To me; what paules, pat and Bismark have recently posted points clearly to the difficulty in defining an action taken in the Middle East as “right” or “wrong”; defining who our “friends” (allies?) are; and how any real “solution” (which in my opinion will most likely AT BEST be an uneasy stalemate between Centuries long warring factions) is not going to come about by military force alone.
I will say it again; when we are actively engaged (which we are); each and every day we are trying (as best as one can in the Middle East) to protect and balance American interest; we remain committed to Israel (which we are, contrary to what some may think); and almost continuous flights of Coffin-laden C-5’s, full of our best and brightest,are not occurring; then it is my feeling we are doing the best that can be expected in an area that is literally Hell on Earth.
I think your analysis on the tribal roots and the dfficulties in overcoming these are spot on. However I think the influence of modern media in the last 10 years is severly underestimated/not understood in its current influence over popular movements in the ME. It’s not an easy issue to understand by any means but I think the assumption to try and fit it to a centuries old mold is destined for failure.
Well, in the case of Syria, the ship has sailed regarding what were in the beginning, achievable goals. Getting rid of Assad and preventing /stopping ISIS before the grew in the formidable adversary they became.
There was a point were Assad was alone and was at his weakest and ISIS was a JV team. Military action at that point taken appropriately could have changed the course of what became of Syria.
And I am with you that military action alone wouldn’t solve the problem, but military action followed by very coercive diplomacy could have made all the difference. Looking back at it now, I think more then ever, early military intervention would have had a better result then we have now.
Now the situation is much different, I don’t think we can get Assad anymore. I think we have no choice to cede Syria to Russia. Agree and cooperate on getting rid of ISIS and work on stabilizing the situation enough so people no longer have to flee for their lives.
I think right now, we have to prioritize destroying ISIS. We will have to work through Russia to at least contain Assad and stop the fighting. Its a far more complicated situation now.
Stable does not mean free. Stable does not even mean “nice”. It means no civil war and some semblance of government. That could most certainly have been had several ways. As I said above I think the biggest mistake we made initially was making that comment in the first place. The worse mistake was not acting after we threatened too.
I repeat your opinion, Mufasa. You are all class, and I totally respect you and your opinion. And I respect and appreciate that you respect mine.
I posted some links in the “Iran” thread that support my opinion. I do hope you will give them a look. None of them are from rogue or has been rogue Generals. It’s as even minded and fair as I could find.
You are welcome to disagree, but I want you to understand where I am coming from.
I get the idea that the best ‘minds’ are on it. Just sometimes I think they may be wrong and I have evidence to support why…
I still no matter what, repeat you as one of the best, smartest, grown up, posters here. You make me think and work and I appreciate that.
We may never agree, but I consider you a friend.
Peace to you my friend
American grand strategy must be guided by a balance of interests and values. What is “right” is not always prudent, and what is prudent is not always “right”.
I am going to drop the links I put in the Iran thread, because they illustrate my point very well, they will be at the bottom. They have important, detailed information.
You’re asking me to hypothesize on what the difference would be should be have taken, what I consider to be, appropriate action.
It’s kind of like asking, what if we just let Hitler unchecked and no had a WW2. Or what if J.Robert Oppenheimer became a journalist instead of a physicist. So it’s impossible to totally know.
I know that the case of Syria is about the worst possible case scenario, just look at what’s going on and the series of blunders that got us to this position, because we are in this position because of descisions we made vs. actions we didn’t as well as others, who could have, should have acted and didn’t.
What we do know is there was a Red Line. Now there has been a lot of conjecture as to what a ‘change in calculus’ meant at the time, because we did not have all the facts. We know now, that beyond the shadow of a doubt, that military action was planned, green-lighted and ready to go. We know that a this change was not that we suddenly decided that Syria should remove their chemical weapons stash. That’s always been policy of the U.S., so demanding their removal is not and was not any kind of a change.
What we allowed to happen was Russian intervention. The consequences of now have proven dire.
So the Russians got involved for a presumably good thing, they were going to dismantle the chemical arsonal. What was the good? Many tonnes of noxious chemicals were removed from Syria. What was the bad? Assad kept up his chemical attacks anyway and was now acting under Russian protection and we cannot do a damn thing about it.
Russia did always support the Assad regime, but during the revolt, they did not have skin in the game at that moment.
What would have happened if we did proceed with military action? Well for one, our credibility would have been preserved. There is little doubt considering the world’s reaction to our Red Line balk, that it was damaging. Enemies were emboldened and allies questioned our commitments. This was shortly after. After the words followed action, by both Syria and Russia for one and others in less newsworthy but still notable ways. There are many events we can bring up, that are at least tacitly tied to the failure to enforce the Red Line.
