05-05-2013, 12:51 PM
The President's drawing of a line was, IMO, a prep move to presenting himself with a future decision point. I don't think he believed he'd be faced with the decision this soon, given that the last thing Assad and his folks want is the Americans coming in ... because it won't be on the Assad side if America comes in. <-- That position is not necessarily in the interests of the US, however, what's been going on of late seems to be more pro Sunni and less pro "new royalty" than not.
The evidence appears to be mixed regarding who did what, but what seems apparent to me is that a Saddam level large use of chem that killed thousands didn't happen.
The old royalty (Saudis, various emirs, Hussein of Jordan) hold a legitimacy (within their own political context, not in an absolute sense) that folks like Mubarak and Qadaffi did not. Saddam and Assad (the elder) rose to power in part on Baathist and nationalist grounds, but their position became like any strong man, that more of a King/ruling family, than president, premiere, or prime minister.
The old royalty are the governments with whom we have best relationships in the Arab world, so their PoV may influence what we do as we work together on common interests.
The minority rule of the Alawites might be objected to, from that PoV, as much as the white Apartheid regime in South Africa was. If you look at this through a sectarian lens, there needs to be a counter to the Shia getting the benefit from American intervention in Iraq which displaced a Sunni minority power structure.
None of it's that simple, of course. IMO such considerations ought to be aired when the "good guy bad guy line in the sand" rhetoric comes up.
We do nothing, as far as I can tell, beyond help through third parties, until we work out a deal with the Russians.
If the chem weapons card can be used to advantage in getting the Russians to sign up for a given UN proposal, or to withdraw support for Assad, that's a whole different Red Line that is crossed.
I don't see that happening without both better evidence and a larger chemical weapon deployment.
For the moment, helping refugees in Jordan, and keeping the Jordanian political system in balance despite the unbalancing effect of half a million refugees in their country (remember Black September, anyone?) is the course of action most in keeping with American interests. So too is reducing the effects of this civil war on Turkey, our NATO ally.
End game: I see the formation of a Kurdish homeland when Syria finally cracks.
The evidence appears to be mixed regarding who did what, but what seems apparent to me is that a Saddam level large use of chem that killed thousands didn't happen.
The old royalty (Saudis, various emirs, Hussein of Jordan) hold a legitimacy (within their own political context, not in an absolute sense) that folks like Mubarak and Qadaffi did not. Saddam and Assad (the elder) rose to power in part on Baathist and nationalist grounds, but their position became like any strong man, that more of a King/ruling family, than president, premiere, or prime minister.
The old royalty are the governments with whom we have best relationships in the Arab world, so their PoV may influence what we do as we work together on common interests.
The minority rule of the Alawites might be objected to, from that PoV, as much as the white Apartheid regime in South Africa was. If you look at this through a sectarian lens, there needs to be a counter to the Shia getting the benefit from American intervention in Iraq which displaced a Sunni minority power structure.
None of it's that simple, of course. IMO such considerations ought to be aired when the "good guy bad guy line in the sand" rhetoric comes up.
We do nothing, as far as I can tell, beyond help through third parties, until we work out a deal with the Russians.
If the chem weapons card can be used to advantage in getting the Russians to sign up for a given UN proposal, or to withdraw support for Assad, that's a whole different Red Line that is crossed.
I don't see that happening without both better evidence and a larger chemical weapon deployment. For the moment, helping refugees in Jordan, and keeping the Jordanian political system in balance despite the unbalancing effect of half a million refugees in their country (remember Black September, anyone?) is the course of action most in keeping with American interests. So too is reducing the effects of this civil war on Turkey, our NATO ally.
End game: I see the formation of a Kurdish homeland when Syria finally cracks.
Cry 'Havoc' and let slip the Men 'O War!
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete