The Syrian Crisis

[PAB]

As everyone knows America is renown for its global humanitarian interventions Imperial interventions.

Syria is the latest. Although under the transparent excuse of humanitarianism (if only) America intends to bomb the Assad forces only "narrowly" and "limited".
As if to cut of the right hand of an abusive father and to kill half of his children - as collateral damage - in order to teach him and future abusive fathers a Humanitarian lesson.
Obama previously had stated chemical weapon usage would be a red line, chemical weapons have been used (by whom it us unknown), therefore military action is apparently warranted.

Many commentators have focused on the fact that the use of chemical weapons in Syria hasn't broken international law technically and that US engagement without UN backing would be technically illegal.
This is not i believe the major point, although the hypocrisy that is highlighted regards reports that the US gave the green light to Saddam Hussein to use chemical weapons is revealing.The real question is what's in it for America (it always been about whats in it for America where ever it goes- from Mexico to Iraq).

Oddly America is not proposing defeating the Assad regime itself, or properly intervening in the civil war. Just to level the playing field, as in recent months the Assad forces have strengthened their position, and analysts have suggested that
the Opposition being The Free Syrian Army cannot, as it stands, likely make a comeback.

The USA is of course not simply the big bad guys in all of this, its nothing to do with pro American and anti-American but conflicting interests between countries and spheres of influence. Russia has imperial interests too. Its appear to be more obvious

Russia is one of Syria's biggest arms suppliers.

Syrian contracts with the Russian defense industry have likely exceeded $4 billion, according to Jeffrey Mankoff, an adjunct fellow with the Center for Strategic and International Studies Russia and Eurasia Program.

He noted the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute estimated the value of Russian arms sales to Syria at $162 million per year in both 2009 and 2010.

Moscow also signed a $550 million deal with Syria for combat training jets.

Russia also leases a naval facility at the Syrian port of Tartus, giving the Russian navy its only direct access to the Mediterranean, Mankoff said.

b) Ideology: Russia's key policy goal is blocking American efforts to shape the region.

Russia doesn't believe revolutions, wars and regime change bring stability and democracy. It often points to the Arab Spring and the U.S.-led war in Iraq as evidence.

Russia also doesn't trust U.S. intentions in the region. It believes humanitarian concerns are often used an excuse for pursuing America's own political and economic interests.

"Russia's backing of (Syrian President Bashar) al-Assad is not only driven by the need to preserve its naval presence in the Mediterranean, secure its energy contracts, or counter the West on 'regime change,'" said Anna Neistat, an associate program director at Human Rights Watch.

"It also stems from (Russian President Vladimir) Putin's existential fear for his own survival and the survival of the repressive system that he and al-Assad represent. In Putin's universe, al-Assad cannot lose because it means that one day he, Putin, might as well."

The question becomes what are Americas interests in Syria to the point they risk upsetting the American populous and the international community ?

Syria under Assad has not been the best of friends with America, its been quite happy to form alliances with Iran who America has been gearing towards war, and Syria is an important player in the middle east regards Israel and the Palestine conflict.

The Syrian Crises is going to prove difficult for America, although it has presented an opportunity. It cannot leave Assad in Power, but it cannot allow Fundamentalist who have the most powerful armies within the Free Syrian Army (FSA) to take over political power.

But whilst America pretends to police a civil war, thousands are dying, approx. 2000 a month (and this is without the chemical warfare using the "permitted" weaponry).

The only solution is going to be political, even with Assad out of the way The FSA is composed of many conflicting political tendencies not to mention religious sectarianism- (with barbaric acts committed by members of the FSA such as beheadings and even heart eating). Recent events in Egypt have demonstrated the problems of irreconcilable political opposition. The revolutionary movement that led to the Civil war in Syria has not disappeared, any beginning positive steps for Syria is for its return and a political leadership to be formed. Otherwise the Military will, Al-Qaeda will , America will or Assad will continue his reign of terror.


Regarding American Interests, again, this should of course be studied not merely assumed no matter how implausible the American Administrations concern about Chemical weapons and Civilian casualties and its new found Humanitarianism. The linked document is an interesting read (although admittedly I've only skimmed through) although with faults.

Knowing now that the motive for invading Iraq was strategic (to use Iraq as a permanent military operation base), taking over Syria would give the United States strategic depth in the region, allowing for the creation of a Sunni-dominated state to counterbalance the Shia in Iraq and Iran, in turn tipping the balance of power even further in favor of the United States’ regional allies Israel and Turkey.

A regime change in Syria would serve the United States in at least three specific ways:

1. First, the new regime would likely be dominated by the country’s Sunni majority. Given
the Sunnis’ deep seated rivalry with the Shia, such a regime would benefit the United
States by enabling it to gain leverage in regional politics, particularly vis-à-vis Iran and
Iraq.

