Abu Muqawama: Post
Abu Muqawama retains its autonomy and the views and beliefs expressed within the blog do not reflect those of CNAS. Abu Muqawama retains the right to delete comments that include words that incite violence; are predatory, hateful, or intended to intimidate or harass; or degrade people on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. In summary, don't be a jerk.
The Order of Battle Problem
As some of you may know, I have been shocked by the ease with which some in U.S. policy circles have begun to consider armed intervention in Syria. Many of these same people supported the military intervention in Libya, though few of them seem to have any intellectual interest in dealing with the awful mess that remains -- perhaps proving that when it comes to post-conflict stabilization and reconstruction, most liberal interventionists are no better than most neoconservatives.
Since most analysts seem to have quickly realized that the establishment of safe havens or no-fly zones would be very difficult if not also quixotic, the new big idea is to arm the Free Syrian Army, which may or may not even be an actual thing. John McCain thinks this is a good idea, as does Elliott Abrams. Even Dan Drezner, who is usually a careful thinker about such things, is on the bandwagon.
My colleague Marc Lynch has a long post explaining why no, this is probably not a very good idea.
My question for those who support arming Syrian guerrilla groups was prompted by something Drezner wrote:
What’s going on inside of Syria is a civil war, and the government is clearly receiving ample support from both Russia and Iran. Arming the opposition at least evens the odds on the battlefield.
Really? Did Drezner or anyone else consult an actual order of battle before talking about "evening the odds?" According to the 2011 Military Balance, Syria has:
- 4,950 main battle tanks.
- 2,450 BMPs.
- 1,500 more armored personnel carriers.
- 3,440+ pieces of artillery.
- 600,000 men under arms in the active and reserve forces.
Now, for the sake of argument, let's say Syria can only field half of the above equipment and personnel due to maintenance issues and defections or whatever. We're still talking about a ridiculous amount of advanced weaponry. What arms, then, are we talking about giving these guerrilla groups? Nukes?
The balance in Libya was only tipped when NATO warplanes began "enforcing the no-fly zone" by destroying Libyan tanks and armored personnel carriers. (I know those things don't actually fly, but the only way you can be really sure they won't grow wings is by dropping a GBU-31 on top of them.) If a scheme to train and equip the Syrians is not matched with a similar effort to degrade the capabilities of the Syrian army, I fail to see how arming the rebel groups will even any odds.
That doesn't mean the rebels don't stand a chance -- they can always carry out a guerrlla campaign using raids, ambushes and IEDs. But it does mean that schemes to train and equip the rebel groups will be more about doing something that makes us feel better about ourselves rather than an act that seriously changes the game in Syria.
I could always be wrong, of course. I am not an expert on the disposition and composition of the Syrian army and have no insight into how it is holding up through this campaign. But a quick glance at the strength of the forces doesn't make me optimistic about either the rebel groups or any western attempts to arm them.
Status quo bellum aeternus
Status quo bellum aeternus works just fine. [feel free to correct the Latin].
And DC Romantic cowboys can learn R2STFU.
Who are the Rebels anyway? Islamist by chance?
Hillary can be smarter than this.
Yeah, well, you want to
Yeah, well, you want to compare that to Libya's arsenal under Qaddafi, don't you?
"The IISS estimated [Libyan] tank numbers in 2009 as 2025 . . . The IISS estimated there were 50 BRDM-2 and 70 EE-9 Cascavel reconnaissance vehicles, 1,000 BMP-1s, plus BMDs . . . . The IISS estimated artillery in service in 2009 as totaling 2,421 pieces."
Hmm... seems comparable, doesn't it? Something missing, what?
Funny too how the U.S. OK'd that massive arms sale to Bahrain, despite their Syria-like, Saudi-supported military crackdown on the pro-democracy movement. No UN call for sanctions on Bahrain, is there? No outraged condemnation of Russia and China for not going along, either? What's that called, again? Hypocrisy, isn't it?
