of behavioral economics or game theory.
posted by ennui.bz at 7:39 AM on August 27, 2016 [2 favorites]
In a video message released by Nusra Front’s top ideologue Sami Oreidi this weekend, the group calls for genocide against of the Alawite sect. The clip says in Arabic that the Alawites “raped the Syrian regime” and “planned to exterminate the Muslims in Syria.”Al Nusra *is* absolutely planning on killing as many Alawites as they can find, if the Assad regime collapses. Those aren't nonspecific fears, but very rational expectations from the Assad regime of what will happen if our allies win.
Oreidi justifies violence against Alawites by quoting prominent radical Muslim scholars such as Ibn Taimiya who said that the Syrian land “should be purified from the Alawites” as they are “more infidel than the Jews and Christians.”
OUR ALLIES.
a person could argue that advocating the fall of the Assad regime is tantamount to advocating for genocide, which is what likely would have happened if the Russians hadn't intervened not out of any humanitarian interest, but because of their specific long-standing interests in the Syrian regime... all of which is far mroe relevant than any amount of behavioral economics or game theory.
posted by ennui.bz at 7:39 AM on August 27, 2016 [2 favorites]
you missed my point.
I'm not really sure that you have one, other than the value of scholarship should be judged on whether it makes good cocktail party talk?
It seems that you have some animus towards scholars who study civil wars using social science methods. I don't understand why and profoundly disagree. But you're also not really presenting an alternative argument, just calling people twats and masturbators and lazy. These people have contributed more to knowledge than snide dismissive internet commentators.
Also I dont think you understand what Fearon and Walter are saying. For example. You write,
"if the conflict is driven by "structural incentives" then why should you bother learning the specific interests of the parties involved... including those of our own government(s)"
The latter does not follow from the former. Identifying the structural incentives that actors find themselves in entails identifying their specific interests. Like, the conclusion you reach is exactly the opposite of what the premise implies.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 7:41 AM on August 27, 2016 [10 favorites]
I'm not really sure that you have one, other than the value of scholarship should be judged on whether it makes good cocktail party talk?
It seems that you have some animus towards scholars who study civil wars using social science methods. I don't understand why and profoundly disagree. But you're also not really presenting an alternative argument, just calling people twats and masturbators and lazy. These people have contributed more to knowledge than snide dismissive internet commentators.
Also I dont think you understand what Fearon and Walter are saying. For example. You write,
"if the conflict is driven by "structural incentives" then why should you bother learning the specific interests of the parties involved... including those of our own government(s)"
The latter does not follow from the former. Identifying the structural incentives that actors find themselves in entails identifying their specific interests. Like, the conclusion you reach is exactly the opposite of what the premise implies.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 7:41 AM on August 27, 2016 [10 favorites]
The rebels were trained for several months in a training camp on the Jordanian-Syrian border by CIA operatives, as well as Jordanian and Israeli commandos, the paper [Le figaro] said.
posted by bukvich at 7:57 AM on August 27, 2016
posted by bukvich at 7:57 AM on August 27, 2016
I mean it's not as if we invaded……
and
OUR ALLIES.
I hear these two comments as "Don't discuss Syria, discuss America and how much I, specifically, hate it!" being shouted in a particularly whiny loud voice.
It's a decent presentation for people who might not have thought about it before about the many structural difficulties involved in the Syrian civil war. I think it's far more important to tell the story of Syria, rather than telling the story of how American (and British, my own personal nationality) structural factors have damaged it. Because the former is new and straightforward information, the latter is something that the New York Times readers already have very entrenched views on, and a great amount of cognitive dissonance to engage with in order to take in.
posted by ambrosen at 7:59 AM on August 27, 2016 [5 favorites]
and
OUR ALLIES.
I hear these two comments as "Don't discuss Syria, discuss America and how much I, specifically, hate it!" being shouted in a particularly whiny loud voice.
It's a decent presentation for people who might not have thought about it before about the many structural difficulties involved in the Syrian civil war. I think it's far more important to tell the story of Syria, rather than telling the story of how American (and British, my own personal nationality) structural factors have damaged it. Because the former is new and straightforward information, the latter is something that the New York Times readers already have very entrenched views on, and a great amount of cognitive dissonance to engage with in order to take in.
posted by ambrosen at 7:59 AM on August 27, 2016 [5 favorites]
Also I dont think you understand what Fearon and Walter are saying. For example. You write,
"if the conflict is driven by "structural incentives" then why should you bother learning the specific interests of the parties involved... including those of our own government(s)"
The latter does not follow from the former. Identifying the structural incentives that actors find themselves in entails identifying their specific interests. Like, the conclusion you reach is exactly the opposite of what the premise implies.
its funny how the rise of the tech world has provided a whole new breath of life to the social "sciences". a new class of wealthy businessmen who are totally primed to hear about how society and history can be modelled using impersonal, nonspecific, "rational" analysis...
