By (O)CT(O)PUS
First some background: My daughter is a high-ranking officer assigned to the Pentagon with substantial Mid-East experience: 4 deployments totaling 8 years on the ground (in Iraq, Kuwait, the UAE, and Saudi Arabia, as examples), starting with the first Gulf War (1990-91).
Her viewpoint: Stay out. Why? No matter how bloody and violent, no matter how unconscionable, no matter how sectarian and divided, virtually all peoples of the region – including combatants fighting amongst themselves – share a unanimity of attitude: They demand the right of self-determination and prefer to be masters of their own fate without the intervention of former colonial powers. After the first Gulf War, George Herbert Walker #41 made this blunder. He kept a residual U.S. force stationed in Saudi Arabia – often cited by al-Qaeda as a motive for targeting U.S. interests (recall the Khobar Towers bombing incident). All sides in these various and sundry Mid-East conflicts share the same xenophobia.
Acknowledging her point, I raised another issue: Mid-East conflicts have metastasized cancer-like beyond the region; witness the spate of terrorist incidents spanning 4 continents. IOW, when regional conflicts spill into our territory and put our citizens at risk, we have a compelling national security interest at stake.
Her reply: We should make every effort to protect our citizens and maintain security within our borders; but we should avoid another Archduke Ferdinand moment that may draw us into deeper, more protracted, and more costly conflicts. After decades of supplying arms to our so-called allies in the region - such as Saudi Arabia - the time has come for regional powers to get their own house in order and do some heavy lifting, she says.
My response: Too late. We cannot re-write history and reset the clock of Mid-East perceptions. In the past half-century, various governments have used American foreign policy as a scapegoat – for reasons both right and wrong – to cover their own failings. Since the cancer of Mid-East conflicts have metastasized worldwide - and Western interests are often in the crosshairs of these conflicts - we have little choice but to intervene.
Our discussion in a nutshell: A perfectly civil and reasonable exchange of views between father and daughter – now shared with readers of this forum. How ironic! General Daughter shuns military involvement; formerly Pacifist Dad makes a case for intervention.
As thorny and nettlesome as this Syria issue has become, it should not turn into another partisan slugfest. By all means, argue the merits but avoid the temptation to engage in wanton and gratuitous Obama-bashing. Mid-East conflicts have vexed 11 U.S. presidents since Eisenhower. So please be forewarned: If you gang up on President #44, this cephalopod will ink your aquarium and drown you in torrents of citations and references. To quote the estimable Wednesday Addams: “Be afraid. Be very afraid.”
More images and videos below the fold:
Der Mond, und noch immer er scheinet so hell
ReplyDeleteZum Tanz, den sie schauderlich führen.
-Goethe- Totentanz -- Dance of Death
Indeed the same old mindsets, the same old uncompromixing, ill informed and poorly thought out ideas are on the march. This morning's news had a picture of some rally and interviewed a young woman dressed as for a sorority party in 1965 with an emerald embedded or perhaps glued to her forehead and a brass hog ring in her nose condescendingly telling America that to meet "aggression with aggression" was simply and always wrong.
I'm sure remote control 'off' buttons in the tens of thousands were pushed at just that moment. I know mine was.
Of course she is of, but I hope does not represent, a generation that doesn't remember Pearl Harbor or "Peace in our time" Neville Chamberlain and tends to agree that "diplomacy" is always the answer and always the only answer as though any kind of self-defense is a dodgy and immoral affair. Can't we just throw away our weapons so that peace will break out?
Of course there will always be support for "nuke the bastards and let God sort them out" No evidence of intelligence or sanity being required for US citizenship or Republican membership and mindless aggression being so widely admired, particularly amongst males.
While I consider attempts to defuse homicidal, sociopathic tyrants as ridiculous -- often even with a credible threat of annihilation backing it up, I'm hardly sure that bombing some factories and bases will do anything positive as a step toward ending hostilities. It certainly won't help Obama either way. Remember Clinton's missile attacks (Monica missiles) against al Qaeda?
I'm also not sure that the rebels we've decided are the better combatants really offer any hope of a return to civilization. I'm not sure anyone recognizes the moral authority we usually put on like a smelly, flea infested dog's blanket, what with our history, and will see it as anything more than another act of imperialism -- and just as with anything the president does, the usual sides will be drawn up.
