.......for good men to do nothing.

[DaveP]

Oh well, we got our fingers burned in Iraq and Syrias near Iraq isn't it...oh well close enough, let's try the the do nothing approach, we haven't tried that yet have we?  We can get the weapons inspectors to report that although they think that something nasty was used on 3500 people, they can't prove it was anyone at all!  If there is no evidence then we are all off the hook aren't we?  In fact it was probably the Fairies that gassed them.

So the British Parliament has dropped President Obama in it I'm afraid, they have also relegated Britain to non-combatant status with far reaching consequences that are yet to unfold.  Personally, I would not like to be one of the MPs who voted it down when the next gas attack comes in, because like it or not they have just given the green light to Assad.

I think we should re-write the parable of the good samaritan for the 21st century, it should go something like this.

And it came to pass that a man was travelling down the Damascus road when he saw some children being gassed, now he was a Pharisee so when he saw the foam on their mouths he saw that it would make him unclean, so he hurried by on the other side.

The next man who came by was a foreign lawyer, he didn't like what he saw but he thought it wasn't legal for him to intervene in another country's problems, so he rung his hands a bit and went by on the other side.

The next man to come by was a British Samaritan MP, he went over and had a look but then remembered that the last time he helped someone it had cost him too much, so he said sorry can't help you mate and pissed off too.

The moral of the story is "chemical weapons are good to go"

DaveP

 

[Andy Peters]

The moral of the story is "chemical weapons are good to go"

The moral of the story is that the regional powers -- such as the House of Saud -- should be on the front lines of this intervention. It is in their best interests that this horror stops immediately.

The West has supplied sufficient arms and training to the region over the last 50+ years so military hardware should not be the reason for local non-intervention.

Also, if the regional powers were to handle the situation, then the locals would (hopefully) not complain that it's Yet Another Western Invasion, so at least the excuse to continue terrorist activities goes away.

-a

 

[JohnRoberts]

IMO the poison gas may even be a red herring used by the rebels to rally international sympathy against Assad. The US administration already drew that poison gas line in the sand several months ago then said never mind. Now it's like don't tell anybody but we may secretly attack you here, here, and here, in a few days so if there's anything you want to save move it now. But don't worry we have no intent to cause regime change or alter the balance of power...  :

The poison gas is an interesting red line since it is already immoral and illegal to kill innocent civilians without the gas. but the gas has has some history in the region, since Iraq used it against iran in their last war, and Saddam (anybody miss him?) used it against his own Kurds in northern iraq years ago. The gas just makes good headlines and gives us an excuse to say it's different this time. 

Yes syria is right next to Iraq and a satellite state of iran. It's a bit late to get seriously involved. This leading from behind has allowed alkaida to gain power as a lead opposition force, dominating the secular anti-Assad resistance who aren't as well organized.

==========
While good men are still dying in the region we have been withdrawing (surrendering) from Afghanistan for years. It is getting so bad for the Afghan government (or what passes for a central government), that they are in pakistan begging them to help negotiate a peace with the Taliban, who will be their new landlords after we finish pulling out.  It's not clear how much influence the Pakistanis have with the Taliban who come from Northern pakistan and pakistan does not completely control Northern Pakistan. 

-------
The region is far too complex to diagram with a simple dance card, Sunni, Shia, hamas, hexbollah, muslim brotherhood, yadda yadda...

It is a little like traveling back in time to more primitive, more violent time, but for them it is very real and very now.

Popping a few cruise missiles into Syria so the administration can save face reminds me of similar past efforts by Carter and Clinton. I don't completely agree with Reagan withdrawing from Lebanon after the barracks bombing. I understand the sentiment, screw them we are only trying to help you. But maybe if we stood firm back then this wouldn't have deteriorated to then present mess. But maybe it would be the same. It is hard to teach people to stop killing each other when that is all they know. 

Sorry if this sounds like i am saying this is simple, it isn't... but IMO we are not making it better by backing out.

