The Call of Cthulhu
Getting involved in the Middle East is like having the girlfriend from hell. Just as you were headed out the door, she threatens to commit suicide. The decision by Damascus to use heavy weapons like artillery, armor, and aircraft against the Syrian rebels not only underscores the superiority of the Assad regime in this category of combat, it also illustrates why it is so hard to leave the region to its own dysfunctional pathologies. Assad’s forces are advancing, albeit fitfully, on Aleppo, causing a further increase in the spate of refugees. At least 200,000 are on the move.
But more armaments are on the way to the rebels, and so the show will go on. NBC News reports on rumors that the Saudis have set up a military assistance command in Turkey. The Gulf sources had also said the Adana center, which is near the Syrian border and a U.S. Air Force base at Incirlik, was set up at the suggestion of Saudi Deputy Foreign Minister Prince Abdulaziz bin Abdullah during a trip to Turkey.
It’s going to get worse, not better.
Other parties are arming up factions in the region. The Iraqi authorities report that someone is selling heavy weapons to the Kurds, but declined to say who:
A high-ranking Iraqi official said on July 29 that security agencies have uncovered a secret weapons deal between the autonomous Kurdistan region and an unnamed foreign country.
…
“The weapons include anti-armor and anti-aircraft missiles, and a large number of heavy weapons,” the official said, without specifying the exact weapons systems.
The official said Iraqi authorities have obtained “all the documents” pertaining to the deal, which is for “weapons of a Russian type made in 2004,” and are trying to block it.
…
For its part, Baghdad has ordered 36 F-16 warplanes from the United States and has already fielded M1 Abrams tanks.
Barzani expressed concern over the F-16s earlier this year, saying he was opposed to the sale of these warplanes while Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki was in office, fearing they would be used against Kurdistan.
Who could that someone be? Whoever it is, they’ve got a side to back. The Syrian civil war, like the Spanish one in the 20th century, has become a proxy battleground for foreign powers. On one side of the conflict are Iran, Russia, and Syria. Against them are the KSA, Qatar, and Turkey. What about the United States, one might ask, what about the hegemon? Well, what about them?
“In the near-term America’s only cards in the Middle are airpower and naval blockade.” And why is that? Because our numb-nuts of a President decided to squander the blood and treasure that we spent in Iraq and throw away the United States’ hard fought position in the middle of the Middle East chess board. We were the White Queen on that board, with only pawns and bishops on the other side. But the White Queen has been removed and the Middle East is about to go up in flames. Way to go, Obama. “Smartest man” ever to sit in the Oval Office. As James T. Kirk once said, “I’m laughing at the “superior intellect.”
Obama and the Hildebeast have apparently set the value of Jews, Christians and other non-Islamist people in MENA to zero, not worth the respiration of a single good word. I cannot find the psychic energy to contemplate the fate of Syria when it seems so obvious, to me at least, that Team USA cares not a whit about confronting the civilization-eating beast of Islam at any level.
All this reminds me of Europe circa 1914. Perhaps the great lesson of the 21st century will turn out to be that Europeans aren’t the only people stupid enough to wreck themselves in a suicidal war over what will afterward seem to be trivial differences. Certainly the spread of technology and advanced weaponry to areas outside of Europe has made that sort of event much more likely.
Whatevs. Somehow I feel the urge to get a bucket of popcorn and sit back to enjoy the show.
That is, assuming that the US government doesn’t yield to the urge to save foreign enemies from themselves yet again. It’s interesting to see that even in Iraq- after spending thousands of lives and untold billions in treasure- the inhabitants are still arming up for the next round.
Hey- I don’t blame them- but at this point I suspect that the trillion dollars spent there was wasted.
Easy to say now of course. The trillion dollars was spent, and the threats the Iraq War ended don’t trouble us now.
But I think Cthulhu has come calling to the United States too d**m often, and he needs to go ring up someone else to go solve the world’s problems.
Riyadh? Ankara? Cthulhu on line one. Pick up.
“If Miniter’s report is true then Obama must have been gauging the political winds. Jarrett could not have possibly contributed any meaningful operational input to the (Osama)raid decision. Her advice must have been based on completely different considerations. Although Miniter’s allegations have not as yet been confirmed, it is entirely possible that the decision on how to proceed in Syria is going through the same process of clearance.”
Jarrett is certainly deeply involved in selecting the most consequential October surprise that this administration can muster. With Republicans among those yipping to get involved in another no-win ME war, attacking Syria may be a safe bet.
Wretchard: Why, exactly, does the USA have to get involved in an Arab civil war at all? What strategic interest or national security interest of the USA will be served by such intervention? Suppose, for the sake of arguement, the USA does in fact impose a no-fly zone and herds the Syrian air force out of the sky, and neutralizes the Syrian gun and missile air defense systems. Anad suppose we then neutralize via airpower Assads tanks and heavy artillery. Suppose further all this is done while retaining public support in the face of the inevitable losses.
Then what? Having tipped the playing field to favor the opposition and the Muslum Brotherhood, do we then sit back and let them ethnically clense the Alawites, Christians, and such other victims as they will choose? Once the Brotherhood gets what it wants, why would it not do so? They will certianly not feel as if they owe anything to the infidel, after all. What interest of the USA is going to be served by replacing the secular fascism of the Assad regieme with the religious fascism of the Muslum Brotherhood? The first thing the new Muslum Brotherhood president of Egypt has done is demand the release of a known terrorist in American custody. Does anyone think a Syrian Muslum Brotherhood president will be any more sympathetic to American interests?
THE RELUCTANT WARRIOR
Some warriors are reluctant
Some warriors quake with fear
While others get grim faces
As enemies draw near
Obama has it covered
He is three of a kind
He’s grim faced but reluctant
And leading from behind
Reluctant to take action
Inaction’s more his style
Grim faced with teleprompters
But fearful all the while
Of losing all his voters
He hates the thought of war
And hates to make decisions
But hates this country more
Celer silens mortalis
Is foreign to this guy
And quick, silent and deadly’s
Enough to make him cry
Wretchard: Why, exactly, does the USA have to get involved in an Arab civil war at all? What strategic interest or national security interest of the USA will be served by such intervention?
It’s like the old joke. The first prize to the contest is an all expense paid trip to Cleveland Ohio. The second prize is two all expense paid trips to Cleveland, Ohio. (Disclosure, I lived in Cleveland and have nothing against it).
But the logic of intervention is this. You are going to have to intervene anyway, the question is whether you do it at the start or when the region is burning. Incidentally intervening at the start doesn’t necessarily mean the region won’t burn anyway, but not intervening means it will burn for sure.
The real alternative of course, is to let it burn. Of course this means that southern Europe and Israel is going to get involved at some point. So the argument for intervention is like the argument for amputating your leg when gangrene has set in. It’s an awful thing to do, but the alternative is worse.
Maybe at some point the world is going to get so fed up with the Middle East they’ll simply say, “we’re so tired of this s**t that we’re past caring. The hell with it. Let it all burn, including my own house. See if I care.”
“In the near-term America’s only cards in the Middle are airpower and naval blockade.” This is a good thang. We do not need boots on the ground. If some glory mad waccko thinks we do, send the boots and let the Syrians fill them. The US Military is much better able in 2012 to do the ‘Clinton over Kosovo’ then it was 20 some years ago. We need to avoid the mistake in Libya of multi-national forces. Put a Squadron of A-10′s in Turkey with a few F-22′s for air cover and run strike packages off a carrier in the Med.
It is pointless to try to control the outcome. Get rid of Assad and whoever wins, wins. Even if it’s the MB, they still have to rule. As the MB is finding out in Egypt, it is a lot easier to brag and bluster when you don’t have responsibility for the outcome.
StrategyPage says those F-16′s are due for delivery in 2018. Iraqi pilots will come to the USA for training in 2016. Syria will either be a done deal by then or collapsed into a Lebanon type deal were air power is of marginal value.
Not sure what sort of “Heavy weapons” ( crew served weapons) the USA could contribute to the mix. I don’t think there are any old Dragons left. Most were sold to 3rd world countries once the Javelin went operational. The AT-4 is not as good as the later RPG’s. Congress would go ballistic if we sold them Stingers. France makes better weapons for 3rd world types anyway. Even the Dragon III will not kill a T-72 and the I & II will almost scratch the paint. On the other hand a Milan 3 will put paid to a T-72, even with reactive armor. IIRC, KSA has the Milan 3 and a lot of old Dragons. I think they are trying to buy Javelins. They also use TOWs as their Heavy ATGM. TOW has killed many a T-72 but they are not suitable for guerilla forces.
For ManPADS, the Brits and Swedes make the best. Blowpipe and the RBS-70 are better then the Stinger.
Syria isn’t about weapons. It’s about will. Slaughtering thousands of non-combatants is what the UN was created to prevent. To stand by and watch is immoral. Even if you are of the school that believes the only good Muslim is a dead Muslim. Give me a break, a two year old is a two year old. Watching them be murdered when you could stop it is almost as much of a crime as killing them your self.
When did this mess begin? From the fall of the Ottoman empire? In the aftermath, when all the successor states were formed by France and Britain? Or did it happen, as the Left likes to argue, when one of those successor states to the old Ottoman empire turned out to be Jewish? Maybe it was the collapse of Europe itself in the Second World War. For in the days past they put a lid on the Middle East and the Levant.
But with Europe’s passing the mess was inherited by America. It was made worse by the discovery of oil in the region and the wealth which empowered the worst regimes in the world.
Or maybe the proximate cause of today’s woes lie in Jimmy Carter’s 1979 Iran fiasco. That was when the Iranian revolution emerged, a force which is one of the antagonists in Syria and elsewhere today. Or perhaps the most proximate failing was the Arab Spring.
Maybe it was all of them together. At each stage America intervened fitfully. The attacks on September 11 are regarded by some as part of the wider Sunni-Shi’ite conflict. Then America put a patch on the bug and left. But as we see now even Obama is being drawn in, heeding in spite of everything, the call of Cthulhu.
This time the region is going to blow itself up unless somebody puts out the fire. Or maybe not. Who knows? If the public just hardens itself enough to refugees and human suffering, it might just all go away.
But probably not. If America doesn’t save the Arabs, then millions of refugees in coming years will be taught that it was America’s fault they are languishing in camps; or the Jew’s fault that all their homes are burned. It will be taught in universities, repeated in the media and soon enough, everyone will believe it.
Yep, that’s where the smart money should be. It’s always America’s fault. My guess is that America won’t be thanked whatever it does. Like the Jews the main purpose of America is to provide misdirection, a place to assign blame that can never be accepted by the actual responsible parties.
Sometimes I think the only way out is the blast off to Mars and get away from it all. But come to think of it, Mars isn’t far enough.
#9 Wrechard “Sometimes I think the only way out is the blast off to Mars and get away from it all. But come to think of it, Mars isn’t far enough.”
You sound like Dr. Manhattan.
If America has quit in the Middle East (has it? who knows?); and Russia has become/is becoming the leading foreign power in the region then what?
