The US destroyed Syria
Well, "destroyed" might be too strong a word. The US plowed the field and sowed the seeds of its destruction by repeatedly encouraging the rebels and appearing to be about to offer military assistance only to back out and leave them to their fate.
This prolonged the conflict and contributed to quite a few deaths and refugees.
Is Syria business as usual for humans? Or should we think of it as a mistake from which some lesson can be learned?
This prolonged the conflict and contributed to quite a few deaths and refugees.
Is Syria business as usual for humans? Or should we think of it as a mistake from which some lesson can be learned?
Comments (36)
As to whether the U.S. caused the war and the destruction of Syria. I think they are certainly culpable, but the causes go back to the first gulf war and before. A legacy of foreign policy decisions in regard of the Middle East going back decades, perhaps even to the late 1940's.
Why do you say that?
Quoting Punshhh
What decision made in the 40's influenced the present situation? It's interesting that you bring up the post-WW2 world-scene. To me, this question is really about what we owe one another on a global scale... and what we don't.
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/world-war-one/lawrence-of-arabia/
Even without looking at the Frontline report (which usually are very good), something important happened in Syria. And that was that the US in it's interventionist foreign policy reached a limit. Because Obama was thinking about going after Assad, doing something similar than in Libya. And then... no allies showed up, not even the trusty ol' UK. And then Obama and the US blinked. Yeah, lets forget about any red lines we talked about. And thus the US created one of the most FUBAR farses in the history of covert operations in Syria. The Bay of Pigs was a professional effort compared to the US covert operations there.
Well, perhaps Israel is happy. The last enemy it had, which was few years ago developing it's own nuclear arsenal to deter Israel's arsenal is a basically failed state.
(Turists watching the fighting across the border in Syria from the Israel side. Nicer times than earlier. And extremely surreal photo, actually)
To the OP:
In the end I think Americans focus far too much on themselves and think that everything evolves around them and what they do. In the end Syria and Libya and perhaps the whole Middle East made itself a mess with the US being just one outside agent that has an effect on the outcome. The Syrian civil war happened because of the situation in Syria, not because of the US. Heck, the US was in no way involved with the extremely bloody civil war in Algeria, yet that bloody civil war happened. The civil war in Syria is something actually similar.
Intervention in other countries' sordid affairs would be a great idea if their various sordid situations weren't so damned messy.
I couldn't find the whole episode on youtube. If you can access the PBS website, it's on there (this episode is about a year old, btw):
But you're right. It explains that both Obama and Kerry made public statements (in off-the-cuff answers to questions from reporters) that seemed to draw lines and assure US support. It's the sort of thing that arises from ambivalence... no clear policy in the first place.
In the present US presidential election, that ambivalence is present. Obama and Clinton believe the US should be some sort of global leader. The opposing view is isolationist (as if that's even an option at this point.)
Apparently, the Obama administration was assured by various parties (including Turkish) that the Assad regime would crumble easily in the face of revolutionaries taking to the streets.
A few doses of sarin gas later....
Think about it. First there was CENTO. A similar defence treaty like NATO with Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Pakistan (the UK and finally the US) on the same side. Then that ended with A time of Kermit Roosevelt when militaries of the nations asked first the CIA if it was OK for them to do a coup. And Operation Ajax seemed to have handled Iran and the US could have it "Twin Pillars"-policy (of a strong Imperial Iran and the Saudi Kingdom). Then in 1958 Iraq had it's very popular revolution so CENTO didn't work anymore. Then happened the Iranian revolution. Then after Desert Storm the US had "Dual Containment". And then the invasion of Iraq.
And in the end it's a total mess. Iranian backed Shiite militias with American Abrams tanks. I think the picture below describes so well what many words cannot. When you have after a long war started by the US itself, a "terrorist organization" backed by an "axis-of-evil" state being your ally, there simply is no logic in your foreign policy.
Heard of a country called Israel at all?
The invasion of Iraq contributed for the same reasons we've already pointed out: lack of long-term commitment on the part of the US.
Yes. How is Israel a factor in the disintegration of Syria?
True. But do you believe the rebels could have created a democratic government (prior to the chaos)?
How is it not? The entire Arab world had to be rearranged ad hoc to establish Israel.in 1948 in what was already an area destabilised by previous attempts mostly by Britain to carve it into states with little or no regard for tribal and ethnic histories. Syria's reaction was to immediately invade Palestine on a crusade to eliminate Zionism. None of the upheavals and coups and wars that have followed has ever been free of the issue of how to respond to Israel's continued existence whatever the headline excuse may be.
Sure. Israel's existence is a source of stress to the region. That insight doesn't seem to warrant a sarcastic "Have you heard of Israel?"
Pfft.
1. Was a lesson learned? Will future US presidents and Sec's of State more clearly communicate to potential revolutionaries in the world that the US won't involve itself?
2. Will westerners cease interpreting rebellion in other parts of the world as the appearance of democracy?
Look at Libya - and actually Clinton has a direct role in both Syria and Libya, she was strongly interventionist. But Libya is plainly a failed state and a hotbed of terrorism and major people-smuggling hub. Gadaffi was an awful man, but sometimes awful men are better than the alternative!