JR

PS: A popular argument is that all conflict in the middle east is all about oil (mostly true), and little appreciated is that Russia is a huge energy exporter, so at a time when world oil supplies are actually growing who benefits from fear of instability kicking up oil prices? Surely they wouldn't be so mercenary and self serving. In their thwarting us vs. iran/Syria/et al in the UN security council.  8) China is actually getting waivers from us to buy Iranian oil despite the UN sanctions... go figure.  like i said it's complicated.

 

[iomegaman]

"When the forms of an old culture are dying, the new culture is created by a few people who are not afraid to be insecure"-Rudolph Bahro

The problem in the region is, the old culture refuses to die...

 

[DaveP]

Just realised that my very British Irony and Sarcasm in the first paragraph is probably lost on various parts of the world.

I am actually deeply ashamed by what happened yesterday.

JR is right about the complication and interaction of events.  Here's a couple.

Greed = financial meltdown = recession = reluctance to get involved = people die.

Milliband in summer crisis = desperation = opportunism = taps reluctance to get involved = people die.

Britain has been a declining power since WW2, but it did have a say in world events and was a moral voice of some credibility however flawed, these things are relative in any case.  Those crowing over a petty victory yesterday will have plenty of time to regret the damage done in the coming years.

I feel deeply sorry for the innocent people of Syria, they must feel a total sense of abandonment and disposability by the world.

DaveP

 

[ruffrecords]

Just realised that my very British Irony and Sarcasm in the first paragraph is probably lost on various parts of the world.

I am actually deeply ashamed by what happened yesterday.

Politicians are a fickle lot at best. With Saddam they decided to go to war based on the flimsiest of evidence and ignored the millions of people who protested against going to war. But that was Blair's government with a sound overall majority. Now for the first time I can remember we have a coalition government that is weak at best - and that is solely because the British public has lost all confidence in MPs following the expenses scandal. So no MP in a coalition government and a recession wants to commit to lots of military expenditure. They are just looking after number one as usual. Personally I think they should all be stood against a wall and shot.

Cheers

Ian

 

[iomegaman]

I notice this phenomena, the loss of confidence in our leadership...what is the default setting for a nation when it no longer trusts, or regards that those in charge are worth following?

Here in the USA roughly 594 elected officials (i leave out the federal reserve since that is actually Congresses job they are doing) control the fate and deeply affect the lives of 300 million...using such imaginary forces as "the economy" or "policy" they have successfully circumvented the actual job description and established an empire that manages to marginalize the Constitution and bypass law all the while requiring the 300 million "non- leaders" follow prescription, pay ridiculous portions of our income and remain as fuel- cells for the special interest of those elite.

When we talk of "good men doing nothing" the problem is much larger than simply Syria or Mali, Egypt, The Congo, Kenya, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, or any of the other 49 countries currently experiencing armed conflict...the problem lands much closer to home where an empire of intimidation has arisen and taken the fight of civilized and domesticated folks willing to live with surveillance and misuse of resource that came from our own vines.

For me, the loss of confidence goes deeper than those who have elected themselves as my overlords...my concern is the very caste system itself has made slaves of us all and is in no way subject to change from within...which points to some very ugly things in our human history...

 

[iomegaman]

And now for something completely different: john Cleese


The English are feeling the pinch in relation to recent events in Libya and have therefore raised their security level from "Miffed" to "Peeved." Soon, though, security levels may be raised yet again to "Irritated" or even "A Bit Cross." The English have not been "A Bit Cross" since the blitz in 1940 when tea supplies nearly ran out. Terrorists have been re-categorized from"Tiresome" to "A Bloody Nuisance." The last time the British issued a "Bloody Nuisance" warning level was in 1588, when threatened by the Spanish Armada.

The Scots have raised their threat level from "Pissed Off" to "Let's get the Bastards." They don't have any other levels. This is the reason they have been used on the front line of the British army for the last 300 years. The French government announced yesterday that it has raised its terror alert level from "Run" to "Hide." The only two higher levels in France are"Collaborate" and "Surrender." The rise was precipitated by a recent fire that destroyed France 's white flag factory, effectively paralyzing the country's military capability.

