The US and Russia have agreed to a ceasefire to go into effect on Monday, the first day of Eid. The Syrian Governmental Forces will cease operations in certain opposition areas and the US and Russia will stand up a joint multinational center to combat the Islamic State and the Nusra Front. The joint center will be for deconfliction – of targets and of US led coalition and Russian backed efforts.
It is important that diplomatic efforts are being made, partially because you can’t only use military power. You have to be able to bring all elements of National power – Diplomatic, Information(al), Military, and Economic (DIME) power – into play blending and balancing them to achieve one’s goals. That said I’m not exactly sanguine that this will be effective. There are a lot of moving parts to the agreement, including the Syrian government’s cooperation, as well as Syria’s other allies such as Iran and its proxies. And, of course, the enemy gets a vote. If the Islamic State, the Nusra Front, or both of them together decide to step up attacks because of the ceasefire and in an attempt to exploit it, it will increase the pressure on this fragile diplomatic effort. My view of the Syrian Civil War since I first started working on the problem set in 2013 is that it was very similar to the Thirty Years War, even as that conflict was not a perfect historical analogue.
Given what has been going on in the presidential campaign, especially during the past week, there may be some other things going on with this agreement. While Secretary Kerry has a lot of control over US diplomacy and diplomatic policy, he wouldn’t be pursuing this without President Obama signing off on it. If the Russians are unable to maintain discipline over their coalition – the Syrian government and its Iranian allies and proxies, much hay will be made over how you can’t trust or rely on the Russians (and by extension Vladimir Putin) because they can’t deliver on their promises. If the US’s local proxies – the Syrian Defense Forces (SDY) and/or the Syrian Kurdish People’s Protection Forces (YPG) don’t observe the ceasefire, then it will raise questions about the US and its Coalition allies ability to control their local proxies. Because of how the US presidential campaign has gone the Syrian Civil War is no longer about who will run and control Syria, be considered to be Syrian or not Syrian, and a proxy war between Saudi Arabia and Iran. It is now also a proxy part of the US presidential election.
philadelphialawyer
Seems to me like a big win on the US political front. Takes away from Trump the “Dems can’t get along with Russia” claim, takes away the “I have a secret plan to do better in Syria” claim, and, if Russia can’t or won’t police its allies, well then, that neutralizes the “I am BBF with Putin” brag too. Cuz already the Putin connection is dubious with everyone but the alt right and the pure morons. So if Vlad doesn’t play nice with us in Syria, after agreeing to, then Trump is BFF with a foreign bad guy. As “foreign bad guy” is generally defined in US politics as someone who doesn’t play nice with the USA.
And don’t see how Trump can make any “hay” over Putin not keeping up his end of the bargain. We can’t trust Putin? Well then, why is Trump his BFF?
redshirt
I sure hope you’re wrong about it being a proxy for the US election, since the events in Syria have almost nothing to do with the US election.
Ken
And all less than 48 hours after Gary Johnson recommended a diplomatic approach. Imagine what the man could accomplish if anyone actually listened to him.
Adam L Silverman
@philadelphialawyer: He went on his how it would be good thing if we could work with Russia and Putin because they have an ISIS problem too at his event this evening. No one had told him that the ceasefire had been negotiated and announced.
Culture of Truth
Kerry has done amazing job; it’s like he was preparing his whole life to be SOS.
Interesting that there’s a baseline assumption that it’s for the US and Russia to determine the future of Syria. Not saying I disagree, just that’s it’s interesting.
Adam L Silverman
@redshirt: We are at war, in all but formalized name, in Syria and Iraq and still in Afghanistan. Of course it should be an issue for the presidential election.
schrodinger's cat
@Culture of Truth: A little less than 100 years ago, it was the British and the French.
Hunter Gathers
@Ken: Or if he knew where the fuck Aleppo was.
philadelphialawyer
Just wanted to add that I was only talking US politics. I don’t think the US and Russia should be deciding Syria’s fate.
Adam L Silverman
@Culture of Truth: The US is leading a coalition of over 90 states and several non-state actors in a campaign against the Islamic State: Operation Inherent Resolve, which spans portions of both Syria and Iraq. The Russians are the most powerful supporters of the current Syrian government and Bashar al Assad. So who exactly then would you recommend take the lead in negotiating a ceasefire or trying to peacefully resolve the Syrian Civil War?
Mary G
I hope it works, but I’m not holding my breath. Kerry needs to stop the demolition of Yemen by Saudi Arabia next.
Ian
Adam would you be willing to discuss what you think of the Turkish-Kurdish fighting in Syria and why the Turkish government views the Euphrates as such a distinct do not cross line?
Lizzy L
@Adam L Silverman: Or they told him, and he didn’t pay any attention to it. I suspect that happens a lot, and it must drive his staff crazy.
philadelphialawyer
@Adam L Silverman: Syrians?
redshirt
@Adam L Silverman: It’s an issue but it should not in any way be a dominant or defining issue. The Repukes will no doubt try and make it one.
Adam L Silverman
@Ian: I’ve been trying to write about it since last week when we had the Turkish on YPG attacks. Things kind of got away from all of us. I’ll try to get to it in the net few days.
hovercraft
@Adam L Silverman:
The man doesn’t know where one of his oldest and closest friends works, and you think he knows about talks between Kerry and Lavrov ?