Here's another funny one:
http://www.theonion.com/articles/iran-worried-us-might-be-building-8500th-nuclear-w,27325/
Now, that's hilarious! Funny, too, how Iraq's new tyrant, Maliki is using Saddam's tactics to crush the political opposition in that country. A barrel of laughs, everywhere you look. Too bad about all those dead folks, tho.
Why free beer? Cause how you
Why free beer? Cause how you sell something determines the perception and expectation. Truth in advertising is something that Washington does not do, it only gives the American people part of the puzzle to work with, usually the part that is most popular or grasps emotion. Then the people in power shake their finger at Americans for not knowing the facts on international affairs!
The discussion changes depending on which political party owns Washington, for Democrats the discussion wrapped around Syria is about touchy feely humanitarian missions that are openly defined. Then you wonder why the same people weave a narrative that the US of A is in decline. The problem with “free” stuff is there always will be an infinite market for not working for what you want. No person, industry, or country can live up to the expectations of pleasing an infinite amount of want. The Middle East for all its oil money is a place full of want.
Washington needs to fess up and do their job for the American public, rather than selling fear and emotion I think it better to say the facts. Any involvement has responsibility that ownership has both a beginning and an end; if you are not up to the task of finishing the job then you really should not even start the task. In that discussion there should be a realization that America does not have infinite resources taxpayers have jobs and those jobs only pay so much. Only Washington can print free money. With those parameters, you have set the expectation.
Syria is not about a humanitarian mission, neither was Libya. I do not care how long you debate the issue, to kill is not humanitarian and killing is what the US did in Libya. This discussion needs a liberal amount of truth and the truth is Libya, Syria, and Iran were major players in international terrorism since the 1970’s. You do not have to declassify documents to prove that fact. This discussion is not about fear of starting a proxy war in the Middle East; America is already doing that in the Horn of Africa. Yemen is also getting US aid for its internal battle.
This is not about being humanitarian it is about HATE.
Now that you have your emotions right, you have Assad in your sights, are you going to drop the hammer? We are not talking pay-per-view.
If you still think this is still a humanitarian issue, you certainly believe your own bullshit. Where is the UN trail for the people that murdered Gaddafi?
If you want to pour weapons into Syria please do not take a picture of your self piss on my 2nd Amendment rights in the US of A. Let the firearm industry enjoy the same level of globalization that the electronics industry has. Don’t support ITAR and ignore it for your own convenience.
Guess it is hard to get rid of someone that you don’t like and still want to exit on pleasant terms, always a sugar coating.
BTW... If I had to make a ten dollar bet, that CIA is already helping move arms into Syria. If Libya is wide open for the pickings, it should not be hard to find what you need. Internet is a wealth of information for people that want to knock the tracks off a tank in a CQB environment were mobility is limited and streets are known, think 4,950 road blocks. America has gone through ten years of asymmetric war dumping four trillion dollars and we still can not figure out how a small group of people can take on a larger foe.
Stop day dreaming.
This is Obama's moment, he can stand up for what he believes in and expand the war on terror while losing the 2012 elections. That is not going to happen and that is why a proxy war is the only option, it is a no pain solution and pure pay-per-view while saying your are doing all you can do. Even the policy wonks agree a NFZ is not an option and this is not Libya credibility abounds.
First off, we should send in
First off, we should send in CJ Chivers to take command of this ragtag bunch of rebels and turn them into a respectable fighting force.
Second, can't Syrian military defectors bring some of that weaponry along when they defect? Won't assistance from the international community create an impression that Assad's days are now numbered and encourage greater defection, or perhaps even convince the military to turn on Assad?
Third, so long as GW Bush is not involved, nobody will really care if the mission goes awry. That is why nobody cares about the Syrian government killing its people right now - it can't easily be blamed on GW Bush. So, given that this is a freebie, just go for it.