It's all an enormous mess, but whilst the US has some culpability, I think the headline on this thread is Russian propaganda, pure and simple (and yes, they're the same people standing up in press conferences this morning saying hand-on-heart that they had nothing to do with the shooting down of MH17.)
The big mistake in our response to revolutionary change in the mIddle East was referencing Prague Spring to describe the winds of change that were blowing through Tunisia and Egypt. Prague Spring was great, but it came to a crashing end 8 months after it started when Warsaw Pact troops marched into Prague to break up the party.
The Arab Spring ended in the same sad spring-ending way.
To invade Iraq itself was the incredible mistake. Not lack of long term commitment. Before in the case of Korea and Vietnam, at least there had been a country that had wanted US intervention. Now the US went on the invasion business, last seen was it during the Spanish-American war?
What really differed from the situation immediately after Desert Storm? No Arab allies of the US (which then included also Syria among Egypt and the Saudi's and the Gulf Cooperation Council) were willing to continue into Iraq and the Saudis then warned that occupying Iraq would lead to a civil war between the Sunnis and Shias and collapse of the Iraqi state. What changed? Perhaps that it was an easy picking and would give a huge profits to Dick Cheneys former employer. And that you had the neocon whackos running the show in Washington.
We know now from hindsight that Operation Desert Fox actually was far more successfull than even the US at the time thought and basically Saddam posed no threat to it's neighbours and there was utterly no WMD program. Now likely with "Arab Spring" Saddam's Iraq would have been in trouble, but then again the "Operation Iraqi Freedom" was such a destabilizing event that who knows what the Middle East would have looked like. The invasion of Iraq is what really succeeded in creating the franchised Al-Qaeda movements and then IS. Not actually the invasion of Afghanistan so much, because the Taliban is more of a Pakistani military lead thing with few foreign fighters.
I think it's not about long term commitment. You have quite a lot of long term commitment for example in the US-Saudi relationship (which is very strained now, as the Congress overrid Obama's veto on JASTA). If you are thinking that the "lack of long term commitment" was the retreat from Iraq, yes, that did bring back otherwise beaten Al Qaeda (now morphed into IS), but do notice that was because of the non-working Iraqi government and especially it's dictatorial Iraqi Prime minister who immediately kicked out and imprisoned any high ranking Sunni in the goverment once the US withdrew.
And just to make an emphasis on the utter failure of US political leadership, the "Surge" did actually work because of the Sunni Awakening, which basically was a thing the US military did itself on the ground, not by the White House or Capitol Hill deciding that let's friend some Sunni insurgents (who have American blood in their hands) to fight the foreigner controlled Al Qaeda.
(Former sunni insurgent shaking hands with an American soldier during the "Sunni Awakening". Something that didn't last long in Iraq after the US left and the sectarian conflict has since continued to this day...)
We're talking about the impact on Syria. Maybe the invasion itself had some psychological impact (encouraging revolt, for instance), but the material contribution was that the US mangled Iraq and then left, allowing ISIS to form.
Interesting view.. I'll look into it.
The real breakthrough what Russia under Putin has done in information warfare is a small, simple yet hugely successfull change since the Soviet times. Then it was about "the evil capitalistic America". Now it's about the "evil capitalistic elite of America". And that small change has had a tremendous impact as now the Russian propaganda can say good things about American people, but then counterweight that with the evil corrupt elite running the show. In the European scene it's mainly about being against the EU. Support of the anti-establishment parties has been really a successfull operation for Russia.
And coming back to the subject, in Syria Russia simply has been far more successfull than the West. That it has basically fought a disguised Proxy war against the West-backed insurgents, yet has claimed to be fighting IS, hence it has performed far better than the US and the West. And needless to say, the real jackpot has been Donald "I love Putin" Trump. If there's one player that has been able to play it's card well in Syria, it has to be Russia
What the US in it's last years with the large footprint of soldiers basically kicked Al Qaeda into Syria. There it came back. Without Iraq likely there wouldn't be an Islamic State, but other Syrian islamist movements. And the existence of IS in Syria is one big game changer to the conflict. Hence Iraq is crucial in the present situation because otherwise the whole war might be contained inside Syria itself. It could be something similar to the civil war in Algeria, which didn't have an effect on the security situation of it's neighbours.
Admittedly, the US has definitely made mistakes with regard to the civil war, but our poor foreign policy the last few years didn't just magically create the longstanding Assad regime out of thin air, nor even IS. As much as some people would very much love to lay all of the Middle-east's problems in the past 1,500 years at the feet of the US, the reality will never align itself with that kind of scapegoating. The idea that the Middle-east would somehow be "better off" if the US had never involved itself in the region would be to ignore what the environment looked like before.
I agree. I don't think the uprising would have taken shape in the way it did if it hadn't been for repeated encouragement from the US. That's how the US helped screw Syria.
