Imminent mistakes in Syria

[eppie]

There's your reason why Russia doesn't want the situation in Syria to end, they're getting paid quite a bit for weapons to the Syrian regime.

Specify Russia. You mean the richies who own arms factories and oil companies in Russia?
Just like the ones that made the US go to war in Iraq. The US didn't get rich from the war in Iraq, on the contrary.
But because of the nice scheme; tax payers money---->government via war in Iraq----->weapons producers/oil companies/contracters etc.. some people made some nice money.

Let's not pretend we are so much better. Point is, that there is not much proof that Assad used chemical weapons. (although I personally believe that he did) It could also have been the others.


I understand the frustration with these conflicts....you see so much injustice and innocent victims and then the big players all start disagreeing because of their interests (financial), but it might also have a good side to it. It might block some ugly war that turns out to be started over fake reasons.

[kandrathe]

It's another "Better the devil you know" situation for me. And THAT makes me feel just sick about myself, because I really do feel for the civilians in Syria. But the better Devil that I know inside myself tells me that regime change would only lead to a stronger presence of Islamic Extremists in control of Syria.

Interesting, really. I think I just had one of those universal aha! moments. For my work, what I've specialized in for 30 years is "change". It is often resisted, often met with suspicion, sometimes it does end up worse, and it's often painful. Change is inevitable, and the way we deal with change defines how well we manage, or how we enable the eventual adaptation to that change. If you don't have a reasonable method of managing change, you end up spending most of your time "putting out fires" every time a change occurs. You end up wasting more time dealing with the unforeseen consequences of the needed change.

I believe the Assad regime has committed an atrocity that precludes him from serving as the leader of Syria. They need a change, and the issue is how do we bring him to justice, and return Syria to a nation state or neighbor we can live beside? I'm thinking whatever we do, we should do as the UN, we should have a common agreed upon goal, and we should execute that plan with determination. We should find and support the reasonable people in Syria who desire to prosper in peaceful modern civil society. The plan should be built with the aid of the Arab league. This is hard work, and will require determined diplomacy. We probably cannot get Russia "on board", but we can coerce them into abstaining at the UNSC. I fear that now though, the drums of war will drown out the gentle voices of diplomacy.

I think that whenever we act through organizations, like the UN, the Arab league, Parliament, Congress or even courts of law, we strengthen and empower them. We show people that our society has faith in them. Whenever we ignore these social institutions, and trample on the rule of law (and international conventions and treaties) we pull out their teeth, and make them impotent.

P.S. More recently, I've become a pretty avid follower of GG news.

[DeeBye]

*BING* *BING* *BING* We have a winnar!

The people making money right now on Syria is...

*drumroll*

Russia!

The people that stand to make money with this whole Syria business is anyone on the receiving end of the world's immense defense spending. People talk about "spending" all the time when it comes to budgets, but the cynic in me wants to see who is doing the "receiving", and where their motivations lie. War is expensive business, and that money has to go somewhere. Follow the money.

The cynic in me says that military budgets will only be maintained or increased if the military is actually using their allotment of dollars for new missiles, tanks, and bullets. If they fire fewer cruise missiles this year, then next year they get less money in the cruise missile pot. Who makes the missiles? Follow the money.

[kandrathe]

The cynic in me says that military budgets will only be maintained or increased if the military is actually using their allotment of dollars for new missiles, tanks, and bullets. If they fire fewer cruise missiles this year, then next year they get less money in the cruise missile pot. Who makes the missiles? Follow the money.

There are multiple sides to the conflict, on the one side you have Russians: supplying Beriev anti-ship missiles, yes, but also the new Russian Mediterranean Naval Base in Tartus. But, also the MiG-29SMT fighters, Pantsir S1E air-defense systems, Iskander tactical missile systems, Yak-130 aircraft, and two Amur-1650 submarines.

On the US side, Raytheon stock is up about 20%. I'm sure we could find some link to Academi, or The Carlyle Group too.

[FireIceTalon]

There's your reason why Russia doesn't want the situation in Syria to end, they're getting paid quite a bit for weapons to the Syrian regime.

I understand the frustration with these conflicts....you see so much injustice and innocent victims and then the big players all start disagreeing because of their interests (financial), but it might also have a good side to it. It might block some ugly war that turns out to be started over fake reasons.

