We should intervene in Syria

[Hazir]

It's almost as if the Cold War didn't end more than twenty years ago.

It's almost as if you think the Russians actually LIKE being a superpower no more.

[wiggin]

I've been out of town, but obviously this subject is of interest to me.

I think that from a moral perspective I agree with RB - the crackdown on protests in Syria has been long, bloody and protracted, far worse than anywhere else (with the possible exception of Libya), and we have some level of responsibility to support the democratic aspirations of the Syrian people. I have long argued for interventionist foreign policy on the part of the West, and I do think we can genuinely be a benevolent force in the world, albeit with the careful and limited application of our military, political, and economic power.

From a practical perspective, though, I think it may be challenging to carry out an effective intervention in this case. There are several issues. First of all is politics - I think it was far more palatable for the Arab League to allow an intervention in Libya than in Syria - Libya has always been a bit of an outcast, but Syria has not. Secondly is the question of what can effectively be done - it is almost certain that a land invasion will not be acceptable to other Arab nations (whose cooperation is really a necessity), and the rebellion is too diffuse otherwise to provide much air support. A 'no drive' zone as was implemented in Libya (later morphing into CAS for advancing rebel forces) only works if there are legitimate rebel held areas. In reality, most of the protests (and fairly limited armed rebellion, e.g. Free Syrian Army or whatever it's called) are of a diffuse and guerrilla nature. Short of wholesale destruction of the Syrian military apparatus from the air (not an easy task), there's not much they can do. Even then, much of the protests are in built up areas (cities, towns, etc.) and there's little 'combat' to support... I find it unlikely the Syrian people will welcome American fighters bombing the shit out of Syrian cities just to get at the tanks shelling protesters.

If the situation changes - say, a legitimate rebel movement forms and captures Hama or Homs - intervention from the air will be far more effective. Absent that, I'm not sure there's a point.

That being said, I do want to cast some doubt on the doom and gloom about the capabilities of the vaunted Syrian war machine. There's no doubt that Syria has a large army, but their equipment is relatively old and the quality of their conscripts is dubious at best. Syria has classically developed their military to fight the IDF in the Golan, and they've concentrated heavily on air defense and armor... but most of their kit is outdated. Their tank forces are numerically large but fairly old - mostly T-72s and a small number of T-80s; about half of their nominal tank force is even older and effectively irrelevant against a modern armored foe. Their self-propelled artillery and other armor aren't anything too upsetting (nothing like, say, the NK arsenal). Similarly, the Syrian air force is antiquated. They have some MiG-25s and MiG-29s (a few dozen each), but even those aren't a match for modern Western air forces, and their larger force of MiG-23s and lower is pathetic. Israel made short work of a very similarly composed air force back in 1982 (missing the MiG-29s and IIRC the MiG-25s), absolutely devastating them with first generation F-15s and F-16s. (IAF Cobras were also very effective in an anti-armor role, including against some T-72s, suggesting that newer antiarmor platforms won't have any trouble dealing with the largely unchanged force structure.)

The real concern is Syrian air defenses. My understanding is that they have been upgraded from the Lebanon days, including a limited number of SA-22s. These would probably be less susceptible to the blanket SEAD Israel was able to carry out in 1982, but then again Western EW has gotten much better. IAF planes didn't seem to have much issues a few years ago when they destroyed the nuclear reactor, and coupled with the overwhelming US advantage of hundreds of Tomahawk strikes, I'm not particularly concerned about an air mission. For a ground attack, the relatively large number of antitank weapons could be a concern, but those can be avoided with adequate tactical use of armor and good combined arms campaigning.

In a stand-up fight with either Turkey or Israel, they'd come away seriously bloodied (though I'm betting Turkey would have a tougher time of it; IDF armor has had much more recent combat experience). Throw in US-driven air support and SEAD, and you're looking at a turkey shoot. The Syrian army is numerous (300k or so active duty troops), but that's mostly low quality conscript forces, with only a few functioning elite units. It's far better than Libya's, of course, but not really a match for a modern Western military. Feasibility isn't the issue here; politics and pragmatism is.

RB - do you have an idea of how you'd structure a campaign to help the Syrian protests? Would you just focus on regime change and leave them to sort out the rest? That more limited goal is feasible, but unlikely to leave a functioning democracy in its wake.