You are not wrong Andrew, you
You are not wrong Andrew, you are exactly right and your analysis of this problem exposes the silliness of calls for these kinds of interventions.
The country is in the middle of a civil war, yet R2P folks look to military force as if it is some kind of pixie dust, or wizard of ox-like-sleep-poppies, that can be injected neutrally and simply by in injection the assumption goes that it therefore will "protect."
Have not these people learned anything after 10 years of an earlier form of R2P--Coin--has been tried in Iraq and Afghanistan and has failed?
1. Look at it from the POV of
1. Look at it from the POV of the Russians.
2. Have egg on their faces from their tacit assent to the Libyan "No Fly Zone."
3. Scratching their heads and wondering what the foolish, nekulturny Americans and Europeans are after in Syria.
4. For that matter, am wondering that myself.
5. Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain, Yemen and Libya have produced little to fire up the Merry Andrews types in Foggy Bottom. But they do persist.
6. If destabilizing the entire ME is our goal, we've made a fine start.
V/R JWest
6. If destabilizing the
6. If destabilizing the entire ME is our goal, we've made a fine start.
Stabilization through destabilization. Make a good 2012 campaign slogan.
Really, you are right, the solution are the Russians. They are the only players on the field that seem to come close to having any leverage on Syria. They are the ones supplying the bullets.
Problem is Susan Rice is too worried that woodies are in fashion in Washington to have the discussion.
I'm not sure the odds are as
I'm not sure the odds are as daunting as the order of battle makes them look. From my understanding, the regime has fairly few politically reliable units it feels confident deploying -- hence 11 months of whack-a-mole reprisals against towns, rather than simply garrisoning them. The rebels appear to have held Zabadani for several weeks. Giving the rebels more of an anti-armor capability might make the regime forces less confident about doing all-out assaults into cities. (Note that Gadhafi, even before NATO intervention, only actually retook one major population center -- Zawiya -- and that after a very hard battle).
Of course, the regime could still just bombard cities.
You’re all whingers!
You’re all whingers!
This will be really easy to do. Look at a map. Western Iraq and Jordan are Pakistan, see? Eastern Syria is western Afghanistan! It’s the 1980s all over again! We recruit all our salafist jihadi, eh, I mean Sahwa, friends to follow the ratlines westward! We go half-and-half with the Saudis on the cost! It’ll be just like old times! We just need to recruit somebody with brains to run the whole thing, like a Saudi millionaire construction engineer with his own following… Forget about COIN, IN is in! All of our old frenemies from the Hindu Kush and Bosnia will come out to play!
I am, for the record, an
I am, for the record, an opponent of intervention in Syria, and R2P in general.
That said, I ask if the analysis provided is overly simplistic. I question whether it ignores the potential for defection in the Syrian military. The analysis takes the situation as static rather than dynamic and fluid.
See, for example, the work of Terence Lee: http://cps.sagepub.com/content/42/5/640.abstract, http://afs.sagepub.com/content/32/1/80.abstract. The examples cited in his work are not precisely onpoint - they deal with the reaction of the military to popular protest, not armed rebellion - but they may still be pertinent.
ADTS
Visitor on February 10, 2012
Visitor on February 10, 2012 - 2:32pm
The 80's over again?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DgGr1-JA5io
That is my fear, complete with a bunch of angry and changed wahhabbis there after.
Guess the good thing is we can ask Oli North to give us a TOW. That will keep your transmission from dragging.
Think Russia. Biden likes to visit. Send him.
Not sure what's funnier,
Not sure what's funnier, "which may or may not even be an actual thing," or "DC Romantic cowboys can learn R2STFU."
Well did you? If you got out
Well did you? If you got out from behind your desk in DC you would know there is approximately a battalion almost two of US personnel on the ground in Tripoli who are doing the humanitarian BS or what is called "country building". DOS, OGA, DOD etc... They are all involved and if you were not sitting behind your desk and instead acting like a 4 star General like Ms. Rice, you could have a job where people might actually listen to what you say Andrew.