2. Second, a pro-U.S. regime in Syria would tip the region’s balance of power toward Israel .
Accordingly the United States and Israel would be in position to dictate a peace
settlement to the Syrians over the Golan Heights.

3. Third, with the establishment of a pro-U.S. regime, the United States will have completed
its final stage of encircling Iran. This would further tip the region’s balance of power in
favor of Israel , and ultimately would open new doors for the United States to be actively
involved in toppling the Iranian regime.

 

[Inferno]

Two things:
As to the very last point mentioned in the last paragraph, I think that to be pure baloney. Syria is roughly 300-400km away from Iran's border, so "encirclement" sounds weird. That paragraph simply makes no sense.

Second, it also sounds to me as if the U.S. is NOT doing this out of humanitarian efforts. Balancing the playing field will, quite contrary to the intent, cause further thousands of deaths, simply by prolonging the war. Let the rebels die and be done with it, don't drag it out.

 

[PAB]

Two things:
As to the very last point mentioned in the last paragraph, I think that to be pure baloney. Syria is roughly 300-400km away from Iran's border, so "encirclement" sounds weird. That paragraph simply makes no sense.

Second, it also sounds to me as if the U.S. is NOT doing this out of humanitarian efforts. Balancing the playing field will, quite contrary to the intent, cause further thousands of deaths, simply by prolonging the war. Let the rebels die and be done with it, don't drag it out.

I agree that the term of "encirclement" is a bit weird. I think the author means it more politically more than militarily but still..for Iran syria is to its east, to its north east is Turkey, west Afghanistan, and south saudi arabia. The point which is less literally geographical is that by establishing a pro (friendly) US Syria there is more influence and pressure in relation to the fact that it can unite with other pro-US middle eastern countries regards issues such as Iran or Israel-Palestine.

I wouldn't be against humanitarian efforts if they were being proposed, a major one being support to the displaced peoples from Syria even actively accepting refugees from syria to france, Britain and US as well as neighboring Arab countries would be a modest start.
But i wouldn't like to simply see the Assad regime return to power, the backlash will be terrible. The revolutionary movement has to re-organise and to organise a political force to replace Assad and prevent any political power passing to reactionaries such as Al Qaeda pledged fundamentalists.

 

[Inferno]

for Iran syria is to its east west, to its north east west is Turkey, west east Afghanistan, and south saudi arabia.

The point which is less literally geographical is that by establishing a pro (friendly) US Syria there is more influence and pressure in relation to the fact that it can unite with other pro-US middle eastern countries regards issues such as Iran or Israel-Palestine.

Absolutely, I agree with that point. I think the US has great hopes of establishing a pro-US government in the region, especially in Syria. However, just like with Iraq, the US will leave eventually, so I doubt there'll be some great military base there.

 

[PAB]

for Iran syria is to its east west, to its north east west is Turkey, west east Afghanistan, and south saudi arabia.

:lol: thanks. i blame my dyslexia...

A good article on AlJazzera http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/09/20139110403930571.html. Makes some good points, some which i agree with as they mirror my own thoughts. However simply arming the rebels as THE solution which this analyst proposes is shortsighted to put it mildly.

 

[Frenger]

Second, it also sounds to me as if the U.S. is NOT doing this out of humanitarian efforts. Balancing the playing field will, quite contrary to the intent, cause further thousands of deaths, simply by prolonging the war. Let the rebels die and be done with it, don't drag it out.

I think you're right, the only positive I can see from a military intervention would be do try and deter future use of chemical weapons. This is of course contingent on the Syrian Government actually being responsible for the use of such weapons, and other Countries taking a blind bit of notice.

 

[Inferno]

I'm just reminded of Theoatmeal's comic:

 

[Frenger]

Ha, yeah, it does seem fairly odd that the reason we want to deter the use of chemical weapons is because of the risk to civilians, yet when civilians are being massacred by other arms, it's ignored.

Personally, I don't think any kind of intervention will work or is desirable at this stage, I was just offering a possible benefit if the U.S did see fit to intervene.

 

[Inferno]

Ha, yeah, it does seem fairly odd that the reason we want to deter the use of chemical weapons is because of the risk to civilians, yet when civilians are being massacred by other arms, it's ignored.

Actually, we don't want chemical weapons to be used because it says so in the Geneva protocol of 1925. There is literally not a single mention of "risk to civilians" or anything even close to that.

 

[Frenger]

Well, tickle me, I'm sure I read the reason was to limit civilian casualties as chemical weapons couldn't be controlled.