Italy has increased the alert level from "Shout Loudly and Excitedly" to"Elaborate Military Posturing." Two more levels remain: "Ineffective Combat Operations" and "Change Sides." Belgians, on the other hand, are all on holiday as usual; the only threat they are worried about is NATO pulling out of Brussels . The Spanish are all excited to see their new submarines ready to deploy.
These beautifully designed subs have glass bottoms so the new Spanish navy can get a really good look at the old Spanish navy. Australia , meanwhile, has raised its security level from "No worries" to"She'll be alright, Mate." Two more escalation levels remain: "Crikey! I think
we'll need to cancel the barbie this weekend!" and "The barbie is cancelled." So far no situation has ever warranted use of the final escalation level.

-- John Cleese - British writer, actor and tall person

A final thought: Greece is collapsing, the Iranians are getting aggressive, and Rome is in disarray. Welcome back to 430 BC.

 

[JohnRoberts]

I will resist swinging at that slow fat pitch over the plate, as much as I would like to take a shot at the US government, and they surely deserve criticism for their recent behavior here, I will try to focus on the middle east for now. The short answer for the US is that voters need to inform themselves and vote the scumbags out.

The poison gas is almost a straw man (not completely), because something like 100k Syrians have already been killed so far. Does being killed by less offensive military weapons of group destruction somehow make those deaths acceptable to the world community? The poison gas is an artificial rallying point to try to assemble a coalition behind, not unlike Saddam's slippery WMD. Coincidentally one working supposition is that Saddam's WMD got moved to sympathetic factions in nearby Syria when he shut down his WMD programs the first time. Ironic if we are now dancing around the same weapons stockpiles. 

It is impossible to isolate most countries in the middle east from their influential neighbors. If Syria was a lone actor this could be over in a weekend but the west messing with Syria is a proxy for attacking Iran and Hezbollah. Who could justify (to themselves) retaliating against the western interests elsewhere else in the region. Rather than just a surgical strike this could expand to a wider regional conflict, but the whole region has been a powder keg for decades. Appeasement and doing nothing has not defused tension but empowered the bad actors to act badder.

I was critical of the surge-lite in afghanistan (different situation than Iraq where it pretty much worked. There are still bad actors in Iraq trying to destabilize that nascent government), and history has demonstrated that more boots on the ground in Afghanistan was mostly as ineffective and costly as many feared. 

A surgical strike in Syria that A) actually changes something but B) does not invoke some kind of retaliation that requires additional military responses seems like threading the needle with the proverbial camel.

I wish I had a better suggestion but Pres Obama has painted himself into a corner drawing lines in the sand, that appear to have been crossed. No good choices here.

JR

 

[ruffrecords]

I will resist swinging at that slow fat pitch over the plate, as much as I would like to take a shot at the US government, and they surely deserve criticism for their recent behavior here, I will try to focus on the middle east for now. The short answer for the US is that voters need to inform themselves and vote the scumbags out.

Unfortunately, whilst the majority remains apathetic, that will only result in a new set of scum bags being voted in. What the ordinary people really need to to is get off the butts and stand for election. That's the real power of democracy.

|Cheers

Ian

 

[iomegaman]

Well as far as the world leader represented in our neck of the woods, you have to wonder if it was folly or subversive agenda that drove the lines in the sand in the first place...if folly then he should eat crow and back away from the dogs of war slowly and with caution, if it is a distraction from other agendas then it would explain the next few years of his term and passing other agendas under the radar while we look at the other hand...

As much information as our gubernment collects you'd think they would know what they were doing...and maybe they do, they just don't want us to know what they are doing.

The lines of power being blurred, the fumes of power become intoxicating...how long before they eliminate the need for an election...or baring that eliminate  tern limits for Presidents?