I think that encouragement proceeded from good intentions. The US thought the uprising would result in a stable democratic state. The fact that it instead resulted in the ruins of a country is food for thought.
Did it have to turn out that way? What did the US government fail to see?
What do you think, Meister Heister?
...that is the democratic process ought to give power to a Pro-US, secular administration that has similar ideas about democracy and liberal freedoms as the West does. The US isn't so excited when islamists win free and democratic elections, you know.
In Syria the university students and the lot likely did want that kind of democracy we think democracy and a justice state being, but just as with the Occupy Wall Street crowd compares to the average American, their ideas seldom portray the feelings of the poor and less educated people. This is far too evident in the other countries of the region. And well, basically true in the West too (after all, you have Trump).
And with Syria one should remember that at first new Western educated son of the dictator tried cautiously reform Syria, but that "spring" didn't last long... because it was well understood that if the Assad family would truly start reforms and seek a democracy, they would be thrown out of power and likely face the wrath of the majority. Minority rule is allways difficult, especially when the minority has ruled using widespread violence and a police state.
http://www.smh.com.au/world/the-brutal-strategy-behind-russias-massacres-in-syria-20160929-grruk2.html
The basic drift is, they can't win an outright victory there, so by a grinding war of attrition, they will ensure that nobody else can win, either.
What kind of encouragement are you referring to? Do you think Syria didn't already have a pretty large segment of its population vehemently against Assad and his family's government? That they weren't already of the disposition to rise up when the opportunity arose?
Well, considering the thread title, I don't think I want to allow you to soften your original position to the US just being one factor and not the factor, which the OP/title suggests.
I think that the United States is no more directly culpable for the current Syrian civil war than they were for World War II erupting in the late 1930's.
Well can't say what would have happened, but the U.S. would probably have got stuck in Syria and would have been accused of waging war on a legitimate sovereign nation, not to mention supporting rebel groups which could be labelled militants. It would all have been very unpopular back home. An unholy mess and that's not to mention getting in a mess with Russia.
Well take your pick, the alienation caused by U.S. involvement in the Middle East has been building bit by bit since the paranoia over the creep of communism after WW2, led to a cat and mouse game between the U.S. and Russia all around the world.
I can't say if the Arab spring would have happened otherwise, but I doubt it would have been so incendiary.
Countries like the US and Russia constantly destabilizing the region ensures that neither one can gain total control, however, notably the low, low prices at the gas pump in the US in recent years is the result of Syria selling oil at rock bottom prices to fund this catastrophe. The entire world is benefiting from them being caught in the middle which, of course, benefits the US because we are the largest exporter of everything else and before this disaster, believe it or not, we were for the first time ever the largest exporter of oil.
By allowing the oil companies to drill all over the US in recent years we are now prepared for WWIII and have oil reserves ready to be tapped again on a moment's notice. This is the same long term strategy common in both the military and businesses with, for example, the Japanese now cutting down all the rain forest trees and sinking many of them in the pacific ocean where they won't decay knowing that within fifty years or so they're value will go through the roof.
Just by accident I happened to master the Tao Te Ching. Its the kind of thing that only monks meditating in caves tend to do and I was not expecting it. Anyway, I'm now in my fourth year of writing a book that attempts to leverage contextual vagueness to extrapolate the underlying systems logic of the Tao Te Ching. If I'm successful it will mean I have reconciled Relativity and quantum mechanics and the Intuitionistic mathematicians should be able to use it to formulate a Theory of Everything and Nothing.
I was originally reluctant to write the book because I've had mathematicians interested in my sense of humor whose work is classified by the US government. They all want to use the fuzzy logic it contains to build AI and nuclear missile guidance systems and whatnot which I want no part of, but within twenty years even the classical computers will be able to expose the mathematical foundations and I decided it was time to write what is known as, "The Book That Can Never Be Written" and hope it can make a difference for the better.
Its too weird to believe. I'm now a part of what the Taoists call the "Yin World" and only whisper about among themselves knowing no outsider could ever understand and would just think they are totally nuts. However, quantum mechanics now makes sense to me which is nice. For example, space and time are merely the greater context of the void and its contents exchanging identities. We perceive time passing because a context, the future cannot exist without content and vice versa. The arrow of time is merely due to the fact that the human brain simply won't work backwards.
It explains a lot of things including why its impossible to obtain a perfect vacuum, absolute zero, or the speed of light as merely due to yin-yang dynamics excluding any metaphysical extremes. Hopefully within six months I'll have the systems logic worked out to prove it, but I've already experienced nonlinear time online. Instant messaging and whatnot where I would receive the answers to questions I had not asked yet. My mother experienced the same thing on the telephone a few years before and asked me about it, but I had no clue what could cause it at the time.
Things are about to get very interesting for the entire planet which is good, because within twenty years commercial fishing is supposed to be impossible with no more wild fish in the oceans and within fifty every land animal larger than a dog will either be extinct or only exist in zoos. We need the next scientific revolution to start to be able to save as many people and as much of the environment as we can.