but my point was how this academic viewpoint translates to a public news article. if you believe the structural view, the facts on the ground serve to confirm one or another preset configurations of conditions. you are merely confirming something you've already worked out, fitting events to a set of generic scenarios. and don't play stupid about this. it's how structuralism works and can be a powerful analytic tool. *however,* it completely conforms to the way Americans view world events: "this is just like something I already understand from home (or business or whatever). foreigners think just like I do." that is, it's a signal to the reader that getting into the specifics of Syria is not important and you end-up telling someone at a cocktail party that Al Nusra is killing all of the Alawites because of "structural conditions" beyond anyone's control.
if you take a "real-politik" view of Syria, there was little reason to believe that Russia or Iran would abandon Assad. the role it plays is too crucial. which is probably part of why Obama declined to intervene directly. aside from the motivations of those who thought we should intervene anyway, what happened was that the Saudis and their Gulf proxies were underwriting the entire resistance, and they were doing so entirely outside of any US policy discussion. which is part of the reason why all of our allies are now Sunni religious fanatics.
the real conclusion you can draw from all of this is that the US is no longer in control of it's proxies in the middle east: Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt. in a sense, the Republican critique of Obama is true; that he is "leading from behind." but it's a testament to Obama that he has managed things as well as he has. it's all being driven directly by the disaster the US created in Iraq.
but there has been no public reckoning about the policies that led to Iraq, and many of the same people are poised to take any turn at the wheel for the second Clinton administration and none of this can be discussed in the nytimes.
posted by ennui.bz at 8:51 AM on August 27, 2016 [3 favorites]
"if the conflict is driven by "structural incentives" then why should you bother learning the specific interests of the parties involved... including those of our own government(s)"
The latter does not follow from the former. Identifying the structural incentives that actors find themselves in entails identifying their specific interests. Like, the conclusion you reach is exactly the opposite of what the premise implies.
its funny how the rise of the tech world has provided a whole new breath of life to the social "sciences". a new class of wealthy businessmen who are totally primed to hear about how society and history can be modelled using impersonal, nonspecific, "rational" analysis...
but my point was how this academic viewpoint translates to a public news article. if you believe the structural view, the facts on the ground serve to confirm one or another preset configurations of conditions. you are merely confirming something you've already worked out, fitting events to a set of generic scenarios. and don't play stupid about this. it's how structuralism works and can be a powerful analytic tool. *however,* it completely conforms to the way Americans view world events: "this is just like something I already understand from home (or business or whatever). foreigners think just like I do." that is, it's a signal to the reader that getting into the specifics of Syria is not important and you end-up telling someone at a cocktail party that Al Nusra is killing all of the Alawites because of "structural conditions" beyond anyone's control.
if you take a "real-politik" view of Syria, there was little reason to believe that Russia or Iran would abandon Assad. the role it plays is too crucial. which is probably part of why Obama declined to intervene directly. aside from the motivations of those who thought we should intervene anyway, what happened was that the Saudis and their Gulf proxies were underwriting the entire resistance, and they were doing so entirely outside of any US policy discussion. which is part of the reason why all of our allies are now Sunni religious fanatics.
the real conclusion you can draw from all of this is that the US is no longer in control of it's proxies in the middle east: Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt. in a sense, the Republican critique of Obama is true; that he is "leading from behind." but it's a testament to Obama that he has managed things as well as he has. it's all being driven directly by the disaster the US created in Iraq.
but there has been no public reckoning about the policies that led to Iraq, and many of the same people are poised to take any turn at the wheel for the second Clinton administration and none of this can be discussed in the nytimes.
posted by ennui.bz at 8:51 AM on August 27, 2016 [3 favorites]
I simply reject their are no comparisons, it seems scholastically dishonest. One aspect that is pretty well neglected is that this is basically a religious war with secular interventalionlists. To start, how many Coups did Syria have between 1949-1963? About 8. Also, the antecedents to a lot of this stifle is continuation of Islamic uprising in Syria.
posted by clavdivs at 9:08 AM on August 27, 2016
posted by clavdivs at 9:08 AM on August 27, 2016
fwiw, re: IS and 'western fuckification' (on the iraq side...)
The Stolen War - "How corruption and fraud created a failed state in Iraq—and led directly to the rise of ISIS."
The Stolen War - "How corruption and fraud created a failed state in Iraq—and led directly to the rise of ISIS."
The causes of America’s devastating misadventure in Iraq remain an enduring source of debate. How could the United States, after spending an estimated $1.7 trillion in tax dollars and deploying more than 115,000 soldiers to topple Saddam Hussein and rebuild the country, wind up with a failed state that has given rise to a brutal new brand of terrorism? Was it a failure of military strategy, or of political will? Did we end the war too soon, or wait too long to get out? Did we spend too little on rebuilding the country’s infrastructure, or target our aid in the wrong places?posted by kliuless at 2:34 PM on August 27, 2016 [6 favorites]
The answer may be far simpler, and ultimately more humiliating: The men we placed in charge of Iraq robbed us blind. If American resources had been used as mandated, rather than pocketed by our allies, ISIS as we know it would not exist...