 

[Andy Peters]

PS: A popular argument is that all conflict in the middle east is all about oil (mostly true), and little appreciated is that Russia is a huge energy exporter, so at a time when world oil supplies are actually growing who benefits from fear of instability kicking up oil prices?

You're right -- the popular argument is that it's "all about oil" -- but that's less than mostly true.

It's all about oil MARKETS, and maintaining their stability. The myth is that America gets a significant amount of oil from the Middle East. The reality is that the oil markets don't like supply shocks. So while we get our oil from the Gulf of Mexico or wherever, the oil market is global, so when the missiles start flying over the desert, the market reacts and prices go up.  Our supply isn't significantly disrupted, but our prices are.

Thus, the Saudis depend on our dependence on a stable oil market. We defend them, and by extension the region at large, to ensure that stability. They take advantage of that, mainly by assuming that the US will step in to quell regional unrest. That assumption has proven true again and again.

The Saudi royals use their great wealth to keep the serfs in line with bread and circuses, and one imagines those royals are trying to ensure that the Arab Spring doesn't reach their doorstop. (Their heads will be on the pikes.) They don't want to be seen as taking sides against Assad (or against the other leaders who have been deposed, like in Tunisia and Egypt), because that would encourage dissidents in their country to emulate those rebellions.

So the House of Saud is in quite the pickle. They are the main regional power with the stability and the strength to do something about Syria but they won't.

Aside: It would be an interesting experiment if the US were to stop being the cop on the beat there and let the Saudis defend their oil supply and shipping. Maybe the Chinese can step in and ensure their oil needs are met? The markets would shit their pants short-term, of course.

-a

 

[JohnRoberts]

PS: A popular argument is that all conflict in the middle east is all about oil (mostly true), and little appreciated is that Russia is a huge energy exporter, so at a time when world oil supplies are actually growing who benefits from fear of instability kicking up oil prices?

You're right -- the popular argument is that it's "all about oil" -- but that's less than mostly true.

It's all about oil MARKETS, and maintaining their stability. The myth is that America gets a significant amount of oil from the Middle East. The reality is that the oil markets don't like supply shocks. So while we get our oil from the Gulf of Mexico or wherever, the oil market is global, so when the missiles start flying over the desert, the market reacts and prices go up.  Our supply isn't significantly disrupted, but our prices are.

Yes oil is fungible and freely traded worldwide. The Saudis act as a marginal supplier to maintain high prices for the oil cartel, but not so high that it damages the western economies. A smart parasite doesn't kill it's host. The Saudis have long tried to work both sides of the street...  Ironically world pricing is dominated by the price of north sea "brent" while only a fraction of the world supply comes from there. We have long had local marginal pricing distortions in the US based on where the oil is and where the refiners are that can take that crude and value-add it into more valuable refined product.

Despite a contrary federal policy US oil supplies are up so much in recent years that they had to reverse one pipeline direction to pump oil in the opposite direction. The use of railroad cars to move oil from new fields to refiners is up huge. We are not far from becoming a net energy exporter. The new pipeline from canada to gulf coast that the federal government has successfully blocked for years, would likely end up as re-exported refined product from the gulf coast. I believe we may already be exporting diesel, but it is against the US laws (I think) for us to export crude. While they are already building facilities in anticipation of exporting LNG to capture the huge difference between the excess NG here and much higher prices in international markets. Gas is not as portable as crude oil so local pricing dominates regional markets (cheap here/expensive elsewhere). 

Thus, the Saudis depend on our dependence on a stable oil market. We defend them, and by extension the region at large, to ensure that stability. They take advantage of that, mainly by assuming that the US will step in to quell regional unrest. That assumption has proven true again and again.

Indeed there is a quid pro quo of security assistance for free flowing oil westward.

For those keeping a regional dance card the Saudi kingdom is only 15% Shiite, so they mostly support regional Sunni factions. But agains it isn't just this simple.  The western presence in Saudi lands is considered offensive to radical Islam as a couple of the highest holy sites in the region are on Saudi land.

