The Gathering Storm in Syria

[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.