Call me pessimist, but the death of thousands of human beings cannot ever have a good side to it - unless one is a complete sociopath. Wars are scarcely if ever started over "fake" reasons, they may have ostensible reasons that are different from the true intent and interests of the actors involved. This of course doesn't justify any war, but at the same time I don't think they are started due to fake reasons, so much as fake reasons maybe stated as a tool to hide the real purposes. Why do you think terms like "democratization", "development", "stability", "liberation", "national security" and "regime change" are so commonly used in the media and mainstream political culture in general, but you don't hear things like "imperialism", "westernization", "expansion of private capital and markets", "corporate/government contracts", etc? The former are the code words and so-called fake reasons, the latter the real reasons.

[DeeBye]

There are multiple sides to the conflict

Of course.

on the one side you have Russians: supplying Beriev anti-ship missiles, yes, but also the new Russian Mediterranean Naval Base in Tartus. But, also the MiG-29SMT fighters, Pantsir S1E air-defense systems, Iskander tactical missile systems, Yak-130 aircraft, and two Amur-1650 submarines.

On the US side, Raytheon stock is up about 20%. I'm sure we could find some link to Academi, or The Carlyle Group too.

There is a gigantic amount of money being made around the horn by all of the providers of military gear, and I'm sure that they are hopeful of a peaceful solution to this conflict so that their products are not used in a theatre of war. I am sure that every politician that has a yay/nay vote on this matter has absolutely no connection to any of the companies that make these war machines, and own no stock in them.

Dang, Raytheon is really doing well for itself.


Is there a Russian counterpart so I can also play both sides on the stock market?

[kandrathe]

Is there a Russian counterpart so I can also play both sides on the stock market?

We pay and bleed to break it, then we pay and bleed to fix it. It's a really big Bastiat's broken window.

[Sabra]

Just have to jump back in and remember that you can talk Russia all you want, and it will be well worth discussing, but the really "bad actor," as the talking heads love to call them now, in much of this is Iran.

[Hammerskjold]

Is there a Russian counterpart so I can also play both sides on the stock market?

We pay and bleed to break it, then we pay and bleed to fix it. It's a really big Bastiat's broken window.

'Fix' it? Is that the same fix for Humpty Dumpty's break? Last I heard both the king's men -and- all the king's horses are still searching for a 'fix' for that too.

On a more serious note, I find the talk of lobbing just 'a few cruise missiles', or a surgical drone strike intended to just 'bruise a little' to be absurd.

I don't agree with many of your Randian rantings, but on this we're on the same page.

If the US decides to wade into this quagmire, IMO it -will- lose what little moral credibility it has left. It will not make the US more safe, it will not make the US appear 'stronger', it will not make your e-peen longer and thicker.

TL;DR: Too many chicken(shit)hawks, too much brainless Hulk mentality, not enough Dr. Bruce Banner.

[FireIceTalon]

Just have to jump back in and remember that you can talk Russia all you want, and it will be well worth discussing, but the really "bad actor," as the talking heads love to call them now, in much of this is Iran.

There are no "good" and "bad" actors in international relations per se, just actors. Labeling one nation good and another bad is a trap for a number of reasons - firstly because it paints with a broad brush (Iran in general isn't a bad actor - the Iranian government and the regime that it enforces is problematic - but not Iran as a whole). Secondly, good and bad is a qualitative analysis that simply comes down to perspective and whose values you agree with - it's just another product of the subjuctive moralism that is predominant in each society by their respective ruling classes but has little to do with how the world really works, and in general is ahistorical. Thirdly, even if there were good and bad actors, I would say the primary imperialist powers of the US and Russia would be as bad or worse than Iran, since this conflict has all the makings for another proxy-war betweeen them, in which a nation like Iran would just be a smaller nation fighting on behalf the interests a larger imperialist, hegomonic nation (Russia in this instance). And while there has always been a difference in cultural values between East and West, the competition for dominion in global markets transcends this and has done so from WW1 onward.

[kandrathe]

'Fix' it? Is that the same fix for Humpty Dumpty's break?

I'm just reflecting that profiteers, like Haliburton and friends, made more money during the nation building phases, than they ever would during the "breaking it" phase. It's not the "fix it" you and I would consider reparation. And, to cut to the chase, the real long term goal here was to return the dependable and manageable OIL proceeds into the hands of certain powerful people, and not into the war machine of Saddam, and his Axis of Evil allies.

It will not make the US more safe, it will not make the US appear 'stronger', it will not make your e-peen longer and thicker.

