Should the US use military force in Syria?

[GGT]

....by the time it gets to us that's already been considered....

I asked about military commanders, and at *what level* geopolitical ramifications has "already been considered".

And Russia is not a military superpower, China could be if it can get world deployment capabilities which is doesnt have yet.

Isn't Russia considered a military superpower because of their nuclear capabilities, along with supplying nations (like Syria) with weapons?

[Spenni]

I asked about military commanders, and at *what level* geopolitical ramifications has "already been considered".



Isn't Russia considered a military superpower because of their nuclear capabilities, along with supplying nations (like Syria) with weapons?

By that definition Pakistan is a global superpower.

[GGT]

Spenni, I don't want this discussion to mess with your state of mind, or your military mission. You don't have the "luxury" of questioning orders from superior officers, or debating the morality of military interventions....like we civies do in internet forums or town hall meetings.

While it's important and valuable to get a soldier's point of view, when deployed in active "War Zones"...I'm not sure it does much good for the soldier to be reminded of the political arguments back home. I hope you know what I mean.

[GGT]

By that definition Pakistan is a global superpower.

Combined with Iran gaining nuclear weapons, it's a possibility. The political concern has shifted toward unstable nations with powerful, lethal weapons. Not just nuclear arsenals held in warehouses, but chemical and biological weapons. All Weapons of Mass Destruction. And that's why a relatively small nation like Syria has become the focus of the diplomatic and military world.

[Loki]

It seems we've reached a turning-point in international relations, diplomacy, and military powers. The UN is hamstrung by Russian and Chinese veto powers. NATO is a vestige of WWII, with no members south of the equator except Turkey. The Arab League has added and suspended memberships, but can't compete with NATO or UN clout. Quite the pickle.

Which part of that hasn't been true for most of the period from 1946?

I believe Saudi Arabia and Qatar are to the south of Turkey by the way: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/09/wo...e.html?hp&_r=0

Combined with Iran gaining nuclear weapons, it's a possibility. The political concern has shifted toward unstable nations with powerful, lethal weapons. Not just nuclear arsenals held in warehouses, but chemical and biological weapons. All Weapons of Mass Destruction. And that's why a relatively small nation like Syria has become the focus of the diplomatic and military world.

That has to be one of the dumbest things you've ever said here...

[Hazir]

Which part of that hasn't been true for most of the period from 1946?

I believe Saudi Arabia and Qatar are to the south of Turkey by the way: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/09/wo...e.html?hp&_r=0



That has to be one of the dumbest things you've ever said here...

Last time I was there Turkey was still a huge distance north of the equator. Wouldn't surprise me if most of Turkey is on the same latitude as New York.

[Loki]

I didn't want to shatter GGT's dreams. Last I checked, most of Africa is above the equator.

[GGT]

It was quite early. Since you didn't really answer, does that mean you think IR is pretty much the same since 1946 -- and we're not at some turning point, or entering a new era after the Arab spring?

[Illusions]

You use them = you get bombed.

So this is DUNE with House atomics now?

[Loki]

It was quite early. Since you didn't really answer, does that mean you think IR is pretty much the same since 1946 -- and we're not at some turning point, or entering a new era after the Arab spring?

I think the turning point was the end of the Cold War. 9/11 was a lesser turning point. The Arab Spring might eventually bring about a change in how international politics is practiced in the Middle East, but we're nowhere near that point yet. Most of the Arab countries are too worried about what's happening within their own borders to concern themselves with what happens outside of them.

[GGT]

I think the turning point was the end of the Cold War. 9/11 was a lesser turning point. The Arab Spring might eventually bring about a change in how international politics is practiced in the Middle East, but we're nowhere near that point yet. Most of the Arab countries are too worried about what's happening within their own borders to concern themselves with what happens outside of them.

Interesting. I think 9/11 was a more crucial turning point. Because it was so shocking to Americans, it led to 'The Gobal War on Terrorism', the Patriot Act, expansions in TSA and NSA, the occupation of Iraq, hunting down Saddam Hussein and WMD, so many things.

What about the end of the Cold War was the turning point, as you see it?

[Loki]

Most of the things you mentioned were internal. The end of the Cold War at least temporarily ended the zero-sum dynamics between the US and Russia that prevented any constructive attempts to resolve global problems, particularly through international organizations. After the Cold War, countries suddenly started paying more attention to civil wars, to global economic inequality, to the global environment, to genocide, and to human rights. A vast majority of these issues were ignored during the Cold War (or simply didn't exist). 9/11 changed what was considered a justifiable reason to use force (whether internally or against other countries), which led to an increase in the number of conflicts against terrorists (or those being called terrorists) and temporarily created a bond between countries doing the fighting, even when they previously didn't enjoy good relations with one another. Many of these trends have become weaker over time though, and we're slowly returning to the Cold War mentality, albeit not on economic and environmental issues.

