In the US, we hear more about news directly involving the US.
We expect Putin to act like a bad guy. We expect the US to act like a good guy. It becomes “news” when one acts against type.
This is largely outside of our zone of control. We don’t have an answer to it or even any acceptable options. The US can’t fix this one.
Also note that this isn’t anywhere near the only under reported conflict out there. How many of you are up to date on, say, South Sudan? It’s every bit as bad out there, and the US actually does have a pretty direct connection, but it’s not going to make the front pages any time soon.
The Israelis attacked Syrian troops in response to mortars shells landing on the Israeli side of the border, and in a handful of cases, to prevent strategic weapons from falling in the hands of Hezbollah. In broader terms, Israel attacked Syrian troops because Israel is at war with Syria, and has been at war with Syria since long before the current troubles.
The Americans attacked Syrian troops because they can’t aim for shit.
That is a bit too easy.
The American attack was on clear positions on a hilltop and ‘coincided’ with an ISIS attack on Deir Ezzor.
According to the Washington Post, the US is planning on more strikes. So I doubt this was an accident.
The USA did it because it has zero leverage and it wanted to do something - so it killed a few Syrian troops. Thankfully, that isn’t a ‘war crime’ because the press haven’t called it.
Troops they thought were ISIS. And we stopped the attacks as soon as the Russians told us that they thought we might be hitting Syrian troops:
I suppose it’s who you believe here. To me, Occam says that if the US REALLY wanted to go after Syrian troops we could have hit them a hell of a lot harder, gone after their logistics or simply started dropping bombs on Assad or his C&C. Why screw around like this when there doesn’t seem to be any gain for the US in it? The fact is, it’s a confusing military situation, and one group of armed guys on the ground look much like any other, especially since a lot of the rebels groups AND ISIS are armed with Syrian equipment stole from Syrian bases.
Kind of hard to make the same argument about hospitals and aid convoys, especially since it wasn’t just one possible mistaken attack, but repeated and systematic attacks.
[QUOTE=up_the_junction]
war crimes is what the USA does in places like Pakistan and Yemen with its less-than-discriminate drone strikes.
[/QUOTE]
Sure it is. But not what the Russians and Syrians have been doing by deliberately targeting civilian hospitals and aid convoys, or just deliberately targeting civilians with cluster munitions and barrel bombs, right?
[QUOTE=asahi]
Right, but does Russia have missile defense systems in Mexico, Cuba, or Central America? Does it have military bases or ports of calls within a half hour of our territory? That might change our perspective.
[/QUOTE]
It still has a base (of sorts) and ties in Cuba, and I’m guessing they have some Russian military defense systems laying around somewhere. Sure, it might change our perspective if Canada and Mexico were openly hostile to the US and sided with the Russians and set up their equipment to protect themselves from us…but maybe, if that were the case we’d need to think about WHY all these other countries feel threatened by us enough to run to the Russians, who aren’t’ exactly good guys. Russia might want to consider WHY the former Soviet client states all ran to NATO, why the Ukraine is so nervous, and why most of their other neighbors are as well, running to the US/NATO, even though we aren’t ‘exactly good guys’ either.
Again, I understand where you are coming from. The converse to all this is also true though…those countries that were formerly under the heel of the USSR basically ran as fast and far as they could to put themselves into NATO or at least to try and move closer to Western Europe/US sphere of influence…and they had good reasons to do so. There is no natural reason why Russia SHOULD have a ‘buffer’ from NATO…and until recently there wasn’t a huge concern about it either. Russia’s own actions have pretty much ramped up tension with NATO, and their own actions have further pushed all those ‘buffer’ countries who, interestingly don’t want to be a buffer between Russia and Western Europe so that the Russias can feel good, toward NATO and the US.
Sure, Russia sees this all differently and I see it through the lens of our own world view in the west, but the facts speak for themselves…when the Soviet Union fell apart and basically had very little means to defend itself NATO and the US basically did nothing. Unlike the old Soviets, we didn’t force Poland, Hungary, the Baltic states, etc into an alliance with us…those countries practically knocked down our door to get in. And we don’t hold any of those countries in perpetual servitude to act as a ‘buffer’ to make us feel good and safe and secure.
As to Iraq and Afghanistan, yeah…I can see where that might look threatening to Russia. Though we haven’t, as far as I know, put advanced ground to air missile systems in either country that would or could threaten the Russians.
I would have to say that none of these actions were against Russia, per se. The former Soviet states, as I said earlier, weren’t forced into NATO…they ran to NATO to protect themselves from a country that formerly had their necks under Russian boots. I don’t see the expansion of NATO as against Russia. Ironically, before the Russians started fucking with everyone there was serious talk about the future of NATO and whether or not it was even necessary anymore. Of course, with the Russian doing what they are doing, NOW NATO is starting to think about being relevent again, and, again, ironically many NATO countries who had let their GDP contribution to the alliance slip below the treaty requirement (2% GDP spent on defense) are starting to bring their spending levels back up. See the irony in this?
Like I said, though you discounted it, most of this stuff wasn’t an issue in Russia until around 2011…that’s when suddenly it became a huge issue, when Russian polls started to drop about the US and Western Europe, and when Russia became more and more aggressive.
Tensions are always present, and certainly some Russians resented their lowered place in the world after the collapse of the Soviet Union. But those tensions were mainly background noise until the Russians started pushing thing and becoming more and more aggressive. You can see this in how both Russia and NATO were lowering or locking down defense spending to see that the tensions were low…and how, now that they aren’t all sides are starting to ramp that spending back up.