Leading up to WWI; fights in the Near East (Balkan states formerly part of the Ottoman Empire); Serbian dreams of Empire; German determination to gain influence beyond the Bosphorous via a military alliance with Turkey; and other international scheming all helped to increase international tension. Russia does want increased influence beyond the Bosphorus like Germany in the 1900′s but does today’s general barfight in the Middle East parallel the Balkan states in the 1900′s?
Indulging in pure speculation; to start another big war wouldn’t Russia have to display the same military overtness as 1914 Germany? After that, some other power behind the surrogates would have to take on Russia militarily. I don’t see either thing happening. Russia can achieve its goal of greatly increased influence in the Middle East simply by supporting surrogates.
Continuing to guess, Russia got burned in Afghanistan with direct intervention so surrogates are a more comfortable strategy. Since President O’Dithers can’t make his mind up about anything I think that Russia has simply picked up the ball that he dropped. Meanwhile the Middle Eastern Hatfields and Mcoys will run around beating the daylights out of each other until they run out of ammunition.
I guess.
Traditionally the way to forestall interference by a Power is to threaten their interests out of area. That avoided a direct Great Power confrontation. The US could inhibit Putin’s enthusiasm for Syria by moving on Chavez or opening new energy supplies.
Wretchard: Personally, I think the mess began with the end of the cold war and the retreat of the US hegemon, leaving no one to impose order. The sheriff has turned in his badge, the Cavalry has left, and now the Indians and Cowboys and everyone else are having it out. The region has always needed a Leviathan who could impose order by reputation and force. For many years it was the Ottoman Empire, then it was the British and French empires for awhile. After WWII it was the Cold War Superpowers, and very briefly the USA alone. Now, the region is left to its own devices.
And personally, I say what I have said before. The best (and IMHO the only realistic) US strategy is to sit back and play Cardinal Richelieu. Let them fight it out. Southern Europe has its NATO umbrella, for what that is worth. Israel has her nukes. Both can afford to sit back and wait and if necessary simply close their borders to refugees. After all, if military intervention is required, the USA is not needed. The Turks are right next door and have a fine Army by all accounts. Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf States have plenty of good quality aircraft, and they can get the Jordanians to help too. Surely they can impose a no-fly zone by themselves – if they want to.
As you say Wretchard, the USA will be blamed regardless of the outcome. So, why bother? Will a Muslum brotherhood government be any better than the Alawites? As for Muslum refugees hating us, well, most Muslums hate us already anyway, and will continue to do so regardless of anything we do. As for the humanitarian aspect of this, again, why do we have to do what Syrias Muslum brothers will not bother to do? Why do we have to be more Muslum than the Muslums? It will not benefit us in any way.
W @ 9: “If the public just hardens itself enough to refugees and human suffering, it might just all go away.”
Not just the public — even the bleeding heart liberals of the London Guardian could barely raise a groan when Africans were dying by the millions in Darfur and elsewhere. Life is a bitch, and human suffering is of interest to the Political/Media Class only when it can be put to ‘greater’ use. The reason we are hearing about Syria is the off-chance that the Guardianistas will find a way to blame the hated Jew.
W original post: “President Bashar al-Assad has sent fixed-wing aircraft, helicopters and armored columns, threatening tens of thousands of terrified civilians.”.
The citizens are right to be terrified. But they are not right to expect the Great Satan to swoop in and save them, so that they can get back to their normal activity of going to “Death to Israel” protests. It may seem hard-hearted, but Life is Indeed a Bitch. Syrian citizens got the kind of government they wanted — or at least were prepared to tolerate. Now they have to stand up and deal with the consequences.
Today, it is the Syrians’ turn to deal with their Fascist government. Tomorrow, it will be ours. Ask not for whom the bell tolls ….
“It’s going to get worse not better” that about sums up your “reportage”
Gee, thanks for yesterday’s summary.
We ain’t gonna get directly involved in Syria nor should we.
Your “analysis” of the situation is utter nonsense. Same crap,
no-fly zones, safe havens… today’s Russians ain’t Yeltsin. Once you give the Russians a pretext for intervening in the Caucasus or who knows where else, we’re screwed, unless you are ready to go to the mat with them all out. They are cause their back is against the wall.
You keep this “fanning the flames” up, the only thing you are going to accomplish is pulling the rug out from under us (that means USA).
Why the rush to kick Assad out of the door? Is he a terrible bastard, yes. But there is no assurance that what will follow will be better. Even if the US were to get involved at the end of the day we would have been played for chumps by the Turks and the Saudi’s. As for the Russians, they are a shadow of what they used to be. I suspect Putin is more concerned about being exposed as the enabler who sent Saddam’s WMD’s to Syria than anything else.
As for Syria blowing up, would it be so bad if the Kurds were able to declare themselves independent and with that take a large part of Iraq, Iran and Turkey?
I’m beginning to think the region needs its own Pinochet. Someone to curb Arabs’ collective Latin tradition, and to inculcate a more “white,” Anglo-Saxon operating system in its place.
But where will he come from?
Egypt’s new President Morsi doesn’t have it in him. And the Assad name will be toxic to its heirs for generations to come. Maybe Turkey will spawn him. Or will he come from the Emirates, Bahrain, or Saudi Arabia – from one of Ryadh’s technical institutes perhaps?
I don’t know, but that’s the angle I’m surveying from when I analyze current events in the Levant. Someone’s needed to bang the Imams’ heads together and wreak a real cultural and economic metamorphosis in the region. He’ll need to be someone who can cut through a lot of bull.
The Progressives’ ‘softly-softly’ approach currently in fashion in Hillary’s State Department (and among its coven of MB susidiaries cum Arab governments), I’m afraid, isn’t gonna cut it anymore.
“No one is arguing for a Libyan-style intervention into Syria at this point.”
Well, at least the Admin is consistent. There was no discernable logic or strategic thinking evident in the Libyan Libyan-style operation and the same approach applies here – there is no logic or strategic thinking for NOT doing a Syrian Libyan-style operation.
Mr Spock, your logic is impeccable – it just does not make any sense.
“When did this mess begin?”
Anyone notice how often this Admin uses “Sh*t Happens” as an explanation?
A great deal of the Left’s version of foreign policy is based on their own recognition that they ain’t no good at it. If the only tool you have is a wet noodle nothing looks like a nail.
The problem is trying to figure out whether intervention — in some guise — is optional or not. The second order problem is to determine, if intervention is unavoidable, when and how to do it.
The first problem is whether the US can sit this one out. Well it can try. And that’s pretty much what the administration has been trying to do. My own guess is that it will not succeed in doing so. The main reason is that are too many vital interests that in that vicinity. Southern Europe, Turkey, Oil, Israel, nuclear weapons.
I think it is safe to say that once the flames start lapping around those items, whether anyone likes it or not some kind of action will be forced. The dilemma is the longer you wait, the higher the flames climb. It is possible to wait some more, but Washington should at least determine to itself what the red lines are. If the fire goes past that red line then what happens next?
This is mixed up with the question of how to intervene if a red line is crossed. Let the Saudis keep leading the way? Well what could go wrong.
But overall it is a hard problem, one that isn’t new to the US at all. Korea, the Vietnam, first Gulf War, OIF, OEF. The question in each case is: is this trip necessary?
In the case of Syria it seems to me the problem is simple. America will have to live with whatever comes out of the Syrian mess unless we can find a way to get off the planet. So it all depends on where you see this mess going. Will it burn itself out? Or will be saying as sometimes cancer patients say, “gee I should have seen the doctor sooner.”
Respectfully @ 19
The way forward here is to do a deal with the Russians. And put the interests of client and vassal states, (of either power, and that includes all clients and vassals), aside. At least for the time being. We can get on with slaughtering each other later if it suits us.
We do have converging vital interests with the Russians.
Leave interplanetary travel for another generation. Play with the cards you’ve been dealt, today.
http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/battles_manzikert.html
The Battle of Manzikert let Islam out of the bottle. Until then the Eastern Roman Empire had them contained. After Manzikert, the Romans lost Anatolia (Turkey) within the decade. While the Romans held on to Greece and the Balkans for another 600+ years, they lost the Med. That allowed Islam to get at Spain, Italy and Southern France. Their slavers were a constant threat and as the Ottomans they threatened Western Europe until the Second battle of Vienna. Letting the Muslims out of their desert was the original mistake.
I think it was Churchill that remarked that the Anglo-Saxon nations have one common enemy. Tyranny.
Those opposed to America doing it’s moral duty in Syria really don’t grasp the problem. They only need to look in the mirror to see what is wrong with America. Either America is Mankind’s great hope for freedom through exceptionalism and righteous, moral behaviour, or it is just another country. If we are just another country, then we need to stay out of Syria. If we are that shining city on the hill, then we have no choice but to prevent the slaughter of innocents.
Those who are already counting the cost and saying it’s too high are acting from fear. We might lose a fighter bomber or 2 but I doubt it.
It would be like the Yankees playing the local High School team. The High School 9 might score a run, but I doubt it.
Yes. Muslims will whine no matter what we do. So what? The results of standing by and doing nothing will be worse for America then the slim chance of losing a couple of pilots.
Ask the pilots. Ask then if they are willing to put their lives on the line to save women and children. I’ll bet 100% say ‘yes, that is why I volunteered’. Tell them it’s Muslim women and children and I suspect they will tell you it doesn’t matter.
Haji can’t shoot.
The following aphorisms seem applicable:
“This will not end well.”
“Damned if you do, damned if you don”t”
“What could possibly go wrong?”
And, today’s Valerie Jarrett special: “Oooops!”
The point of play Richelieu is to make them weak AND allow them to kill each other until there is no one able and willing to war against others. Until the fear of war will force them to cull their own extremists before they start a new war again.
Islam is forced against modernity. A modern civilization and economy can not exist without freedom. Slaves and serf are not creative and are unable to bring the creativity needed to feed the economy in a modern world. What is happening is a restructuring of large part of the world. China, as Wretchard noted, is starving the MENA because they have the money to buy the wheat to feed their pigs; because they want eat pigs and cow and chips. And India is there too.
The pain in Europe, in the USA and in other part of the modern world is due to the same lack of freedom. But where we get a cold, the Muslim world got a cancer. Islam will not survive the restructuring of society. Not with the current changing demography, the political strife, the economical turmoil and inefficiencies. Many will die starving, many will die by war and disease. Nothing can destroy Islam like taking the power and failing to deliver the goods. Like exposing, in the seat of power, the Imams and the Mullahs and show they are not better than a common tyrant.
Unfortunately for them, they came to power when the big beast of Western statism is dying. The spasm of the Leviathan will be deadly for the Muslims (and will be very dangerous for us also). The $ will plunge, the purchasing power of € and $ and Yen will plunge. And the technological progress will force further changes we never dreamed and dreaded.
jgets, the problem is the Russians don’t seem too interested in converging vital interests with the US. Guess it wouldn’t play too well internally if Putin was seen working closely with the US. Perhaps Russian pride to not play ‘second fiddle’ is what is behind Russian opposition to US goals. Whatever the reason, the Russians seem quite intent on reviving Cold War tensions. Just like China, it is only prudent for the US to view Russia as an adversary. Wish it could be different.
@13: Personally, I think the mess began with the end of the cold war and the retreat of the US hegemon, leaving no one to impose order. The sheriff has turned in his badge, the Cavalry has left, and now the Indians and Cowboys and everyone else are having it out. The region has always needed a Leviathan who could impose order by reputation and force.