Like Jon Stewart's take on it... Operation "just the tip"

For me the justification of direct US force is;
1) they are a serious threat with our backs up against the wall e.g. intending to lob poison gas missiles onto neighbors
2) or they are attacking us directly
... and then, if we decide to use "WAR" then we use it all. Do it right, and untie the hands of our warmongers. We let them totally crush the bad guys, and that sends a very clear message to bad guys.

Everything else is acting like a 7th grade bully. Bullies use or threaten to use force as coercion or to establish a Lord of the Fly's like pecking order. No one respects the bully, and they may do as he says until the bully's back is turned.

Hey US, use your words. Our obstacle in diplomacy is Russia, so let's build up the heat on Russia. Is Syria worth the economic damage to Russia? Is Syria worth it to them to return to Cold War isolation, deprivation and conflicts?

In the grey area would be arming, or supplying the "good guys" moderates to tip the balance of power such that the eventual victors are more like us, and less like Assad, or Hezbollah. Although, there are no guarantees. What seems to be happening now is that while the moderates are killing themselves on the front lines, the extremists are in the liberated territories with the "nation building" and butter (supplied by Iran) as "humanitarian aid". In Northern Syria, if they want to get food, or fuel, they need to deal with the Iranian backed extremists. This is the equation we need to change.

[Hammerskjold]

This is the equation we need to change.

That kind of regime change, or to be more bluntly direct. The mentality that the US somehow has a divine right to just go ahead and 'regime change' another country at her whim.

That is at best naive. At worst, condescending and needlessly breeds enemies.

Pragmatically speaking, it's still as dangerous as lobbing 'just a few' missiles\drones into another country.

If another country were to even insinuate that it will 'regime change' the US, what exactly do you think will happen? US citizens will suddenly throw flowers and act like it's liberation day in Vichy France apres' WW2?

Blunt and short version:

Yankee (and by that I mean the US foreign policy), go home. If the US wants to play 'nation building', there are many infrastructure projects and repair that your own country can use and desperately needs.

If the US is so hard up to enter an urban combat zone, you also still have Detroit. I heard they have weapons of mass foreclosures there, and they might be in need of a 'regime change'.

[Taem]

If the US is so hard up to enter an urban combat zone, you also still have Detroit. I heard they have weapons of mass foreclosures there, and they might be in need of a 'regime change'.

Lol, so awesomely worded! Totally worthy of a quote!

[kandrathe]

That kind of regime change, or to be more bluntly direct. The mentality that the US somehow has a divine right to just go ahead and 'regime change' another country at her whim.

Agreed. Hence, why I said it was grey area. If we (US, UK, France) want to be the good guys, we could mind our own business. But, some people object to regimes that do the mass killing, ethnic cleansing, lifestyle/belief intolerance, brutal dictatorships, etc.

Pragmatically speaking, it's still as dangerous as lobbing 'just a few' missiles\drones into another country.

The US, Russia have been covertly manipulating third world politics since prior to WWI, and the UK and France longer than that. P.S. It was US Treasury Secretary William Gibbs McAdoo, who said in 1917 to his father-in-law Woodrow Wilson and then reigning ruler of the USA, "You have done a great thing nobly! I firmly believe that it is God’s will that America should do this transcendent service for humanity throughout the world and that you are His chosen instrument." That has been emblematic of our imperialist operational creed for over 96 years.

Yankee (and by that I mean the US foreign policy), go home. If the US wants to play 'nation building', there are many infrastructure projects and repair that your own country can use and desperately needs.

I'd like to think we could do that. But, I'm afraid if we signal that we're packing up, reeling in the worldwide base structure, and staying home, that it would give a green light to some big bullies, instigating quite a bit of nation toppling and armies rolling through Asia, South America, the Middle East, Africa, and ultimately Europe.

I'm not a huge AIPAC guy, but without big friends in the area, Israel will cease to exist.

[Occhidiangela]

The cynic in me says it's about one thing: Snowden. ...snip... Russia does NOT want Assad thrown out.

An interesting possibility, but the magnitudes seem wrong. I wouldn't think the US (or anyone) launches cruise missiles over someone like Snowden. It just doesn't seem like a big enough issue to justify the risk or the expense.

I wonder if this isn't all about knocking out an Iranian ally.

Yep, and it isn't just the US interested in that. Saudis have a vested interested in that.

We pay and bleed to break it, then we pay and bleed to fix it. It's a really big Bastiat's broken window.