Meanwhile, the Arab Spring hasn't created any new alignments. The countries most strongly affected by the revolts have become pretty much inactive in international affairs (when is the last time you heard about Egyptian, Libya, Tunisian, Syrian, or Yemenite foreign policy?) The countries picking sides in these revolts are picking the same sides they were on before the Arab Spring. The overthrow of Morsi ended the one thing that could have led to an eventual change in foreign policy dynamics in the Middle East. It's possible that once the situation in Tunisia, Libya, Yemen, and maybe even Syria stabilizes, we'll see a different approach to foreign policy from the ruling regimes, but we're nowhere near that point yet.

Edit: the one actor that was royally screwed by the Arab Spring was Hamas, which is now vilified by Egypt, and ignored by Syria and Iran. Even that hasn't led Hamas to significantly change its policies though.

[Spenni]

Lets do this O: gas-masks are sitting useless in the connex right now anyway o_O

[GGT]

Most of the things you mentioned were internal.

'Internal' in the sense we changed domestic policies in response to 9/11 (Homeland Security, Patriot Act, etc.) Isn't that also when we realized terrorist cells and individual actors can be as/more dangerous threats than nation-states?

The end of the Cold War at least temporarily ended the zero-sum dynamics between the US and Russia that prevented any constructive attempts to resolve global problems, particularly through international organizations.

After the Cold War, countries suddenly started paying more attention to civil wars, to global economic inequality, to the global environment, to genocide, and to human rights. A vast majority of these issues were ignored during the Cold War (or simply didn't exist).

How much of that would you attribute to technology, and people getting a broad array of information faster, with pictures and live action news? I'm thinking how quickly cable TV and CNN spread, and revolutionized global news access.

9/11 changed what was considered a justifiable reason to use force (whether internally or against other countries), which led to an increase in the number of conflicts against terrorists (or those being called terrorists) and temporarily created a bond between countries doing the fighting, even when they previously didn't enjoy good relations with one another. Many of these trends have become weaker over time though, and we're slowly returning to the Cold War mentality, albeit not on economic and environmental issues.

Right...but we also got dragged into the Iraq War under false pretenses and changing goals, conflating Al Qaeda with Saddam, WMD with terrorist, deposing a regime with 'promoting democracy', all that. Since our use of violence (against anything remotely connected to 'terrorists or terrorism') created bonds between countries that didn't have good relations -- didn't the US reputation and credibility suffer, and was used to reinforce Anti-Americansim, and recruit jihadists? (I'm not sure what "trend" you think is weaker now.)

Meanwhile, the Arab Spring hasn't created any new alignments. The countries most strongly affected by the revolts have become pretty much inactive in international affairs (when is the last time you heard about Egyptian, Libya, Tunisian, Syrian, or Yemenite foreign policy?) The countries picking sides in these revolts are picking the same sides they were on before the Arab Spring. The overthrow of Morsi ended the one thing that could have led to an eventual change in foreign policy dynamics in the Middle East. It's possible that once the situation in Tunisia, Libya, Yemen, and maybe even Syria stabilizes, we'll see a different approach to foreign policy from the ruling regimes, but we're nowhere near that point yet.

Edit: the one actor that was royally screwed by the Arab Spring was Hamas, which is now vilified by Egypt, and ignored by Syria and Iran. Even that hasn't led Hamas to significantly change its policies though.

You don't think the Arab Spring has created transitional alignments or alliances? It sounds like you're saying the same main powers are still at the root (US, Russia, China), and everything else is power by proxy (including the middle east and Israel). Is that what you mean by a return to Cold War mentality?

Something else that's different today is how the UN functions (or doesn't). What do you think is the future of IR, if international agencies become more paralyzed and ineffective?

[Loki]

How much of that would you attribute to technology, and people getting a broad array of information faster, with pictures and live action news? I'm thinking how quickly cable TV and CNN spread, and revolutionized global news access.

There was a lot written on the "CNN effect" in the 1990s. The conclusion was that it has a relatively minor effect, and that effect can be seen only on humanitarian issues that would be uncostly to resolve and where the top politicians don't have a concrete position. New technology since then might have encourage protesters through demonstration effects, but hasn't had a noticeable effect on the actions of states.