@17: I’m beginning to think the region needs its own Pinochet.
So, those statements are, in effect, support for the concept of autocracy, at least during specific stages of sovereign evolution. Optimal solution being top-down, not bottom-up. Consider it a question if you like.
wretchard@9: Sometimes I think the only way out is the blast off to Mars and get away from it all. But come to think of it, Mars isn’t far enough.
Girlfriend will find you. Wherever you go. Nowhere to run. Nowhere to hide. It’s the human condition.
@23 – “China, as Wretchard noted, is starving the MENA because they have the money to buy the wheat to feed their pigs; because they want eat pigs and cow and chips. And India is there too.”
That was Spengler, actually, who wrote that Chinese pigs will eat before Egyptian peasants. But even he didn’t foresee that the Indian monsoon would fail this year – that puts another large competitor in the field for the world’s wheat. The article I read stated that the poor monsoon would slow India’s GDP growth to 6 – 6.5%. SLOW it to that rate! Obama would be writing his election victory speech if America’s GDP were growing at that rate.
In the near-term America’s only cards in the Middle are airpower and naval blockade.
How near-term is that? If Obambus Augustus stood up this evening and announced we were sending 300,000 ground troops, with maybe a small advance force to arrive within days, I’m guessing the announcement alone would reduce violence by 50%, and the advance force reduce it by 99%.
Not that I’m recommending it. I really can’t see why we don’t just sell picnic lunches and let the networks schedule the battles.
When did this mess begin?
Well, the last Ice Age ended about 17,000 years ago, and the Mediterranean flooded about halfway between then and now, and I’d say since then warfare has been reasonably constant in the Fertile Crescent subject to the abilities of the parties to fight. Hegemony by whatever empire probably slows it down somewhat, but neither Persian nor Roman nor British eliminated it entirely, when they’re not fighting each other they’re revolting against the imperials. How about under the Ottomans? I assume they’ve been fighting since they paid tribute to Atlantis, if not Mu.
Tarnsman. The Russians are more realistic and prudent than it seems on the surface. Pride is important to any self respecting nation-state but interest and foreign policy have their own logic. Our policy in the region seems somewhat convoluted, this is a problem. We are not clearly defining what we want. The Russians have more room to maneuver than our domestic politics allow. Take that fact into account please.
It will be different, it’s the rational move. I’m an optimist.
There is no reason that I can see why the USA should not allow this particular fire to burn itself out, Wretchard. The Turks are big boys and can more than take care of themselves. Syria is not a major oil exporter and the Assad regieme has neither the ability nor the motivation to disrupt oil routes. Southern Europe is part of NATO. Israel has nukes. I would say the fire breaks are well in place and we need do nothing but wait.
As for the pleas for humanitarian intervention, I have this to say: One, we cannot afford it. Two, in order for it to work you would have to have enough force to seperate the warring sides, and keep them seperate indefinitely. Otherwise one side will ethnically cleanse the other. You are talking, at a minimum, of a force of many tens of thousands of troops. Where are they going to come from? And how long will the public support to keep them there remain once they start taking casualties? The history of US interventions since WWII shows the USA always gets tired of fighting first and withdraws. Just ask the South Vietnamese and Cambodians how well that worked out. It is no kindness to intervene, give people false hope, then yank the rug out and abandon them – as is happening now in Iraq and will inevitably happen again in Syria if we go there. Three, intervention would mean victory by the Muslum Brotherhood, does anyone honestly think they will be any better than the Alawites?
As for the question of autocracy, yes, I support it. There are only two alternatives in the Middle East. Either a great power imposes order and keeps it, by imposing rules and enforcing them, or the various countries, tribes, clans, etc; fight it out among themselves. Either there is a hegemonic power or there is chaos. Well, the USA used to be the hegemonic power, but now wants to be a larger version of Sweden or Mexico, according to the administration in power. They may mouth words of the USA being important, but their actions and policy decisions, especially regarding defense spending say otherwise. The decision has been made for chaos, and that is what this adminsitration has chosen. So be it.
Go for it, homeboy. Lead the way. Start a Lincoln Brigade and get your butt over there.
It seems like we are at a turning point in our policy towards this region in general. While war fatigue would explain some of it, the strategic value of the Middle East seems to be declining for us as we reduce our consumption of Mideast oil. Presuming that a combo of increased US production and reduced demand brings this reliance to zero over the next few years, we may see a changing of the guard as to who cares about having influence here. Might be an interesting contest to watch as China is heavily dependent on these oil flows. Meanwhile, Russia has divergent interests in trying to create enough instability to keep prices high. Europe/Japan/S. Korea/India will all be interested spectators.
What will this mean for Israel? While we share ideological ties with Israel, they know that we had to be in the region because of oil. Now maybe not so much, so how do they react to that?
When the British navy decided to switch from coal to oil to fuel their glob spanning fleet then the game was on.
Japan declared war on the US because we stopped Japans oil supply, Germany lost the war in significant part because it did not seize oil supplies-it ran out of gas.
After WW2 everyone understood that oil is a key strategic asset.
In the Cold War the UK/US competed with the USSR for influence and control of the MENA oil supplies-we supported corrupt regimes in Iran etc to halt Soviet influence-France and Israel played their own game which were and are still counter to Fundamental US/UK interests.
The USSR failed in great part because US/UK persuaded KSA to pump pump oil-thereby depressing the price and bankrupting the USSR.
Oil had was the major source of hard currency for the USSR.
The mistake US/UK made after the end of the Cold War was that we did not listen too and talk to our enemies
Find out what they want and make a deal-or walk away from the table
US/UK never sat at the table-thus the mess we are in.
France and Israel have continued their stratagems that are counter to fundamental US/UK interests-but we do not confront them.
Last week the CIA declared that Israel is the greatest counter intelligence threat to US/UK fundamental interests in MENA-
-yet Romney acts like a lap dog and Obama gives Israel even more handouts for US taxpayers.
The solution-proposed by Kissinger and other Realists is to get around the table and talk with Iran to find out what they want-then to include India, Russia Pakistan and the rising power-Turkey- to decide on the future of MENA and Afghanistan
We should leave France and Israel out of the conversation because they always have and always will sabotage US/UK fundamental interests in the region.
If US/UK does not take the initiative and leadership then China will take the leadership-France and Israel will support China if US/UK does not take leadership
It is not all about oil but it is mainly all about oil-
-particularly from China’s point of view.
If you were an analyst and asked: ‘what’s the worst case scenario here?’, your only honest answer is “it depends”.
If Assad is looking at winding up in a meat freezer, there’s a probability bigger than zero that he uses his chemical weapons, or tries to drag Israel into it or maybe an accident just happens. Perhaps al-Qaeda gets lucky and blows him up.
Suppose Hezbollah gets the rockets and fires into Israel. Dollars to donuts Israel goes into Lebanon.
Suppose further that the Arab spring still continues in Egypt and perhaps even in the Gulf States. Recall further than the Saudi princes are as old as dirt and none of them is far from kicking the bucket.
Then what if the Iranians mine the Gulf?
Well, it depends, doesn’t it. In my more superstitious moments I think that’s nearly a century to the year when the Great War started. In July 1914 Europe ruled the world. In August 1914 Europe was finished.
None of these scenarios I mentioned in the Middle East is likely, or rather their probabilities are unknown, but then who could have guessed that 9/11 would happen? Or the Duck of Death would be pushing up daisies? Wasn’t Assad only the other day a “reformer”? Did Vogue see this coming? Wasn’t the Hezbollah riding high just a few months ago? Who could have though Mubarak would be in the hoosegow two years ago?
Wasn’t it a dead cert that the Middle East was unimportant so much so that the Army could be moved to Afghanistan? And who could have foreseen that the Pakistanis would be such unreliable allies?
There are too many moving parts in that neck of the woods to take anything for granted.
My fearless forecast is that in three months we’ll all be saying, “who would have thought?”
Some one called for a Pinochet, but I would prefer Ataturk. Home grown and the will to shape a nation.
We the United States should sit back and let the field of players become known. We can interject at any time and place of our choosing and just the ability to telegraph that to our strategic opponents in the area will be a force for change. Of course we would need actual adults in charge so the point at this time is moot.
So we have a fight on the playground and we should let them fight. Let Russia spend some of that oil money playing master of the universe. What we should be doing is ridding ourselves of the internal infection of Progressivism and the religion of Statists.
As for oil, the technological breakthrough’s just keep coming. Now there is a technique to fracture oil shale using jellied natural gas, eliminating the use of water and/or dangerous chemicals, and it will greatly increase the amount of oil/gas recovered. Another technique coming on line will us electromagnetic energy (radio waves) to heat the tar sands, reducing the amount of energy required and increasing the amount recovered by 30 to 50%. If this technique is successful, Canada with her tar sands will become the largest oil producer in the world by 2020.
So I think we can afford to sit back and just watch events unfold in the entire Middle East.
If the Israeli’s are smart, they will get going in a bit-time way on exploiting the huge shale gas field off their coast.
Bell Curve, can you point me to info on the jellied nat gas development that you mentioned?
The British empire kept the end in mind-Free Trade that would benefit British enterprises-that strategy made Britain the most profitable and largest empire in the history of the World.
Britain also exported Christianity, the Rule of Law, Property Rights, Education Standards, the end of slavery, railways and public health/ sanitation systems.
That is the British exported civilization to its colonies and beyond.
But the goal was trade and profit for British enterprises.
The Wilsonian goal of the US has it the wrong way around-we are trying to export our our values with no focus upon the interests of American enterprise.
AfPak, Israel,Iraq, Egypt etc are parasitic on the US taxpayer– and like Syria they have no oil.
Fortunately American business is now focusing upon the ” 5 eyes” of the Anglosphere- ECHELON
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON
“Israel is not America’s closest ally, at least when it comes to whom Washington trusts with the most sensitive national security information.
That distinction belongs to a group of nations known informally as the “Five Eyes.” Under that umbrella, the United States, Britain, Australia, Canada and New Zealand agree to share intelligence and not to spy on one another.
Often, U.S. intelligence officers work directly alongside counterparts from these countries to handle highly classified information not shared with anyone else.
Israel is part of a second-tier relationship known by another informal name, “Friends on Friends.”
It comes from the phrase “Friends don’t spy on friends,” and the arrangement dates back decades.
But Israel’s foreign intelligence service, the Mossad, and its FBI equivalent, the Shin Bet, both considered among the best in the world, have been suspected of recruiting U.S. officials and trying to steal American secrets.”
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/US-sees-Israel-tight-Mideast-ally-as-spy-threat-3742831.php
There is an extraordinary article by Joan Juliet Buck, the Vogue writer who interviewed Asma Assad and wrote the glowing piece on her stylish lifestyle. Interviewing people is Buck’s job. It is no crime to interview even Hitler, nor is it a crime, though it may be bad judgment to be impressed by a dictator. But what really struck me were these words by Buck:
She didn’t know. She had no clue. That is what is extraordinary. Who wouldn’t interview Assad? Certainly I would. Why not? But I would be a chump if I didn’t know who I was meeting. It wouldn’t be rocket science. It’s not as if it was a secret who Assad was, what regime he represented, what kind of government he headed.
