The Gathering Storm in Syria

[tw]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

The Saudis and Qataris have been arming the rebels for the past few years.

Insufficient weapons. Criticism should start with those who are cost controlling while waiting for the world's policeman to take charge.

We have one obligation. To provide defensive forces for our friends. Especially our friends who are the border states of Jordan and Turkey.

The world (and therefore the US) only has an obligation when the local 'powers that be' screw it up. That obligation does not yet exist.

A best example of how to do this was by Clinton in Bosnia. Until deaths are large enough to even concern a hardass (ie me), Syria's war remains a local issue. It is only getting worse because the local 'powers that be' are not yet criticized (even in the Cellar) for their inactions.

It is their problem. It becomes our future problem if WE are not overtly critical now of their inactions. Nobody is discussing a major problem - near zero weapons and aid from neighboring countries.

[sexobon]

The Syria ship has sailed. We missed that boat when we didn't begin humanitarian aid early in the rebellion. Medical support in particular would have enabled us to establish rapport with indigenous people who could point out foreign interventionists and identify which rebel groups, if any, were seeking a free Syria as opposed to those which would simply replace one oppressive regime with another. We'd be playing Russian Roulette (pun intended) if we began arming factions now.

Soon after the rebellion began, I checked with a contact [old Army buddy and physician] at a government contractor whose services include providing former military special operations medical personnel for such purposes. Civilian veterans with specialized skill sets enable the government to accomplish what its military can do; but, without having to put boots on the ground. I was told that the government wasn't letting such contracts. There was no political will to get involved anywhere else in the region, not even on a humanitarian level, after the fiascos in Iraq and Afghanistan strained our relations with our allies in the region.

If we intervene now, at any level, it will be so that Barack Obama can save face after his red line was crossed just as George Bush Jr. got us into Iraq to save face after Hussein tried to knock his daddy off. At this late stage, it's better to let the players in the region handle it and clean up after them as necessary. We can always use our political influence in the region to have Syria's chemical weapons destroyed for us if WMD compromise becomes imminent.

[ZenGum]

I'm still caught on the chemical weapons trip-wire.

The war has killed maybe 93,000 people, to date. That's acceptable, apparently.

150 of them were killed be sarin, not shrapnel? OMG OMG OMG!

I wonder if this is more to do with the recent victories by the Assad forces in a couple of strategic towns whose names I have since forgotten.

[Griff]

That is the sort of idiocy which leads me to believe the President really wants this war, collision with Russia be damned.

[Lamplighter]

Originally Posted by Griff

That is the sort of idiocy which leads me to believe the President really wants this war, collision with Russia be damned.

Probably not so...

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/15/us..._20130615&_r=0
NY Times
PETER BAKER
16/15/13

Heavy Pressure Led to Decision by Obama on Syrian Arms

WASHINGTON — For two years, President Obama has resisted
being drawn deeper into the civil war in Syria.
It was a miserable problem, he told aides, and not one he thought he could solve.
At most, it could be managed. And besides, he wanted to be remembered
for getting out of Middle East wars, not embarking on new ones.

So when Mr. Obama agreed this week for the first time to send
small arms and ammunition to Syrian rebel forces,
he had to be almost dragged into the decision at a time when critics,
some advisers and even Bill Clinton were pressing for more action.

Coming so late into the conflict, Mr. Obama expressed no confidence
it would change the outcome, but privately expressed hope it might
buy time to bring about a negotiated settlement.

Few international problems have bedeviled Mr. Obama as much as Syria
and few have so challenged his desire to reduce the American footprint
in the world in order to focus energies instead on what he calls “nation building here at home.”
As much as he wants to avoid getting entangled in what he regards as another quagmire,
he finds himself confronted by a conflict that is spilling over into the region and testing American resolve.
<snip>

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by ZenGum

II wonder if this is more to do with the recent victories by the Assad forces in a couple of strategic towns whose names I have since forgotten.

Obama seems to either be a bumbling idiot or a strategic realist (see earlier article) with respect to Syria. If he is a bumbling idiot, his hand got played for him from surrounding peer pressure and when Syria called out his red line by using chemical weapons. If he is strategic realist, he is responding to the recent victories by Assad et al. and using their use of chemical weapons as an excuse to get minimally involved to keep the status quo.

Originally Posted by Griff

That is the sort of idiocy which leads me to believe the President really wants this war, collision with Russia be damned.