* And the moon it shines and ever so bright
DeleteOn the dance they so gruesomely do.
More people need to read this. I'm posting it over at P.E.
ReplyDelete.
ReplyDeleteEverything else being equal, the "RIGHT" thing to do is step up and act. But doing the correct right thing in Syria is _NOT_ an option for USA.
In this instant, the player to do the correct right thing is Israel. Plain and simple, let the mid-east players resolve the chaos in Syria.
Ema Nymton
~@:o?
.
Ema,
ReplyDeleteThank you for visiting the Swash Zone.
In response to your comment, I think Israel may be the worst possible candidate to intervene in Syria. My reasoning: Too closely aligned with former colonial powers, an Israeli intervention would trigger an angry response from virtually all Islamic countries in the region, even from so-called ‘friendly nations’ that are hostile to the Assad regime. An Israeli intervention would reinforce long-simmering wounds and resentments. That is why the Israelis depend on the U.S. to act as their proxy.
My candidate is Saudi Arabia, which has received billions of dollars in U.S. military aid for decades – fighter jets, missile systems, and advanced radar.
Another candidate is Turkey, a predominantly Moslem country that happens to be a member of NATO. According to the terms of the NATO treaty, military engagement involving one NATO country automatically obligates all NATO nations. Thus, an intervention by Turkey would engage more European allies – without a need for parliamentary approval in the U.K. or congressional approval in the U.S.
Please recall the first Obama-Romney debate last year. By all accounts, President Obama appeared distracted - losing the first round. What else happened that week to account for Obama’s poor performance? This: A cross-border intrusion by Syrian forces that killed 5 villagers on the Turkish side – the kind of incident that would have automatically triggered a NATO response. A diplomatic dance prevented war; and this is what preoccupied Obama during the first debate.
Since last year, the alleged use of chemical weapons has dramatically upped the ante. However, given the depth of Post-Traumatic Bush War Disorder, one can hardly blame the American public for reluctance. That is why a better strategy may be to goad other nations – if possible - into bearing this burden. This is the situation as I see it.
"... I think Israel may be the worst possible candidate to intervene in Syria. My reasoning: Too closely aligned with former colonial powers, an Israeli intervention would trigger an angry response from virtually all Islamic countries in the region, even from so-called ‘friendly nations’ that are hostile to the Assad regime. An Israeli intervention would reinforce long-simmering wounds and resentments. ..."
ReplyDeleteI moment of complete agreement.
I asked the following questions at PE.
"How does Israel get the nod Ema? Why not Saudi Arabia, or some other Arab Muslim nation? Why should the Jewish nation be responsible to resolve the Syrian civil war?"
Glad to see it is not just me.
RN,
DeleteConfirmed. Let’s recall events of the first Gulf War, Operation Desert Storm (1990-1991).
George #41 assembled a coalition comprised of both European states (such as the U.K. and France) and key Arab states (such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Syria). Yes, you read that right: Syria – an ally of American-lead forces during the first Gulf War.
When Saddam threatened to attack Israel with Scud missiles, this was the most worrisome concern in Washington: Any Israeli retaliation against Saddam would risk breaking up the coalition of Arab partners. Washington feared this. Israel knew this. And Saddam chose brinksmanship. When Saddam did strike Israel with Scud missiles, Israel wisely chose to acquiesce to Washington’s concerns and exercise restraint, thus keeping the coalition intact.
The same conditions and concerns apply today.
I attempted to comment earlier to your response, but, my damn smartphone or the internet didn't want to cooperate. No matter, because like everything else it really doesn't account for much. Does it?
DeleteThe powers, whoever they may be really don't gives a rat's ass what the people think. Do they? Power and authority is, after all, EVERYTHING.
My initial response, the one lost in cyberspace, was both supportive of your daughters position, her reasoned arguments, and expressing support for and thanks for her service to me, you, and all the rest of America and her citizens.
Call me old fashioned and at the same time a rebel. Rebels come in all shapes, sizes, colors, and political persuasions don'tcha know?
If America stays out of it, other countries will take up the defense. Then we will see just how bad a problem is left over.