No, negotiating is doing a lot. And I think the Obama administration did try (and continues to try) to negotiate with the Russians, though obviously there is now some bad blood between the US State department/Obama Administration and Putin et al.
It’s funny, but a lot of folks at the time we put in the sanctions called them a joke…including Putin. You are claiming they are ‘crippling’, but what is REALLY crippling isn’t the sanctions but the depression in the price of natural gas and oil…Russia’s one trick. And the US has very little to do with that, though I suppose US gas and oil companies have had their share of the glut on the market.
But if not sanctions, what would you have suggested? I mean, after Kerry et al tried to negotiate with the Russians about, oh, say the Crimea and instead Russia went ahead and annexed it anyway? What do you think was a viable thing we could or should have done at that point?
This is all getting pretty far afield of what I was originally asking, but since I think everyone is on board with the question already having been answered from the OP I’d say let’s talk about this other stuff if everyone is good with that.
Oh really? Turkey is acting against U.S. interests? My news tells me they are finally directly involved in the fight against ISIS. American special forces and Turkish soldiers are coordinating their efforts. They have martyred several of their soldiers. They’ve lost tanks and they are doing basically all the bombing runs in Northern Syria these days.
They have a very different opinion concerning the level of involvement of the YPG in the fight to retake more territory in Northern Syria and to take Raqqa. But excepting a few minor skirmishes that only involved the pathetic rebels the Turks support, I am not seeing them act against our interests. For example, they’ve made no attempt to push the SDF out of Manbij.
So I see two allies attempting to work together to meet all their goals despite an environment that would otherwise mean we’d be enemies (backing different proxies, they’re convinced we are protecting Gulen and involved in the coup, etc.).
The US govt’s invasion of Iraq was an eminently avoidable aggressive action.
The Syrian government, aided by the Russian government, has been fighting a defensive war. The various factions are fighting to topple the government or carve out a territory that includes part of Syria, etc. Of course, the government of Syria is just as evil as the US govt. They are fighting to maintain monopoly control over the territory they previously controlled. This monopoly control is illegitimate, so therefore is their murder of non-combatants.
The reason you don’t hear about it is because people in the US are more concerned with the actions of the US govt. Also, there’s an election going on. One would think the candidates would be questioned on their Syria policies more thoroughly, but that would necessitate Clinton outlining her apocalyptic plan for a no-fly zone in Syria.
I hope there is a ceasefire, but governments are involved so I’m not optimistic. Also, once Clinton gains power, she will make the situation infinitely worse and there is not much time left.
Unsurprisingly other countries see themselves as the good guys. And of course America is primarily concerned with its own interests, which is as it should be. Do you seriously believe that a President would act against his country’s interest in the name of some greater good? It’s never happened and it won’t.
Of course not. But the original post was not about why countries do things, but about how Americans react to actions taken by their own and other countries.
A ‘defensive war’? It is a funny idea that the Syrian government is defensive when it is the Syrian dictatorship that began firing the live ammunition on the peaceful protests in 2011.
the assad government is a dictatorship that began a nasty civil war by firing on the civilian unarmed protestors, and it is the assad government that has committed the most ferocious and most numerous of the war crimes in deliberate attacks on civilians as part of its terror campaign.
There is no thing legitimate about that government, and it is deranged anti americanism to call the US involvement ‘illegal’
In the real world outside of the very strange imaginings of the american liberarians, the record is very clear that it is when governments as the primary actors that the cease fires actually work and hold. When it is the self organized - in other words the armed gangs called militias - then the cease fires tend not to.
the involvement of government as the structured organized governance is a positive.
[sarcasm] Are you sure? If you’re really accusing al-Assad as being as evil, or even almost as evil, as the murderous Teleprompter Emperor with his death camps and his pretense of being half-white, don’t you think your comment belongs in the Pit?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
I’m afraid I don’t keep a scorecard. I know you’ve made a bad impression, but am not sure exactly why. Weren’t you the one who, in a thread about economics where I mentioned Krugman and let slip that he’d won a Nobel Prize, felt the need to post over and over and over and over that that Prize was irrelevant, as though it was unfair for “liberals” to pretend Krugman wasn’t some liberal hack?
Perhaps I am easily annoyed. For example,
:smack: How could you possibly think that was the focus of the analogy? Did you really think I thought Iraq is much closer to the U.S. than Syria is? My very next sentence, which you also quoted, would have disabused you of that notion. Unless you want to be annoying, if you think your “debating partner” has written something very stupid, kindly spend a few seconds rereading before pounding on the Reply button.
Yes, I am sure, we had the live reporting in the Arabic.
that is complete nonsense and idiocy, and repeating a Assad clan propaganda.
The Assad regime was and is a police state, the use of the live ammunition and the death squads against the peaceful protestors started immediately. It was indeed the well known playbook of the Assads since the massacres of Hama.
Disgusting to repeat the propaganda of the murderous police state.
whatever.
Oh yes and 99.9999% vote for the Kim Dynasty and I am sure you think this is very valid results and not at all the complete utter bullshit of the dictatorial regimes…
I know you’ve made a bad impression, but am not sure exactly why. Weren’t you the one who, in a thread about economics where I mentioned Krugman and let slip that he’d won a Nobel Prize, felt the need to post over and over and over and over that that Prize was irrelevant, as though it was unfair for “liberals” to pretend Krugman wasn’t some liberal hack?