I disagree. Obama has had more than enough chances to escalate in the past and he didn't. If Obama really wanted war, we would be already be training the rebels, arming them with heavy weapons, and enforcing a no-fly zone. He has a choice and he has chosen not to. Everything Obama has done (up to this point) has suggested that he wants minimal or no involvement in this.

[richlevy]

What pisses me off is the rush by some in Congress to go to war. These are the same people who allowed sequestration and who demand offsets for every dollar spent on domestic programs.

How can they argue against most spending and suddenly find the money to involve us in a foreign conflict that may have strategic implications but that does not directly threaten us?

It is possible that Syria can be a 'hands off' war like Clinton ran in Bosnia or it can be like Bush's Iraq/Afghanistan quagmire. Noone gave Clinton enough credit for not getting us sucked into boots on the ground in Bosnia. Or it can be a proxy war against Russia with both sides giving heavy weapons and aid. What will happen when the first US aircraft is shot down by a fixed emplacement or man portable Russian missile? What will happen if in 5 years a US aircraft in Afghanistan is shot down by a USD-made man portable missile that was given to the Syrian rebels?

Mixed in with the 'freedom loving' rebels are anti-Western radicals who want a religious state and hate secular governments, US, and Russia. The whole 'enemy of my enemy is my friend' bullshit does not apply here.

[sexobon]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

Obama has had more than enough chances to escalate in the past and he didn't.

He wanted to get reelected.

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

If Obama really wanted war, we would be already be training the rebels, arming them with heavy weapons, and enforcing a no-fly zone. He has a choice and he has chosen not to.

Since the rebellion's inception, his administration has admitted that it doesn't know who to train, who to arm; or, that there is sufficient trust in the overall movement to implement a no fly zone. Lack of knowledge has dictated his actions.

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

Everything Obama has done (up to this point) has suggested that he wants minimal or no involvement in this.

Then why did he draw a red line in the sand. Was he not astute enough to realize that WMD can also be used in limited applications. The US even has tac-nukes that can be delivered in an artillery shell. Did Obama forget that Al-Assad is a medical doctor who knows very well that this can be done with chemicals and biologicals. Did Obama underestimate him?

Whether one believes Obama to be a hero or a traitor to Americans' best interests, he is a politician in his final term as President. Anyone in that position is a wild card. It isn't prudent to assess his post-reelection disposition by his pre-reelection actions anymore than it was to base first term expectations on campaign promises. Past human behavior is not necessarily a good indicator of future human behavior. And I voted for him, just sayin'.

[Griff]

Well said. He knew the voters would never sanction this war. To my permanent shame, I voted for him as well.


So when Mr. Obama agreed this week for the first time to send
small arms and ammunition to Syrian rebel forces,
he had to be almost dragged into the decision at a time when critics,
some advisers and even Bill Clinton were pressing for more action.

Except that he's the President. It is on him, no one dragged him, no matter what unattributed narrative the Times is selling.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by sexobon

Since the rebellion's inception, his administration has admitted that it doesn't know who to train, who to arm; or, that there is sufficient trust in the overall movement to implement a no fly zone. Lack of knowledge has dictated his actions.

...

Whether one believes Obama to be a hero or a traitor to Americans' best interests, he is a politician in his final term as President. Anyone in that position is a wild card. It isn't prudent to assess his post-reelection disposition by his pre-reelection actions anymore than it was to base first term expectations on campaign promises. Past human behavior is not necessarily a good indicator of future human behavior. And I voted for him, just sayin'.

Are you arguing that he hasn't gotten involved because of logistics or re-election purposes? Both are valid points and are not mutually exclusive but I have been under the impression that it is more logistics. If Obama and media started banging the war drums with Syria (and Iran) and focus on the extremely fucked up shit happening (chemical weapons, government forces raping women and torturing children, etc.), voter support for intervening could have increased.

Most of Obama's foreign policy decisions have put him in the realist camp and not the non-interventionist or interventionist's camps. From what I've seen, most "realists", or close to that label, have been reluctant to get involved or have proposed minimal involvement. This is due to logistics and a lack of large direct interests in the region (some national interests do exist). This is no guarantee how Obama will react, but based on his past decisions, I would expect minimal involvement unless some big game changer happens and the strategy shifts. Maybe post-election Obama will be different but we will have to see.

On a side point, does anyone remember how popular intervening in Libya was pre-intervention?