ReplyDeleteWe cannot escape getting entangled in unrest in the Middle East, ongoing. I don't suggest pulling out of the Middle East and leave Israel to defend itself. I think we would see a much more militant and aggressive Israel, just escalating the level of violence.
I back a State of Palestine. That should have happened in 1948 at the same time Israel became a State. Hopefully that would create a diplomatic path to engage in. If their people want Hamas to be their chosen leadership, then we will deal with them then.
Seems Obama is the only one who wants to do anything; and get ready for his national push to convince Americans. Responding, or not, to this atrocity won't change the course of aggression in the Middle East, or in Syria. Putin said he would defend Syria, and of course, Putin is arming Syria including chemical weapons. If we get out of there, Putin will be the one calling the plays.
Being isolationists is not the answer. Neither is acting like imperialists, occupiers, killers of innocent citizens, and other dictatorial behaviors. We have to back off a little, but not leave the field. A new strategy is in order. In the long run, this is Putin vs Obama militarily.
Anon,
DeleteYour assessment may very well be an accurate one.
I would tentatively support an independent Palestine with something like the pre-1967 borders, but establishing one that will not simply become a staging area for a further series of wars and attacks may take divine intervention and as we've been waiting for that for quite some time now, I'm not encouraged.
DeleteSurely the new Palestinian state will attract militant extremists with agendas that don't include peace. It already has mobs of them and it won't be able to really do much about controlling or excluding them. Terrorism will probably increase, rocket attacks, outright invasions of the new borders and being so close will require Israel to be even more quick to make massive retaliations and I'm afraid we will be back where we started only with more dead people.
I don't blame either side exclusively, I blame religion, I blame theocracy and the people who think they own something because there damn "scriptures" say so. People who think their damn gods give them rights and make them more important than "infidels."
I'm not positive, but I believe that after WW II when the Ottoman empire was carved up, the Mandate created two states - Palestine and Trans Jordan (over the Jordan) which is now, after having annexed the left bank, the Kingdom of Jordan. It was supposed to be the Palestinian State, if I'm not mistaken. The idea that Arabs were left without a state is not, I think, entirely correct. They were left with one but wanted, rightly or wrongly to keep it all and to keep it all
ReplyDeleteIslamic. Vice Versa for the Zionists.
After the British were chased out of Mandatory Palestine, the option of further partition became impossible. The Zionists wanted the entire partition and so did Most Arabs, unwilling to move to Jordan. For many
Palestinian Arabs, two states isn't the goal. It's the whole Falafel or nothing.
Whatever Israel does or doesn't do isn't going to settle the nearly hundred year dispute, but of course I would opt for keeping them the hell out of the Syrian revolution. The wealthy and powerful Arab states could settle this in a hurry, but popular uprisings scare the Saudis and others with monarchies installed by the same people who made Israel possible. If Israel lifts a finger, no Arab country is going to risk looking like they acknowledge, will cooperate with or even tolerate Israel. Cooperating with us is enough of a risk.
That sounds about right.
DeleteI would add: Churchill himself redrew the lines, that was after WW I. And those lines were redrawn again after/during WW II, by again Churchill with the input of Stalin and supposedly FDR(?).
I was referring to the UN vote on Israel becoming a State. That amendment also included a Palestinian State, but that vote was never taken. The Arabs were not happy about any of this, and your "we want it all" scenario was real. That disagreement still goes on. Giving the Arabs what they wanted was rejected, and a vote to create Palestine was never taken.
A Palestinian State won't solve all the problems, but it will help. Arabs have to reject the annihilation of Israel, which many Arabs still see as their goal.
A Palestinian State is a platform for a diplomatic path. If these terrorists are working out of a State, we could pressure that State, or infer that State sponsors terrorism. There are many diplomatic tactics that can be used addressing State leadership, that cannot be used with rouge, nomadic people. We could also address legitimate grievances the people of a State have, which is harder than addressing those grievances with nomads, or refugees. If Palestinians want the world to address their concerns, that will be more possible as a State, than as a faction led by criminals/terrorists.
"If Palestinians want the world to address their concerns, that will be more possible as a State, than as a faction led by criminals/terrorists."
