Assad ~started~ this war as a rejection of democratic reforms. Neither peace nor democracy can possibly come to the former Syria with him in the picture.
There are no such people.
We’re a global power. We act globally. Our choosing to act or not to act has global consequences. We influence things all around the globe, even without trying. Even without wanting. It comes with being a global superpower. We’re not just a superpower when it’s convenient.
Mr. al-Baghdadi would like a word.
I reject that notion. That just gives every other country in the world the excuse to have us do their dirty work. No thanks. The president is not required to say things like “Assad must go” or create some red line that gets crossed with impunity. We can be large and powerful without sticking our noses into everyone else’s business. And in fact, I’d prefer we were NOT so large and powerful, militarily.
While I’m inclined to think the State Dept employees are right about Assad, I don’t like the idea of State urging warfare. Not their area of expertise, not their job. If the generals want to give The President that kind of advice, that’s fine. We are actually at war in Syria, and they have the expertise to tell the President how best to win that war.
Let’s keep in mind that these are lower level folks, Not Kerry and his staff. How many other officials at State are there, operating at the same level, who did NOT sign onto this advice?
He should give Assad a lot of credit as a recruiter for him. But even with the help of those the regime drove into his arms, Daesh has not managed to kill nearly as many as Assad has.
I seem to recall he was toying with new elections and open to the possibility of a reform here or there. Then students decided to start an Arab Spring and the US was all over that. Cracking down on your student protesters gets you yelled at, it’s not starting a war. Are we at war with the Saudis? They’re no better. Russia wants to keep Assad in power and then have elections. Sounds like a better plan than ours. Syria, as we can all see now, if full of extremists. No wonder Assad was such a hard ass. He had to be.
lev – your memory that the US instigated the civil war isn’t only wrong, it’s bizarrely off base. Assad began shooting protesters basically one day one, and the protesters turned quickly into armed groups.
I didn’t say we started the civil war. We did support the Arab Spring.
We said “Yay, go democracy!” from the sidelines. That’s about it.
Assad, on the other hand, started murdering people. Why you think the US being a cheerleader from 6,000 miles away has anything to do with the way things developed is beyond me.
There might be some situations in which it would make sense to intervene. For instance, it makes sense to intervene if there is danger of a widening conflict, and if there is a credible military AND political strategy for resolving the conflict. An example of this is the intervention in Kosovo - it made sense to intervene to stop war crimes, a growing humanitarian crisis, and to preempt the intervention of others from outside the region who wish to exploit a situation for their own benefit.
But you don’t intervene just because you’re dealing with a regime you don’t like. The calculus of regime change requires that the risk of leaving a despot in power is greater than the risk of overthrowing him and dealing with the inevitable power vacuum. There’s an argument for intervention, and we have the power to effect change.
On its surface, there doesn’t appear to be anything gained from intervening in Syria. At the same time, however, there is a growing struggle for influence in the region, pitting Iran and the Gulf States (especially Saudi Arabia). Saudi Arabia has exploited sectarian tensions in the region and is hoping to use sheer numbers of Sunnis in the region to overpower Iran. And of course they’re using radical ideology as well.
Inaction, to some degree, has invited Russian aggression. Granted, that hasn’t occurred in a vacuum. Russia has been motivated by a desire to fight sanctions in response to its actions in Eastern Europe. But it is argued by some that a more assertive American foreign policy that had been more aggressive in attacking Assad might have prevented Soviet intervention. Some diplomats are also probably voicing concerns expressed by the Gulf States, and there is probably a desire among Gulf States to intervene. The fear is that if the United States does nothing, then the Gulf States would act unilaterally, which would in turn bring the Gulf States and Iran nose to nose. It would also limit American influence in the region thereafter. Again, we probably don’t see a reduced role as a problem, but if you’re an American diplomat, your job is to influence others and sell ideas based on American power.
On the flip side, at minimum, by intervening and overthrowing Assad, we’d be looking at a Saudi-backed Sunni state that would be governed by extreme Wahhabi radicals. It’s curious that American diplomats don’t seem to be addressing that side of the discussion.
The problem with the advice from the State Department is that they are telling Obama to do something he already said he would do if Assad crossed the red line of chemical weapons, and didn’t do. Threats without follow thru show weakness, and Obama is weaker now in the last year of his administration than he was when he made the threat.
If Assad remains, there will be widespread slaughter, human rights violations, and alignment with Putin and Russian expansionism. If ISIS wins, there will be widespread slaughter, human rights violations, and alignment with Islamofascist expansionism. If anybody else wins, there will be widespread slaughter, human rights violations, and continuing civil war because they aren’t aligned with anyone.
What is the best-case scenario? There isn’t any. This includes the US not doing anything.
It’s like nuclear war - the only way to win is not to play. Which is also the only way to lose.
Regards,
Shodan