[GGT]

WE should intervene in Syria? First off, define what WE means. Do you mean NATO, OPEC, UN, United Arab Nations?

It's horrible what's happening in Syria, no doubt about it. Perhaps it's due time for that region to manage their own trade, wealth, and governance. Instead of looking to the US or Europe to do it for them. After all, most of their leaders have received western educations by now, their populace has access to the global web of information, and their expectations are now more internal than external.

That's what the Arab Spring seems to mean....changes from within. At least in its most hopeful and modern context.

[wiggin]

We meaning the countries with both the means and the interest. Realistically, that means a subgrouping of NATO nations - the US of course, as well as the UK and probably France with a handful of other interested and less important parties. It would need a fig leaf of some military involvement from an Arab nation or two, but mostly they would just provide political cover in the UN and Arab League.

It's awfully hard to change things from within when your government is killing thousands of people who disagree with you. We ignored an uprising in Hama decades ago and tens of thousands of civilians died. Should we do the same thing now?

[GGT]

If "we" are responsible for intervening anywhere and everywhere around the globe, whether for democratic or humanitarian needs.....then "we" would not only be broke, but spread so thin that our "own" citizens would suffer. Oh, wait, that's exactly where we are now!

We are trying to defy proven life-saving procedures that say Apply your own oxygen mask before attempting to help others.

[wiggin]

I don't think the US should bankrupt itself do-gooding around the world, but we're hardly breaking the bank with most of our aid and interventions (unless you count Iraq and Afghanistan as 'humanitarian interventions', which I do not). I do think we have a certain obligation to assist others who don't enjoy the wealth or liberty that we do. Not a Peter Singer level of obligation (we don't need to impoverish ourselves), but if there is a clear and pressing need that can be alleviated with a small expenditure of our money or power, shouldn't we feel obliged to do so?

I firmly reject those who advocate for an isolationist foreign policy, whether it's erecting trade barriers, bringing all of our military forces home, blocking immigration, or ignoring human rights abuses around the globe. We (meaning the US in specific and the Western world in general) are wealthy and powerful, and we should use it for good. Too often our leaders shrink away from global leadership, whether it's dealing with the environment or a dictator. But these are global problems, and they won't go away just because we stick our fingers in our ears and shout "LA LA LA".

[GGT]

Define "breaking the bank", though. Then realize that ALL of our foreign aid and military intervention ultimately comes from our tax payer base. When the US was operating on a surplus, politicians were happy to think we had Empire or Global powers, simply related to our American Exceptionalism. ie, the Bush years, where Medicare Part D and two Wars were enacted without any funding (taxation) whatsoever.

Sure, global problems are global...but that doesn't mean the US has to solve them all, let alone lead the way. Admitting we're not the world's "savior" isn't because we've stuck our fingers in our ears and shouted lalala. No, it's because we're awake and mindful of reality, knowing full well that other nations know what freedom and democracy means in the 21st century.

[wiggin]

Uh... we're by far the richest country in the world, and the most powerful. Why shouldn't we expect our government to provide leadership on these issues?

As for money, I will acknowledge that our foreign aid and humanitarian intervention expenditures are technically adding to our deficit, but the total amount is effectively negligible compared to our other budgetary commitments. In fact, as a proportion of GDP, it's quite a bit lower than most of the developed world.

[Loki]

They don't care about what's happening in Syria/Libya. They do care if Putin can hold his position against the "west" or not.

It would be a non-issue if Putin didn't comment or said that Libya isn't important to Russian foreign policy.

[GGT]

The US is rich and powerful, agreed. On a global scale, Europe is also rich and powerful. If the deciding variable is who has the best funded and most powerful military, the US would be tops. But military might isn't the best element to define a nation's wealth or strength.

The Eurozone is as rich and powerful as the US. In that sense, American Exceptionalism is rather mythical. Since we've tied all our finances (and budgets) together in the global markets sphere, the "decoupling" theory has been busted.

As for monetary expenditures adding to our deficit, you just described the sentiments behind OWS and other social movements.....that expose debts for Wars or propping up Big Banks, using citizen money without actually benefitting the citizen tax payer. They don't get better education or healthcare, or improved infrastructure in roads or bridges. Their tax dollars don't translate into better lives for fellow Americans, but look like paying for democratizing other oil-rich nations, or paying for the LACK of an American national energy policy.