DeleteThat's most likely true, but only as long as that state isn't dominated or led by those criminals/terrorists and that's a distinct possibility, if not quite an inevitability. We can no longer get away with installing monarchies.
Still I think it has to be tried, even if I loathe theocracies and worse theocracies with manifest destinies: even if the record of partitioning states is so dismal.
Unfortunately, Captain, the story of Palestine is more sordid than you remember. After World War I, Britain was given a mandate by the League of Nations to run large parts of the former Ottoman Empire in the Middle East until they could stabilize and run themselves. This required that the British provide military operations in those areas to protect them. Winston Churchill, trying to emerge back into respectability after his disgrace involving Gallipoli, agreed to head the effort, but being a Conservative, was primarily interested in nothing but cutting taxes back home. So, he took three former Ottoman provinces and combined them into one, and created the hopeless country of Iraq. Under his plan, the Iraqis would provide their own army, relieving Britain of its mandatory responsibility. To head this misbegotten State, he wanted one of the three sons of the Saudi ruler, who claimed the right to rule through supposed direct descent from Mohammed. Well, the oldest was the heir to the Saudi throne, so there were two left, a strong one and a weak one. Naturally, Churchill picked the weak one, and manipulated him into office through rigged elections, etc. Well, this hardly sat well with the strong one, who had considerable support in the area and threatened to start an uprising against the British.
DeleteNow, at the time, it was the intention of the British to divide the area of Palestine so the two thirds of the land east of the Jordan river would become a state for the indigenous Arabs, i.e. Palestinians, and the land west of the river would become a Jewish homeland. Instead, Churchill essentially gave the country of Jordan to this third son, whose descendants still rule there as kings, leaving the Jews and Palestinians locked in an interminable battle over what was left. And thus, in one stroke, Conservative tax cutting mania produced both the disaster in Iraq and the Israeli-Palestinian mess.
"more sordid than you remember."
DeleteNo surprise
" Conservative tax cutting mania produced both the disaster in Iraq and the Israeli-Palestinian mess."
Vide supra
Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteWho is this masked rider? I like your comments.
There may be another layer to the Syria crisis that has not been discussed. My hypothesis is that it may concern Vladimir Putin more than Bashar al-Assad. Consider:
ReplyDeleteIn effect, Vladimir Putin, a former KGB chief, has restored a form of Soviet era despotism in Russia. Dissent is no longer tolerated; and democratic aspirations have been suppressed.
Furthermore, there are no more former Soviet era bloc countries (with the possible exceptions of Belarus and the Ukraine) from which Putin can reconstitute a power coalition. In fact, many former client states have joined the EU.
Where do you look for new alliances? Among the equally ambitious and immoral actors in the Mid-East such as Iran and Syria! Outward signs or symptoms of these ambitions: Russian vetoes hold the Security Council hostage as Putin delivers orders for armaments to his apparatchik cronies back home.
In essence, a form of de facto Cold War has returned, and the Snowden affair is merely another small episode.
As reprehensible as WMDs are to us, let’s not be naïve. This confrontation is not solely about international law but about amoral extensions of power in a global chess game, and American influence in the region is decidedly at stake. Rivalry between American versus Russia interests may be a hidden factor driving this conflict.
In today's news, there are rumors of a proposal: The destruction of Assad's chemical arsenal under international supervision. Whether Kerry’s proposal or Putin’s proposal, this is immaterial.
I believe it was Theodore Roosevelt who said: “Speak softly but carry a big stick.”
From the beginning, the Obama administration has stated that the Syrian situation is not Iraq or Afghanistan. Read between the lines: If Syria is not Iraq then Obama is not George Bush. Yet, we still hear partisan knee jerk snarkasms intended to discredit and/or undermine the president: Bush Redux, incompetent, siding with al Qaeda (Rand Paul), and “rescued by Putin” (Newt Gingrich), etc. etc.
If the current proposal to place all chemical weapons under international control succeeds and a military strike is averted, think of the implications: There will no chemical weapons left that can fall into the hands of combatants, fall into hands of terrorists or other rogue elements, to be used against citizens, or to threaten neighboring states in the region. One may be inclined to consider this development the best of all possible outcomes since the threat of chemical weapons would be eliminated – gone – beyond the reach of all. A worthy accomplishment, one would think: Obama’s Cuban Missile Crisis moment.