It is hard to overstate the devastating role that corruption has played in the failure of Iraq and the rise of ISIS. According to a report last March by the Iraqi parliament’s auditing committee, the country’s defense ministry has spent $150 billion on weapons during the past decade—but acquired only $20 billion worth of arms. Much of the equipment it did obtain was useless, 1970s-era matériel from former Soviet bloc states that was invoiced at up to four times its actual value. Late last year, well-placed sources tell me, the Pentagon delivered a shipment of new weapons to the Iraqi government, including .50-caliber sniper rifles, which were supposed to be sent to Sunni fighters in Anbar Province. Instead, corrupt officials in the Iraqi ministries of interior and defense sold the arms to ISIS, which is using them to kill Kurdish peshmerga fighters...
Weapons aren’t the only target for corruption. When it comes to the vast sums of money that have flowed into Iraq for reconstruction and economic development, officials at every level of government have been more focused on lining their own pockets than rebuilding their ruined country. Foreign companies seeking business in Iraq frequently hire well-connected intermediaries, who then bribe senior officials in return for contracts. In one case that recently came to light, several U.S. energy giants, including Weatherford and FMC Technologies, retained a Monaco-headquartered energy-sector firm called Unaoil. As recently as 2012, Unaoil was doling out millions of dollars to senior Iraqi officials...
Such corruption isn’t just illegal—it’s a massive impediment to creating a stable Iraq. For all practical purposes, Iraq is no longer a single, unified country. Many analysts predict that it will soon break apart entirely, or devolve into three loosely federated states: a Shia regime controlling everything from Baghdad to Basra; a Kurdish government in the north; and a Sunni rump state, centered in Anbar Province, that will rival Palestine in its misery. The chaos encourages and enables corruption: As ISIS has grown into the world’s most dangerous terrorist organization, the Iraqi government has been paying for huge transactions in the provinces with cash trucked in from Baghdad, and political parties remain free under Iraqi law to accept unlimited funding from foreign countries...
Looting American aid and contracts has enabled Iraq’s elite to enjoy lavish lifestyles more suited to Beverly Hills than Baghdad... Corruption in Iraq reaches across religious and ethnic lines, although those in the Shia majority have reaped the lion’s share of the dirty money. Maliki, who remains the most powerful man in the country, developed an infrastructure of graft during his tenure as prime minister by consolidating control over the defense ministry and the internal security and intelligence agencies, as well as the electoral commission. But corruption also extends to the Kurdish north...
The conventional wisdom is that George W. Bush is to blame for the catastrophe in Iraq, and that Barack Obama has done the best he can to manage the disaster he inherited. But Bush’s tenure as commander-in-chief ended five years after the invasion; Obama has owned this debacle for the past eight. Maliki, the man most responsible for the corruption and sectarian violence that have shattered the country, served six of his eight years as prime minister under Obama...
In one case of fraud among hundreds, Adhoob discovered a shell company called Al Aian Al Jareya that was controlled by Nair Mohammed Ahmed Jummaily, the brother-in-law of Iraq’s defense minister. Jummaily had gotten rich by taking kickbacks from American companies that received contracts from the Iraqi government. Among Jummaily’s clients, Adhoob testified, was AM General, a company based in South Bend, Indiana, which allegedly funneled millions of dollars to Jummaily’s front company as part of a contract to deliver Humvees to the Iraqi army. According to Adhoob, AM General submitted invoices totaling $18.4 million to the Iraqi government for work that was not performed, and delivered fewer than 170 of the 520 Humvees called for in its contract... AM General, which denies the charges, remains a major U.S. government contractor. In April, Hillary Clinton, who was seeking to win the Indiana primary, toured its facilities in South Bend and praised its corporate leadership.
With little chance of reform in Washington, Iraqis are taking to the streets in Baghdad. The same month that Clinton toured AM General, hundreds of Iraqis stormed the Green Zone and overran the parliament building. Muqtada al-Sadr, the radical Shia cleric and U.S. antagonist, touched off the demonstrations by calling for “the great popular uprising and the great revolution to stop the march of corrupted officials.”
Demonstrations have continued throughout the summer. In another protest that underscored the cost of corruption, Iraqis marched to express their outrage over an ISIS car bombing that killed more than 200 people in July. The bombers had driven through a security checkpoint—but the guards had scanned the car with bomb detectors that were nothing but fakes. The devices had no batteries or electronic components—just a radio antenna that swiveled. The U.S. and Iraqi governments have known for years that the devices—which Iraqis mockingly call “soup detectors”—are useless. The Iraqi defense ministry spent at least $85 million to purchase them from a British con man named James McCormick, who is currently serving ten years in prison for fraud.