Well, you learn something every day

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

The U.S. is not and should not be the world's police. I hope that the Republicans hatred of Obama will over come their love of war. That way congress will not vote for another Middle East conflict. I also hope one day, the U.S. will start investing in renewable energy, that way we will stop caring about the Middle East all together.

 

[Prolescum]

The U.S. is not and should not be the world's police. I hope that the Republicans hatred of Obama will over come their love of war. That way congress will not vote for another Middle East conflict. I also hope one day, the U.S. will start investing in renewable energy, that way we will stop caring about the Middle East all together.

Oil isn't the only interest the US has in the middle east.

 

[IBSpify]

The U.S. is not and should not be the world's police. I hope that the Republicans hatred of Obama will over come their love of war. That way congress will not vote for another Middle East conflict. I also hope one day, the U.S. will start investing in renewable energy, that way we will stop caring about the Middle East all together.

Their hatred of Obama is irrelevant on this issue, because they they have a "we still hate Obama" out no mater how this goes down.

If Obama circumvents congress and acts without congressional approval, then they complain about that.

If Obama goes through congress and gets their approval, then he did not act fast enough.

If Obama does not attack then his proverbial red line means nothing and they say he makes america look weak and he is weak on terrorism.

The Republican's are simply trying to keep people pissed off at Obama and by extension all democrats so that when the elections roll around next year people will forget how hideous their social policies are and vote them into office again.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

The U.S. is not and should not be the world's police. I hope that the Republicans hatred of Obama will over come their love of war. That way congress will not vote for another Middle East conflict. I also hope one day, the U.S. will start investing in renewable energy, that way we will stop caring about the Middle East all together.

Oil isn't the only interest the US has in the middle east.

What are the others?

 

[Prolescum]

Israel's safety, for one. Arms for another (check out Saudi Arabia's air force - or Israel's - or Egypt's - who do you think sold Saddam the components to the chemical weapons he used on the Kurds precipitating his long fall from grace?). I'm sure there's plenty more, but I'm a little cream-crackered...

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Israel's safety, for one. Arms for another (check out Saudi Arabia's air force - or Israel's - or Egypt's - who do you think sold Saddam the components to the chemical weapons he used on the Kurds precipitating his long fall from grace?). I'm sure there's plenty more, but I'm a little cream-crackered...

I do not see why Israel is our concern anyways. Let the Middle East fend for itself, like we have let Africa for the past 100 years or so. I also was under the impression that the U.S. is where Saddam obtained the chemical weapons he used.

 

[PAB]

I do not see why Israel is our concern anyways. .

The Israel -US relation and the US interest in the middle east is an essential issue.
.....$3 billion a year is the simple answer to why Israel is the US's concern.

"Since 1985, it has provided nearly $3 billion in grants annually to Israel, with Israel being the largest annual recipient of American aid from 1976 to 2004 and the largest cumulative recipient of aid since World War II.[2] Seventy-four percent of these funds must be spent purchasing US goods and services."

The amounts of money going into Israel from the US is no trivial sum, its a serious investment.

"Late Republican Senator Jesse Helms used to call Israel "America's aircraft carrier in the Middle East", when explaining why the United States viewed Israel as such a strategic ally, saying that the military foothold in the region offered by the Jewish State alone justified the military aid that the United States grants Israel every year."

i.e. basic imperial concerns. Which in the future may manifest itself, such as if conflict breaks out with Iran , the immediate deterrence for Iran is Israel. Israel i assume are quite happy with this relationship as it stands as it allows them to expand and develop at the expense of the Palestinians and this is essentially paid for by the US.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

I do not see why Israel is our concern anyways. .

The Israel -US relation and the US interest in the middle east is an essential issue.
.....$3 billion a year is the simple answer to why Israel is the US's concern.

"Since 1985, it has provided nearly $3 billion in grants annually to Israel, with Israel being the largest annual recipient of American aid from 1976 to 2004 and the largest cumulative recipient of aid since World War II.[2] Seventy-four percent of these funds must be spent purchasing US goods and services."

The amounts of money going into Israel from the US is no trivial sum, its a serious investment.

"Late Republican Senator Jesse Helms used to call Israel "America's aircraft carrier in the Middle East", when explaining why the United States viewed Israel as such a strategic ally, saying that the military foothold in the region offered by the Jewish State alone justified the military aid that the United States grants Israel every year."

i.e. basic imperial concerns. Which in the future may manifest itself, such as if conflict breaks out with Iran , the immediate deterrence for Iran is Israel. Israel i assume are quite happy with this relationship as it stands as it allows them to expand and develop at the expense of the Palestinians and this is essentially paid for by the US.

This is what I thought.

I think that $3 billion would be far better spent in the U.S. Imagine all the new teachers and doctors that could pay for.