Interesting point, but do you know why that is done?

Just have to jump back in and remember that you can talk Russia all you want, and it will be well worth discussing, but the really "bad actor," as the talking heads love to call them now, in much of this is Iran.

Yes. This seems to be "the great game" with a whole lot of new players in the mix.

Something to think about: read some interesting stuff in an online news rag from India. Natural gas pipeline from Persian Gulf to Turkey, and points north/west. This project was proposed over a decade ago, in varying forms, and has yet to come to fruition.

Whose ox does it gore? Russian natural gas sales to Europe.
Who would it benefit? Qatar, and Saudis, in reducing risk to their shipping natural gas to Europe via PG and Suez. Assad has never allowed the pipeline to run through his turf. Why? Not sure. Moscow have a play? Maybe. Add to this rumors that the Saudis have sub rosa discussions with Russians about "if you want the Chechen Muslim rebels quiet during Olympics get this pipeline project moving." This rumor is of questionable provenance, so I'll not put too much stock in it.

How much of an influence is all of the above? Also not sure. Food for thought.
"We want to have a war to ensure profits for arms merchants." Sorry, this time, that's just stupid. The CAUSATION piece doesn't fit.

The "international community" (IC) came up with a chemical weapons ban and protocol. The IC is thus who will enforce that or won't. If you want a day to day analogy, try a homeowners association, with a board full of folks who dislike each other.

The civil war will continue. The Reaper will continue in his bountiful harvest.

[shoju]

The big problem that I have with all of this is pretty simple: If we do go in just "lobbing missiles" Who are we helping? What does it to to "stop" the war? What does it do to save the innocent? What does it do with our international relations in other parts of the world?

To me, a strike in Syria feels like an old man yelling at kids playing in the street to stop. It doesn't do anything. It doesn't save anyone. It doesn't stop what's going to happen, but DAMMIT! We'll feel better that we said something, right?

[FireIceTalon]

Our IR in other parts of the world will continue as it always has: We label ourselves as the defenders of freedom and human rights, even as we commit acttrocities that do the very opposite as well as turn a blind eye to governments and regimes that violate these principles because they are our allies. And this goes for all so-called "western democracies"....Just read this tid-bit on the U.K. and Pol-Pot right here......

http://www.newstatesman.com/node/137397?...ost_read=0

boo-ya! The lies of liberal bourgeois democracy once again, caught like a deer in the headlights.

[Jester]

Yep, and it isn't just the US interested in that. Saudis have a vested interested in that.

The more I think about this, the Iran/Saudi conflict, and maybe also the Iran/Israel conflict, must be driving this. There just doesn't seem to be any other reason to really, really want to bomb Syria, without so much as a peep about who is supposed to take over, or even what we're supposed to be shooting at. Which suggests that they have some targets in mind - it has been suggested that anti-air equipment might be a particularly good target.

Do we really want to go back to the cold war? Just to get a leg up on Iran? Or to give the Saudis one? I'm not exactly warm about Russia's involvement in the region, but at least they haven't started shooting.

-Jester

[eppie]

There just doesn't seem to be any other reason to really, really want to bomb Syria, without so much as a peep about who is supposed to take over, or even what we're supposed to be shooting at. Which suggests that they have some targets in mind - it has been suggested that anti-air equipment might be a particularly good target.


-Jester

Well, now it seems that a peaceful option is the most likely. JUst get rid of the chemical weapons.....even though this of course doesn't help any of the civilians over there......indeed it is just to make us feel better that we did something.

[kandrathe]

Well, now it seems that a peaceful option is the most likely. Just get rid of the chemical weapons.....even though this of course doesn't help any of the civilians over there......indeed it is just to make us feel better that we did something.

The off the cuff red line comment by Obama (believing that Syria would never use them) that got him committed to doing something, is being resolved by an off the cuff remark by Kerry (Oh, sure, if they'd give over their chemical weapons, but that will never happen).

Political theater at its finest.

The Kudos need to go to the Russian foreign minister who seized upon the opportunity to create a win-win-win-win-lose scenario. The only loser, as you point out are the Syrian people, who are slowly losing to Assad's planes, tanks, artillery, and trained army. Obama, and France can save face by getting something done without lobbing some random cruise missiles. The Russians keep Assad in power, and thereby their base in the Med. Assad gets to win his civil war with Russian help. And, perhaps even the UNSC might end up not appearing to be useless.