"Humanitarian" Intervention In Syria?

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Foreign Affairs
Posted on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 08:45:34 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

NYTimes:

Security forces in Syria fired tear gas and live ammunition Friday to disperse crowds of demonstrators who took to the streets of Damascus and other cities after the noon prayers that have been a focus of uprisings across the Arab world, according to protesters, witnesses and accounts posted on social networking sites.

The authorities had deployed police officers, soldiers and military vehicles in two of the country’s three largest cities ahead of a call for nationwide protests testing the popular reception of reforms decreed by President Bashar al-Assad as well as the momentum that organizers have sought to bring to the five-week uprising.

The main problem with "humanitarian" interventions in foreign civil wars is that they do not work unbless you accept that you are deciding to go to war, I think Libya is proving that point. OF course even if you accept you are going to war, then you can have an Iraq Debacle on your hands.

Speaking for me only

< The Missed Moment | The Case Against Health Insurance Exchanges >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

"Humanitarian" Intervention In Syria? | 28 comments (28 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Guess it's a good thing that our leaders.... (none / 0) (#1)
by Romberry on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 09:09:44 AM EST

...don't bother with things like consistency or precedent. On that count, don't take my word for it. Take the word of Obama admin Deputy National Security Adviser Denis McDonough:

"We don't make decisions about questions like intervention based on consistency or precedent," said Denis McDonough, the administration's deputy national security adviser, amid an off-camera gaggle of reporters. "We make them based on how we can best advance our interests in the region."

Being exceptional is just the greatest thing evah!

That;s actually a consistent (none / 0) (#5)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 09:40:20 AM EST

principle, I do not see how it supported the Libya intervention however.


You're right. (none / 0) (#8)
by Romberry on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 10:12:55 AM EST

That is a consistent principle. And regardless of what rhetoric or excuses our pols use to try and pretty it up, that's the only principle. Unfortunately, it isn't always a good principle. It's a principle of might and dominance, not of right.


: Well (none / 0) (#9)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 10:16:56 AM EST

in any event, it was not applied in Libya imo.

If you accept national interest (none / 0) (#2)
by Politalkix on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 09:34:55 AM EST

criteria for deciding when to go to war (btd's criteria, if I understand correctly) we should be sending troops to Syria. A cold war with hot flashes has already broken out in syria and bahrain between iran and saudi arabia and israel. If you consider US national interests, any win for Iran is bad.
I like the humanitarian criteria better (even with its inconsistencies).
National interests demand that we remain in iraq, afghanistan and go to syria and protect the govt of bahrain and yemen using our military.

Say wha? (none / 0) (#4)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 09:39:38 AM EST

What victory for Iran?

Your comment makes no sense imo.


In Bahrain (none / 0) (#6)
by Politalkix on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 09:55:51 AM EST

a proxy war is being fought between the saudi arabia and iran. Every decision in the middle east (including syria)which the state dept and pentagon are making now are being seen through the lens of iran-whether it helps or hurts that country. I will post a couple of links this evening in that regard..


A proxy war? (none / 0) (#7)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 10:10:39 AM EST

So Bahrainis are just pawns and have no actual aspirations to democracy?

Thanks for clearing that up.

Sheesh.


No (none / 0) (#10)
by Politalkix on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 10:23:42 AM EST

Bahrainis and Syrians have aspirations of democracy but the role of iran and saudi arabia are very big in those countries at this moment. Not so much in Libya...


So (none / 0) (#11)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 10:30:41 AM EST

out of Libya and into Bahrain is your argument? Interesting.


where did i say that (none / 0) (#12)
by Politalkix on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 10:39:56 AM EST

Under the national interests criteria (none / 0) (#13)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 11:04:00 AM EST

you articulated but do not wish to see followed.


: FTR (none / 0) (#14)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 11:05:12 AM EST

I think your calculus of the national interest is daft. Wrong in every respect.
But I disagreed with the NeoCons on this as well.

: Once again, No (none / 0) (#27)
by Politalkix on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 05:52:31 PM EST

I told you that the humanitarian criteria should be the basis for interventon (post # 2) IMO, not the "national interest criteria". A couple of weeks ago, I had specifically written (on a thread about Libya) that the "national interest" criteria did not appeal to me because what constituted "national interest" was subject to varied assessments.
Here are a couple of links regarding political dynamics between Iran and Saudi Arabia in the ME at this time.
link 1
link2

John McCain, reporting from (none / 0) (#3)
by KeysDan on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 09:39:01 AM EST

Benghazi, finds the Libyan rebels to be "heros" . Based on his track record, from we are all Georgians, to his his infamous stroll in a Baghdad market to show progress along with his friend, Lindsey (got five rugs for five bucks) Graham, this, in itself, is not too assuring.

"Nobel peace drones" (none / 0) (#15)
by oculus on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 11:35:44 AM EST

Greenwald's excellent headline today.