Who could have known? she asks. And in her defense, how is Joan Juliet Buck a dimmer bulb that Hillary Rodham Clinton? In March 2011, the Washington Post quoted the SOS, in an article titled “Hillary Clinton’s uncredible statement on Syria”
If Buck lost her livelihood and was pilloried for writing warmly about Assad in Vogue, then what should we make of the professional, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton? Buck was a fashion journalist. Hillary Clinton is supposed to be “well informed”.
It’s a times like these when you begin to wonder, “are their scenarios worth anything at all?” My guess, based on their track record, that I would be better off consulting Madame Clairvoya at her fortune telling booth.
Between trusting your common sense and trusting the experts, trust your common sense.
We don’t know what’s going to happen next in the Middle East by any stretch.
29. BattleofthePyramids
30. Richard Cranium
Most Jr. Colleges have remedial reading courses.
Did you read the part where I wrote “We do not need boots on the ground.”? The Syrians have all the men they need. If you guys want boots on the ground We will send them boxes of boots. The US Army gets a deal on boots. What the rebels need is weapons that can deal with MBT’s and AH’s. If we send those weapons, they might be used against us.
So we use Air Power, in which the USA has a decisive advantage over any 3rd world country. Take out their air bases and hammer their ADS. Our guys train to do that and they are the best in the world. Any weapon is dangerous in the right hands but I don’t think any of those hands are Syrian.
I’m not articulate enough to explain how important Syria is to America. I do think that if we refuse the challenge in Syria, the next challenge will be worse. When do you want to fight? When they drag you screaming out from under your bed? America has always fought it’s battles over there. The alternative is fighting them over here.
Early in WW2 the Germans dropped their paras (Fallschirmjäger) on Crete. The British out numbered them about 3 to 1 and had armor and artillery support. Fallschirmjägers kicked their ass. They were some tuff Krauts. The Brits ran. They had just got run out of Greece and running becomes a habit. Crete is an Island so the Royal Navy had to evacuate the army.
The RN took frightful casualties, the worst in their centuries of history. When Admiral Cunningham was questioned about that he replied; ‘It takes 2 to 3 years to build a cruiser, it takes 2 or 3 centuries to build a naval tradition.’
A Military is more then a bunch of metal and men. Tradition, heritage creates morale. Morale is to all other factors 4 to 1. That is according to Napoleon, arguably the greatest General the West has ever produced.
The USA WON in Iraq. Al Qeada knows that, they even admitted it. The USA has destroyed the Taliban in Afghanistan. Reduced it from a socio-political force to guards for the drug gangs. Yet some fools refuse to recognize that. They find conditions that were not part of the mission and then say because those conditions were not meet, we lost. That is pure BS but the military hears it and morale suffers.
The Mission in Iraq was to remove Saddam from power. Where is Saddam today?
0bumbler never defined a mission in Afghanistan. The military goal was the removal of the Taliban as a political force. That has been accomplished.
The Mission in Syria should be destroying the Syrian military as an organised fighting force. Once that is accomplished let the UN take over.
Sorry about the Novella but this is a critical fight for America. If we refuse it, the next one will be both more difficult and more dangerous. I’m trying to compensate for a lack of quality with quantity.
Here’s one article on the waterless fracturing breakthrough:
http://nextbigfuture.com/2012/07/energy-news-waterless-lpg-natural-gas.html
Asma Assad, was born in the UK, educated in the UK, got a degree in computer science in the UK and worked in NY for Morgan Stanley as a financial analyst in NY for many years.
Why is she a target-this is grossly unfair
The UK Telegraph reports that the opposition in Syria is now infected with AQ terrorist who are now taking over the other groups.
15 to 18% of Syrians are Christian-
-they will be murdered if the rebel/AQ groups prevail.
Our NATO ally Turkey is the best hope for the Christians in Syria
Attacking Assad’s wife in this matter is extremely weird-she has probably taken her kids home to London-why attack her?
35. bell curve
As for oil, the technological breakthrough’s just keep coming. Now there is a technique to fracture oil shale using jellied natural gas, eliminating the use of water and/or dangerous chemicals, and it will greatly increase the amount of oil/gas recovered. Another technique coming on line will us electromagnetic energy (radio waves) to heat the tar sands, reducing the amount of energy required and increasing the amount recovered by 30 to 50%.
………..
Here’s another story about the new method.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/chmr-unveils-breakthrough-shale-oil-extraction-method-to-safely-and-effectively-replace-hydraulic-fracturing-2012-07-30
I didn’t see the story about electromagnetic energy to heat tar sands. but now that you mention it.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390443570904577544860568722418.html
I wonder if that can be applied to oil shale in the Green River formation.
Victor, grossly unfair? Even if you assert that she has no blood on her hands. (which is a generous assumption given her proximity to the trigger puller), she has lived a life of privilege while walking across the faces of millions of Syrians. She is a modern day Marie Antionette.
http://cthulhu2012.com/
For – what? – four generations the United States have carried the burden of maintaining forward bases, troops, support personnel, vehicles, arms, supply depots, and a ready-to-sail logistical “tail” stretching from a score of U.S. ports to scores of European ports. That’s just Europe. We have maintained a Blue-water Navy ranging from almost 600 capital ships to now somewhat less than 300, including 4 deployed carrier battle groups with 2 under repair and 2 in port (approximately). Those carrier battle groups represent by themselves an air force larger than most other nations’ ENTIRE military air fleet.
In other words, the U.S. has spent its treasure guaranteeing all nations’ access to the high seas and most constricted sea lanes around the world, and the sovereignty of even nations that are hostile if not actively belligerents.
During this time the Left – ComIntern, the international progressives, socialists of the world – have worked ceaselessly to worm their way to controlling the levers of power in most Western Industrialized democracies. The result has been the deliberate self-emasculation of these cultures; the seduction of at least the last four generations by the perverted dreams of life-long pampering by the State, all services free from medical care (including limitless abortions and gender-reassignments) to education, to guaranteed jobs with ever-expanding vacation allowances, shrinking performance requirements, and diminishing requirements for earlier retirements with full benefits.
The Left believe fervently in Perpetual Motion Machines, and deny the fundamental observed “laws” of thermodynamics. Moreover, they demand that everyone else accept their point of view as well.
The people who have made the loudest outcry for “Sustainability” are in fact the same who most conspicuously refuse to apply the principle to their own actions.
Whoever wins the upcoming election (assuming, raving optimist I, that we actually HAVE another election this fall…) there is a reckoning coming due, a convergence of all the deferred consequences to decades of intemperance and reckless decisions by the political class.
People who spend a lot of time on the sea from time to time encounter a rare but memorable phenomenon. Wave chains of different wavelengths, coming from all points of the compass, send regular troughs and crests marching across the ocean’s vastness. In places, the crests of one chain meet the troughs of another, and they cancel each other. Occasionally, a bunch of crests meet at one point, and a rogue wave towers a hundred feet above the rest. The disappearances of a good number of ships is suspected to be attributable to such rogues.
In this case, it is we who have set in motion the wave chains that, reverberating back and forth around the world, have the potential to overwhelm the quarter-wits we’ve chosen to Captain our vessels.
stoicheion:
Well said.
I dont think there is a solution to this mess, the roots of which go back to mo-in-the-desert, the great molester.
In re your earlier comment, I dont think the average islam GAS who drops the bomb on him. Inshallah, it just comes from a magical silvery thing in the sky.
Victor: One: the Islams have been trying to stamp out the Christians in Syria since the start of all this (cited above).
Two: She lived and bred with that animal.
8. stoicheion
Give me a break, a two year old is a two year old. Watching them be murdered when you could stop it is almost as much of a crime as killing them your self.
This from the guy who wouldn’t put 5 rounds of .45 ACP into James Holmes in the movie theatre because you might hurt someone? Yet you’re willing to throw our guys in Harm’s Way again for WHAT?
I’m tired of our guys dying or being maimed for life for bastages who throw their shoes at us after we liberate them. NO, no more of our guys dying to serve as a place holder for more of the Muslim Brotherhood maggots.
They want to kill themselves, let them. It’s time to let people learn their own lessons the hard way. I’m done with Obama’s “leading from behind” when the only thing it does is get the Muslim Brotherhood a couple more jobs in the White House.
Asma Assad helped 1 Million Christian refugees from Iraq to escape to Syria from certain murder by the AQ gangs in Iraq.
At least 1 Million Christian refugees owe their lives to Asma Assad-she and her husband gave them safe refuge.
This piling on to support the KSA, Qatar, Israeli attack on Syria is crazy and not in American fundamental interests.
Our NATO ally Turkey is the best option to resolve the Syrian civil war-and stop AQ from taking over-which it is about to do.
re: (super) power chess.
I was (only partially) relieved when China didn’t stand up for Khadafy – they had 20-30K of their nationals in Libya – yet it didn’t seem to occur to the PLA leadership it would have been the ideal place to train a (respected & first) generation of (blooded, proven) soldiers, pacify the country, make Khadafy & family their puppet and harvest their oil for Europe and themselves (remaking the country for the better – as well as the economics of the EU in the meantime).
Would be a different world if it were a real three power contest (with Russia the weak third) – with two power alliances shifting in reflection of interests-of-the moment (which nearly always seek to maximize wealth as a proxy for power – which in a perverse way helps all who believe in markets). At the moment I worry that China has no choice but to align w/ Russia (even though that artificially sustains higher energy prices for them). A pity India isn’t a stronger player.
Steeple @ 31: “the strategic value of the Middle East seems to be declining for us as we reduce our consumption of Mideast oil.”
That is a negatory, good buddy. The most important words in the oil industry — ‘Global Market’.
Realistically, the price of oil everywhere is set by the balance of global demand & global supply. Even if the US were to import no oil from the Middle East, prices in the US would still be influenced by EU, Chinese, Japanese & Indian demand for Middle East oil. If those countries can’t get what they need from the Middle East, they will compete with the US for oil from Canada & Venezuela.
As Wretchard notes, there are many moving parts in this drama. In a little noted aside to the continuing crisis, China National Petroleum Corp this week withdrew from a multi-billion dollar project to develop Phase 11 of Iran’s offshore South Pars gas field. (The same field is known as the North Field on the Qatar side of the border — largest gas field in the world). Is China hard-bargaining by not-so-subtly reminding the Iranians that they are fast running out of friends? Would China like to see Iran’s room for manoeuvre cut even more by setbacks to Iran’s client Syria? Is China sponsoring the sudden outbreak of concern among western Guardianista-types for Syrian children?
The echoes of 1914 keep reverberating.
“This from the guy who wouldn’t put 5 rounds of .45 ACP into James Holmes in the movie theatre because you might hurt someone? ”
Another candidate for a remedial reading course. What I said was Popping rounds off in a re-inforced concrete box is stupid.
I have carried a handgun for decades. Before there were CCL, I had a Special Deputies License. That allowed me to carry anywhere except a bar. When the CCL was started, I had to take a safety course. It was about 15 minutes on trigger control and sight picture, 30 minutes on safety and 3.5 hours on SA and Shoot-No shoot recognition. Same training the police get. They don’t do that any more? I can’t say if I would have shot or not. I have still seen no accurate account of what happened. Lots of wild tales, no facts.