Besides I’m sure it’s a lousy deal, if he’d made the deal Russia would be right this minute be reimbursing every penny we’ve spent in Iraq and Syria during the last 15 years.
Didn’t you hear, only Trump can fix it !
Omnes Omnibus
@Culture of Truth: I have always thought that Kerry ran for POTUS in ’04 out of a sense of duty. SoS, I suspect, is his dream job.
Miss Bianca
True, dat. And I wonder if the rest of the American electorate remains as desperately confused about the situation on the ground, and in the air, there, as I am. So, there’s going to be a cease-fire, but also “co-ordinated strikes against the terrorists by the Russian and US air forces”? Who’s a “rebel” and who’s a “terrorist”?
PsiFighter37
@Omnes Omnibus: I would not be surprised if he made a big play for it behind the scenes after the 2008 election – it definitely seemed like he wanted it then as well.
I do wish that Clinton would keep Kerry on if she is elected, but I have a feeling that she is going to want to install her own people. He’s done a fantastic job, even if some of the more pie-in-the-sky moonshots (like getting an Israel-Palestinian accord) had no hope of happening. The work on Cuba and Iran are landmark achievements that should stand the test of time.
SiubhanDuinne
@Culture of Truth:
Yup. Interesting, that. One of the many instances illustrating that what you may think you want is not what you’re ultimately meant to do. I have at least one such example in my own career, and I expect a lot of commenters here also do. I have no idea at this point how good a president Kerry would have been had he been elected in 2004. (Better than Dubya, no doubt, but then we likely would never have had Obama in the White House.) At any rate, John Kerry has been a fine Secretary of State. I wonder if President Clinton will keep him on? I hope she does, at least for another year or two.
Adam L Silverman
@philadelphialawyer: This is a great question – I’m not being sarcastic here, but its a quite an entailed answer for Friday night at 10:30. The short answer is that the Syrians have been doing this since 2013 by trying to kill each other. What we’re seeing, leaving aside the IS complication that developed, is state and societal formation/reformation. That tends to be prolonged and very violent. If you want a diplomatic solution prior to both sides wearing themselves out trying to out inflict harm and pain on the other side or before one side reduces the other side to the point that they can’t fight anymore, if not they are completely wiped out, then you’re looking for powerful outside parties getting involved. We’ve learned a few things, or relearned a few things the hard way, which is why the Obama Administration has set the policy, and Secretary Clinton affirmed on Wednesday night she will maintain it, that US forces will not, with the exception of advisors/trainers and some Special Forces, be involved on the ground in prosecuting the conflict. This is to force the various Syrian groups to step up and take responsibility for doing so. Similarly in Iraq.
But to circle back, you have three choices here: 1) Let the Syrians fight it out until they resolve their dispute/disputes by fighting themselves out or killing each other off. 2) The US and the Coalition step in, put overwhelming force on the operating environment, separate the sides into neutral corners, and force them to negotiate. We’ve learned the hard way that if we do this as soon as then leave they’ll just start all over again because they were forced into stopping. 3) Work with local proxies, forcing them to take responsibility for securing their own state and society, and looking for places to utilize diplomacy whenever possible.
redshirt
@SiubhanDuinne: Why not all four if Kerry is willing? Continuity between the Obama and Clinton Administrations will be a huge positive this country doesn’t usually get to experience.
Major Major Major Major
@philadelphialawyer: sure, you define “Syrians” and get right back to us.
Adam L Silverman
@hovercraft: Actually he declared that if elected President, should the Iranian navy buzz one of our ships in their “tiny boats” and “made gestures at us that no one should be allowed to make” we will sink them immediately. So we now know his threshold for approving the use of military force is being subjected to a minor nuisance and having someone stick their tongue out at you.
Belafon
Has Obama done anything that looks like he’s thinking about any election, during any of his 7.5 years in office?
Keith P.
@Ken: Gary? Who’s Gary?
Adam L Silverman
@Miss Bianca: That’s why we have a deconfliction center. The ceasefire is to establish trust, for whatever that means and is worth. And allow space to then prosecute IS and Nusra Front targets. The plan here appears to be “lets clean out the extremists and then that will make space to deal with other issues”.
pseudonymous in nc
Thirty Years War sounds right: every ethnic/denominational/political faction in Syria (and the three are knotted tightly together) works on the principle that defeat means systematic extermination, and every faction has its backers.
The “moderate opposition” problem in multi-actor conflicts with shifting allegiances emerges once again.
Adam L Silverman
@Major Major Major Major: Not this again. I’m still trying to recover from defining North Koreans.
Omnes Omnibus
@Adam L Silverman: That was a bit bizarre.
Miss Bianca
@Adam L Silverman: OK, *now* I get it. Finally, I feel like I have a handle on what the hell we’re doing over there! It’s only taken months of reading all the articles you’ve given me, and *now* comes this sum-up and the lightbulb goes on! Thank you!
Adam L Silverman
@Omnes Omnibus: I’m sorry she got upset, but it was strange indeed.
Miss Bianca
@Adam L Silverman: OK, for what it’s worth, “deconfliction” is my new favorite military-speak word.