Consider: How do you goad a lying sociopath into forfeiting his stockpile of chemical weapons? When facing down a thug, you don’t: “Speak loudly but carry a small stick?”
I think you are being somewhat unfair to the Russians. In the first place, imagine how our government would react if the Russians sent some warships off the coast of Mexico and threatened to start bombing Mazatlan or Ensenada. We'd be totally freaking out; and yet we reserve to ourselves the right to do the same thing to Russia. Secondly, do not forget that Russia is adjacent to Syria, and a large part of the population in southern Russia is Muslim. If radical Islamists take over Syria, you know that they will immediately start fomenting violent rebellion in Southern Russia. Given the experience the Russians had in Afghanistan, it is no wonder that they will support a dictator next door rather than face that. Remember that we have propped up dictators in Mexico and Central America for a century because it suited our purpose, with far less of a threat from that direction than Russia would face from a radical Islamist State on its border.
DeleteI am not trying to justify Putin's behavior here, but I think it's important to realize that instability in Syria poses very real dangers to Russia that our press had conveniently totally ignored, in order to push their usual simplistic world view in which Russia is the bad guy.
Green Eagle,
DeleteJust as the Thrilla from Wasilla can see Russia from there, Floridians can see Cuba from here. The Cuban government has invited China to drill for oil in the Florida Isthmus, but I don't see the Conch Republic going to war over this.
For Russia, geographic proximity to Syria is not the issue since Syria is not Mazatlan or Ensenada. If Assad falls, Syria will no longer be a Russian client or proxy; nor will Syria remain within the sphere of Iran, another client and proxy for Russia.
OMG, there's that ugly Dominos Theory again - only this time in reverse. Besides, I have no affection for nascent despots, mass murderers, theocrats, or terrorists-for-hire.
Well said, I agree!
ReplyDeleteWith this morning's headlines blaring "Syria takes the deal" I have to wonder if Obama having waved his big stick didn't have a wee bit of influence on that decision.
ReplyDeleteCongress and the Obamahaters will no doubt try to take credit, but who cares? Now if we can have some confidence that these weapons are really under international lock and key.
Apparently, the Russians woke up Tuesday morning realizing they have been snookered:
DeleteRussia Not Happy With Potential UN Resolution On Syria Chemical Weapons, French FM Says:
"As I understood, the Russians at this stage were not necessarily enthusiastic, and I'm using euphemism, to put all that into the framework of a U.N. binding resolution," Laurent Fabius told French lawmakers after a telephone conversation with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov.
And here is what the ultra-rightwing troll-o-sphere thinks of the whole thing (found and quoted by Shaw):
"What is the difference in rationale between The President of the United States and the Dictator/Tyrant in Iraq and Syria, they are both LAIRS & COWARDS! Progressives are vile rodents, who are sometimes known as liberal Democraps."
Over to you, Captain.
"liberal Democraps"
DeleteI'm getting to old to bother commenting on such psychotic idiocy. In fact it's just as likely to be carefully crafted propaganda as it is anything else. It's hard enough to convince a smart person he's wrong: dimwits are beyond the reach of reality and the longer I live the more convinced I am that idiots will inherit the earth - if they haven't already.
So Putin ends up looking like the peacemaker?!
ReplyDeleteHighly suspect that anyone (including Putin) can actually find and confiscate all Assad's chemical weapons.
This has always been one incident in a longer struggle with Assad. The rebels against Assad are no more "freedom" fighters; than Mazatlan, Ensenada, or Mexico are using chemical weapons on their citizens.
If Putin cares about worldwide opinion of himself(?) then sooner, or later he will have to do something about Assad. This is a good point to back off a little.
The idea that there's a good side and a bad side is Fox logic and one man's freedom fighter is anothers' would-be monster.
DeleteReminds me of Kipling:
He crucified noble, he scarified mean,
He filled old ladies with kerosene:
While over the water the papers cried,
"The patriot fights for his countryside!"
Yes, I think it's a good point to step back and leave the Putster holding the bag.