Monday, July 22, 2013

"We believe the United States should join with its partners and allies...

...in the region and elsewhere to pursue an end to the bloodshed. An international coalition that strengthens the military and political capabilities of thoroughly vetted anti-Assad forces should supply equipment and training. That coalition should also plan for steps that would place even greater military pressure on the Assad regime..."

And so Carl Levin, liberal Democrat, calls for (limited) war with Syria.

I'm as saber-rattling a neocon as anyone, and I think this is nuts.

More after the jump.



No one — not our allies, not the Syrian opposition and not either of us — is advocating U.S. boots on the ground in Syria.

 So they (Levin and Senator King of Maine) just want us to send several tens of billions of dollars worth of advanced weaponry to "the Syrian opposition", a front for...al Qaeda.  And provide al Qaeda with air support, and training.

Present in our minds, and in those of many other Americans, are bitter memories of the Iraq war, which we both opposed at the time...The situation is also far different in Syria, where a widespread insurgency has strong popular support. There was no similar broadly popular insurgency calling for our help in Iraq when the United States invaded in 2003.

I'm sure our intervention in Syria would have broad popular support, among the same people who broadly supported 9/11, throwing candy into the street and firing their AK47s into the air in celebration.

Here's a big difference between Syria and Iraq, Carl:  The Iraqi Kurds.  Liberating this pro-American, anti-al-Qaeda group of  6 million friendly, industrious people from under the thumb of a genocidal tyrant was one of the most noble things the US military has done since World War Two.  There were only 6 million of them, though, so theirs didn't amount to popular support.  That's an interesting number of people to discount as trivial and expendable, 6 million.  I seem to remember seeing that number elsewhere in history.

There are a couple of million Kurds in Syria, about 500,000 of whom consider themselves stateless, autonomous from the government that oppresses them.  But none of them are asking us to give aid to al-Qaeda front groups that routinely kidnap and murder Kurds.

So the big difference between Syria and Iraq is this:  In Iraq, there was a substantial pro-American, anti-al-Qaeda group that we could aid with our intervention.  The Kurdish semi-autonomous state in Iraq is now one of the most peaceful and prosperous areas in the middle east.  In Syria, we have on one side the supporters of a murderous despot; and on the other side, our sworn blood enemy, al Qaeda.  If there's anything we can do to help Kurdish refugees escape the carnage, I'd be all for that; but in a fight between Assad and al Qaeda, America's best interest is in maximizing casualties on both sides and protracting the fight for as long as possible.

27 comments:

rhhardin said...

I loved sabre but not having to go to practice every day, when it became optional and not an alternative to phys ed.

Chennaul said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Chennaul said...

Oh son of a bitch.

Sorry misread that--I need more coffee.

AllenS said...

Does anyone here want to follow Carl Levin into battle? I didn't think so.

Methadras said...

We shouldn't even be involved with any players in the Syrian Civil war. Neither side is an ally. If this is about preserving the stability of oil prices and production or if it is making sure that chem/bio weapons aren't in play, I can make an argument for protecting and prosecuting those American interests, but if it's a matter of protecting one side over the other and ensuring the bloodshed is minimized, then I say, let them have a good time gutting one another.

The lunacy that infests the Middle East is like having a family member that is crazy that absorbs all of the time of mom and dad to the detriment of everyone else. That's what we are dealing with now. Libya, Eqypt, Iran, Iraq, Israel/Palestine, et al. We don't need their resources anymore. We have our own. Ensure our allies don't get in the action like Saudi, Jordan, Israel, and a couple of others and fuck the rest.

Chennaul said...

That's what we are dealing with now. Libya, Eqypt, Iran, Iraq, Israel/Palestine, et al.

***********

And with all of that going on--Turkey is getting squirrely.

Evi L. Bloggerlady said...

We have zero interest in Syria (other than it spilling over into Turkey, Jordan, Lebanon and Israel...). We really need to stay out of this one. Let things play out and see what happens.

Chennaul said...

But, but--Obama gave a great speech in Egypt and that created the --


Arab Spring!!! and there was going to be flowers, and children singing everywhere!!!

Plus ponies!

Eric the Fruit Bat said...

Send the Syrian opposition a boatload of pressure cookers.

deborah said...