I haven't read yet (none / 0) (#16)
by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 11:58:24 AM EST

Sounds like someone beat BTD in the Headline department today.


Never! (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 12:07:02 PM EST

: Greenwald doesn't do sports headlines. (none / 0) (#19)
by oculus on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 01:06:43 PM EST

Oy....well nobody is going to like this (none / 0) (#18)
by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 12:08:27 PM EST

But this is going to happen much more often now that we are going with a smaller footprint in Afghanistan. This is the Biden plan, bombing from drones. And you won't have people collecting intel in the region like you do now, they will have limited intel but lots of bombs and drones because those don't require boots on the ground so lots more family members of militants will be taken out with them. I know when they went after them last year they preferred to capture them, but we aren't going to have the SF on the ground to do that either scaling back in Afghanistan. So when they track them and find them they will simply bomb them and if wives and children are present they will not care because they will have to change the ROE to meet the new mission and what they have to accomplish that with. If we don't have the manpower to carefully structure the removal of the Haqqani network we will remove them uncarefully. This is a war and inspite of how many people refuse to accept how dangerous the Haqqani network is...they are


Greenwald doesn't seem to think U.S. (none / 0) (#20)
by oculus on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 01:08:26 PM EST

is accomplishing anything permanent, w or w/o drones. What say you?


In this war define (none / 0) (#21)
by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 01:35:09 PM EST

permanent? What is permanent in any war? What is permanent in life at all? Nothing is. We can address danger though, and we must address some dangers to even survive. The Haqqani network is dangerous, it is serious danger with nukes at their fingertips. Our intel HAS BEEN very good, I hope it continues to be so. And it may have been judged that the danger was so extreme by those they removed that they couldn't afford patience or they didn't know family members were present. I don't know. Everyone of these strikes is performed on a case by case basis, tons of people involved, tons of intel. But if collateral damage is going to bother people then they need to understand that a smaller footprint in Afghanistan will equal much more collateral damage because the Haqqani network is a very real and very dangerous enemy and we will not stop addressing that danger. And for anyone who doesn't want to believe that the Haqqani network is a danger all I can say is that there was no real danger in Iraq and Iraq deployments began tearing our military apart because nobody wanted to die for bull$hit. Dealing with Afghanistan is not doing that, if anything it has strengthened the military and the resolve of those serving at this time. The dangers are real.


Please elaborate re the danger? (none / 0) (#22)
by oculus on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 01:57:56 PM EST

Further terrorist attacks on U.S. soil? Taliban harboring aQ? Taliban treatment of women?


Google the haqqani network (none / 0) (#23)
by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 02:56:10 PM EST

Here's a good write up too. If the dangers weren't real to us and to other NATO nations and to India as well and all that that entails for the planet....our soldiers would not be willing to die for this and do multiple deployments. And their wives and children certainly would not. I'm not saying that everyone is built for standing on the wall either, but some are and there is the need at this time and so we will. And if my husband dies over there during his next deployment nobody will ever convince me he died for nothing. This is about maintaining safety. I have no idea what winning looks like but I know what safety looks like and I know what chaos and multiple terrorists bombings hailed on completely unsuspecting innocent civilians having lunch or doing any other common daily activity looks like. There is a wall to stand on here too. One side respects and protects the fabric of civil society and the other hates it and would do anything it could to bring wholesale chaos and destruction to anyone they could. They would unleash a nuke on someone if they ever got one, they wouldn't even think twice.


I have the utmost respect for your (none / 0) (#24)
by oculus on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 03:02:38 PM EST

dedication and that of your family.


: I knew that about you (none / 0) (#26)
by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 03:20:31 PM EST

I'm just remembering how bad things were though when there were no WMDs. Many spouses both male and female issued ultimatums about staying in the military. I tried.
When we are coming for someone in the Haqqani network, they know it. We usually prefer to capture so we give them the opportunity to surrender. Sometimes they deliberately put family members in the line of fire too, refusing to go alone. I think they are selfish disgusting "warriors". I know they think they are warriors, but they deliberately get their family members killed with them because they are dying for jihad. I think they are religous freaky cowards of the first order. And if you think we are safe to go into the situation and arrest one and remove them you would be very very wrong. They are prepared for us and our eventual coming to get them. If they aren't our enemy and they mean us no harm why are they so prepared for us?

And the Haqqani Network is a platform (none / 0) (#25)
by Militarytracy on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 03:03:00 PM EST

for many terrorist organizations. Al Qaeda is one, they are affiliated with the Taliban too....anyone who is interested in terrorist jihad is usually welcome. But like any organization I'm sure they have their personality conflicts.


Silly! Just Paint Flowers On The Bombs AND (none / 0) (#28)
by seabos84 on Fri Apr 22, 2011 at 06:08:06 PM EST

PRESTO! humanitarian bombs!

can't you guys get it through your heads, we're the good guyz!

rmm