I've been listening to Steven Coll's excellent Ghost Wars at work and it is eerily similiar to a lot of what's going on in Syria right now. The way arming the original mujahideen groups to bring down the (deeply nastly) Communist client regime led directly to the proliferation of militias and paramilitary organizations, some explicitly hostile to the USA. The way that a nominal ally next door (Pakistan then, Turkey now) with their own complex agenda helped collapse any effective control over the way resources were allocated or how the "freedom fighters" we were funding chose to act. The way in which the (comparatively) best actors in an increasingly horrible situation (Ahmad Shah Massoud, the Syrian Kurds) were repeatedly sold out or just left out on the vine because it was too much for the Great Washingtonian Ego Monster to deal with people who actually had goals of their own rather than just keep shoveling money into the hands of the ones willing to say whatever the fuck they figured you wanted to hear at that moment. The way in which a loathesome dictator who analysts insisted could not possibly survive held on for years in the face of rapidly escalating and degenerating violence. The way the battle against one foe gave rise to the next one.
posted by AdamCSnider at 4:08 PM on August 27, 2016 [5 favorites]
posted by AdamCSnider at 4:08 PM on August 27, 2016 [5 favorites]
Relevant post: Fractured Lands: How the Arab World Came Apart
posted by homunculus at 4:24 PM on August 27, 2016
posted by homunculus at 4:24 PM on August 27, 2016
Vijay Prashad: Turkey's Offensive Against ISIS & Press Crackdown is Really Just War on Kurds
posted by homunculus at 4:25 PM on August 27, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by homunculus at 4:25 PM on August 27, 2016 [2 favorites]
Acceptable Losses: Aiding and abetting the Saudi slaughter in Yemen
"This is Our War & It is Shameful:" Journalist Andrew Cockburn on the U.S. Role in the War in Yemen
posted by homunculus at 4:25 PM on August 27, 2016 [3 favorites]
"This is Our War & It is Shameful:" Journalist Andrew Cockburn on the U.S. Role in the War in Yemen
posted by homunculus at 4:25 PM on August 27, 2016 [3 favorites]
OUR ALLIES.
The US is supporting Al Nusra, but calling them "allies" implies that they're advancing some kind of strategy. I don't think that's the case. The US appears to be acting out of a feeling that it has to support somebody, and that this is the least worst group to support - even if they're actually pretty awful and there's no intrinsic reason to help them.
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:14 PM on August 27, 2016
The US is supporting Al Nusra, but calling them "allies" implies that they're advancing some kind of strategy. I don't think that's the case. The US appears to be acting out of a feeling that it has to support somebody, and that this is the least worst group to support - even if they're actually pretty awful and there's no intrinsic reason to help them.
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:14 PM on August 27, 2016
Relevant scholarship by Walter:
The Critical Barrier to Civil War Settlement.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 5:42 PM on August 27, 2016 [3 favorites]
The Critical Barrier to Civil War Settlement.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 5:42 PM on August 27, 2016 [3 favorites]
The US appears to be acting out of a feeling that it has to support somebody, and that this is the least worst group to support
Al Qaeda are now the 'least worst' guys?
posted by Coda Tronca at 3:53 AM on August 28, 2016 [2 favorites]
Al Qaeda are now the 'least worst' guys?
posted by Coda Tronca at 3:53 AM on August 28, 2016 [2 favorites]
Apparently!
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:19 AM on August 28, 2016
posted by Joe in Australia at 5:19 AM on August 28, 2016
It is all a big weapons sale, gloriously wrought for pure profit, since oil revenues are declining. I maintain everything going on in the region is the shift from oil, to what comes next. What comes next is growing produce in the lightly radioactive rubble. Whomever you support just means more culling of civilian lives, and more profits for warmongers. You can talk religion all you like, on any side, ancient boundaries, hegemony, colonialism, apocalyptic yadda, but serious money is being made, and will continue to until we end the game. Little people all over the world, the US, Europe are being bled for profit, while the residents of the ME are being killed outright. The makers of this mess are going to continue to look serious, talk serious, threat assessments, national security, and laugh over drinks, just after laughing all the way back from the bank, and then they run their ponies on the weekends.
posted by Oyéah at 9:54 AM on August 28, 2016 [2 favorites]
posted by Oyéah at 9:54 AM on August 28, 2016 [2 favorites]
It is all a big weapons sale, gloriously wrought for pure profit, since oil revenues are declining.
Hard to square this with the preponderance of empirical research that shows that trade/oil/FDI/etc. are poor predictors for whether a third-party intervenes in a civil conflict.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 10:14 AM on August 28, 2016 [2 favorites]
Hard to square this with the preponderance of empirical research that shows that trade/oil/FDI/etc. are poor predictors for whether a third-party intervenes in a civil conflict.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 10:14 AM on August 28, 2016 [2 favorites]
Once more American/NATO complicity in the destruction of yet another nation is glossed over by the NYT and the dominant left. Why? Agency.... It's complicated.... what else?