Adam L Silverman
@Miss Bianca: Time to move you to the Second Chamber.
SiubhanDuinne
@redshirt:
Or even all eight.
I get the impression that HRC and JFK are pretty much on the same page (along with BHO). State would be a great place to send a message of contuinity. And both Clinton and Kerry know all the players, so there wouldn’t have to be a learning curve.
philadelphialawyer
@Adam L Silverman: Sure, it’s complicated. But, generally speaking, the actions of outsiders, including the USA, Russia and Iran, are more along the lines of taking sides, arming them to teeth, “advsing” them, bombing and droning on their behalf, and thereby increasing the level of violence, than they are of the peaceful conflict resolution promotion variety. Even this deal is really just about giving space for everyone to attack ISIS. And, assuming ISIS is crushed, then what? No more enemy of my enemy and now just my enemy? And we and Russia go back to arming, advising, bombing, etc for the remaining opposing sides?
My vote would be for letting the people on the ground fight it out. And/or negotiate it out.
In the larger picture, my vote would be not fomenting revolutions in the first place. Revolutions that are all or almost all home grown are empowering and lead to State building. Revolutions with too much foreign impetus lead to what we now have in Syria, and what we ended up with Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. The Superpower Deux Ex Machina “wins” the war, and no group on the ground is strong enough to rule without propping up. Because it didn’t win the war. It didn’t destroy the dictatorship. It didn’t do the work of coalition building and fighting and dying so as to earn the consent of enough of the populace to govern.
I would also point out that most nations have fought civil wars, of one kind or another. I am, in the greater scheme of things, more happy than not that the US fought out its civil war until one side lost, rather than having some sort of band aid negotiated settlement imposed by more powerful nations playing both sides as proxies.
Civil wars, like real, home grown revolutions, decide things. Cease fires don’t.
philadelphialawyer
@Major Major Major Major: People who live in Syria? Trick question? Snark
I sense but don’t quite get? I find your comment to be opaque.
Adam L Silverman
@philadelphialawyer: I’m not necessarily in disagreement with what you’ve wrote. But its 2016, no one is going to tolerate images of Syrians butchering each other year after year for a decade while they work this out for themselves.
geg6
@Omnes Omnibus:
I couldn’t agree more.
Omnes Omnibus
@philadelphialawyer: It’s very easy to say let them fight it out if you ain’t around there. Not everyone in Syria is fighting. Many are just trying to live their lives. Those people suffer horrible things during civil wars.
Miss Bianca
@Adam L Silverman: The Second Chamber? Uh-oh…that sounds ominous.
@SiubhanDuinne: I would love to see Clinton and Kerry working together. I’d feel pretty damned confident about our FP course then.
Villago Delenda Est
There is no way in hell Drumpf could understand what Adam just wrote.
philadelphialawyer
@Adam L Silverman: Really? Who is “no one?” Most people in the world are not so eager to involve themselves in other people’s wars. Obviously, it is a FP elite that we are talking about here. But it is not primarily concerned about the optics of people dying. Indeed, in areas where there is no great strategic interest, wars are allowed to rage on for years and decades.
geg6
@philadelphialawyer:
True dat.
philadelphialawyer
@Omnes Omnibus: All true. And foreign intervention does very little to make any of that better. My view is that without foreign intervention, one side would likely win sooner rather than later. Then, at least, the war would be over. And it is not at all clear that foreigners are better at picking who should be the winning side than whatever the outcome of the people on the ground fighting it out would be. Rather worse, in my view. See Chalabi.
Villago Delenda Est
Calling the Department of Redundancy Department.
Major Major Major Major
@philadelphialawyer: ‘the people currently residing within the borders of what we call “Syria”‘ is only one of several definitions of “Syrian”.
Omnes Omnibus
@philadelphialawyer: The Iraq war is a shitty example. But would you say let Bosnias and Rwandas happen even if we have a chance of stopping them?
Miss Bianca
@Omnes Omnibus: yes – I’m afraid that “let them fight it all out” all too easily becomes, “it’s Syria for Christ’s sake and who the fuck CARES what happens over there – just don’t let them bring their dirty Mooslim cooties over here!”
It’s a fine line between proxy war and intervention for humanity’s sake – but here’s the thing: I actually trust the Obama administration to try to thread that needle. I would not, in any way, shape, or form, trust a Trump administration – or any Republican administration – to be willing, or able, to do it.
amk
@philadelphialawyer: It’s a mixed bag. In some cases, it has worked. Bosnia. Rwanda. In others, it’s fubar all the way. Entire ME.
Adam L Silverman
@Miss Bianca:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NihLukspiMI
Ken
@Adam L Silverman:
Or, he was told during today’s classified briefing, but a bird flew past the window just then.
hovercraft
@philadelphialawyer:
The problem with allowing them to fight it out amongst themselves, is that the conflict is destabilizing the entire region, Jordan is currently hosting millions of Syrian refugees, in addition to the Iraqis and Palestinians who were already there. The tension and fighting will not stay within Syria, so outside forces do need to be involved. The rise of nationalism in Europe was initially caused by economic strife and anxiety, but now it is largely being fueled by fears of terrorism and anti-immigrant sentiment. The refugee crisis in both Europe and the Middle East is destabilizing some of our closest allies. There are humanitarian and geopolitical reasons for this interference in a civil war.
