Skip to main content

View Diary: Syria: Obama's moves Assad's "red line" back as SOHR reports 42,000 dead! (48 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Where is everyone else on this issue? (5+ / 0-)

    Why does the USA have to invade/attack Syria? Europe? Arab League? We're being sold (by an exile group) the worst case scenario, again, in order to have ourselves immersed in a foreign conflict. It sounds familiar. We should do what's in our interest, nothing more. Every time we get dragged into this with fear-mongering above and beyond our interests. How about not this time? We go in and destroy the chemical weapons, and then leave. Assad be damned, whether he stay in power or not, let's just worry about us and let Syrians take care of Syrians.

    It's the height of absurdity to posit that as imperialism.

    it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses

    by Addison on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 08:28:08 PM PST

    •  Apparently we are supposed to step in for every (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      chuckvw, Duckmg, Kickemout, native

      conflict in the world. It seems that anyone who has a vested interest in some conflict wants us to go in and rescue the underdog.   And this is the way we are dragged into expensive conflicts that really harm our nation by draggin it down to insolvency and lowered ratings. We cannot keep doing this trying to control the world. Bad stuff is going on all over the world. Where do we draw the line? I don't want to attack Iran or Pakistan or Russia or Georgia or .... There are diplomatic ways to try to acheive better solutions , there is assistance, there is aid but this constant effort to drag us into other countries political problems is not something I wish to lose social security, medicare, veteran benefits, PBS, infrastructure (here at home instead of building it for invaded countries) who have ended up with regimes that are little better then the one overthrown. We are doing that crap in Aftghanistan ... standing guard over a weak regime like a body guard at the cost of a million dollars a year per guard not to mention the number killed or wounded to put someone in power whois as despotic as the last.

      Shades of Lybia.

      Fear is the Mind Killer...

      by boophus on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 09:18:59 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Er, no (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        subtropolis

        It's about aiding or intervening where a transition from autocratic rule to democracy is at stake in the fighting.  The general policy is termed "liberal interventionism" for a reason.  It's not humanitarian interventionism, it's not imperial/colonial interventionism.

        Liberal interventionism is supported by Left liberals and, to a lesser extent, Right liberals.  LI is opposed by Right conservatives, who despite the historical track record are incapable of faith that democracy follows on any American intervention.  LI is also opposed by Left conservatives, who always argue (also contrary to the historical record) that the price of toppling dictators is too high and democracy arising afterwards has the same chances of happening as hitting a particular number on a roulette wheel on the first try.

        •  Your exit strategy would be..... (0+ / 0-)

          ....what?  How do we "win" or "leave" after getting embroiled in this conflict?  Do we stay for a decade and try to keep the warring factions apart?

          •  liberal intervention, not liberal occupation (0+ / 0-)

            All things in the sky are pure to those who have no telescopes. – Charles Fort

            by subtropolis on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 10:32:37 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  We leave (0+ / 0-)

            after all the forces that plausibly could restore autocracy by force are so defeated that they can't.  That is victory.

            No, we basically leave it up to the country to sort out its domestic political order otherwise.  We can certainly help put down straightforward criminal group activity or help rebuild infrastructure.   But if e.g. ethnic or religious groups choose to go to war over old scores, that's essentially unavoidable and the only way to settle those scores.  And not our business unless mass civilian atrocity is involved.

            Iraq lasted as long as it did because Bush wanted his victory parade in Baghdad with the thanks of the Iraqi people.  Didn't get it.  Also didn't want to hand Iraq over to Iranian influence (though it now is so).  But as soon as Hussein was captured and his two sons dead, and the Shia and Kurds were sufficiently armed and trained to not be defeated by the Sunnis, Iraq was over.  

            Afghanistan...on the one hand that's dragged so long because ObL wasn't captured at Tora Bora.  But that ended at Abbottabad in 2010.   On the other hand, Mullah Omar and a few other lesser but significant awful figures of the ancien regime (such as the remaining Hyrkanis) also escaped in 2001 and remain at large.  The demise of Mullah Omar is the remaining real American objective.

            Once that occurs the U.S. military can pack up and go the next day, practically.  The country will then soon partition into its obvious halves and Pakistan gets ownership or hegemony of the southern, ethnically Indic, part.  And then their internal order sorts out pretty quickly.

            Syria...I think clearing the Assads out fully and then criminal crap like the groups that call themselves Al Qaeda or pro-Assad paramilitaries won't be the major problem.  I suspect the portion of the country along the Mediterranean, heavily Alawite and arguably more similar to Lebanon than the rest of Syria, will try to break away and may succeed.  The Kurds probably also want autonomy of their regions as a minimum.  Secession of these regions will be difficult to negotiate and manage for the first post-Assad governments.

    •  were it so simple (0+ / 0-)
      We go in and destroy the chemical weapons, and then leave. Assad be damned ...
      It's gonna take a lot more than sneaking in Seal Team 6 or lobbing a few cruise missiles from a boomer lurking in the eastern Mediterranean. (Although at least one is probably on station there right now.) This isn't stuff we can take care of by throwing a lot of HE at. Besides, we need to verify what's there in the first place, then figure out how to either reasonably secure it or responsibly destroy it.

      All things in the sky are pure to those who have no telescopes. – Charles Fort

      by subtropolis on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 10:44:39 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  And so...what does the USA do? (0+ / 0-)

        it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses

        by Addison on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 11:22:15 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  What has the USA done? (2+ / 0-)

          "The Global War on Terror is a justification for U.S. Imperialism. It must be stopped."

          by BigAlinWashSt on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 11:52:34 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  well, what is USA doing? (3+ / 0-)

          That we don't know. Regardless of what appears to be happening, we can be assured that stuff we don't know about is actually happening.

          What i think should be happening is an effort to shore up the rebels. But that's complicated by:

          But the rebels are largely Sunni Arabs, and the most effective among them are extremists aligned with Al Qaeda, a prospect that worries not only the West, but the Christians, Shiites, Druze — and Kurds — of Syria.

          NYT, Wider Chaos Feared as Syrian Rebels Clash With Kurds

          Remember the lesson of Afghanistan in the 80s. It's unwise to dump sophisticated weaponry into a fight without being real sure who is receiving it. CIA was able to buy back some Stingers but don't think they'd have much luck this time.

          Syria is the new Lebanon.

          All things in the sky are pure to those who have no telescopes. – Charles Fort

          by subtropolis on Fri Dec 07, 2012 at 11:57:13 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Sometimes the best thing you can do is nothing. (0+ / 0-)

            Forceful intervention doesn't necessarily help to improve a chaotic and violent situation -- as we should have learned from Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. We can't realistically assume that Western style democracy is possible or even desirable everywhere.

            I don't see the USA as having a stake in this fight. Liberal interventionists tend to be a bit dreamy-eyed, and unfamiliar with the cultures whose politics they're trying to reform.

            "The pessimists may be right in the end but an optimist has a better time getting there" -- Samuel Clemons

            by native on Sat Dec 08, 2012 at 10:06:45 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (146)
  • Community (70)
  • Memorial Day (29)
  • Elections (27)
  • Environment (26)
  • Culture (26)
  • Civil Rights (26)
  • Media (25)
  • Law (24)
  • Science (24)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (23)
  • Labor (22)
  • Rescued (20)
  • Josh Duggar (20)
  • Economy (20)
  • Republicans (18)
  • Marriage Equality (18)
  • Ireland (17)
  • Education (17)
  • Climate Change (17)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site