In late 2012, as Syria’s military suffered defeats, Iran intervened on its behalf. By early 2013, government forces rebounded, so wealthy Gulf states flooded support to the rebels. Several rounds later, the United States and Russia have joined the fray.
Oh look here the NYT straight up lying about the sequence of events. NATO, and especially the CIA, were knee deep in this conflict from day one in form of training, logistics, and targeting information. The assholes are so blatant that they are publishing shit which is directly contradicted by what they have previously published.
the preponderance of empirical research that shows that trade/oil/FDI/etc. are poor predictors for whether a third-party intervenes in a civil conflict.
Which doesn't really seem to preclude vampire squid-like factions with in the military industrial complex from using the Syrian Civil War as a way to turn a profit. Never let a grinding humanitarian catastrophe go to waste. That would be just plain un-American.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 12:23 PM on August 28, 2016 [4 favorites]
In late 2012, as Syria’s military suffered defeats, Iran intervened on its behalf. By early 2013, government forces rebounded, so wealthy Gulf states flooded support to the rebels. Several rounds later, the United States and Russia have joined the fray.
Oh look here the NYT straight up lying about the sequence of events. NATO, and especially the CIA, were knee deep in this conflict from day one in form of training, logistics, and targeting information. The assholes are so blatant that they are publishing shit which is directly contradicted by what they have previously published.
the preponderance of empirical research that shows that trade/oil/FDI/etc. are poor predictors for whether a third-party intervenes in a civil conflict.
Which doesn't really seem to preclude vampire squid-like factions with in the military industrial complex from using the Syrian Civil War as a way to turn a profit. Never let a grinding humanitarian catastrophe go to waste. That would be just plain un-American.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 12:23 PM on August 28, 2016 [4 favorites]
From the NYT:
The ground battles also include Kurdish militias, who have some foreign backing, and the Islamic State, which does not.
This is really only true if you don't distinguish Daesh from Turkey.
posted by ethansr at 3:19 PM on August 28, 2016
The ground battles also include Kurdish militias, who have some foreign backing, and the Islamic State, which does not.
This is really only true if you don't distinguish Daesh from Turkey.
posted by ethansr at 3:19 PM on August 28, 2016
In the beginning we didn't want Syria under the Russian umbrella. We have been there arming, arming, arming. Surprise they are using the weapons!
Yemen. That is a cruel nightmare. I used to travel all over Yemen on Google Earth, because it had so many features that were fascinating. Fortress cities on top of sandstone cliffs, that remind me of Southern Utah, meteor craters on the coast, and one of the poorest nations, where women have a ton of kids, and little education. The wadis are beautiful, with several story painted houses where the animals live on the ground floor. The place is beautiful, like pages out of a bible book. To have the Saudis squash them like bugs is disgraceful. I mean how hard have the Saudis had it? Then to have Qataris send in their South American mercenaries to the slaughter, it is beyond my comprehension the hatred, and sloth.
You know this is a weapons sale, because how hard would it have been to end this one guy? How many bullets, rockets, planes, drones, does it take, to end the reign of one man? One freaking bullet. If we had been serious we have people who could have taken care of it, under any false flag they chose to fly. But no, it is a weapons sale. It is that simple.
posted by Oyéah at 5:15 PM on August 28, 2016 [1 favorite]
Yemen. That is a cruel nightmare. I used to travel all over Yemen on Google Earth, because it had so many features that were fascinating. Fortress cities on top of sandstone cliffs, that remind me of Southern Utah, meteor craters on the coast, and one of the poorest nations, where women have a ton of kids, and little education. The wadis are beautiful, with several story painted houses where the animals live on the ground floor. The place is beautiful, like pages out of a bible book. To have the Saudis squash them like bugs is disgraceful. I mean how hard have the Saudis had it? Then to have Qataris send in their South American mercenaries to the slaughter, it is beyond my comprehension the hatred, and sloth.
You know this is a weapons sale, because how hard would it have been to end this one guy? How many bullets, rockets, planes, drones, does it take, to end the reign of one man? One freaking bullet. If we had been serious we have people who could have taken care of it, under any false flag they chose to fly. But no, it is a weapons sale. It is that simple.
posted by Oyéah at 5:15 PM on August 28, 2016 [1 favorite]
So what's the argument? That Obama wants this civil war to occur so that arms manufacturers can make some money, so the US, instead of assassinating Assad, chooses to flood Syria with arms? which entails of course the idea that if arms manufacturers couldn't make money, then the US would have a different policy.