The Saudi royals use their great wealth to keep the serfs in line with bread and circuses, and one imagines those royals are trying to ensure that the Arab Spring doesn't reach their doorstop. (Their heads will be on the pikes.) They don't want to be seen as taking sides against Assad (or against the other leaders who have been deposed, like in Tunisia and Egypt), because that would encourage dissidents in their country to emulate those rebellions.

IIRC Saudi money, probably more for appeasement of local militant elements than distraction (bread and circus), has been traced to alkieda and helped fund the 9/11 attack on US soil.  The Saudis have since backed away from broad appeasement and become more hard line against internal radical elements, but they have a dangerous situation. The Saudi revolution is playing out in proxy and slow motion in some smaller nearby neighbors, Yemen better know for piracy is a direct risk for incubating problems for the saudi kingdom. 

One long term attempt by the Saudis to help improve regional stability is a program to rehabilitate radicals so they can renter that society peacefully. While they have far less than 100% success rate it is a worthwhile pursuit and they are not just twiddling their thumbs and waiting for us to solve the problems in the region.

So the House of Saud is in quite the pickle. They are the main regional power with the stability and the strength to do something about Syria but they won't.

They have a demographic bomb with huge fraction of educated disaffected youth, growing weary of the aging authoritarian monarchy. The few examples of democracy in the area have more influence than people give credit to. A difficult situation for all authoritarian governments.

Aside: It would be an interesting experiment if the US were to stop being the cop on the beat there and let the Saudis defend their oil supply and shipping. Maybe the Chinese can step in and ensure their oil needs are met? The markets would sh*t their pants short-term, of course.

-a

The US has been withdrawing for the last several years and China and India have been stepping up their world military presence. While China or India are not in any position to demonstrate compelling force in the middle east yet, they are pedaling as fast as they can to build up their navy in the Pacific closer to home. Give them another 10 years if we and they both follow the current trajectory (us shrinking/them expanding). China and India both buy oil from Iran already so they have interests in the region too. 

The elephant (camel?) in the room for the Saudis wrt the US is that we are approaching energy independence. Canada would love to send us even more, and mexico has just amended an old law that prohibited international oil companies from exploiting mexican oil, so I see the north american energy supply situation strongly increasing.

Oil cartels are all about controlling the marginal barrels of oil... When we get in the position to take that power away from the cartels, the saudis lose their huge influence with us.

But this thread is about Syria, and this IMO is not about oil, it's about Iran and their desire to become a nuclear state. An experiment I would rather not see play out, but i don't see that effort significantly slowed so far. One recent report suggested they could reach the critical capability to process low-enriched uranium by mid next year ("could", not will).  This is another one of Obama's lines in the sand that will be tested, and a good show here in Syria over the poison gas red line will be seen and register with Iran.  Not to mention Syria and hezbollah are Iran's peeps so it's personal for them too.

JR

 

[Andy Peters]

Food for thought.

 

[DaveP]

I agree with whats been said, but I think there are also practical reasons why America fights in the place of Israel and Saudi Arabia.

Israel is too small and tightly packed to take multiple missile hits, and Saudia has too many inflammable instalations (remember how long it took to put all the fires out in Kuwait after Saddaam).  Israel would have to go nuclear very fast, and Saudia would cause too much disruption to world oil prices, trade, economies etc.

So its better in the end for America to fight for them.

DaveP

 

[JohnRoberts]

That is a pretty good work up, while i have a few different bullet points than them, but that's fair. 

Some more food for thought, the thrust of this imminent punitive (also illegal internationally) strike is to discourage Assad from using poison gas again in the future, but lets put ourselves into his mental frame. Using gas against your own people in a civil war situation is not an act of strength and certainty about the future outcome but more likely uncertainty and fear about his ability to persevere and dominate against the majority of his countrymen trying to topple him. In the middle east toppled dictators don't get to retire to some distant tropical island and sip mai tais, you get hung by the neck then dragged through the streets.