Adam L Silverman
@philadelphialawyer: I would argue that in places where there isn’t a steady stream of reporting wars are allowed to rage on. But in this case Syria and Iraq are strategic for a number of reasons. And as a result, and because of IS and because of how badly Operation Iraqi Freedom went, we’re going to be involved.
I'mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet
I’m no expert, but Syria seems to be even more of a mess than the usual sand trap. It’s Russia’s client in the middle east, and Putin doesn’t want to give up his warm-water port and airport there.
Syria is a (non-contiguous, but still a) conduit from Iran to Lebanon and Iran has clients in Lebanon that it does not want to cut loose.
Assad, like his father, is a blood-thirsty monster who has killed far more people than Daesh, but he’s generally kept his killing within his borders, so the big powers haven’t wanted to do anything about him.
Erdogan has seemingly convinced himself (and much of Turkey) that the only way to deal with Kurds who want political power is to kill them. He’s also purging the country of all opposition under the guise of rooting out all the evil Gulenists who somehow are so powerful that they controlled much of the society yet couldn’t keep an attempted coup running for more than a few hours…
Erdogan has been trying to play both sides in dealing with the US/NATO/EU and Russia. Turkey just invaded Syria to “clear” an area near the border that the Kurds were coming too close to claiming. Much/most of Erdogan’s actions in Syria have seemingly been driven by his wanting to wipe out the Kurds. He seems to have little interest in Daesh.
I’m happy that Kerry and Lavrov came to an agreement, but I don’t see Turkey or Erdogan mentioned in the BBC reporting. I don’t trust Erdogan not to take any pretext (real or imagined) to blow up any cease fire if he thinks it will help him weaken the Kurds.
I don’t see the conflict ending until Assad is gone, but he has no incentive to leave that I can see. If Assad is gone, it’s hard to imagine that any new government is going to be willing (and they certainly should not be forced) to let Russia use the port and airport. Iran won’t support anything that doesn’t give them a say in the outcome, and they won’t want to give up influence there. Turkey won’t want to give up their influence and veto over the Kurds either. Gulf states that hate Iran with the fire of 1000 suns are unlikely to accept anything other than a Saudi-leaning Sunni-dominated government. Western and international aid groups aren’t going to be willing to dump billions of dollars and tons of aid into the county to get it back on its feet in a reasonable amount of time if there isn’t some sort of political consensus and reasonable security.
Ideally, Assad would remove himself or be removed from the scene. Ideally, a new “national unity” government would somehow be constituted with support from the people and a willingness to let Russia continue to use its based under very strict rules (no internal interference, etc.). Ideally, Daesh and the rest will dry up as a military force. Ideally Iran and the gulf states will honestly support a final deal.
It’s hard to see any of those good things happening anytime soon though. But at least Kerry and Lavrov are trying again…
My $0.02.
Cheers,
Scott.
Omnes Omnibus
@Miss Bianca: I agree. I think I may tend to be more interventionist friendly than many here, but Bosnia was going on while I was still in the army and Rwanda happened not long after I got out. I think we could have made a difference but chose not to. I already had submitted my army resignation but would have retracted it to go to Bosnia. FWIW.
debbie
@philadelphialawyer:
Absolutely heartless. Tens of thousands of innocent civilians have died. What’s the point of civilization if this kind of crap goes on?
Omnes Omnibus
@amk: You’re saying that letting them fight it out in Bosnia and Rwanda worked?
debbie
@amk:
What is it that “worked” in Rawanda?
Miss Bianca
@Adam L Silverman: Oh, how, HOW could I have missed that reference? And me having watched the 36 Chambers just last year! (hangs head in shame)
@hovercraft: Bingo
Adam L Silverman
@efgoldman: I’ll have to check. I’m not doing it tonight.
hovercraft
@philadelphialawyer:
The situation in Syria is more like that of the Balkans, there are ethnic, religious and political alliances that exacerbate all these tensions, Syria’s neighbors will never stop interfering in the war because of their own domestics divisions. The break up of the Ottoman Empire created boundaries that split up ethnic and religious groups, and all of these countries want to make sure they are not empowered and or emboldened. First among them would be the Kurds, all the players in the region are agreed on this one thing, no independent Kurdish state.
debbie
@Omnes Omnibus:
OMG, I still remember the NYT front page photo of hundreds of bodies floating in the river out of Rawanda. It was taken at long-range and at first looked like a log jam in the Northwest. Absolutely horrifying.
I can’t be thinking of this shit before bedtime.
debbie
@efgoldman:
And gas, the bastard.
waysel
@redshirt: Festivus. First: airing of grievances. Second: feats of strength.
Lyrebird
@Omnes Omnibus: Thanks for the vignette. I don’t think there’s much to be gained in answering “who are Syrians” bc it does not matter right now how many of the leaders of forces of destruction were born there or were lured there by the prospect of carnage.
The only nit I would pick here:
@Adam L Silverman:
..is that there are hordes of Syrians just trying not to get killed. It doesn’t take unanimous (sp?) consent to have civil war. But I know I’m the tyro splitting hairs to an expert here, and the nit-picking supports your and others’ points… given the war momentum going on in Syria, I can believe that outside intervention could be necessary, and I defer to the judgement of folks who’ve actually served in D, I, M, or E.