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 5:41 PM on August 28, 2016
posted by MisantropicPainforest at 5:41 PM on August 28, 2016
That Obama wants this civil war to occur so that arms manufacturers can make some money, so the US, instead of assassinating Assad, chooses to flood Syria with arms?
No, the argument is that the U.S. Deep State has been fomenting rebellion in Syria since at least 2006. Of course like every good American adventure there is money to be made...so it is. What part are you not comprehending?
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 5:51 PM on August 28, 2016
No, the argument is that the U.S. Deep State has been fomenting rebellion in Syria since at least 2006. Of course like every good American adventure there is money to be made...so it is. What part are you not comprehending?
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 5:51 PM on August 28, 2016
You say fomenting rebellion, but people generally saw it as a pro-democracy program. It's one of the things that led to the so-called Arab Spring, which - again, at the time - was applauded by liberal people around the world. What we're seeing is what happens when an illegitimate government clings to power by every means available; nobody at the time imagined that it could go so far.
posted by Joe in Australia at 6:49 PM on August 28, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by Joe in Australia at 6:49 PM on August 28, 2016 [1 favorite]
people generally saw it as a pro-democracy program
Call it what you want. You, the instigators of the policies, and I all knew what the goal of the policies were...i.e. the overthrow of the Assad regime through violent means if necessary. Given the very recent past experiences of the American security state with the greater Middle East what would make one think, inside or outside of the national security establishment, that this would lead to a stable and democratic Syria? Who thought that it would be a good idea to create yet another power vacuum in the Middle East...right next door to Iraq?
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 8:09 PM on August 28, 2016 [1 favorite]
Call it what you want. You, the instigators of the policies, and I all knew what the goal of the policies were...i.e. the overthrow of the Assad regime through violent means if necessary. Given the very recent past experiences of the American security state with the greater Middle East what would make one think, inside or outside of the national security establishment, that this would lead to a stable and democratic Syria? Who thought that it would be a good idea to create yet another power vacuum in the Middle East...right next door to Iraq?
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 8:09 PM on August 28, 2016 [1 favorite]
"Whenever one side loses ground, its foreign backers increase their involvement, sending supplies or air support to prevent their favored player’s defeat. Then that side begins winning, which tends to prompt the other’s foreign backers to up their ante as well"
One of my favorite Star Trek episodes. Especially the mugato attack.
"This has been Syria’s story almost since the beginning"
Sure, blame Tigranes the Great.
"Because Syria’s combatants rely on foreign sponsors, rather than the local population, they have little incentive to protect civilians. In fact, this dynamic turns the local population into a potential threat rather than a necessary resource."
This.
Good intent, even good policy, is irrelevant in this kind of atmosphere. The polarity shifts from who's protecting the civilians better (making law, fostering legitimacy in governance, etc) to a kind of competing insurgent-o-rama (technical term) where ultimately peace, IF it's possible, is brought by all the people who get dragged into the engagement because they want peace. Which becomes the new polarity, those who want peace (or rather non- vs. those who don't.
I mean at some point when everyone you know is dead, you're going to want to stop the sectarian violence, no matter how fanatic you are. But then, you're going to feel a little raw that, y'know, everyone you know is dead. You're going to want some payback and you're not going to much care who's color the people who did it are wearing.
I'd be very surprised if this doesn't happen eventually with everyone who has a vested interest in the local violence forming their own junta fighting people who want the fighting to end. And any outside powers, altruistic or not, that have an interest in dealing with the latter group will arm them.
Which, y'know, leads to more fighting.
Tragically ironic that.
Of course, sending in massive humanitarian aid (as I mentioned here a few years ago) instead of shiploads of guns would have cut the war out from under everyone. Want to fight? Go ahead, we'll just abscond with everyone who wants no part of it.
A fire needs oxygen, heat, and fuel. Cutting one typically puts out the fire.
The air in Syria is the socio-religious friction and the opposition in the political system.
The heat is the arms being dropped on them.
And the fuel is the people there.
Nothing we can do about the first. The second...well, someone's going to be delivering arms if the U.S. doesn't.
We could/could have done something about the fuel.
But that NO ONE is doing much of anything speaks volumes of how invested all parties are in propagating the violence.
Everyone is plugged into suffering here. For a variety of reasons. Mostly because it reinforces their own interests - Russia, for instance is interested in diplomatic relations with Iran. Because oil. The U.S. is interested in fighting terrorism (or rather "fighting" "terrorism"). Also because oil. Russia actually sort of helped out the U.S. For which the U.S. is sort of not chumming up to Ukraine. And we're sorta communicating better, n'stuff.
And all this is "kinda sorta" fuzzy navigation of possible future states of the world.
And it is altruistic, kinda. No one wants to see Russia collapse again and go destabilize other countries. And no one wants the U.S. to get pissed and go destabilize other countries.
It's just that the people in Syria are paying for that.