You do a lot of whining these days. You know that? You should be a little more thankful towards those to keep CNAS lights and the heat turned on.
Same thing that happened in Lybia will happen in Syria. It will just take longer. If you have a problem with that, don't vote for "O" this November. Simple as that. You can go back to your whining now.
Hey, why not talk to the
Hey, why not talk to the upper-uppitys about this one:
http://www.allgov.com/US_and_the_World/ViewNews/Lockheed_Comes_to_the_Aid_of_Bahrain_Dictatorship_120110z
Having made hundreds of millions of dollars off the regime, defense contractor Lockheed has publicly defended the dictatorship in Bahrain by using a former high-ranking military commander now on the company’s payroll. In the past year, King Hamad bin Isa al-Khalifa of Bahrain has brutally cracked down on demonstrators calling for democratic reform.
Charles “Willy” Moore, a former vice admiral and now regional president for Lockheed Martin for the Middle East and Africa, penned an Op-Ed late last year in The Washington Times that said the U.S. should not “betray a friend and harm American security” by supporting pro-democracy protestors demanding freedom in the oil sheikdom.
Or would that be called biting the hand that feeds you? Why, that would be almost as bad as criticizing the generals who take private jobs in the defense contractor industry after retiring, wouldn't it? Try that, and see how many give you nods at the next Washington dinner, what? Hardy har har.
Operation "Sad Mule" (Guess
Operation "Sad Mule" (Guess the word play?)
Immediate Objective: Restore order in Syria and effect political transition in the Regime
Strategic Objective: Weaken Iran's regional influence and degrade Hizballah's external support mechanism
Situational Assessment:
Syrian rebel movement will be defeated in the absence of a robust and systemic external support from regional players and the West. A political settlement will not be viable at present since all effective political leverage is at the end of the day derived from effective military capability, which the rebels do not have.
Concept of Ops
1. Create a condition to ensure military parity between the Assad regime and the rebels. This can be done by enforcing the Libyan formula (no fly zone, air bombings, arming rebels, etc.).
2. A minor caveat, the Libyan formula may face a lot of complications since Assad (unlike Ghaddafy who was isolated politically and personally) has overt support from other powerful players like Iran and Hizballah.
3. The benefit of helping the rebels outweighs the cost of helping them. Leaving the turn of events to fate will once again provide ideological ammo to religious militants of letting an apostate regime murder Muslims by the thousands. Allowing Assad continue with the offensive is not only morally reprehensible, but also politically corrosive on two points: one, the West will lose influence over the opposition and likely become marginalized in the succeeding process of political transition; and two, non-intervention is by default an intervention for Assad's benefit.
4. The demise of Assad will tip the regional balance away from the more strategic power-play between Iran and the West/Israel. Iran's theocracy will be isolated even more, and Assad's departure may spark the repeat of the Green protests in 2009-2010.
5. Western intervention will be less costly than intervening in a regional conflagration between Iran's block and Israel, assuming of course that Assad's departure will change the behavior of the Iranian regime.
6. Western refusal to intervene will indirectly benefit militant organizations like Al Qaeda for using the Syrian civil war as another training/recruiting ground for supporters - supporters who will be able to apply military skills and tradecraft in an actual conflict. Think of it as another pre-Awakening Iraq.
Recommendation:
Support intervention. Support rebels. Create a condition for military parity between the warring factions.
Accurate said! Consider
Accurate said! Consider intervention/involvement in Syria - look Libya and in wider perspective Iraq, Afghanistan.
BTW Brits and Qatari are already supporting rebels with arms and even military advisors on Syrian soil.
It is not about being
It is not about being humanitarian it is about containment. Always has been.