Another thing we had the opportunity to is really further weaken the barely (at the time) fledgling Assad regime. It could have been the deathknell for the regime, especially if we got him, himself. We could have totally decapitated the regime, done correctly and gotten those weapons removed under coercion. It could have done a lot to undermine Assad, his stranglehold on the country. Further, we could have attacked Nursa and closed the al qaeda roadways and passageways that led to the rise of ISIS at the same time.
Obviously, this would have been an escalation and potentially caused a prolonged involvement. And I think that’s what the Administration feared. But inevitably that’s what happened anyway, under worse circumstances. But having had the situation under some control, before it escalated to where it escalated to could have and likely would have been a more manageable situation. And managing the situation rather than having reacted to the situation when it got wildly out of control would have been better for everybody.
Had we acted, I am almost certain the Russians would not have boots on the ground, that alone would make it a better situation. Now we are in a for real war and it’s not just with ISIS it’s now also more a proxy war with Russia which makes it a more tenuous situation. We could have made moves in Syria we cannot now make. And that’s a problem.
It’s a problem that the situation is so toxic that hundreds of thousands of people have been killed. Millions are displaced. Russia is involved attacking people who we support and we cannot react. That wouldn’t be the case in taking the lead in the situation. We had the opportunity to prevent a lot of this. If we had acted early we could have at least limited the rise of ISIS and the horror they bring. There is a lot of things that could potentially be better.
What I am not saying is that it would all rosey and the problems would be solved. What I am saying is that early intervention at the point of the Red Line would have yielded in fewer dead bodies and fewer displaced families. And we would be no debating those things and the best way to handle the situation and other crisises, but I do fully believe the problems we be at least a little more manageable.
The point is to not have the void or less of a void to fill. Clearly creating void is not the goal. I think the inaction created a void that was filled with a very vibrant ISIS and now Russia.
I don’t trust, necessarily any of them. This is not a case where the enemy of our enemy is our friend. I don’t understand the politics of each resistance group. Certainly, we our NATO partners I would like to think, would help the country reshape itself to a one that represents the people. That’s always the hope. It’s impossible stuff to know. My contention is that we could have prevented the mass slaughter and the complete dismemberment of the country that is currently underway.
Because the worst possible outcome has taken place. When you’re at the bottom, there’s lot’s of ways it could have been better.
Do you think we have the best possible outcome we could have had? If you could would you have done anything different to make things better?
If you think that this is the best possible outcome for Syria and ME policy yes we do. If not, then we have some common ground.
Here are the sources I was talking about. None of them are from contentious sources, I was careful not to do that…
You often here me speak of a “narrative”…which is no more than what is supposed to be a written or spoken account; of supposedly connected events; that paints a “picture” of a person or events.
It will often begin with a fundamental premise of groups of premises. That fundamental premise (or some would use the word “hypothesis” in some cases); forms the basis for the whole narrative.
Thank you for laying out your argument, because it illustrates something I have often pointed out on PWI; I don’t agree with the underlying premise.
We are in the State we are Syria, (and much of the Middle East) NOT because of some arbitrary line of action or inaction; but because of 1) Centuries-long hatreds 2) the desire to force ones religious and/or political beliefs on others 3) the utter lack of respect for even fundamental and basic human rights 4) the need to relegate over half of the population (women) to less than second-class status and 5) the desire for Power.
These of reasons that supersede any chronological action or inaction by the U.S. by many orders of magnitude.
If we have learned ANYTHING in the Middle East; it’s that very little is solved…or even changed…by how much ordinance we drop; when we drop it; or by how many troops we commit.
Military Power should be used exactly how it is being used now in the Middle East: 1) to keep thinks in “check” and eliminate Hot Spots and individuals and 2) as one of the fundamental tiers of Diplomacy.
Is it? It’s a mistake to create a stark dichotomy between principled beliefs and interests. The formulation of American foreign policy is informed by both, and rightfully so. To reduce reduce American foreign policy to “doing what is right” is both grossly reductionist, it’s counter effective.
Agreed, and of course it had an impact. An ultimatum always does. Individuals and nations in the Middle East are always calculating their next move against the measuring stick of what they can get away with.
Obama bluffed, they called. And it undoubtedly Will affect future behavior in the ME and will have for a while.
Thats the point for me–it should not have been said but ONCE it was said, it needed to be backed up in full action no matter what. The “Big Stick” is only a deterrent if they know you will use it…even if it wasn’t a smart move.
In some ways that makes it even better–that is what keeps many people on edge.