Sorta like when Tigranes the Great rescued the Syrians from the Romans. Then cut a deal with the Romans and just handed them Syria. (Yeah, yeah, I rescued you, then....sorry!)
Now granted, a lot of combatants here are actually detail focused. Iran for one, seems to want to let everyone know they can project power. And everyone wants the world to make sure they know they will support their allies (just like WW 1 kids!).
But this is a wave that sorta had to happen.
If for no other reason that it's good that powerful countries get to feel out each others weapon systems, reach, all that.
Counterintuitive as that sounds. It prevents full mobilized wars, and no one wants that in the world.
But absent the willingness and capacity to engage stabilization operations Syria is going to grind on until it ends with a generation of extremists who are pointed at...whomever they ultimately blame for all this. Partly themselves, sure.
A lot of people put up money for refugees. The U.S. so far dropped $5 billion. And hasn't been complacent.
But I think we could have done that, the humanitarian aid and stabilization, and looked like we're not so responsible for the sharp end by not adding the the violence.
I like the end of the (first) piece. But I disagree with Professor Walter and Kenneth M. Pollack, the worst case scenario is Syria becomes a terrorist weapons warehouse and a safe haven in insecurity because no one is willing to (fully) engage there. A constant war zone like Somalia or a border zone haven like Afghanistan or the Tri-border region in South America.
In Somalia, you want to give someone a bowl of rice, you have to deal with al Shabaab.
And so too the people in Syria could become hostages to a situation created by competing interests, regardless of the validity of any one of them.
posted by Smedleyman at 10:52 PM on August 28, 2016 [3 favorites]
One of my favorite Star Trek episodes. Especially the mugato attack.
"This has been Syria’s story almost since the beginning"
Sure, blame Tigranes the Great.
"Because Syria’s combatants rely on foreign sponsors, rather than the local population, they have little incentive to protect civilians. In fact, this dynamic turns the local population into a potential threat rather than a necessary resource."
This.
Good intent, even good policy, is irrelevant in this kind of atmosphere. The polarity shifts from who's protecting the civilians better (making law, fostering legitimacy in governance, etc) to a kind of competing insurgent-o-rama (technical term) where ultimately peace, IF it's possible, is brought by all the people who get dragged into the engagement because they want peace. Which becomes the new polarity, those who want peace (or rather non- vs. those who don't.
I mean at some point when everyone you know is dead, you're going to want to stop the sectarian violence, no matter how fanatic you are. But then, you're going to feel a little raw that, y'know, everyone you know is dead. You're going to want some payback and you're not going to much care who's color the people who did it are wearing.
I'd be very surprised if this doesn't happen eventually with everyone who has a vested interest in the local violence forming their own junta fighting people who want the fighting to end. And any outside powers, altruistic or not, that have an interest in dealing with the latter group will arm them.
Which, y'know, leads to more fighting.
Tragically ironic that.
Of course, sending in massive humanitarian aid (as I mentioned here a few years ago) instead of shiploads of guns would have cut the war out from under everyone. Want to fight? Go ahead, we'll just abscond with everyone who wants no part of it.
A fire needs oxygen, heat, and fuel. Cutting one typically puts out the fire.
The air in Syria is the socio-religious friction and the opposition in the political system.
The heat is the arms being dropped on them.
And the fuel is the people there.
Nothing we can do about the first. The second...well, someone's going to be delivering arms if the U.S. doesn't.
We could/could have done something about the fuel.
But that NO ONE is doing much of anything speaks volumes of how invested all parties are in propagating the violence.
Everyone is plugged into suffering here. For a variety of reasons. Mostly because it reinforces their own interests - Russia, for instance is interested in diplomatic relations with Iran. Because oil. The U.S. is interested in fighting terrorism (or rather "fighting" "terrorism"). Also because oil. Russia actually sort of helped out the U.S. For which the U.S. is sort of not chumming up to Ukraine. And we're sorta communicating better, n'stuff.
And all this is "kinda sorta" fuzzy navigation of possible future states of the world.
And it is altruistic, kinda. No one wants to see Russia collapse again and go destabilize other countries. And no one wants the U.S. to get pissed and go destabilize other countries.
It's just that the people in Syria are paying for that.
Sorta like when Tigranes the Great rescued the Syrians from the Romans. Then cut a deal with the Romans and just handed them Syria. (Yeah, yeah, I rescued you, then....sorry!)
Now granted, a lot of combatants here are actually detail focused. Iran for one, seems to want to let everyone know they can project power. And everyone wants the world to make sure they know they will support their allies (just like WW 1 kids!).
But this is a wave that sorta had to happen.
If for no other reason that it's good that powerful countries get to feel out each others weapon systems, reach, all that.
Counterintuitive as that sounds. It prevents full mobilized wars, and no one wants that in the world.
But absent the willingness and capacity to engage stabilization operations Syria is going to grind on until it ends with a generation of extremists who are pointed at...whomever they ultimately blame for all this. Partly themselves, sure.