Once Assad is gone what will replace him? If you do not have an answer to that question you better look deeper into your plan, you owe that service to your country not your party or industry. America’s plan has to be MORE than another Libya if we are going to put our National Prestige on display. Those that project an image of American decline are the ones that are not getting what they want out of the discussion. If that plan doesn’t pursue the interest of the American public 100% then we need a new plan. Americans are paying the bill and should get a return on their taxes, someone else’s alternative to discretionary income. What did Americans get out of Libya? Libya has been more of the same high oil prices and just another conflict that creates more Defense Contracts, Iran the same. The American taxpayer did not purchase more world stability or a better American future.
Sayyid Qutb whose thinking walked in step with the Muslim Brotherhood motivated OBL; AQ ideology was forged in the Arab-Israeli wars of the 60’s and 70’s in realization that the only way to over throw Israel was to have a unified Islamic state. The end game was restoration of the caliphate from Spain to China an idea embraced by Salafi Muslims. You can make an argument that 9/11 has its roots in 1966 the year Qutb was put to death by Anwar Sadat the year before the Seven Day war, not in 1979’s Afghanistan. Afghanistan on served to alloy the different views within the proposed new caliphate into AQ’s mettle. Al-Shabab has formalized its connection to Ayman al-Zawahri who has also encouraged support of the Syria rebels Jihadists are flowing into Syria with AQ blessings. Al Qaida has not gone away, the expression of the organization is only glimpse of a more fundamental view in the Islamic world the money that AQ uses does not come out of thin air. AQ is a sum of many views only its relationship to America is unique. It is a little ironic that if the United State gives financial support to Syrian rebels, in anyway, it is breaking its own laws of backing causes also supported by terrorism.
I am not equating AQ or Qutb with the Muslim Brotherhood in today’s Egypt or Middle East. You can mix in the Sunnis, Shiites, and Israelis with a few wars and the Internet into the mix and you might come close to the politics of the Middle East today. If America’s plans do not have synergy with those of the people of the ME, then pushing anything else will only contribute to the narrative of American decline. American cannot afford to overlay western democracy on the region if ALL the people of the Middle East do not want that future.
First the United States responded to 9/11 by attacking Afghanistan, I think you know the rest of the history. The whole thing has morphed in to a huge Homeland security apparatus because of an idea that never existed in the United States; Americans imported the concept to our land through immigration, refugees, and policy. Rather than building the Japanese interment camps of WW2, Americans instead are interning our naturalize privacy in an attempt of not diminishing the rights of people who touch American soil. How do the Muslim perceive the Christian concept of the Creator who guaranteed those unalienable rights? I do not see the fairness in the loss of American privacy for the little security that is gained. The interpretation of Islam will change little in the next twenty years, the perception of the United States changes with today’s conflict.
I see a summation of little steps from American governance with out an overall plan. Little pieces of a quilt that were never sewn together, each a remnant of sellable popularity. R2P really influenced Libyan involvement; Hillary Clinton and Susan Rice were just the cheerleaders. R2P has never been voted on by our American Representatives. R2P is an agenda it is not law. Hillary has already announced that she wants to get off the “political high wire” which means that she only has to be responsible for the present and not the future. None of the current administration has to be responsible for the future they all have golden parachutes that are very much in excess of most American’s over 60 (Appelbaum didn’t even come close, two negatives do not make a positive do they? Pissing on Taliban does not erase AQ cutting off heads. Union road construction workers getting the gravy from the latest Federal budget who in the northern States spend their time collecting State unemployment in the winter months does not balance those getting SS payments in Appelbaum’s NYT article. It takes four babies to make a good welfare family Exum lot of that gravy poors from your party, pun included. The right has its own brand of “more-of-the-same” some call it Romney).
An overall plan is needed badly. In America’s attempt to use the popularity of the Arab Spring to encourage Democracy in Muslim lands between Spain and China, there is an equal force at work to insure that the Muslim Brotherhood’s concept of the Middle East is insured. Who has more influence in the Islamic world? The Muslim Brotherhood has preached Sharia law internationally since 1928. Who is more trusted?