[wiggin]

...Okay? And the EU pays far more (as a percentage of GDP) to humanitarian aid than the US government does. Also, they occasionally take lead in humanitarian interventions - e.g. UK and France in Libya, some peacekeeping missions that don't require US muscle, etc. I won't debate American exceptionalism here, but it's not unreasonable to expect us to be one of the main players in this space.

I think you're making an unfair connection between humanitarian interventions - e.g. Libya, Somalia, maybe Syria, et al - and Iraq and Afghanistan. The former are pretty cheap and don't really harm American citizens either in their pocketbooks or otherwise. The latter are a much more complex subject.

[Loki]

The US is rich and powerful, agreed. On a global scale, Europe is also rich and powerful. If the deciding variable is who has the best funded and most powerful military, the US would be tops. But military might isn't the best element to define a nation's wealth or strength.

The Eurozone is as rich and powerful as the US. In that sense, American Exceptionalism is rather mythical. Since we've tied all our finances (and budgets) together in the global markets sphere, the "decoupling" theory has been busted.

As for monetary expenditures adding to our deficit, you just described the sentiments behind OWS and other social movements.....that expose debts for Wars or propping up Big Banks, using citizen money without actually benefitting the citizen tax payer. They don't get better education or healthcare, or improved infrastructure in roads or bridges. Their tax dollars don't translate into better lives for fellow Americans, but look like paying for democratizing other oil-rich nations, or paying for the LACK of an American national energy policy.

I wonder how many taxpayers would say they'd prefer to get 0.1% increase to unemployment or Social Security to preventing a genocide. No surprise you supported Buchanan though.

[GGT]

...Okay? And the EU pays far more (as a percentage of GDP) to humanitarian aid than the US government does. Also, they occasionally take lead in humanitarian interventions - e.g. UK and France in Libya, some peacekeeping missions that don't require US muscle, etc. I won't debate American exceptionalism here, but it's not unreasonable to expect us to be one of the main players in this space.

I think you're making an unfair connection between humanitarian interventions - e.g. Libya, Somalia, maybe Syria, et al - and Iraq and Afghanistan. The former are pretty cheap and don't really harm American citizens either in their pocketbooks or otherwise. The latter are a much more complex subject.

The US gives more in humanitarian aid, through charitable organizations, than any other group from any other nation (government related or not).

"We should intervene in Syria" is open to interpretation. Americans being a main player wasn't the question---it was automatically assumed---because we're rich and powerful, and considered the go-to nation for supporting Democracy.

Well guess what, the US isn't supposed to be considered an Empire, let alone the main "defender" of democracy. We are not the global police/military. Hell, if anyone cared to take a good hard look at the US, they'd find we're not so great at defending our own democracy or principles of justice, let alone telling other nations how to do it best.

[Loki]

If you could prevent a genocide for $10 billion, would you do so? Yes or no.

[wiggin]

Hell, Rwanda would have been far cheaper than $10 billion. What was the transport cost of the APCs the UN requested? $7 million? Even deploying a few thousand Western ground troops would have been cheap, given the limited needs for advanced firepower.

GGT: I agree that the relative paucity of official giving is somewhat offset by generous private donations; that still misses the point that we can easily afford to spend relatively small proportions of our own wealth/income to cause a disproportionately large good outcome in the rest of the world. Why should we shrink from this opportunity?

As for Syria in particular, the reason the US is assumed to be a big player has nothing to do with exceptionalism or money; it has everything to do with our military. It's the same reason we were key enablers in Libya, and why US assistance is required for nearly any intervention with teeth. Believe it or not, we are the global police for a lot of things: keeping sea lanes open, for example, or deterring weapons proliferation. Many of the international organizations that regulate world affairs were created by the US, and are/were largely bankrolled and run by us as well. I don't think this extends to some grandiose vision of American Imperialism, but of a sober realization that the US has for a long time been the only game in town. Europe has largely abandoned its aspirations to be a military power (though they are very much a political and economic power), so missions with firepower by default rely on the US.

[GGT]

I wonder how many taxpayers would say they'd prefer to get 0.1% increase to unemployment or Social Security to preventing a genocide. No surprise you supported Buchanan though.