A lot of people put up money for refugees. The U.S. so far dropped $5 billion. And hasn't been complacent.
But I think we could have done that, the humanitarian aid and stabilization, and looked like we're not so responsible for the sharp end by not adding the the violence.
I like the end of the (first) piece. But I disagree with Professor Walter and Kenneth M. Pollack, the worst case scenario is Syria becomes a terrorist weapons warehouse and a safe haven in insecurity because no one is willing to (fully) engage there. A constant war zone like Somalia or a border zone haven like Afghanistan or the Tri-border region in South America.
In Somalia, you want to give someone a bowl of rice, you have to deal with al Shabaab.
And so too the people in Syria could become hostages to a situation created by competing interests, regardless of the validity of any one of them.
posted by Smedleyman at 10:52 PM on August 28, 2016 [3 favorites]
Thus, the US shares intelligence with the Russians to co-ordinate bombing operations against Jabhat al Nusra, while also arming it on the ground.
What's good for Milo Minderbinder is good for the country.
posted by kirkaracha at 9:53 AM on August 30, 2016 [2 favorites]
UN pays tens of millions to Assad regime under Syria aid programme
posted by Joe in Australia at 8:22 PM on August 30, 2016
Exclusive: Guardian analysis shows series of contracts awarded to government and charities linked to president’s family
posted by Joe in Australia at 8:22 PM on August 30, 2016
You know this is a weapons sale, because how hard would it have been to end this one guy? How many bullets, rockets, planes, drones, does it take, to end the reign of one man? One freaking bullet.
Not that I don't have some sympathy for the criticism's of America's foreign policy re:Syria, but assassinating Assad wouldn't have resulted in the fall of his government necessarily. Assad stands at the apex of several different important structures: a bureaucratic, authoritarian state, a military hierarchy, an ethnic regime (Alawite), all of whose members would have good reason to continue fighting. And even if they did go down, as Saddam's Ba'athists did in the aftermath of the invasion there, or Gaddafi's apparatus did in Libya, that doesn't mean stability or democracy or any other positive result.
Generally speaking, unless you're facing an extremely fragile organization led by a very charismatic leader, targeted individual assassinations aren't going to have much of a significant effect. Israel's been assassinating high-level figures of Hamas and Hezbollah since the 70's, to little or no effect. Bin Laden's killing didn't put an end to al-Qaeda. Honestly, assassination is basically security theater ("Look! We got him!") with particularly horrendous potential side effects.
posted by AdamCSnider at 10:31 PM on September 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
Not that I don't have some sympathy for the criticism's of America's foreign policy re:Syria, but assassinating Assad wouldn't have resulted in the fall of his government necessarily. Assad stands at the apex of several different important structures: a bureaucratic, authoritarian state, a military hierarchy, an ethnic regime (Alawite), all of whose members would have good reason to continue fighting. And even if they did go down, as Saddam's Ba'athists did in the aftermath of the invasion there, or Gaddafi's apparatus did in Libya, that doesn't mean stability or democracy or any other positive result.
Generally speaking, unless you're facing an extremely fragile organization led by a very charismatic leader, targeted individual assassinations aren't going to have much of a significant effect. Israel's been assassinating high-level figures of Hamas and Hezbollah since the 70's, to little or no effect. Bin Laden's killing didn't put an end to al-Qaeda. Honestly, assassination is basically security theater ("Look! We got him!") with particularly horrendous potential side effects.
posted by AdamCSnider at 10:31 PM on September 3, 2016 [1 favorite]
The Decay of the Syrian Regime is Much Worse Than You Think
posted by kliuless at 12:34 PM on September 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
posted by kliuless at 12:34 PM on September 6, 2016 [1 favorite]
Why ISIS Persists
America’s True Role in Syria
Both by Jeffrey D. Sachs
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 11:30 AM on September 13, 2016
America’s True Role in Syria
Both by Jeffrey D. Sachs
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 11:30 AM on September 13, 2016
« Older Don't take this sitting down. | Are the kids alright? Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
The consensus of both experts and normal folk seemed to be that yes, we should, this was a brutal regime that needed to go. Power to the people and all that.
But then they talked to a Syrian gentleman based in London. I can't remember if he was a journalist or an exile or a diplomat. Regardless, he came across as all too aware of what was likely to happen if Syria pitched deeper into war. His resignation was palpable. We (the West in general, Canadians in particular) had no idea how bad it was all going to get ... unless outside interests did EVERYTHING THEY COULD TO NOT SUPPORT VIOLENT ENDS REGARDLESS OF WHO THEY THOUGHT WAS IN THE RIGHT. His point being that as bad as the Assad Regime was, the only available alternative (chaos) was going to be far worse for the Syrian people.
And now here we are.
posted by philip-random at 11:55 PM on August 26, 2016 [25 favorites]