Its supporters have described the discussion about Sharia as “it is nothing and everything”; the real question is what does it mean to the people who will determine the Middle East’s future and with that future be friendly to the Unite States? Will Islam’s rule look like a Western democracy or something else. Once you build an army and fund it, whom will it serve?
If you do not have all the answers to the questions above, have influence to determine a positive end for American taxpayers, and long-term responsibility for end result you really have no business asking for Syrian involvement.
Maybe it time to get off the high wire and let someone take over that is interested in a future.
Your writing policy for the Middle East region. Tell me something about the country that your writing the policy for.
"Support intervention.
"Support intervention. Support rebels. Create a condition for military parity between the warring factions."
Sounds like music to our ears and is sound advice. You are so right on cowboy.
"Your writing policy for the Middle East region. Tell me something about the country that your writing the policy for."
Your blogging tell me your Engrish not so good and you perception flawed. Take a back seat and STFU.
Visitor on February 13, 2012
Visitor on February 13, 2012 - 3:21pm
Engrish? Never spoke the Queen's Engrish. Never wanted to.
What's in your plan for Americans after the rebels are supported?
Will Israel be left alone? Will the ME be stable?
Invade Liechenstein next
Invade Liechenstein next after Syria. End offshore taxhavens which benefit Al Qaeda.
Mr. Exam have you read Marc
Mr. Exam have you read Marc Ambinder's new ebook on JSOC? Love to hear your thoughts about this book.
Visitor on February 13, 2012
Visitor on February 13, 2012 - 3:21pm
How about a serious response to the query given. Too much of a hot shot to respond?
"Your writing policy for the Middle East region. Tell me something about the country that your writing the policy for"
You have not told me why I should keep funding you.
Visitor on February 13, 2012
Visitor on February 13, 2012 - 3:21pm
If you can not defend your position, you have an argument with no future.
Good friend of my mine is dyslexic he could not even read the page of this text to you let alone write it. Over the past ten years by doing war contracts his net work is measured in the 100's of Millions in US dollars. How much are you worth? You can go to hell.
Operation: "Dead Mule"
1. Create a condition to ensure military parity between the Assad regime and the rebels. This can be done by enforcing the Libyan formula (no fly zone, air bombings, arming rebels, etc.).
Libyan formula not required. Local players have what they need.
2. A minor caveat, the Libyan formula may face a lot of complications since Assad (unlike Ghaddafy who was isolated politically and personally) has overt support from other powerful players like Iran and Hizballah.
If you are going to give a plan, give a plan that addresses these factors or you have no plan at all.
3. The benefit of helping the rebels outweighs the cost of helping them. Leaving the turn of events to fate will once again provide ideological ammo to religious militants of letting an apostate regime murder Muslims by the thousands. Allowing Assad continue with the offensive is not only morally reprehensible, but also politically corrosive on two points: one, the West will lose influence over the opposition and likely become marginalized in the succeeding process of political transition; and two, non-intervention is by default an intervention for Assad's benefit.
The track record where the US has gotten involved in both past and current ME events has not offered demonstration of your point of leveraged influence. The only default status of non-intervention is in your mind. No matter what the US does the religious militants will create their own history that has always been the game. Direct western involvement enables the radical to act on them in the theater of operations.
4. The demise of Assad will tip the regional balance away from the more strategic power-play between Iran and the West/Israel. Iran's theocracy will be isolated even more, and Assad's departure may spark the repeat of the Green protests in 2009-2010.
This is where your lack of planning in (2) fails, Hizballah will still be a power influence there is no guarantee that removing Assad will change the play. Iran’s theocracy is only as isolated as the people that need energy and do not like the West. So far the Green protests of 2009-2010 have had limited direction in future governance of Libya and Egypt sparking them again will not guarantee successful results.