I watched a shoot out on some police chase reality show. A cop, who has more training with a hand gun then most civilians, was shooting at a man in the drivers seat of a truck. He was about 8 feet away. Emptied his magazine at him. You could see rounds hitting the side of the truck, about 6 feet away from the driver. That is not unusual.
In el Paso 3 DEA agents went in the door of an apartment where drug dealers were doing something with the drugs. One of the druggies grabbed his gun and started shooting. There were 4 drug dealers and 3 DEA agents that fired almost 100 rounds between them at ranges of less then 10 feet. The only person hit was some woman in a back room. That is an extreme example but the FBI has recorded many similar affairs.
If you are not willing to protect those needing protection, why carry? If you are afraid of getting hurt, stay home and hide under your bed.
“I’m tired of our guys dying or being maimed for life for bastages who throw their shoes at us after we liberate them. NO, no more of our guys dying to serve as a place holder for more of the Muslim Brotherhood maggots.”
That is NOT why we are fighting. We ( America) is fighting because Islam is at war with the rest of the world. They are attacking America because they see us as weak, decadent, cowardly. That is because most of our politicians ARE weak, decadent and cowardly. As long as they think we can be had, they will continue to attack.
“Within any important issue, there are always aspects no one wishes to discuss.”
-George Orwell.
This was Bush’s big mistake, the one from which the other mistakes flowed. Islam divides the world into two. Muslims and the enemy. That is what their good book says. ALL Muslims believe that. If they don’t they are not Muslims. It is as central to Islam as the resurrection is to Christians. Their good book expects them to lie about that to the enemy.
The best way to end attacks on America is to show them we are not cowards, that we won’t flinch at the first sign of violence. Show them we will fight back, anywhere, any time and they will look for someone weaker to attack. Europe comes to mind.
I believe it would be a huge mistake to get involved militarily. Syria is of no value to us – the cold war is over. Syria is not a military threat. Chemical weapons are not the threat they were 40 years ago.
The point is that the Arab world is sick and tired of strongman dictators – let them “arab spring” Syria. The Arab world wants US-type democracy and freedoms – but they don’t want the US.
Someone is arming the Kurds?
Rather than ask who, the question I have is: What took so long?
It seems like the world wanted the Kurds to stand in the middle of a s**t storm without an umbrella. Nice to see that’s changing.
This piling on to support the KSA, Qatar, Israeli attack on Syria is crazy and not in American fundamental interests.
I was wondering when you’d finally act out.
You’re so full of it, it’s almost funny.
Almost.
File under: Certainly not talking Turkey….
I’m with the “let them get on with it” crowd. I don’t have my copy of Sun Tzu handy, but I am quite sure that he said something to the effect of “when the enemy are fighting among themselves let them get on with it.”
The Syrians are busy creating good Muslims, and the blood of innocents is on their own hands – not those of anyone in the civilised world. And like all other Muslims everywhere they are the enemy. All of them.
Get out the popcorn and watch – with the proviso that if this mess spreads to the only democracy in the entire Middle East – THEN we take action. Prompt, extremely severe and direct action, up to and including the conversion of Damascus into a large cloud of highly ionised plasma. Oh, and state that as policy beforehand.
Considering what we got out of intervening in Libya–namely, a second Afghanistan (Mali)–the best thing to do is let them fight it out. The only kind of intervention that makes any sense is to make sure the respective sides have enough weapons to drag it out as long as possible.
#51 stoicheion
“That is NOT why we are fighting. We ( America) is fighting because Islam is at war with the rest of the world.”
Well, yes. The problem is that the people making actual decisions for the United States either don’t believe that or don’t care. Thus when we do intervene we accomplish nothing at all to convince muslims that making war upon us is a bad idea that can lead to devastating consequences. So the lesson Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were painfully taught is never learned.
It seems you’ve noticed this, as you criticize George Bush.
So I’d like to know: Considering who would design US intervention in Syria why in the world do think it would accomplish anything remotely resembling your stated goals?
My guess is that any US intervention is Syria would simply use American blood and treasure to hand the country over to the muslim brotherhood. We’d get to hear stories about the ethnic cleansing and murder of Christians- just like the stories I heard from a co-worker with Christian relatives in Iraq during that war- and we’d get to pay for a Syrian welfare state to save them from the fruits of their murderous incompetence.
No thank you. Let the locals handle it. Or not.
respectfully @ 33
You are not an analyst. You are a soothsayer beholden to a subjective world view that pays your salary.
Luckily for us regular folk, unsung objective individuals, quietly serving the national interest, above and beyond partisanship, still exist. This, in spite of how hard special interests attempt to manipulate/distort reality to their selfish advantage.
Well, it’s heartening to see that at least someone is impressed by the Russian (and Iranian) version of R2P.
(Though to suggest that the US has something genuinely in common with an unrepentant, paranoid former empire ever chafing at the word, “former”—except perhaps the avoidance of MAD—is a bit over the top.)
File under: Drooling realists….
51. stoicheion – Thanks for injecting a note of realism into the personal carry debate and the effect of the adrenalin of close quarter handgun combat on fine/complex motor skills. I am very familiar with an incident in which federal agents entered the motel room of a bank robbery suspect know to be armed to attempt an arrest. The first agent to enter was highly experienced in violent crime investigations, a former SWAT team member and a former state police officer. The subject (laying on the bed) shot first and the agent returned fire. The agent’s rounds (more than a dozen) made a nice spread on the wall behind the subject but no hits on him.
Could I wear a star of David or a kippah and walk down the road unmolested anywhere in Syria (I’m not Jewish, not that it should matter)? No, of course not. So as far as I am concerned they can bleed each other white. I am sick, sick, sick of even interacting with Mohammedan nations, let alone intervening in their affairs. If the entirety of Syria were unmoored from the Earth tomorrow and hurled into the Sun, who would care? If Assad falls, the Alawite oppressors are butchered and we get a Moslem Brotherhood tyranny. If he prevails, we get lots of dead Islamists and the continuation of Syria as an Iranian proxy. Either outcome is equally unpalatable, but at least at the end of it Syria is likely to be a broken and ineffectual shell. Where, realistically, can this conflict spread? If Lebanon burns, then the sensible response would be to let it. Turkey won’t let any significant bloodshed spill over its border. Israel can contain things with one hand tied behind its back. Where else to go? Over the border with Iraq? No-one lives there. There is no plausible outcome that will leave the West or Israel in any better favour in the region, so let the barbarians expend their energies on each other.
The essential problem is whether to support the bad guy or the really bad guys who are trying to depose him.
Joining one ‘side’ or the other right now is absurd: there is no longer any ‘American interest’ in the region as Bam has thrown away every conceivable advantage the previous administration had already won. The value of America’s previous military action was that it created a physical and political presence in the middle east from which those who hate radical Islam could battle Islamic terror so they wouldn’t have to do so on their own soil. Obama has killed that idea stone dead. In fact, he has actively undermined this effort, and has doomed many innocent people, including innocent Muslims, to death—for which I heartily hope he is eternally damned.
What we are looking at is the coalescing of various radical Islamic forces into a monolith that will eventually be coming after us. In one form or another, we’ll be fighting whoever comes out on top: Assad’s forces or their foes or both united. In essence, it’s all one.
Sit back and relax. Pull our guys out of the region, and let things proceed in Syria as they are going to proceed anyway. In the meantime, we can prepare ourselves for the intense struggle that awaits us.
Love Classic Republican Foreign Policy? Vote For Obama
No, everything is not hunky-dory. And, no, a short article like this one cannot provide anything close to a textured appraisal of foreign affairs in the Obama years. But I think even a long, detailed, textured article would come in the end to two questions and two fairly clear answers. First: in foreign affairs, are we better off than we were four years ago? Answer: yes. Second: on the geopolitical scene, have we experienced any grave crises or setbacks? Answer: no. And that is why Romney has so little to say.
Or, rather, it is one reason. The other is that Obama has planted himself and the Democrats exactly where Romney, by rights, ought to be: on the kind of pragmatic realism that Republicans like Dwight Eisenhower and George H.W. Bush used to own.
Lawrence J. Haas, a senior fellow with the American Foreign Policy Council and the author of the excellent new book Sound the Trumpet: The United States and Human Rights Promotion, notes that Obama has expressed admiration for the elder Bush and exhibits a similar approach. Like Bush 41, Haas says, Obama “operates as a classic realist, not a human rights promoter.” Also in the realist vein, Obama “lacks a vision as to where he would like to take the country or the world. He operates from problem to problem.”
Two diplomatic officials, one current and one former, balk at calling Obama a realist; he is not coldly manipulative or indifferent to human rights. (For example: Obama has done more to stand up for gay rights internationally than any previous world leader.) But they concur that he is outcome-oriented, a pragmatist rather than an idealist or visionary. “He’s focused on the bottom line: what are our key equities and how do we protect them,” says the serving diplomat. At the Brookings Institution, Tamara Cofman Wittes, a former Obama State Department official, says Obama believes in bending the arc of history, but also believes you can’t bend it at right angles. “He’s playing a long game and doing it pretty well.”
The kind of realism Obama practices is founded not on Machiavellian amorality but on a theory about where peace comes from. For Republican hawks and neocons, peace comes from American strength and hegemony; for Democratic doves and internationalists, peace comes from international cooperation and transnational institutions. Obama’s realism, like that of Ike and Bush 41 holds that American strength and international cooperation both have their place, but that peace comes from equilibrium between contending forces. To realists, power may not be admirable, but it must always be dealt with; and, in dealing with it, conserving and effectively deploying America’s power, a scarce and precious commodity, is Priority One, for it is the commodity upon which human rights and U.S. hegemony alike ultimately depend.
[bold added]
“Considering who would design US intervention in Syria why in the world do think it would accomplish anything remotely resembling your stated goals.”
You got me there. When fighting an enemy that spans half the globe choosing where to fight is important. Location, location, location. Iraq was good. It was the center of gravity for the more aggressive elements of Islam. For an analogy, Saddam was the biggest badest crack dealer in town. He ran a protection racket and murder for hire scheme on the side. The beat cop got tired of it and raided the joint. We kicked the door in, killed his thugs and dragged (drug?) him off in cuffs. To be hung later.
Afghanistan was senseless. First the enemy was NOT Afghanistan, it was Pakistan. None of our political leaders were clever enough to see that the Taliban might be operating in Afghanistan but they were a tool of the ISI in Pakistan. My greatest fear there was a Bataan type result. 60,000 plus US soldiers left to the not so tender mercies of the ISI.
WE so far have dodged that bullet.
Libya was a demonstration of the down side of coalition warfare. Coalition warfare is necessary when facing a strong enemy. The USA does NOT need a coalition to squash 3rd world mudholes. Leading from behind in Libya cost us money and time. A MEU and 2 carriers could have done the job in 2 weeks or so.
Even the worst POTUS will get it right every now and then. Sort of the blind Squirrel finding an acorn principal applied to geopolitics. With Carter, it was Human Rights. Human rights is the most powerful weapon for social change in the US arsenal. R2P can be just as powerful. Great states have both the right and the duty to intervene in the assaults of dictators on their citizens. That simple idea is as powerful as any idea humanity has ever conceived. So America has to decide. Are we a great nation? Will we defend the rights of ALL humans, everywhere? Will we fight evil? Fight it there? Fight it here? Fight it to the last ditch?