Pasta:
"...but in a fight between Assad and al Qaeda, America's best interest is in maximizing casualties on both sides and protracting the fight for as long as possible."

As Russia and Iran are arming Assad forces, Levin's idea of arming anti-Assad forces would help meet this aim.

Chennaul said...

As Russia and Iran are arming Assad forces

****************

Qatar has been in there supplying the rebels.

deborah said...

But the rebels have been losing ground.

Chennaul said...

Qatar ain't really losing money--relatively.

Chennaul said...

Although it's quite possible we owe Qatar.


So there's the leverage.

test said...

An international coalition that strengthens the military and political capabilities of thoroughly vetted anti-Assad forces should supply equipment and training.

Let's call it the Unicorn Coalition.

Doesn't it seem Levin's listing the reasons to stay out of it but at the end just says the wrong thing? It's not unprecedented, I'm pretty sure that's how we ended up invading Granada.

Chennaul said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Chennaul said...

Actually it probably went something like this:

Obama Admin: Do not fund the rebels or arm them--because Al Qaeda will end up with it.

Qatar: Oh good we'll do that, call your bluff-and if you want more control--you'll have to do it yourselves.

Here we are.

deborah said...

"Qatar ain't really losing money--relatively."

There seems to be an underlying economic component to Doha’s moves on the global chessboard, especially with regard to Syria. Qatar gets its gas from the South Pars field, which it shares with Iran, and as global demand for clean energy rises, so do Doha’s ambitions of being the EU’s main supplier.

If Europe shifts to burning gas instead of coal to reduce CO2 emissions, it could potentially become the largest natural gas consumer. Doha wants direct transit routes to emerging EU markets, but Assad is in the way, and he agreed to participate in the proposed Iran-Iraq-Syria gas pipeline, which would significantly bolster anti-hegemony Shia states and essentially allow Tehran, which is selling the same product, to get a leg-up over Doha. Of course, Qatar never seems to be seriously criticized in Western capitals, despite it being a strong candidate for the ‘state-sponsor of terror’ label that it should rightfully wear.


http://rt.com/op-edge/qatar-emir-leadership-us-syria-322/

Chennaul said...

So you saw this:

Qatar is of course a key US ally and partner, and hosts the Pentagon’s most important military bases in the region, in addition to hosting 5,500 US troops.

*****

If Europe shifts to burning gas instead of coal to reduce CO2 emissions,

Just peachy...

Thanks for the link--I'll have to look at that some more.

I don't know what Saudi Arabia's moves have been lately.

Michael Haz said...

There is no good side in this fight. There's Assad, and there's the Muslim Brotherhood, which is what the rebels really are. Both are toxic, both hate America.

Carl Levin seems awfully casual about sending young Americans to their deaths for no good reason.

deborah said...

Yes. I went for the pipeline info, and saw that, too. 'Course it makes sense, now that I think of it :) We also give them a ton of missiles and anti-missile platforms, but the last thing they want is for their fairy-tale infrastructure to come crashing down.

Both Qatar and SA are big on exporting Wahhabism. It's the fastest growing form of Islam in the world.

virgil xenophon said...

What Methadras, above, said.

Anonymous said...

Noooooo!

edutcher said...

Funny how he didn't want to go to Iraq.

But that was a Republican campaign, of course.

Icepick said...

Does anyone here want to follow Carl Levin into battle? I didn't think so.

Are you kidding? I'd LOVE that! Send Fat Carl out in front, and I'll follow - with bayonet fixed. (For this purpose I will carry an old M1903 Springfield into battle, just because.)

deborah said...

I remember during the Iraq War people wishing Cheney and Rumsfeld could be dropped into the middle of the desert with full packs and no radios :)

Anonymous said...

There was no similar broadly popular insurgency calling for our help in Iraq when the United States invaded in 2003. --Carl Levin

Levin, like almost all Democrats, ignores the fact that the majority of Iraqis supported our overthrow of Hussein from the very beginning, even through the worst post-war days.

The Iraqis were so beaten down that they couldn't manage a popular insurgency but that didn't mean that wouldn't want out from underneath one of the worst dictators of the 21st century.

Pastafarian: Thanks for remembering the Kurds.