5. Western intervention will be less costly than intervening in a regional conflagration between Iran's block and Israel, assuming of course that Assad's departure will change the behavior of the Iranian regime.
Never assume in your planning. Think I heard the “less costly” argument before. Marines in 1983 Lebanon comes to mind.
6. Western refusal to intervene will indirectly benefit militant organizations like Al Qaeda for using the Syrian civil war as another training/recruiting ground for supporters - supporters who will be able to apply military skills and tradecraft in an actual conflict. Think of it as another pre-Awakening Iraq.
An incomplete NATO plan for the intervention in Libya has given a new source of weapons to Radicals in Mali. AQIM has only been strengthened by the Western NFZ in Libya. Somalia and Yemen are already training/recruiting grounds for AQ. Adding Syria to the list is meaningless.
Recommendation:
Support intervention. Support rebels. Create a condition for military parity between the warring factions.
The Arab League should demonstrate area leadership and display local confidence in governing their own future. Sparking and replay of the Green protest is the past, the ME needs to go to the next level. The list of outside governments that have been involved in the Middle East are the reason that their people distrust the West. United States always receives the award for the needing the most oil. Strongest and lasting solution will be a local solution. The Middle East has refined the concept of fourth generation warfare parity already exists. Parity is a cold war concept, the Middle East people need find their own parity and always have.
What is free beer without a
What is free beer without a concert?
If you can not write it sing it. These guys know the problem well and they figured it out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUSXVc73zHM&feature=related
Sometimes people have to walk to the edge of the abyss to see their future, others just fall in.
Only Syria and their neighborhoods can decide. Lebanon use to be a beautiful place.
Whats a concert without an
Whats a concert without an encore!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGqrvn3q1oo&feature=related
Exiting thought, I will leave you people with.
BTW....Problem with Bob, he was too stoned to do anything about it. Now he is gone.
What is it about this blog
What is it about this blog that attracts commenters who are completely unhinged? I can't even decipher what half these comments are trying to say.
"Parity is a cold war
"Parity is a cold war concept." -- and so is containment, dude.
by the way about the Arab
by the way about the Arab League demonstrating leadership, we all know that's all cow dung because the AL is spineless. Why? Because the ME is governed by autocrats, autocrats like Assad!
Visitor on February 14, 2012
Visitor on February 14, 2012 - 7:31pm
Maybe it is because you have your head up your ass.
“The United States also hopes
“The United States also hopes to replicate in Syria.” There is no credibility on the issue. What we have here is a career bureaucrat (http://www.state.gov/p/eur/rls/or/147871.htm ) living inside the beltway trying to make it to a six-figure retirement.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/16/world/middleeast/al-qaeda-influence-su...
The United States also hopes to replicate in Syria its efforts to help the new Libyan government account for an estimated 20,000 shoulder-launched antiaircraft missiles held by the Qaddafi government before it fell, a project in which the United States is enlisting the assistance of Libya’s neighbors. A significant number of those Libyan missiles were destroyed, and an additional 5,000 have been tallied, Mr. Countryman said.
Syria’s stockpile of shoulder-launched, antiaircraft missiles is believed to number in the tens of thousands, an arsenal that “we don’t wish to see to fall into terrorist hands,” Mr. Countryman said.
What did Mr. Countryman’s boss get for the millions of America’s infrastructure and education dollars she spent on her own interests in Libya?
Answer: More of the same.
Ms. Clinton what are you doing about the tons of high explosives you let loose on the world? You’re an American joke and the joke is on US.
Nov. 2012 cannot come fast enough.
Aid corridors would require a
Aid corridors would require a military intervention, which is an understatement by Turkey. Assad has denied operations against Syrians within his country and rejected any outside military involvement to stop those operations all intrusions into Syrian territory is going to come by and be maintained by outside force. The safety of the people with the humanitarian corridors can only be guaranteed by a NFZ which will require either Assad’s agreement or UN destruction of Syrian ground defense structure.
http://www.todayszaman.com/news-271583-turkey-opposes-syrian-humanitaria...