When Col. Travis drew his line in the sand, which side would you have chosen?
That’s 4, so I’m winchester and RTB.
Celer, Silens, Mortalis.
There’s no option here that can leave anyone feeling good. And there’s no decision OR failure to decide that will leave the deciding bystanders with clean hands. The choice is this: of all the possible interventionary or non-interventionary choices, which one’s likely outcomes will leave the most people (not the most Syrians) alive in the long term.
I’m the last person you’d call a non-interventionist, but in this one case I suspect that the least of all available evils is to let the Syrian government and rebels do the maximum possible damage to each other in conventional combat, and help ensure that the eventual winner be as weakened as practically possible. The civilian toll would be horrific … but not in my judgment as horrific as a) the civilian deaths that would flow from either an emboldened Assad regime, or b) the civilian and regional deaths that a viable Muslim Brotherhood government would cause or contribute to. If we’re very lucky, the Turks might intervene in a way that doesn’t prove decisive, but that compromises their military power and regional influence.
So God help us, I’m in favor of whatever keeps the fight going for the foreseeable future.
#58 jgets,
Forgive me for noticing. But your comment sums up to a complete and utter nullity with no meaning of any kind.
You haven’t even managed to be wrong.
Please try again.
Why on Earth would we want to break up this row? This is our chance for a replay of the Iran-Iraq War. The only problem with that war was that both sides couldn’t conclusively lose.
No, our best bet is to stay on our side of the pond and surreptitiously make cracks like, “Hey, FSA and Assad Jr., let’s you and him fight it out.” The more of these scumballs dead at each other’s hands, the better off the world is.
We have no dog in this fight. Syria has been our enemy for at least 30 years (remember Beirut? They were behind blowing up the Marines there), and the more the Assad regime gets damaged, the better off we are. If they go down, it wouldn’t be possible for their successors to hate us any more than Assad and Co. did. If Assad and Co. survive, they’ll be greatly weakened, which is also to our benefit.
Let’s hope for a long fight with a lot of dead on both sides and a lot of infrastructure damage. With the possible exception of the North Koreans, this couldn’t be happening to a more deserving group of people. Get out your popcorn and enjoy the show.
I am always reminded, in these types of discussions, of the words of Briton’s Viscount Palmerston in the British House of Commons in 1848: “We have no eternal allies and we have no perpetual enemies. Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and these interests, it is our duty to follow.”
That seems to me to be imminently good advice for a country when contemplating becoming involved in world affairs. It is perhaps especially on point when contemplating involvement in the Middle East. What exactly is the problem as it relates to the United States; what is the most efficacious way of solving that problem; whose interests both align with ours and can be useful in helping us with a solution. If cool, objective analysis is not used we can be drawn in, tar-baby like, to a mess we can’t easily extract ourselves from. It is the tar-baby approach that leading from behind gets us to and that we have used thus far in this administration. We still don’t know how that will play out but it doesn’t seem to be heading in a good direction.
I’ll close with another quote. Edmund Burke cautioned that “A conscientious man is careful how he deals in blood.” We’d be wise to heed that as well
Excuse me. That should read “emminently” good advice not “imminently”
Weirdness on the Belmont Site, I posted a comment after #60 and several minutes before the current #61 showed up and it never appeared, I tried reposting the comment again and I get the WordPress Error “Looks like a duplicate….” I go away for an hour and come back still no comment and we are up to #70, tried to repost the comment again and I get the same “Dup” comment error… What’s up with that?
“In his house at Riyadh, dead Cthulhu waits dreaming”
fhtagn for now….
If I’ve exceeded my post limit I apologise.
To reinforce the wisdom of letting them get on with it, I have just read the excellent site Gates of Vienna. Apparently, British Moslems are travelling to Syria to (as they themselves put it) “join the Jihad” against Assad.
So it’s not just Syrian troublemakers getting themselves shot – it’s the fanatical element of European Islam as well. Not to anything like enough of an extent, admittedly.
#65 Stoicheion,
We went after the Iraqi regime of S. Hussein not only because of the numerous violations of the Gulf War UN resolutions but also because logical extrapolation of future behavior of the guy in charge included nuclear weapons donated to terrorists and used to destroy American cities. Hey, that ain’t good.
But as far as I could tell Saddam was basically a secular murderer, paying attention to radical Islamists only as much as required to avoid his own death.
That doesn’t matter now, of course. Re Afghanistan- we’re involved there because the people in charge of what passes for a government in that sorry sliver of planet Earth provided a safe haven for the terrorists who infamously attacked us. When that event occurred Pakistan was generally thought to be an ally of the united States. Oopsie.
Libya? Why would we bother with Libya? Khadafy Duck hadn’t bothered us in a long time. He’d learned his lesson- and our choice to go after him without good reason has given rise to much conspiracy talk, some of which I’ve read. Bottom line: We had no reason to attack Libya this century. None.
Carter? Are you kidding? His idiocy led to the death of millions in our former ally of Iran, including a vast swarm by simple murder as the Khomeini regime killed any deemed friendly to the the US.
If ever we should have used this “R2P” blather to intervene it should have been then. Yet- nope. We stood by as millions died- just like when South Vietnam was overrun.
Hey- I see a pattern. If people friendly to the United States are being killed, no worries. If saintly and worthy anti-American islamist muslims are ending up in ditches, OMG no we must intervene lest sacred human rights be violated.
Sorry, I ain’t buying that shtick. And I ain’t buying your shtick, either.
Come to think of it- “R2P can be just as powerful”?
Moby? Is that you?
#71 CharlesWhite,
The exact same thing just happened to me.
I am officially annoyed.
Of course no one else has any reason to care. But as this is the second time that’s happened I’d like to know if I’ve violated some policy without knowing it.
#65 Stoicheion,
We went after the Iraqi regime of S. Hussein not only because of the numerous violations of the Gulf War UN resolutions but also because logical extrapolation of future behavior of the guy in charge included nuclear weapons donated to terrorists and used to destroy American cities. Hey, that ain’t good.
But as far as I could tell Saddam was basically a secular murderer, paying attention to radical islamists only as much as required to avoid his own death.
tbd…
continued…
That doesn’t matter now, of course. Re Afghanistan- we’re involved there because the people in charge of what passes for a government in that sorry sliver of planet Earth provided a safe haven for the terrorists who infamously attacked us. When that event occurred Pakistan was generally thought to be an ally of the united States. Oopsie.
Libya? Why would we bother with Libya? Khadaffy Duck hadn’t bothered us in a long time. He’d learned his lesson- and our choice to go after him without good reason has given rise to much conspiracy talk, some of which I’ve read. Bottom line: We had no reason to attack Libya this century. None.
Carter? Are you kidding? His idiocy led to the death of millions in our former ally of Iran, including a vast swarm by simple murder as the Khomeini regime killed any deemed friendly to the the US.
If ever we should have used this “R2P” blather to intervene it should have been then. Yet- nope. We stood by as millions died- just like when South Vietnam was overrun.
Hey- I see a pattern. If people friendly to the United States are being killed, no worries. If saintly and worthy anti-American islamist muslims are ending up in ditches, OMG no we must intervene lest sacred human rights be violated.
Sorry, I ain’t buying that shtick. And I ain’t buying your shtick, either.
Come to think of it- “R2P can be just as powerful”?
Moby? Is that you?
#75 was me.
Odd. Most of my comment didn’t get through, for some reason.
Meh. Whatever.
Xennady (#74) I don’t know of any “rules” my post might have transgressed but the “error” message would indicate “No”… I think it’s a Site worm hole effect, possible to an alternate universe where my post and yours now reside… This has happened before, seemingly only at the Belmont Club, the Site Worm Hole seems to have an infrequent appearances and no known rhyme or reason… Sorry to hear it effects you too but at least I know I am not singled out…
When Cthulhu calls, he calls collect.
There is no easy way to just observe things based on a sectarian view, but when you add in the stronger, long-term ethnic views, you get an idea of what arming the Kurds means: they are the one ethnic group that has actual respect throughout the region and are the ones who will be a major portion of the Turkish population in 50 years. As Mark Steyn points out, demographics is destiny. Giving Kurds the capability to get their ethnic groups in Turkey, Syria and Iran united with their Iraqi brethren is something that is sobering to ethnic Turks and Arabs. Kurdistan was promised post-WWI and the Kurds have not forgotten that.
What happens if a couple of Syrian provinces on the east decide to effectively go autonomous to unite with the Kurdish regions in Iraq? That is a scary, scary proposition to much of the region, and yet offers possibilities as they are not allies of the radical sectarians sponsoring terrorist organizations: they have been the targets of al Qaeda and Iranian based organizations, as well as Turkey. If the Alawites in Syria must concentrate on the west, then their attention won’t be on the east. The Kurds know this and anyone looking at the situation will realize this is the case. Heavy weapons to the Kurds? If Assad can consolidate in the west and Damascus then the eastern part of Syria may prove to be a well armed and vexing problem. If one had to broker a political deal, the time to do it is when Assad has to re-organize, re-group, consolidate and concentrate his forces… not disperse them.
There are many players in Syria, many venues and options being looked at by many factions. Cthulhu has placed the call, yes, and a few people have decided to answer it already… and pay the butchers bill. The US needs to wisely decide if this needs intervention and just who it is we want to see ‘win’ or what ‘victory’ even looks like to the US, not necessarily to anyone else. Peace will only happen in the road through Damascus, with M1 tanks on the move. Syria has played the ‘weak sister’ card and now the weak factions are calling that card out on the table to see if Syria is really a necessary ‘weak sister’ Nation. The map of the ME may look very different in a decade and Syria might not even be there any more. Lines on a map are not written in ink, but in blood. Ask Cthulhu about that.
Like I tried to post hours ago…. There ain’t gonna be no “direct intervention” by anyone until Russia say’s so, unless Syria (Assad) does something really stooopid, like shoot down another Turkey…plane
I expect Russian marines to start the evac of WMD (both the Syrian and Saddam’s old stuff), then I give a 50/50 chance the Ruskie’s help quell the rebels, if not and the rebels really start to close the noose then Assad leaves to join the wife in Moscow on the last Russian ship as it leaves port. Valerie Jarrett see’s no upside to doing anything in Syria currently, She doesn’t move unless she’s forced to make her Muppet dance…
Ajacconian #78:
In my opinion, probably the best thing that could occur for the US in that region would be for the Kurds to form their own nation from parts of Syria, Turkey, Iraq, and Iran. I do not think they have “actual respect” in the region, but the Kurds are the one group who for decades now have had no illusions about where their bread and butter comes from: US. I could even visualize a Israeli – Kurd alliance developing, “the enemy of my enemy” being my friend kind of a thing.
Of course, this would really thoroughly piss off Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Lesser Syria, Russia, China, and probably Saudi Arabia, France, Switzerland, Luxenborg, and the lady who runs the cash register at the Picadilly Cafeteria as well. That would be both a Bug and a Feature, on alternate Wednesdays. The State Dept would never think about doing such a thing, would probably would amount to one of the better reasons to do it.