If we pop enough missiles on him to degrade his military capability further, this could make his mental state even less confident about surviving the revolution. If he feels he has nothing to lose, he will use whatever it takes to win (i.e. survive). So ironically punitive missile strikes to discourage him from using gas, could perversely make him more likely to use it again.

This is why the US administration has been so vocal about promising this is not about regime change. We don't want Assad fearful for his life. I'm surprised we haven't offered him military aid too. but that wouldn't play well in this face saving exercise. 

I kind of wouldn't mind an end game that involved regime change but that isn't legal either, and the crazy fu__er has poison gas, so we need to be careful. An interesting object lesson for iran getting nukes..

of course this is just more conjecture and speculation.  We'll find out how this chapter plays out soon enough.

JR

 

[DaveP]

Whats up, I'm finding myself agreeing with JR

I can actually see the Russian's point of view, its better to have a friendly mass murderer on your doorstep than Al-Qaeda formenting trouble in Chechnya.  I think the US has accepted this (they don't want regime change either), but they want to outlaw the use of these weapons for the sake of future generations.  Other bad guys would not have Russian protection so they would feel the full force of US arms.  I think the removal of impunity is the main issue with the strike.

Incidently, if Cameron had had Kerry's intel he might have swung the vote, it was quite close and two ministers missed the vote because they didn't hear some stupid bell,  Maybe in the next century they'll adopt electronic voting, they are in a world of their own and its starting to be embarrassing.

Kerry sounds like a President to me, we don't have anyone over here of that calibre, is he being groomed for 2016?

best
DaveP

 

[iomegaman]

Many of he "non-western" sites I have rad portray a different perspective on Assad than our binary news media here.

I am no longer a consumer of the distilled product being sold to the american public through ANY of the channels, my confidence drastically departed from an objective report being available ages ago.

The current missive spells out that Assad used poison gas in a volatile situation where we have no embedded policy wank reporting...much like the Arab spring and the consensus in the streets being sold from Egypt I am not convincd of amuthing at this point other than we are being teased with future action so we are not impressed when it comes.

 

[JohnRoberts]

Whats up, I'm finding myself agreeing with JR

sorry  ;D

Kerry sounds like a President to me, we don't have anyone over here of that calibre, is he being groomed for 2016?

best
DaveP

Not likely. It's Hillary's of she want's it. Kerry tried before and didn't even win the primaries.

It was a very good speech (for him), and if that is your only point of reference perhaps, but Kerry has been in congress a long time, as junior senator from Massachusetts always over shadowed by Kennedy, and he has some old baggage surrounding his behavior wrt the Viet Nam war that made him unattractive to veterans (like me). When Kerry was momentarily considered for Secretary of Defense, he made many veterans worried and made Hagel look good at defense by comparison. 

It is interesting to see the Kerry speech vs, Obama covering similar ground while treading more lightly an hour or two later.  Recall that Powell made the case for going into Iraq. he did a good selling job too. Time will tell if Obama did him a favor by making him point on this.   

I sure hope these guys know what they're doing. While it couldn't get much messier. Millions of refugees in the area displaced already and Assad desperate, what could possibly go wrong?

JR

PS: Yup, most media is worthless (getting worse IMO). but if you pay attention for a few decades and triangulate between multiple sources you get a sense of what is going on over time. wrt Assad, he is a bad guy following in his dad's (another bad guy) footsteps.  The car bombings in Lebanon (right next to Syria) that killed the popular elected leader there, originated from Syria and were supported by Assad (actually with Iran backing). Syria refused to seal their border with Iraq allowing trouble makers easy ingress during that war, perhaps still. With neighbors like Iran and syria what more could you ask for? 

 

[desol]

I think you're all paranoid. I think Obama should bomb those son's of b****'s. The international community needs to set a precedent that they won't stand for that degree and ease of brutality against civlilians (no matter any other statistics) ...kids, especially.

You're all paranoid and you think too much. Stand for your belief's...actions speak louder than words, unlike the rest of the global community; we support you, but we're willing to do nothing about it. ie: $$$. Cowards...