I just pray for peace and send coppers to the IRC sometimes, and try to GOTV for people with a bit of respect for the soldiers who have to carry out the missions.
Was honored to work briefly for Kerry’s campaign.
Omnes Omnibus
@Lyrebird: I never asked “who are the Syrians?”
Will R
@debbie: There’s no shortage of conflict areas in the world. We’re not capable of solving all of these issues diplomatically or militarily .
My problem with the WH’s Syria policy is that they spent years actively ensuring that the civil war in Syria continued by supporting the rebels, even before ISIS entered Syria. The argument for the rebels is not quite so clear cut.
It’s not quite so clear who the good guys are and who the bad guys are because it’s a civil war. So, why are we taking sides when we cannot control the outcome?
Omnes Omnibus
@Will R: Okay. We have a shitty situation. How would you resolve it?
Will R
@Omnes Omnibus: I think what’s happening now is the only solution. Both sides are too weak to win outright. Assad’s forces are incapable of doing much without Russian/Iranian support.
But, I wonder whether it was necessary to fight a war of attrition for years to get to this point. And, I question our role in propping up the rebels with weapons, training, etc.
Were it not for the ISIS problem I would not intervene. But, here we are. Hopefully, the ceasefire lasts.
Tissue Thin Pseudonym
@philadelphialawyer:
That’s just . . . spectacularly wrong. My guess is that you’re dishonestly fiddling around with the definition of “home grown” in order to reach that conclusion. Either that, or the two of us have entirely different definitions of “empowering”.
Omnes Omnibus
@Will R: Yes, here we are. We can’t play with counterfactuals.
As far as your earlier question goes, the best I can offer is applying Just War Theory.
Mai.naem.mobile
Has Trump said anything about the body language of his classified briefing officers today? Were they tut tutting and shaking their heads while telling him about the ceasefire? Did they have their arms folded close to their bodies?
I'mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet
@Will R: Your recollection of US support of the Syrian rebels doesn’t match mine or this BBC report from October 2015:
FWIW.
Cheers,
Scott.
Omnes Omnibus
philadelphialawyer got a bit of push back and seems to have gone away.
Will R
@Omnes Omnibus: I’m interested in these counterfactuals because learning lessons is what will prevent the next Iraq-style fiasco.
I see some parallels with Syria with role reversals in terms of which ethnic groups rule and which are subjugated. Our hubris is thinking we can introduce westerns norms into this process without making a mess.
Omnes Omnibus
@Will R: Evidence that we are trying to introduce Western norms?
Avoiding the next Iraq is easy. I mentioned Just War Theory above. Go read about it.
Anoniminous
@Adam L Silverman:
The question is: do “Syrians” exist? There are Kurds, there are Arabs, there are Druze, there are Yezidi, there are Alawis, all with several flavors of religion, tribal affiliations, aspirations, and political goals, living in a state cobbled up under the Sykes–Picot Agreement. Aside from Assad, who else living there gives a damn about “Syria?”
Will R
@I’mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet: Scott, I’m not sure what exactly you’re taking issue with. Do you mean to say I’m exaggerating the actual amount of aid provided to the rebels?
This may be true but you’d also have to factor in that we were also relying on Turkey, KSA, Qatar, etc to directly support the rebels. It’s not easy to measure our support given that we were providing non-lethal aid followed by weaponry and ammo along with training of rebel troops in Jordan.
Adam L Silverman
@efgoldman: I had a student at USAWC who was a Rwandan general. He’s retired now. His mother was killed in one of the massacres. It was a terrible thing and as someone who believes in the US’s national ideals, we failed to live up to them in regards to the Rwandan Civil War and genocide.
Will R
@Omnes Omnibus: Meaning secular Western-style democracy with mutual respect for different ethnic groups, religions, etc. By avoiding the next Iraq I mean that replacing the regime in Syria doesn’t necessarily mean we solve all of our problems; we may merely create a new set of problems as occurred in Iraq.
I’m quite familiar with Just War Theory. It sounds good to me.
Adam L Silverman
@Lyrebird: Its a good nit to pick. I was not trying to ignore, obscure, or elide that large numbers of Syrians are just trying to make do and survive. Working with host country nationals is a large part of my work and making sure appropriate and correct information about them is available and integrated into strategic and policy development, as well as tactical and operational planning.
Adam L Silverman
@Mai.naem.mobile: I think he saw General Patton in a waffle at breakfast.
Splitting Image
@philadelphialawyer:
At the moment, that would be a very problematic definition of “Syrians”. Millions of people who would tell you that they live in Syria are currently refugees in Europe and North America, not to mention Jordan, Lebanon, and plenty of other places. Some refugees will probably settle where they are, but others will want to go home at the first opportunity. That won’t happen until somebody figures out a way to end the fighting.
I'mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet
@Will R: You said:
My recollection, as supported by the BBC link I posted, is that the White House didn’t do much at all to support the rebels – certainly not anything approaching the level that many advocated. It’s hard for me to see much evidence that the US prolonged the Syrian civil war by supporting the rebels too much.
If you have links indicating otherwise, I would appreciate the pointers.