Right...but we also got dragged into the Iraq War under false pretenses and changing goals, conflating Al Qaeda with Saddam, WMD with terrorist, deposing a regime with 'promoting democracy', all that. Since our use of violence (against anything remotely connected to 'terrorists or terrorism') created bonds between countries that didn't have good relations -- didn't the US reputation and credibility suffer, and was used to reinforce Anti-Americansim, and recruit jihadists? (I'm not sure what "trend" you think is weaker now.)

The Iraq War wouldn't have happened before 9/11 (not for WMD reasons anyway ). And thanks to 9/11 being further into the past, another Iraq War is unlikely to happen in the foreseeable future. There's no support for large-scale military actions against countries for supporting terrorism or doing bad things to their own people. As for what trends are getting eroded: a non-zero sum mentality among the major powers and willingness to accept (if not support) any action aimed at terrorists.

You don't think the Arab Spring has created transitional alignments or alliances? It sounds like you're saying the same main powers are still at the root (US, Russia, China), and everything else is power by proxy (including the middle east and Israel). Is that what you mean by a return to Cold War mentality?

Who's supporting Syria today that wouldn't have supported it before the Arab Spring? Who's opposing Syria today that wouldn't have opposed it before the Arab Spring? And yes, the unwillingness of China and Russia to agree to any kind of hostile action against a rogue state is what I mean by a return to Cold War mentality.

Something else that's different today is how the UN functions (or doesn't). What do you think is the future of IR, if international agencies become more paralyzed and ineffective?

The UN didn't function on non-economic matters from 1946 until 1989. We've been slipping back to that point over the last decade.

[Dreadnaught]

Obama's speech tonight was nuts. I don't see why he values doubling-down on public statements that he wants a military strike to "punish" Assad without inflicting substantial damage to his warmaking ability or personal safety. Meanwhile, Obama claims that Afghanistan and Iraq were wars without Congressional approval despite them getting higher margins in Congress than his Syria resolution can hope to gather.

And now we're supposed to be relieved that Assad has agreed to toy with UN inspectors to buy time?

Obama's making a bed stuffed with naiveté.

[GGT]

There was a lot written on the "CNN effect" in the 1990s. The conclusion was that it has a relatively minor effect, and that effect can be seen only on humanitarian issues that would be uncostly to resolve and where the top politicians don't have a concrete position. New technology since then might have encourage protesters through demonstration effects, but hasn't had a noticeable effect on the actions of states.

Once CNN was broadcast in airports across the world, public awareness changed a lot. Combined with news shifting to internet, journalism hit a transitional phase too, but in-depth reporting (and international news) took a hit. Now that 'governments' and even the Pope have Twitter feeds and Facebook accounts there's a good deal of time spent on political PR and damage control (or downright denial, as far as Assad is concerned). That was particularly true in Egypt's public protests, showing how the military treated people, and fueling anger.

Anyway, there'll probably be stuff written on the "Social Media Effect", or how billions of people with smart phones/computers changed many things -- at least perceptions and expectations -- with exponential speed. The downside of that is our "need for speed" creeps into diplomacy, which is slow and arduous.

.....The UN didn't function on non-economic matters from 1946 until 1989. We've been slipping back to that point over the last decade.

Okay, but what's your opinion on the future of IR if that trend continues?

Obama's speech tonight was nuts. I don't see why he values doubling-down on public statements that he wants a military strike to "punish" Assad without inflicting substantial damage to his warmaking ability or personal safety. Meanwhile, Obama claims that Afghanistan and Iraq were wars without Congressional approval despite them getting higher margins in Congress than his Syria resolution can hope to gather.

And now we're supposed to be relieved that Assad has agreed to toy with UN inspectors to buy time?

Obama's making a bed stuffed with naiveté.

He's not naive or stupid, but caught in a real jamb between international 'norms', US laws, and the world's schizoid politics and double standards. Not to mention the mistrust and skepticism from the Bush Doctrine era of pre-emptive strikes. The Leader of the Free World, Commander in Chief of the largest military, US as a Super Power and Exceptional Nation....with no support from important allies (the UK), the 180+ nations that signed the Chemical Weapons Accord, and a dysfunctional UN.

Damned if we do, damned if we don't. I think his speech was continuing to force political/diplomatic solutions, by threatening force, instead of rushing into military interventions first. *And getting Russia to the table*

[Dreadnaught]

The Bush Doctrine? Bush got a 77-23 margin in the Senate and a 296-133 margin in the House authorizing the Iraq war. Bush got 40 countries to commit to deploying troops in Iraq. Obama so far has France kinda-sorta-not-really willing to back the US with force.