Stop your lies. I have never EVER supported Pat Buchanan. In fact, he represents the religious faction within the GOP that I loathe.

Maybe it's time for you to admit that you've been mistaking my opinions with someone else's.

[GGT]

GGT: I agree that the relative paucity of official giving is somewhat offset by generous private donations; that still misses the point that we can easily afford to spend relatively small proportions of our own wealth/income to cause a disproportionately large good outcome in the rest of the world. Why should we shrink from this opportunity?

Frankly, because "we" could easily take out any number of bad actors, without any troops on the ground. "We" could simply use drones, if "our" goal was to nip bad actors in the bud.

As for Syria in particular, the reason the US is assumed to be a big player has nothing to do with exceptionalism or money; it has everything to do with our military. It's the same reason we were key enablers in Libya, and why US assistance is required for nearly any intervention with teeth. Believe it or not, we are the global police for a lot of things: keeping sea lanes open, for example, or deterring weapons proliferation. Many of the international organizations that regulate world affairs were created by the US, and are/were largely bankrolled and run by us as well. I don't think this extends to some grandiose vision of American Imperialism, but of a sober realization that the US has for a long time been the only game in town. Europe has largely abandoned its aspirations to be a military power (though they are very much a political and economic power), so missions with firepower by default rely on the US.

If we (the USA) are considered global police for a lot of things, like sea-lane movement and international maritime law, then Americans have every right and responsibility to challenge and question that role. "We" are not the only ones with cruise ships, lobster boats, fishing vessels, or oil tankers. "We" are not the only ones who should be concerned with pirates commandeering Iraqi ships...or trying to close the Strait of Hormuz.

The US hasn't been "the only game in town" for decades now, but that's how other nations like to pose their lack of [military] involvement.

[wiggin]

Frankly, because "we" could easily take out any number of bad actors, without any troops on the ground. "We" could simply use drones, if "our" goal was to nip bad actors in the bud.

Okay, even if that were true (it isn't; drones are hardly capable of beating even moderately sophisticated air defenses), would assassinating a dictator make things better? Generally, the answer is no. But assisting a grassroots revolutionary movement from being crushed by a dictatorship is much more likely to yield something. We can't go around the world willy-nilly establishing democracies, but we can give people a leg up if the conditions are right.

If we (the USA) are considered global police for a lot of things, like sea-lane movement and international maritime law, then Americans have every right and responsibility to challenge and question that role. "We" are not the only ones with cruise ships, lobster boats, fishing vessels, or oil tankers. "We" are not the only ones who should be concerned with pirates commandeering Iraqi ships...or trying to close the Strait of Hormuz.

Go ahead and question it, but I have more faith in our own judgment than, say, China's. Maybe that's American-centric and bigoted and whatever, but that's my personal opinion. I'd prefer to be the person making and enforcing the rules, thank you very much.

The US hasn't been "the only game in town" for decades now, but that's how other nations like to pose their lack of [military] involvement.

Uh, who else is there right now? Are there any other countries with significant expeditionary capability?

[GGT]

Okay, even if that were true (it isn't; drones are hardly capable of beating even moderately sophisticated air defenses), would assassinating a dictator make things better? Generally, the answer is no. But assisting a grassroots revolutionary movement from being crushed by a dictatorship is much more likely to yield something. We can't go around the world willy-nilly establishing democracies, but we can give people a leg up if the conditions are right.

The use of unmanned drones is now an integral part of military policy. It's even been used to "take out" an American citizen in another nation. Judge and Jury. What's that you say about willy-nilly democracies?

Go ahead and question it, but I have more faith in our own judgment than, say, China's. Maybe that's American-centric and bigoted and whatever, but that's my personal opinion. I'd prefer to be the person making and enforcing the rules, thank you very much.

Understood. But I'm saying....other nations have just as much interest (possibly more) in things the US has been protecting with our military. It's time those nations defend their own "interests", instead of pawning it off to the US. If the bulk of France's oil comes from Libya, they have the larger responsibility.

Uh, who else is there right now? Are there any other countries with significant expeditionary capability?

Well, besides military threats, there are also monetary threats. For Iraq, that means cutting off their international / central bank funds, and forcing them to roll-over their debts without international support. They may think it can be adjusted by appealing to OPEC. That has worked for several decades, but maybe the gig is up now? Perhaps other nations aren't so willing to pay at the pump, make national energy policy based on oil, or aren't very willing to go to War in exchange for their oil.