Problem is, as I recall reading in the Wash Times quite some time ago, the Kurds, like everybody else in that neighborhood, have the proven ability to cross thread a bowling ball. I think the operative phrase is “They never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity.” But they are likely to kill more Al Queda than anyone else, too.
On a good day our choices there amount to either the Marx Brothers or the 3 Stooges. The Kurds are Abbot and Costello; maybe they deserve a chance on the stage
“The Post is basically arguing that unless America leads from the front, Syria — including possibly Kurdistan, Iraq, Lebanon, and possibly a wider area — will be remolded along the lines preferred by Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Turkey. It further argues that in order to undercut the attraction of Saudi-bought heavy weapons, the United States must sweep the Syrian air force from the skies through a no-fly zone and put airpower over the battlefield. This would reduce Syrian heavy weaponry to impotence, make the Saudi military aid unnecessary, and make America the dominant military influence over the country.”
In your dreams. We spent a trillion dollars and thousands of lives in Iraq, and how much “influence” does that buy us today? Iraq is poised to fall apart and we’re not lifting a finger to stop it. No, there is no reason to get involved in ANY Middle Eastern country, none at all. Our only ally in the region is Israel and it shall remain so because it’s the only ally worth having in that part of the world.
As for the rest, they all hate us, resent us, and see us as nothing but infidels that want to occupy their miserable dirt holes. I say let them slaughter each other like they’ve been doing for centuries. Tell them that through air or naval strikes we will take out terrorist threats, but for the rest of those pathetic excuses of countries they can simply go do what they do best, and that’s continue to live in the 12th century.
I would continue making firm commitments to the defense of Israel because they are the only functioning democracy in that area, along with the only country capable of defending itself. But I don’t think we should get involved with any other nation there. Libya was Obama’s last example of “leading from behind,” and how’s that worked out? Militia groups are still killing each other for control of the oil wealth while God only knows how many al Qaeda terrorists have set up shop in that country. Leave them alone and let them fight it out. They don’t need us to do that.
How sad, how very very sad it would be if those Russkis had a little accident with the WMDs while doing the evac. Oh noes!
Kurdistan could be our prime opportunity to create a footprint in the ME, carved out of states who deserve it wholly, of a new nation that owes its creation and continued existence entirely to us, knows it, and is grateful. Well a second, if you believe Israel is the first; but K’stan would be larger, interestingly located, and an oil power, plus having the deep end (viz., Saladin) of the local gene pool. Get Iran back onside someday, and the Middle East might be made into something you didn’t just wish would kill itself. Well I can dream.
OK it’s official now, Victor is a Turkish Christian in the pay of Russia? Or are we still fiddling for details?
Also, somebody wants to make a deal with Russia. For what? What would we want them to do? What price? Both answers are wrong.
61. David Gillies
If Assad falls, the Alawite oppressors are butchered and we get a Moslem Brotherhood tyranny.
Ahh, but with the addition of another Muslim Brotherhood state, Obamma will be forced to bring in oodles more MBs to staqff his governmental positions.
Maggie thinks that’s a bad idea…I do too:
http://www.maggiesnotebook.com/2011/08/muslim-brotherhood-in-the-white-house-obama-appointees-grow-and-prosper-in-americas-political-correctness/
Don’t miss Tarek Fatah, a moderate Muslim advocate and Liberal Democrat Marxist give his concerns at the end.
And he’s a Marxist. It takes a Marxist to tell the truth about the MB facists? Dude, the world is truly upside down.
Interesting story I heard on the radio about how this all works. The “rebels” are for the most part small individual groups who are competing for money and weapons. So if you want to start out the “holy warrior cheeseburger brigade” you need to do something spectacular, like blow up a tank, and capture it on video. They all have propoganda people. The You Tube goes to your guys outside the country who show it to the money people and on down the line.
They are competing for sponsors like in the Hunger Games. Maybe we could hire Al-Queda by offering an extra bonus for every heavy weapon or missile they destroy.
Turkey is always interesting. They have been dodgy about the F-4 from the start. There are indications that they may be backing away from the claim that it was shot down and may have crashed in an “accident”. Odd because Syria said they did shoot it down thinking it was Israeli although you could not mistake an F4 for an Israeli jet. Maybe they just shot at it, who knows but nobody is telling the truth here.
About Cthulhu: from wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cthulhu
Cthulhu is a fictional cosmic entity who first appeared in the short story “The Call of Cthulhu”, published in the pulp magazine Weird Tales in 1928. The character was created by writer H. P. Lovecraft.
Contents
Publication history
H. P. Lovecraft’s initial short story, “The Call of Cthulhu”, was published in Weird Tales in 1928 and established the character as a malevolent entity trapped in an underwater city in the South Pacific called R’lyeh. Described as resembling “…an octopus, a dragon, and a human caricature…. A pulpy, tentacled head surmounted a grotesque scaly body with rudimentary wings”,[2] the imprisoned Cthulhu is apparently the source of constant anxiety for mankind at a subconscious level, and also the subject of worship by a number of religions (located in New Zealand, Greenland, Louisiana, and the Chinese mountains) and other Lovecraftian monsters (called Deep Ones[3] and Mi-Go[4]). The short story asserts the premise that, while currently trapped, Cthulhu will eventually return. His worshipers chant “Ph’nglui mglw’nafh Cthulhu R’lyeh wgah’nagl fhtagn” (“In his house at R’lyeh, dead Cthulhu waits dreaming.”)[2]
Lovecraft conceived a detailed genealogy for Cthulhu (published as “Letter 617″ in Selected Letters)[5] and made the character a central figure in corresponding literature.[6] The short story The Dunwich Horror (1928)[7] references Cthulhu, while The Whisperer in Darkness (1930) hints at one of his character’s knowing the creatures origins (“I learned whence Cthulhu first came, and why half the great temporary stars of history had flared forth.”).[4] The 1931 novella At the Mountains of Madness refers to the “star-spawn of Cthulhu”, who warred with another race called the Elder Things before the dawn of man.[8]
August Derleth, a correspondent of Lovecraft, used the creature’s name to identify the system of lore employed by Lovecraft and his literary successors: the Cthulhu Mythos. In 1937, Derleth wrote the short story “The Return of Hastur”, and proposed two groups of opposed cosmic entities:
…the Old or Ancient Ones, the Elder Gods, of cosmic good, and those of cosmic evil, bearing many names, and themselves of different groups, as if associated with the elements and yet transcending them: for there are the Water Beings, hidden in the depths; those of Air that are the primal lurkers beyond time; those of Earth, horrible animate survivors of distant eons.[9]
According to Derleth’s scheme, “Great Cthulhu is one of the Water Beings” and was engaged in an age-old arch-rivalry with a designated Air elemental, Hastur the Unspeakable, described as Cthulhu’s “half-brother”.[10] Based on this framework, Derleth wrote a series of short stories published in Weird Tales 1944–1952 and collected as The Trail of Cthulhu, depicting the struggle of a Dr. Laban Shrewsbury and his associates against Cthulhu and his minions.
Derleth’s interpretations have been criticised by Lovecraft enthusiast Michel Houellebecq. Houellebecq’s H P Lovecraft: Against the World, Against Life (2005) decries Derleth for attempting to reshape Lovecraft’s strictly amoral continuity into a stereotypical conflict between forces of objective good and evil.[11]
The character’s influence also extended into recreational literature: games company TSR included an entire chapter on the Cthulhu mythos (including statistics for the character) in the first printing of Dungeons & Dragons sourcebook Deities & Demigods (1980). TSR, however, were unaware that Arkham House—copyright holder on almost all Lovecraft literature—had already licensed the Cthulhu property to the game company Chaosium. Although Chaosium stipulated that TSR could continue to use the material if each future edition featured a published credit to Chaosium, TSR refused and the material was removed from all subsequent editions.[12]
US interests are definitely that syrian wmd’s not fall into the hands of terrorists of one stripe or another.
The USA (both democrat and republican) did/do not officially favor a separate Kurdish state in Iraq. Likely the USA will not officially favor a separate Kurdish state in Syria.
A separate Kurdish state would be a finger in the eye of Turkey. Don’t count on it.
The problem with US involvement in the region AFAIK is that we are in a simmering civil war here at home with “real” people dieing “real” violent deaths by proxy to what would otherwise be domestic blood shed. Democrats pulled funding on Viet Nam to attack Republicans and interfered with Iraq to the point that massive civilian casualties are all but certain. What is this mess in Afghanistan all about if not just to flip the finger once again to GWB, Republicans, and putatively half of the American people? All the more reason why the Obamaites could seek some grand alliance. But I don’t think it impossible that the administration commit the US to a war in the region then say if it were the Republicans it would be even worse!
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-07/uot-aue073012.php
Archeologists unearth extraordinary human sculpture in [southeastern] Turkey (click on the link to see a picture of the statue)
A beautiful and colossal human sculpture is one of the latest cultural treasures unearthed by an international team at the Tayinat Archaeological Project (TAP) excavation site in southeastern Turkey. A large semi-circular column base, ornately decorated on one side, was also discovered. Both pieces are from a monumental gate complex that provided access to the upper citadel of Kunulua, capital of the Neo-Hittite Kingdom of Patina (ca. 1000-738 BC).
“These newly discovered Tayinat sculptures are the product of a vibrant local Neo-Hittite sculptural tradition,” said Professor Tim Harrison, the Tayinat Project director and professor of Near Eastern Archaeology in the University of Toronto’s Department of Near and Middle Eastern Civilizations. “They provide a vivid glimpse into the innovative character and sophistication of the Iron Age cultures that emerged in the eastern Mediterranean following the collapse of the great imperial powers of the Bronze Age at the end of the second millennium BC.”
The presence of colossal human statues, often astride lions or sphinxes, in the citadel gateways of the Neo-Hittite royal cities of Iron Age Syro-Anatolia continued a Bronze Age Hittite tradition that accentuated their symbolic role as boundary zones, and the role of the king as the divinely appointed guardian or gate keeper of the community. By the ninth and eighth centuries BC, these elaborately decorated gateways, with their ornately carved reliefs, had come to serve as dynastic parades, legitimizing the power of the ruling elite. The gate reliefs also formed linear narratives, guiding their audiences between the human and divine realms, with the king serving as the link between the two worlds.
The head and torso of the human figure, intact to just above its waist, stands approximately 1.5 metres in height, suggesting a total body length of 3.5 to four metres. The figure’s face is bearded, with beautifully preserved inlaid eyes made of white and black stone, and its hair has been coiffed in an elaborate series of curls aligned in linear rows. Both arms are extended forward from the elbow, each with two arm bracelets decorated with lion heads. The figure’s right hand holds a spear, and in its left is a shaft of wheat. A crescent-shaped pectoral adorns its chest. A lengthy Hieroglyphic Luwian inscription, carved in raised relief across its back, records the campaigns and accomplishments of Suppiluliuma, likely the same Patinean king who faced a Neo-Assyrian onslaught of Shalmaneser III as part of a Syrian-Hittite coalition in 858 BC.