Originally Posted by sexobon

Then why did he draw a red line in the sand. Was he not astute enough to realize that WMD can also be used in limited applications. The US even has tac-nukes that can be delivered in an artillery shell. Did Obama forget that Al-Assad is a medical doctor who knows very well that this can be done with chemicals and biologicals. Did Obama underestimate him?

I agree. That was a big mistake for Obama. He was probably under pressure to say something and thought Assad wouldn't use them.

[ZenGum]

Oops. According to the UN via the Washington Times, the sarin gas that was allegedly used ... was allegedly used by the rebels, not Assad.

Umm, does this mean we ought to arm Assad?


Oh and in other news, Iran reportedly is sending/has sent 4000 men from the revolutionary guard.

ETA in other other news, 8,000 troops - mostly US, Jordanian and British, but from 19 nations - are conducting a training exercise named operation Eager Lion about 120 kms from the Syrian border.

http://rt.com/news/jordan-multinatio...exercises-459/

[ZenGum]

Shocked, shocked, gambling, establishment, etc etc.

[piercehawkeye45]

Democrats are leading the push for more intervention:

The latest and perhaps most outspoken Democrat to prod the administration is Pennsylvania Senator Bob Casey, who tells The Cable he's tired of waiting for the White House to articulate its goals in Syria -- and how it hopes to achieve them.

"For too long there really hasn't been a clearly articulated strategy," he says. "The administration has yet to make it clear to the American people what's at stake here... With Tehran and Hezbollah taking the offensive, a bad result in Syria could greatly strengthen the Iranian regime and make it more difficult for us to constrain their nuclear ability."

"Those basic strategic interests need to be stated over and over again by the president, by the secretary of state and by the national security team in general," he continues. "But that just hasn't been happening."

....

While Casey declined to discuss specifics of the briefing due to its classified nature, he said there was not "nearly enough clarity" about how the U.S. planned to arm the rebels. And as far as heavy weaponry, "I have no information that either anti-tank or anti-aircraft weapons are going to be provided ... I would hope that in the future those would be offered," he said.

Casey joins a growing cohort of Democrats clamoring for a more assertive policy. Last week, Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI), chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, joined Arizona Republican John McCain in signing a letter urging the president to "take more decisive military actions in Syria to change the balance of power on the ground against [Syrian President Bashar al] Assad." In the House Foreign Affairs Committee, ranking Democrat Eliot Engel has been pushing for lethal military assistance since March, when he introduced his Free Syria Act legislation authorizing the shipment of weapons. In May, the Democratically-controlled Senate Foreign Relations Committee passed a bill authorizing lethal aid by a bipartisan vote of 15-3.

....

http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/po...ategy_on_syria

Originally Posted by Griff

The CIA and US special operations forces have been training Syrian rebels for months, since long before President Barack Obama announced plans to arm the opposition, the Los Angeles Times reported Friday.

Well, it now seems that Obama's decision to arm the rebels wasn't due to recent pressure or from the chemical weapons...

[piercehawkeye45]

(CNN) -- Syrian rebels have received heavy weapons -- including anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles -- from "brotherly nations that support the Syrian revolution," a rebel spokesman said Friday.

Free Syrian Army political and media coordinator Louay Almokdad told CNN during a phone call from Istanbul that Free Syrian Army leaders believe the weapons "will be a turning point" in the war against government forces "and will definitely change the rules of the war on the ground."

The issue of providing military assistance to Syrian rebels is expected to be further addressed Saturday at a "Friends of Syria" meeting in Doha, Qatar, which will be attended by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry.

The White House has not publicly specified what steps it would take to support members of Syria's opposition, though sources have told CNN that small arms, ammunition and possibly anti-tank weapons would be part of the assistance package.

Syrian rebels have long sought anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons, saying they are outgunned by President Bashar al-Assad's military.

The White House announcement this month that it was increasing the "size and scope" of its material support to Syrian rebels came after months of political debate over the U.S. role in the conflict. Great Britain and France were strong backers of the May decision to end the European Union arms embargo on Syria, and all three countries have asserted that al-Assad's regime used chemical weapons.

Al-Assad has denied the assertion.

In recent weeks, the rebels have suffered a series of devastating setbacks, including the loss of the stronghold of Qusayr near the Lebanon border.

http://www.ketknbc.com/news/syrian-r...-anti-tank-and

[Griff]

Apparently we're supposed to choose our poison, because we definitely want to side-up with one of these.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...an-a-joke.html

or

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/fea...927813389.html