I have little doubt, but don’t actually know, that the gulf states were arming their favorite factions as much as they dared. And a conduit to get those weapons into Syria most likely included Turkey.
But unless you have evidence to indicate that that was some grand White House plan to support the rebels covertly while they argued for years about how much to overtly support the rebels (the worries about radicals getting the weapons, etc.) and how, then it seems to me to come uncomfortably close to saying that only the US had agency – something that I don’t accept.
FWIW. YMMV.
Cheers,
Scott.
redshirt
@Adam L Silverman: Is the USA the world’s police?
Adam L Silverman
@I’mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet: The problem has always been a deeper understanding of the Syrian socio-cultural context. The Assad government isn’t supported only by Alawites, but also by Syrian Shi’a, Syriac Christians, Syrian Druze, and a plurality of Syrian Sunnis who have been empowered (politically, economically, militarily) by the Assad family – first Hafez and now Bashar al Assad. The opposition groups are made of Syrian Sunnis and this is separated from the Nusra Front (al Qaeda) and IS folks. Syrian Sunnis are religiously quite conservative. They’re not Wahhabist muwaheedun (those who follow the doctrine of the radical unity of the Deity), nor are the Qutbists, but they are very conservative in the traditional sense. So you have two different conundrums here. The first is that the breakdown on the sides in Syria isn’t as simple as Assads on once side, the majority Syrian Sunnis on the other. The second is that the Syria’s Sunni religious dynamic is very religiously conservative/traditional. Add to this what form of government would the opposition create? Would it be a theocracy? Have a heavy religious component? Protections, actual and enforced protections for the Alawite, Syriac Christian, Druze, and Shi’a minorities? Which of the opposition rebel groups get to run what? Do they even agree on any of the above? And this is before we even get to the issue/question of Syria’s Kurds. All of this contributed to the Administration’s reticence to arm the opposition rebels and why the policy was to slowly, carefully, and cautiously vet them, then train them, equip them, and support them.
Omnes Omnibus
@Will R: I asked for evidence that we are trying to introduce said norms in Syria. You responded with something definitional. I say non-responsive.
Omnes Omnibus
@redshirt: No. Where should we draw the line?
redshirt
@Adam L Silverman: Damn. Glad I wasn’t born in Syria.
Adam L Silverman
@Anoniminous: This is a good and important question. And what makes this a particularly difficult conflict and this problem is shared with Iraq (and other states/societies in the Middle East and beyond). Most of these states and societies were cobbled together by the Great Powers. What we’re observing is the inhabitants of them finally, after a long delay caused by colonialism and then post-colonial tyrannies, determining for themselves who does and does not get to be a Syrian or an Iraqi. Who gets to fully share in the state and society and who doesn’t and who will be sort of tolerated – maybe when things are going well. And this process is very violent, it is often iterative – hence the 30 Years War analogy.
Anoniminous
The US did not have the logistics capability of deploying troops into Rwanda on April 7, 1994 or even by mid-June when the killings were effectively over.
Ruckus
@hovercraft:
Agreed
The concept of letting a country work out it's issues with a civil war was not as perilous 100 or more years ago as it is now. There are a lot more humans now, we live a lot closer together, weapons are much more deadly, a lot of them become proxy wars if not stopped early…… Working things out with diplomacy, or at least trying to is not just a nice thing to do, it is now necessary to avoid a much larger conflict.
Omnes Omnibus
@Anoniminous: Arguable.
redshirt
Prior to the genocidal war, what connections did Rwanda have with the USA? Have we funded their rebels? Sold them missiles?
Omnes Omnibus
@redshirt: None really. And?
redshirt
@Omnes Omnibus: But we are, aren’t we? Aren’t we assumed to act if there’s an international incident? Aren’t we the country that could try and stop N. Korea? For example. There’s no one else and we all know it.
redshirt
@Omnes Omnibus: Yes. We had nothing to do with the country. What business does the USA have in injecting itself into domestic African affairs?
Omnes Omnibus
@redshirt: I asked a question. Where is the line? Me, as I stated before, I hold to the Just War Theory.
I'mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet
@Adam L Silverman: Thanks.
It’s important to understand the complexity in the real world, and I think you did a great job in that paragraph.
I think the American People™ would actually appreciate and understand that nuance if the national leadership (beyond Obama) and the press would actually take the time to explain it, and drop the notion that if you can’t create a 7 second video sound-bite then nobody will listen. The NY Times used to cover Einstein’s theories on its front page. We haven’t gotten stupider over the last 100 years, we’re just out of practice.
Syria is a mess. I hope some way is found to end the killing and achieve a long-term peace, but (like you said) unless some new approach is found, it’s hard not to see it going on for decades.
Thanks again.
Cheers,
Scott.
? Martin
I will say again – people approach situations like Syria with a base assumption that every problem is deterministic and has an acceptable solution. Almost all problems involving people are non-deterministic, particularly when people’s primarily motivation is to undermine the goals of others (as in war, some politics, etc.). And some situations can be so chaotic that it’s nearly impossible to chart a course that leads to a predictable conclusion (for non-trivial cases – you can always nuke from orbit for a predictable solution). And while you can usually get a resolution eventually, even if simply due to exhaustion of other options, there’s no requirement that the choice of resolutions will contain one that is acceptable. Lots and lots and lots of problems have nothing but catastrophic solutions.