The Tayinat gate complex appears to have been destroyed following the Assyrian conquest of the region in 738 BC, when the area was paved over and converted into the central courtyard of an Assyrian sacred precinct. These smashed and deposited monumental sculptures also include a magnificently carved lion that was discovered last year and Hieroglyphic Luwian-inscribed stelae (stone slabs or pillars used for commemoratives purposes). Together these finds hint of an earlier Neo-Hittite complex that might have once faced the gateway approach.
Scholars have long speculated that the reference to Calno, identified as one of the “kingdoms of the idols” in Isaiah’s oracle against Assyria (Isaiah 10:9-10), alludes to the Assyrian devastation of Kunulua (i.e., Tayinat). The destruction of the Luwian monuments and conversion of the area into an Assyrian religious complex may represent the physical manifestation of this historic event, subsequently memorialized in Isaiah’s oracle.
Late to the party. To answer our host’s question of when did this get all begin, the real problem, IMHO, was definitely Carter’s betrayal of the Shah. Iran was becoming, and would now be, the modern, civilized example for all other ME states had we defended the Shah as we had always said we would. Carter was a coward.
Imagine a different outcome if we had gone fully into Iran to back the Shah. Iraq would probably not have grown into a threat, certainly not to Iran with us in their backfield. Would Syrian-led terrorists been emboldened enough to bomb the barracks in Beirut? I doubt it. Would the Palestinians be as aggressive with Isreal, knowing the US was just down the street? Possibly not.
A lot of possiblies, I know. One thing I am certain of, if any and all aggressive acts had been answered by much more violent, aggressive acts on our part, the Muslims would still hate us, but they would also fear us. That works for me.
IMO, the reason we have had so many foreign relations disasters is we do not have a united vision forward in our own union. Progress made by one administration is undone, or undermined by the opposition to score political points. It also paralyzes us into inaction sometimes; case in point, the whole kerfluffle over Iraq’s WMD’s. The left insisted Saddam had none, (in spite of his actual, factual usage of them on his own people), and now we are worried that Syria’s WMD’s might fall into the wrong hands- uh, where did they get so much chemical weapons material? That is no longer important. Look! A squirrel!
What on earth qualifies this woman Valerie Jarrett to have anything at all to say about military strategy and tactics against our Islamic enemy, the Muslims?
Did that aide-woman really influence the Chameleon in Chief to veto the Osama Mission? Three times? He, who after it’s all over then crowed rooster-like that it was all his doing? Sickening.
Good grief, what a mess we have inside our White House…..not including our Saudi financed Muslim madrassas and mosques embedded also in our midst here at home, and influencing the next generation of impressionable adolescent underpants-bomb wearing young men.
Moreover…..the Turks, the Saudis, the Qataris, and the whole lot of potential Muslim faux “allies” nearby are actually trustworthy? Who says so, after all of the evidence to the contrary? They’re each and all using us Americans for whatever quantities of cash they can squeeze from us, bakshhees-like. They, as Muslims, have repeatedly declared war on America…hello!…is anybody home?
We Americans seem to on our way to hell in this ad hoc hand-basket called an Obama “administration”.
It’s useless for us Americans to think we can effect any lasting positive changes in Asian Islam; that we can effect changes favorable to the United States in any of these hidebound Muslim lands and at an affordable cost considering our domestic problems.
At 51. stoicheion says, “Show them we will fight back, anywhere, any time and they will look for someone weaker to attack.”
I hope I’m not the one stopping you.
k 50, got the global market thing. But when the $ all stays home, that changes the calculus than when it ends up in Saudi.
I tend to lean towards Stoicheion’s POV. I think America is a great and exceptional country and we can’t just sit back and watch the slaughter of many innocents. Still, I wouldn’t want us to sacrifice our boys, again.The moral power of the United States has always been a beacon to others. So, yes, let’s send them boots in boxes and various and sundry artifacts of war to help “them” in destroying T72 tanks and similar heavy weaponry that Assad is using. A few sorties of wart hogs and air cover from the F15s might also come in handy. I am not overlooking the problem of logistics, who exactly would be armed or worry about who would win. These are just general impressions. But I certainly recognize that it would be difficult to try to decide whom to support amongst the different factions opposing Assad.
But I am even more inclined to do something about Syria because of what Assad did in allowing Sunni jihadis to cross the border into Iraq to kill our people during the Iraq war. I would love to see some payback. I don’t care if that sounds jingoistic or “knuckledraggerish”. However, I see the goal of throwing a wrench in the machinery of Iran’s foreign policy as more important. Iran has used Syria for years now to supply Hezbollah with weapons, including tens of thousands of missiles with which to threaten Israel and destabilize Lebanon. Syria also enables Iran to threaten the Kurds from a different direction. And using Syria as a platform, Iran could more easily threaten Europe.
I am intrigued with the idea of arming the Kurds and enabling them to carve a piece out of Syria. Turkey can have the rest and hopefully crowd the Russians and Chinese into the Med.
Re: #63,
“I think even a long, detailed, textured article would come in the end to two questions and two fairly clear answers. First: in foreign affairs, are we better off than we were four years ago? Answer: yes. Second: on the geopolitical scene, have we experienced any grave crises or setbacks? Answer: no“
Abandoning Iraq to Iran. Abandoning Afghanistan to a resurgent Taliban. Iran to go nuclear shortly, which will set off a new nuclear arms race within the region, leading to more unstable third-world nations gaining nukes. Facilitating the takeover of entire nations by Al Qaeda’s spiritual godfather, the Muslim Brotherhood.
Cooperating in the further demonizing of Israel. Insulting our allies, while bowing to covertly hostile foreign leaders. Appeasing thugs like Putin who has just announced negotiations to set up Russian naval bases in Cuba. China increasingly projecting naval power into the South China Sea and covertly threatening Japan and the Philippines. China looking to militarize space.
No, we’re most definitely not better off than we were 4 yrs ago and greater crises are looming on the horizon. Whether the willful obtuseness of a fool or the intentional intellectual dishonesty of a rogue, take your pick.
97. Tuduri : “So, yes, let’s send them boots in boxes and various and sundry artifacts of war to help “them” in destroying T72 tanks and similar heavy weaponry ”
How about GI socks, C-4, axle grease and an Army field manual on the tactical use of the ‘Sticky Bomb?’ It worked for Tom Hanks.
I don’t believe in killing civilians but civilians will always die in combat as collateral damage. While sad, it is a reminder that decisions have consequences. I am not interested in Americans dying for foreign civilians when their governments are beliigerant to the US. F ‘em.
I think the phrase “lead from the front” is used incorrectly. America IS leading from the front. We have the democracy and the freedoms the Arab world desires. America is NOT dependent on the Arab world because America is way out in front.
Islam was conquered by the west – the Arabian peninsula doesn’t need to be reminded of that. They are tired of Theocracies, Military rule and Strongman dictatorships. Arab spring is happening precisely because the people of the Arabian peninsula are tired of being have-nots. Part of GWB’s success in that area was in showing them a taste of democracy.
Wretchard @38
re the Vogue article you mention, and the author’s “apology” published on the Daily Beast, see this item on the NYT’s media blog:
“Defense of Ridiculed Vogue Profile of Assad Leads to More Ridicule”
http://goo.gl/9wu3E
Not even the NYT is buying this woman’s “explanation”
To paraphrase Bismarck, “The Middle East is not worth the bones of a single American E-3″.
I am sorry that innocents are being killed in Syria, but I do not see that as the problem of the USA, especially since we will be blamed no matter what.
My solution to the Middle East is to nuke all the oil. Then no one will give a tinker’s damn what happens there.
Islam is a curse upon itself and on the world. The sooner it has its Reformation, the fewer people will die.
jwarrior – Islam has already had its Reformation. The result is Wahabism.
The more I think about Islam and its 1388-year war against Civilisation, the more I think that the only end of this conflict will be in thunder and hellfire.
And as far as I’m concerned, the number of enemy casualties is a non-issue.
Why are we on the side of the Muslim Brotherhood and AlQ in Syria? Oh that’s right, our King is Insane-Hussein.
Our experience in Lebanon led to the adoption by the administration of a set of principles to guide America in the application of military force abroad, and I would recommend it to future Presidents. The policy we adopted included these principles:
1. The United States should not commit its forces to military action overseas unless the cause is vital to our national interest.
2. If the decision is made to commit our forces to combat abroad, it must be done with the clear intent and support needed to win. It should not be a halfway or tentative commitment, and there must be clearly defined and realistic objectives.
3. Before we commit our troops to combat, there must be reasonable assurance that the cause we are fighting for and the actions we take will have the support of the American people and Congress.
4. Even after all these other tests are met, our troops should be committed to combat abroad only as a last resort, when no other choice is available.
Absolutely: I, too, believe America is a great and exceptional country that should stand tall in the battle for human freedom—but sometimes situations arise in which there is just no winning.
This is such a one.
You have to know when to fight and when not to.
#90 Annoy Mouse: “A separate Kurdish state would be a finger in the eye of Turkey. Don’t count on it.”
Given Erdogan’s creeping Islamization of Turkey, his rolling attempt to snowball potential opposition from the secular Turkish military, increasing belligerence toward Israel, and his support of “peace ships” shipping arms into Gaza, support of a breakaway Kurdish state might be a great attention getting step. Don’t count it out. Cheers -
Have the Taliban been defeated n Afghanistan?
From August 2011:
Eighteen months ago, Lashkar Gah was a Taliban stronghold, until coalition and Afghan forces went in before the northern winter and cleared them out.
“We demonstrated to the people that we could hold it against the Taliban,” General Krause said.
“It has now transitioned to Afghan control so the governance is out there, the security is out there and the people are growing wheat instead of poppy and the kids are going to school. In the heart of what was Taliban territory we can free the people.”
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/defence/taliban-will-be-defeated-insist-australian-generals/story-e6frg8yo-1226123229502
From July 2012:
In the year since British troops formally handed responsibility for security in Lashkar Gah to Afghan forces, the positive changes in the district are obvious, according to a former Stabilisation Advisor for the area.
…
“Most striking about Lashkar Gah’s entry into Transition was the great swell of Pashtun pride that accompanied it, taking some of us by surprise,” she said. “There was a sense among Afghan authorities that not only were they ready to take the step, but that it was the right and, in their view, honourable thing to do.
…
“Challenges remain, yet significantly the ownership of those challenges is becoming increasingly Afghan.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/news/2012/07/mil-120725-ukmod01.htm
1. Who, or what, is Cthulhu?
2. Why don’t we just nuke every place in the “Fertile Crescent” and let Allahb sort the dead?
#9 Wrechard “Sometimes I think the only way out is the blast off to Mars and get away from it all. But come to think of it, Mars isn’t far enough.”
That’s right. It is not far enough for them not be able to reach you.
There is another option, and it is going ROMAN ON THEM ALL. Although it is not executable for now, it will move to the head of a queue fast after France and/or GB will experience Syrian type of activities.
#99 Speak Easy
You couldn’t tell that “sending them boots in boxes” was tongue in cheek and a metaphor? It means I don’t want our boys dying there either, just like you. No need to attack someone who may actually agree with you. And even if we did disagree, we could exchange our differences in a more agreeable manner.
One other thought, let’s hope that Iran loses ‘easier’ access to the med via Syria, though they’d still have the Suez….