I don't think this has anything to do with Bush.

[Flixy]

The Bush Doctrine? Bush got a 77-23 margin in the Senate and a 296-133 margin in the House authorizing the Iraq war. Bush got 40 countries to commit to deploying troops in Iraq. Obama so far has France kinda-sorta-not-really willing to back the US with force.

I don't think this has anything to do with Bush.

It doesn't help that countries/people are a bit less trusting of the US saying 'we have the proof, just trust us!' since then, for obvious reasons. Our foreign secretary went to great lengths to stress to any journalist that our government would be making up their own mind about Assad's guilt after seeing the evidence themselves, and not take Kerry's word for it. Plus probably wariness of being dragged into yet another open ended conflict, I suppose. So it's not exactly isolated from Bush's actions.

[Loki]

The people using that argument are the ones who want any excuse to stay out.

[Flixy]

The people using that argument are the ones who want any excuse to stay out.

Or don't want to be seen by their electorate as blindly following the Americans, because last time we did that we were lied to, which makes that a bit unpopular. It's not like your government is seen as very reliable, here.

[Hazir]

Or don't want to be seen by their electorate as blindly following the Americans, because last time we did that we were lied to, which makes that a bit unpopular. It's not like your government is seen as very reliable, here.

Or anywhere. I for my part am quite pleased with how the Russians derailed that runaway train before it could do real damage.

[GGT]

The Bush Doctrine? Bush got a 77-23 margin in the Senate and a 296-133 margin in the House authorizing the Iraq war. Bush got 40 countries to commit to deploying troops in Iraq. Obama so far has France kinda-sorta-not-really willing to back the US with force.

I don't think this has anything to do with Bush.

Bush (or Cheney/Rumsfeld) also got General Powell to testify in congressional hearings, using false facts, to get those votes.

And those 40 other countries relied on the same false intelligence when committing their own troops. That's why the US lost so much credibility (as Flixy and Hazir say), and UK's Parliament voted down another military alliance in Syria. Where the hell have you been the last decade?

Loki, I think you have that backward. It should require strong evidence and irrefutable facts, from more than just the US, to make the case for military force.

Our credibility and reputation was badly damaged by Bush, not just internationally but domestically -- it was a big influence that hurt Republicans, neocons and military hawks in '08 elections! Since then we've had wikileaks, Manning, Snowden, NSA, Prism, drone attacks, etc. Plus the release of newly de-classified intell from Nixon/Watergate/Viet Nam, and the CIA-backed coups in Iraq. It's led to public skepticism and mistrust for good reason. Trust but Verify, huh.

[Loki]

Or anywhere. I for my part am quite pleased with how the Russians derailed that runaway train before it could do real damage.

Thanks for making my point for me.

[GGT]

Loki, have you moved from undecided to yes?

[Loki]

Marginally (assuming Assad doesn't give up his chemical weapons).

There's a poll with this question on the Facebook page of Conflict scholars, and the results are 9 to 25 thus far.

[Hazir]

Marginally (assuming Assad doesn't give up his chemical weapons).

There's a poll with this question on the Facebook page of Conflict scholars, and the results are 9 to 25 thus far.

The fact that Erdogan is noisily promoting an intervention is almost engough all by itself to be against it.

[Loki]

I'd support a Turkish intervention. Have the Turks bear the price of helping us.

[katsung47]

How could Obamainsists his war on Syria amid opposition from majority

Less than 10% GIVEOBAMA AUTHORITY TO CONDUCT MILITARY OPERATION IN SYRIA

YES 8%

61,407 votes



NO 92%

667,929 votes



729,336 Total Votes

See this poll on: http://k5software.info/iNews/drudger...olumnThree.php

[GGT]

Marginally (assuming Assad doesn't give up his chemical weapons).

Who should be responsible for locating those chemical weapons? And whose information/intelligence should be used to confirm Assad's stockpiles are accounted for...including any moved around or hidden recently?

Seems to me that puts us right back where we started, even with Putin's recent involvement, and Assad agreeing to sign the Chemical Weapons Accord -- the UN. While I'd rather see more diplomatic maneuverings, instead of launching Tomahawk missiles "across the bow" as a show of force, I'm still confused and ambivalent about the whole damn thing.

Our threat of force might have kept Assad from using chemical weapons again....but there's nothing to stop him from continuing to use "conventional weapons" (from Russia) to kill thousands more Syrians. And it won't stop the exodus of refugees into border states, or the continuing Humanitarian Crisis.