Syria was almost certainly impossible to stop once you recognized that it was about to blow up – by then it was too late, and we don’t have time machines to solve these things. At that point, we want to believe that the exceptional America, possessed of moral clarity and an abundance of resources could have done something to salvage the problem or to bring it to a resolution that wasn’t defined by misery for the Syrian people. So you’re debating dumping resources into a situation that you can’t control and can possibly steer toward a terrible outcome which might be marginally better than the alternatives, but will unavoidably be considered terrible and therefore a failure (see Libya). Acting may be the morally correct decision, even though it provides minimal benefit. But there are opportunity costs to every decision.
Will R
@Omnes Omnibus: I believe that it’s implied by our strategy. President Obama has been adamant that Assad must step down for years now. Assad loyalists feel that they are the protectors of the Alawis, Shia, Druze, Christians, and other minorities against the rebels, whom they believe to be mostly Islamists. Even the moderate elements are described as “moderate head-choppers”‘.
The rebels are heavily Sunni and have been unwilling to accept continued Alawi rule, even if Assad were forced out. The US would prefer a ruling government that respects all groups but we cannot guarantee the type of government that arise if the majority in Syria comes to power. We failed at this in Iraq and its what I mean by western norms.
Omnes Omnibus
@redshirt: Fuck it, let people massacre people? Right? it’s only Africa, right?
Omnes Omnibus
@Will R: I don’t see your belief as conclusive. Sorry.
Adam L Silverman
@redshirt: For good, bad, or otherwise quite often and by default. We are the only state that has the ability to conduct strategic lift and strategic strike – the former because no one else still has the capability the latter because our Air Power is so superior that no one can compete. As a result we, in conjunction with our allies and partners, maintain the openness of the Sea Lines of Commerce and Communication (SLOCC). The South China Sea is not currently awash in blood and burning fuel oil because we maintain its openness. And despite Chinese statements otherwise, and Chinese nationalism, and Chinese attempts to project Sea Power, they are quite glad we keep a cool head and keep the SLOCC open. If they had to do it it would bankrupt their economy and they would suddenly find out why having an air craft carrier is not the same as being able to effectively fight one as their regional rival India is capable of.
As long as we are the superpower, and as long as we are the only ones with strategic lift and uncontested strategic strike, and as long as the post WW II global system remains in place, we are the default police. But we’re also the default humanitarian assistance. Because we alone have strategic lift, we are the ones that bring people from our allies and partners and the material assistance when there is a major global catastrophe. No one else has the capability. We have a Coast Guard float in every ocean and sea that is there to work with partners and allies on their naval capabilities as most of our partners and allies don’t have blue water navies. So if there’s an offshore oil spill or a tsunami or some other natural or man made disaster we can be on station to help very quickly. We can put Marines afloat very quickly as a Marine Air Ground Task Force (MAGTAF). When a hurricane hits Central America we can have Coasties and Marines on station very, very quickly. And our Air Force gives us the strategic lift to get us, our partners and allies, and relief supplies anywhere in the world. We have an expeditionary Army not just because it makes it easier for us to project power forward, but because it places personnel where they can assist partners and allies quickly. I have a close friend who is coming to the end of his brigade/brigade equivalent command in South Korea. The Division Chief of Staff in Hawaii is someone I served with in Iraq, was my student at USAWC, and a good friend. The Corps Commander whose corps is aligned to Asia-Pacific is someone I’ve done work for on and off over the past decade. His job isn’t just preparing to fight somewhere in Asia, its to get his people on station in case of a tsunami or an earthquake or a cyclone. We have around 4,500 foreign service officers deployed throughout the globe – some working with host nations on economic development, others on legal/law enforcement, and that’s not even counting the USAID officers, who are themselves now part of the foreign service. We do a lot of things in a lot of places. And we do them because by doing so it diminishes the likelihood that we might have to fight in those places and because it is often the right thing to do.
Omnes Omnibus
@Adam L Silverman: Harrumph.
Will R
@I’mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet: Scott, i understand your question. There are plenty of links out there from mainstream sources that address our proven aid to the rebels. As far as the covert side of this.. you should use your best judgement for that.
Now.. I don’t happen to believe that our support, alone, was sufficient to keep the rebels in this. Other nations played their roles, as well, for their own interests. But, Whatever aid we provided was still instrumental in allowing the rebels to survive and prevent Assad from winning this war. Note: not defending Assad here. Terrible, evil man.
Adam L Silverman
@redshirt: We still deal with vestiges of this here in the US. There are still sizable, though fortunately still small, numbers of American that don’t believe that African Americans and/or Hispanic/Latino Americans and/or Asian-Americans and/or Native Americans and/or Jewish Americans and/or Muslim Americans and/or LGBTQ Americans are actually Americans and deserving of all the rights and privileges as other Americans. We have fought over this, both very low intensity and sporadic and much higher intensity (the Great Rebellion/Civil War) over and over and over again throughout American history. As I wrote, this is an iterative process. We have only reached the pluralistic stage of American civil society/civic culture since the late 1960s. That progress is not consolidated, fragile, and as we’ve seen with the Supreme Court decision in Shelby County or the police brutality issue not completely secure. We just tend to ignore or forget or in some cases never learn just how bloody and violent our own history is.
redshirt
@Adam L Silverman: Thank you for this awesome answer.