[Hazir]

The more I think about it, the less inclined I am to think that 'we' should intervene in Syria. We can't really influence the outcome of the conflict and I think that is the worst kind of situation to get involved in. Looking back a bit in history there is a slew of examples where attempts to help the oppressed only resulted in propping up worse oppressors. Afghanistan anyone?

[LittleFuzzy]

I don't think the US should bankrupt itself do-gooding around the world, but we're hardly breaking the bank with most of our aid and interventions (unless you count Iraq and Afghanistan as 'humanitarian interventions', which I do not). I do think we have a certain obligation to assist others who don't enjoy the wealth or liberty that we do.

The political capital needed to intervene doesn't exist, internationally or domestically. An intervention that actually "helps" is also far more likely to look like Afghanistan or Iraq than it is to look like Libya.

[Asmodian]

I do believe S-300 anti air defense complexes were delivered and installed in November last year in Syria. It would be nice to see them in action to see if they live up to the hype. Depending on the number of complexes they should at least bring down aircraft before they are neutralized.

[Loki]

Maybe the Syrians can also try to mimic Russian ethnic cleansing tactics (from Chechnya). After all, these are the main Russian cultural contributions to the world over the last two decades.

[Nessus]

I think they won the Eurovision one year, too!

[wiggin]

The political capital needed to intervene doesn't exist, internationally or domestically. An intervention that actually "helps" is also far more likely to look like Afghanistan or Iraq than it is to look like Libya.

In this case, I agree with you. I think it's really a case-by-case evaluation we need to do. Some situations are more open to useful help than others. Getting involved in a failed state (e.g. Somalia, Afghanistan), for example, is often a bad idea. But I have no qualms with our recent push to finally eliminate the Lord's Resistance Army. They are nasty and frankly not up to fighting even a relatively small Western force; whether our current iffy commitment will do it or not is a better question, though.

Libya had a lot of things militating against intervention, but it also was uniquely suited to an effective air campaign. I don't see the same military possibilities or political wiggle room with Syria, but if a way to get around these issues could be found, I agree in principle with RB that it would be a good idea to act.

I do believe S-300 anti air defense complexes were delivered and installed in November last year in Syria. It would be nice to see them in action to see if they live up to the hype. Depending on the number of complexes they should at least bring down aircraft before they are neutralized.

I suspect the total number of S-300 systems in place is quite small and unlikely to significantly affect an air campaign. I also have no doubt it's one of the first targets for Tomahawks and stand-off weaponry during an initial assault to soften up air defenses. There's also the question of whether Syria can use it as effectively as Russia - certainly in the past they've been far less effective operators of decent Soviet equipment. I honestly don't know whether Western aircraft have effective EW defenses against the S-300 yet; certainly it seems to be a concern of Israel's, and possibly the US, and it's far more potent than older SAM systems. But no matter how subtle the radar, a HARM will seriously cramp its style. Is it possible some aircraft will be lost? Certainly, I was expecting that even with Libya's more antiquated systems. But it wouldn't materially change the campaign.

[Asmodian]

oh there is little doubt in my mind that without direct involvement of competent military powers, although i do hope russian navel vessels will at least feed targeting information to Syrian military, nato will achieve its objectives. However one can reasonably hope that 5-10 manned aircraft will be destroyed and that will be a great marketing compaign.

[wiggin]

Uhm... why do you hope that Russian naval vessels (presumably one in their relatively new base in Syria) would feed targeting information to Syria? Do you support the Assad regime and their actions? (Also, wouldn't that come close to precipitating a military confrontation between Russia and NATO, which is in no one's best interests?)

And is your only concern about future sales of the S-300 system? That seems a bit... mercenary.

[Loki]

No, he's a Russian nationalist who wants to see as much damage to the US as possible because it makes him temporarily forget that Russia lost the Cold War.

[Asmodian]

wouldn't that come close to precipitating a military confrontation between Russia and NATO, which is in no one's best interests

Wouldnt a bombing campaign unsanctioned by UN which it wont be essentialy achieve the same thing?

[RandBlade]

Not unless Russia supports the Assad regime.