The EU

Google says the EU requires a notice of cookie use (by Google) and says they have posted a notice. I don't see it. If cookies bother you, go elsewhere. If the EU bothers you, emigrate. If you live outside the EU, don't go there.

Friday, December 14, 2012

Syria's Near Future


For John, BLUFThe situation in Syria could be building to be like the Thirty Years War.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

Yesterday I posted on the long run chances for peace in the Near East.  If Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov is to be believed, the future is almost here.  On 13 December he said, about Syria:

The opposition's victory, regrettably, cannot be ruled out…. We need to face the truth. A current tendency is that the regime and the government keep losing control over an ever-growing territory.
One of the issues we now face is who will succeed Syrian President.  At the blog of the Long War Journal is a post suggesting that the leading insurgent group is Al Nusrah Front for the People of the Levant, al Qaeda in Iraq's affiliate in Syria.  From the blog post:
The terror group, which was designated as such by the US on Dec. 11, has now claimed credit for 43 of the 52 suicide attacks that have taken place in Syria in the past 12 months [see LWJ report, US adds Al Nusrah Front, 2 leaders to terrorism list, for information on the designation].

The group has become one of the most powerful and effective units in the Syrian insurgency, and it has begun to absorb elements of the supposedly secular Free Syrian Army.  The Al Nusrah Front also conducts joint operations with the Free Syrian Army and other so-called secular groups, and has numerous foreign fighters in its ranks.  Earlier this week, Al Nusrah and two other jihadist groups seized a Syrian military base thought to be involved in the chemical weapons program [see LWJ report, Al Nusrah Front, foreign jihadists seize key Syrian base in Aleppo].

So, where are we if President Assad goes away?

The first question is if the United States cares if the new Government engages in expulsion of religious or ethnic minorities, genocide against same, or other activities?  We are talking about a combination of Armenians, Arab Christians, Druze, Shia Muslims and other groups.

If we are repulsed by a Rwanda like situation, do we go to the UN for agreement to intervene?  If we intervene, will it be to protect or just to evacuate the endangered minority group(s)?

If intervention is for the purpose of evacuation, to where do we evacuate the people?  The US?

The second question is if Al Nusrah will be busy trying to establish control in Syria, distribute food and collect trash or will it act to divert the attention of the Syrian population by starting trouble with Israel?

If it is an aggressive conventional attack across the border, will the United States be willing to intervene on Israel's behalf?

Regards  —  Cliff

  Of course, now the Russians are denying they actually said that.

3 comments:

Neal said...

Why are we intervening in countries where neither side likes us. What is the net gain for the expenditure of the lives of our nation's military forces. We have sacrificed thousands of American lives in Afghanistan and Iraq and for what?? Has it measurably increased US security or boosted our image in the world? What is the payoff that is so important that our leadership can stand in front of parents and justify the loss of their son or daughter in a foreign land?

There was a time when the Defense in the Department of Defense meant "defense" at least in some sense of the word. Packing up and sending our troops to the conflict "du jour" has nothing to do with the nation's defense....and certainly costs Americans greatly....money, lives, and so on.

C R Krieger said...

Genocide?

Regards  —  Cliff

Neal said...

I understand your argument and abhor even the thought of genocide, but it begins to edge into the conundrum of morality vs. reality. There is arguably at least 10 different instances of genocide occurring right now in the world. Do we intervene in all of them or just some of them? We completely ignored....and continue to ignore....Rwanda and other African nations who have experienced horrible genocide based solely on tribal differences. Which tribe in the ME do we pick? I can assure you that no matter who we chose to side with, there will be compelling arguments that the side we are against has compelling reasons for their actions....e.g.....us vs. them survival. Are the Shia's somehow more valuable or more honorable than the Sunni's? Who gets our protection?

Importantly, while it is abhorrent to think about, quite often it is simply US under the guise of the UN who do the fighting and the dying....at least....the bulk of it? Is that a somehow quid pro quo for being a powerful nation? Is that our penalty? Is this what Americans work hard to produce gets us?

And what of the biggies like China and Russia? They eliminate hundreds of thousands of their own citizens every year and we give them trade preferences and nuclear treaties. Where is the justice in that?

All I am saying Cliff is this, we can't police the world, and even if we could, we would find that we have to eliminate from the earth a sizable percentage of the population in order to make the other percentage free and secure....and there is every likelihood that out of that remainder, at least some would find some new way to discriminate and eliminate their "opposition."

AND....not to be forgotten....don't we have our own critical problems with our own society that we aren't solving because we are solving the conflicts of everyone else???

Finally, where is the "justice" or the "morality" of an exalted few committing our nation's resources and lives to foreign conflicts which are politically favorable to them? Our longevity in Iraq and Afghanistan are as much a function of political expediency as "nation building" or "conflict resolution" or "making the XXXX safe for democracy."