Adam L Silverman
@? Martin: And this is why we call them wicked problems, now doing business as ill structured problems.
Will R
@Omnes Omnibus: No worries. You asked me to explain myself and that’s all I can do.
Adam L Silverman
@Omnes Omnibus: Is this a good harrumph or a bad harrumph?
Anoniminous
@Adam L Silverman:
Who gets to be Gustavus Adolphus? :-)
One thing that would really, really, help is if the US would stop arming ISIS using the Iraqi Army as the pass-through entity.
Omnes Omnibus
@Adam L Silverman: I am a huge Mel Brooks fan. Harrumph is always good.
I'mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet
@Omnes Omnibus: It’s good to be the king, also too.
‘night all.
Cheers,
Scott.
Adam L Silverman
@Omnes Omnibus: I am too and thought that was the spirit intended.
jl
@Anoniminous:
” the US would stop arming ISIS using the Iraqi Army as the pass-through entity ”
Which Iraqi Army you mean? The one now that (I guess) you are implying has passed arms by running away from their stations, and through corruption, in the past. Or the remnants of the old Hussein Sunni Iraqi Army that the geniuses in the Dub II administration dissolved and are not pass-thrus that we have any control over?
Adam L Silverman
@Anoniminous: Don’t disagree there.
jl
@Adam L Silverman: I don’t want the US to be the world’s policeman in terms of doing a lot of armed interventions for bad or silly reasons. But I think if that tendency can be controlled, it is a good thing.
And if we are the world’s first-responders I think it is a good thing economically. Creates more demand, which we need. A heavily weaponized Keynesian fiscal policy is about the best we can hope for wrt to responsible fiscal policy that is large enough to be noticeable. I think there are many good reasons for the US to not be the world’s tough cop if it means going around looking for excuses to blow up people and stuff. But the cost of it is not one of them, at least in terms of public finance and macroeconomics.
jl
@srv: that’s a little better than your recent stuff. Parody of someone very ignorant of Roman History, right?
jl
@Adam L Silverman: I don’t understand the ‘ Iraqi Army as the pass-through entity’. What am I missing? Is that going on now with the current version?
Anoniminous
@jl:
The two Iraqi armies we spent hundreds of billions of dollars to train and equip.
Adam L Silverman
@jl: From what I recall, about a year or so ago a lot of the Iraqi Army wasn’t able/willing to fight. So they’d get set up to engage, then bolt. When they did so they left their equipment behind. As they got better, if they were getting beaten, there stuff would get left behind when they retreated. So IS would scarf it up.
Will R
@jl: Yep… it looks bad when we have to blow up our own equipment that we sold/gave to the Iraqis and which they then proceeded to leave behind as loot when ISIS was on the advance.
jl
@Anoniminous: @Adam L Silverman: Oh, OK. Yes, that was the first Iraqi Army possibility that I mentioned in my comment. I thought that had been fixed.
But even if it is fixed, ISIS did get quite a stock of pass-thru to use up for bad ends.
Adam L Silverman
@jl: As far as I know its been remedied.
Adam L Silverman
I’m to bed, have a nice night!
Lyrebird
@Adam L Silverman: Thanks for understanding my not-so-well-worded comment!
liberal
All the moral posing going on here is so utterly laughable, given our role in the ongoing slaughter in Yemen.
Will R
@liberal: Look at you calling out moral posturing on the internet. You’re not the only one with access to news about Yemen. It just happens that it didn’t come up in this particular thread.
wormtown
@SiubhanDuinne: I had the same thought. I hope (well first of all, that she wins and) she keeps Kerry as SOS.
Culture of Truth
@Adam L Silverman: I said I didn’t disagree, just that’s interesting.
Sam
No good will come of this. While not an expert, I was in bad spots in Iraq in 07-08, so my comments below are tempered by some direct and very unpleasant experience.
1) If we know anything, it is that the people on the ground won’t stop fighting. No modus vivendi has been possible since about 2009, when the Shia unilaterally took over Iraq.
2) It is ridiculous to think that we will be able to single out some of the groups for annihilation. The groups will simply morph while the underlying Shia-Sunni Arab-Kurd fight continues.
3) To that point, because we are backing different parties than the Russians, albeit with an appropriate lack of enthusiasm, we will spend a lot of time and energy arguing with the Russians as we each cheat to support our “teams”. That is, this partnership with the Russians is doomed before the ink is dry on the agreement.
4) Who says we can’t tolerate an ocean of atrocities in the Middle East? Ex: Iraq-Iran war. Sure it is a political talking point, but I don’t get any sense of a real appetite to actually do anything, for the very good reason that the cost-benefit calculus is clearly not in our favor. I work in national security, the hall conversations are not about this conflict, or indeed about anything in the Centcom AOR.
Adam’s analogy with the 30 years war is a pretty good one. We have another generation or so to go.
Matt McIrvin
@I’mNotSureWhoIWantToBeYet: Yes, though most of what the NYT said about Einstein’s theories was that they were too complicated for regular people to understand.
The little article on the eclipse observations isn’t bad, though.