“Turkish officials say the aid corridor could be linked to a British military base in Cyprus, rather than to its border with Syria, and that the aid could be delivered to Syrian population via a sea route, the report said. Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu already expressed the Turkish position to the US when he met his US counterpart, Hillary Clinton, in Washington on Monday.”
.
“Observers say creating aid corridors would be a difficult task following the Russian-Chinese veto at the UN Security Council, given that it would require a military intervention and that Russia and China vetoed the measure mainly because of the possibility that such a resolution could lead to a military intervention.”
The US government is looking to provide a clear line between civilian and the Syrian military to provide a humanitarian defense structure. There will be no mechanism to keep the Rebel Syrian forces from using the humanitarian zones for sanctuary, just as the Taliban use Pakistan for sanctuary.
Humanitarian zones will only be a declaration of US allegiance to one side of a civil war where regime change is the desired goal. Comfort and aid to Rebels included.
Humanitarian corridors do not guarantee stabilization of the Middle East; there is only a guarantee of additional burden to the US national debt. What is America getting for lack of spending on US infrastructure and education?
Ms. Clinton should STFU.
Nov. 2012 cannot come fast enough.
The comment by Visitor @
The comment by Visitor @ February 15, 2012 - 6:06am may be the best comment ever; not just in the history of this blog, but in blogging history.
I beg to differ. That comment
I beg to differ. That comment above is only relevant if this is a blog on Robert Maplethorpe!
Nice fishing trip Exum.
Nice fishing trip Exum.
http://rt.com/news/missiles-a
http://rt.com/news/missiles-algeria-security-libya-801/
Algeria is not the only country that sounded an alarm about intensive arms trafficking on its borders. The black market for arms has inundated many other African states with munitions from Libya, says Russia’s special envoy to Africa Mikhail Margelov.
.
“I recently visited Nigeria, Mali, Mauritania and Morocco, and for these four countries what is happening in the desert is a real nightmare,” he told RT in January. “One of the tribal leaders said to me, what happened in Libya undermined the market. I asked, ‘What market?’ He said, ‘Today, a Soviet or Chinese-made MANPAD [man-portable surface-to-air missile] costs the price of two Kalashnikovs.' It’s a real problem, because arms trafficking can end up somewhere in the south of Africa or somewhere in the south of Europe.”
Think Mr. Countryman will get his retirement? You bet and a banquet too.
Hmm... seems comparable,
Hmm... seems comparable, doesn't it? Something missing, what?
Small dispensers designed to look like pop bottles and filled with VX, placed into the hands of terrorists? 107mm rockets fitted with MD-21 RF fuses and filled with novichok handed over to the enemies of somebody's enemies?
107mm rockets fitted with
107mm rockets fitted with MD-21 RF fuses and filled with novichok handed over to the enemies of somebody's enemies?
While it's true that Syria has extensive chemical munitions, it's not clear that anyone would be crazy enough to, for example, launch something like these into Krasnaya Sloboda (a Jewish Azerbaijani town), even if they could get them there. Doubtless this is one of the reasons for Israel keeping a low profile over the Syrian matter, though. Iran's inept actions recently make it unlikely that they could get away with doing something and blaming it on the Syrians and the Syrian regime, needing support, are unlikely to do something that would be blamed on Iran.
Can't speak to some sort of post-conflict act of vengeance, though, in a place like Rome or Frankfurt, except that most people post-conflict will be in survival mode, not vengeance mode.
Andrew, I am not sold on
Andrew, I am not sold on arming the opposition, but the military balance was more skewed during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. The Mujihadeen successfully kicked out the USSR with arms and training from the CIA, while the Soviets possessed the largest military on the planet.
Add your comment