Strike On Syria?

[Era Might]

I don't think a "World War" is a serious possibility here. The world wars were fought over expansionist powers (Austria, Germany, Japan) on the same continent (well, not Japan, but they were piggybacking off of a European war). Nobody today has anything to gain from a world war, except maybe a state like Iran or North Korea, to destabilize everything, but what would be the purpose of trying to do that now. Russia, China, and the U.S. don't have perfect relationships but they're all part of the international order, and have no reason to want a world war. Maybe some elements in the Islamic world would want a world war, but what serious basis do they have to provoke one? I don't think they have that much clout to be able to cause such a thing, and they can't even unite among themselves.

Edited September 10, 2013 by Era Might

[Didacus]

In a different but agreeing view EraMight, I think China, Japan, Russia and European powers have far too much to lose to enter a world war, and no one outside these groups really have any military capabilities to match the US.  Thus I am convinced a world war is categorically out of the question.

 

However, any strikes like Iraq, and now perhaps Syria, can only weaken the US.  I think the US has only to gain to a peaceful solution in Syria, and to support such a drive, rather than the 'quick fix' of another military involvement.

 

 

But that's just my canadien two cents (which on occasion is worth more than the US 2 cents - :flex2: )

[Era Might]

In a different but agreeing view EraMight, I think China, Japan, Russia and European powers have far too much to lose to enter a world war, and no one outside these groups really have any military capabilities to match the US.  Thus I am convinced a world war is categorically out of the question.

 

However, any strikes like Iraq, and now perhaps Syria, can only weaken the US.  I think the US has only to gain to a peaceful solution in Syria, and to support such a drive, rather than the 'quick fix' of another military involvement.

 

 

But that's just my canadien two cents (which on occasion is worth more than the US 2 cents - :flex2: )

 

I agree, the situation can go badly for the U.S., but not because it descends into a world war. But as far as not having matching military capability, that would not be a necessary factor in a world war. WWI and WWII did not begin with U.S. involvement. It's not necessary to take on the U.S. directly in order to start a world war. And even superior force is not a guarantor of success or deterrence. How would the U.S. fare in a war in China with a billion people, or in Russia? Who knows. But anyway, there is absolutely nothing in the world order right now akin to WWI or WWII.

[Aloysius]

I don't think we're anywhere near the brink of a world war, we're slightly closer to the possibility of an increasingly destabilized Middle East that could transform into a deeper proxy war than is already going on for the great powers... IF that were to occur, THEN we would maybe be again on the brink of a world war.  but for all the reasons you listed, the great powers would have a vested interest in keeping that proxy war contained... but it could get out of control.

 

but you are right, I don't think anyone in power has any interest in letting this turn into a world war.  the only danger would be escalations getting out of control to the point where they couldn't avoid it... since these are all Russia's southern neighbors, there is a certain line that they would not be able to allow to be crossed without the threat of actual world war... like if a bunch of Foreign Powers were suddenly all up in South and Central America in this way with Mexico being peripherally involved, we'd of course not want a world war but we couldn't say we would be totally able to avoid it no matter what.

 

anyway, it seems some off the cuff remarks from Kerry opened the door to a stall on the Syria strike for now as the Whitehouse initially backed off of them but is now more open to them, if Kerry knew what he was doing then I give him major props, but I don't think he did, I think he was just throwing out an impossible suggestion (especially setting an "end of the week" deadline for it) that ended up being seized upon by Russia and gained traction... the UN Security Council should seriously consider this possibility to have the chemical weapons turned over to international control... ultimately this is a hugely important idea because not only does it take them away from the Assad government, it prevents them from being able to fall into the hands of the rebels, who, I must reiterate, we should NOT be supporting by any means.  luckily this kind of solution would allow Obama to politically save face because he could point to the threat of war as having accomplished this and come out with a Reaaganite level of political good will.  I don't believe for a minute that this option would even be on the table if it weren't for the strong opposition of Russia and of the American people, but good diplomacy will always allow both sides to save face so I hope this can be accomplished.  Russia will, of course, be wary of the wording of any UN resolution as they felt that the Libya resolution was totally misused, so any resolution that would seem to call for securing those weapons by force couldn't pass... 

[Aloysius]

it is amusing with all these developments how much Romney was berated for calling Russia our biggest geopolitical foe and how Biden warned Romney would cause a war in Syria... as the Obama administration has now been dealing with Russia as its biggest geopolitical foe and calling for strikes against Syria lol... not that I think Romney would be any better, of course, but he seemed to be correct about where relations with Russia were heading.

[Era Might]

it is amusing with all these developments how much Romney was berated for calling Russia our biggest geopolitical foe and how Biden warned Romney would cause a war in Syria... as the Obama administration has now been dealing with Russia as its biggest geopolitical foe and calling for strikes against Syria lol... not that I think Romney would be any better, of course, but he seemed to be correct about where relations with Russia were heading.

The interesting thing about Russia, as I see them, is they are sticklers for international rules. They may not be a haven of freedom, and they have their own interests separate from the U.S., but I don't see them as really hostile or "rogue." They play the international law card well because it's the best way to maintain their balance of power with the U.S.

 

Did you see the Assad interview with Charlie Rose? It was interesting, he seems like a Western-style politician. I don't know much about his regime, though, so maybe he's really a despot.

Edited September 10, 2013 by Era Might

[Aloysius]

well he's sort of a mix between a despot and a western style politician I think.  the attempts to frame him solely as a despot ignore the fact that he protects minorities in his country and that there are significant segments of the population that support him (that may even be a majority of those living in Syria at this point according even to some independent sources I've read)... but attempts to frame him as a good guy would ignore that he's attacked protesters and done various other unsavory things.  in general I still have the sense that Assad values his stockpiles as a deterrent to attack, not something he desires to use, much like the US does with its own WMD stockpiles. 

 

ultimately what we need now is maybe a UN Security Council resolution on the chemical weapons issue (that can find a way to assure Assad he still has some deterrent, which may be impossible though) to get the US to back down and help ensure the rebels never get access to Assad's stockpiles (though indications are they've already obtained some, though we don't know if that's taken from Assad or the Saudis), and a Geneva II convention.

[add]

tomorrow is 9/11, on the eve of this horrible tragedy, the most pious Obama has cast the first stone, to aid the  Al Qaeda rebels to bring down the Syrian regime

this action could not go well for US

 

 

 

Edited September 11, 2013 by add

[CatholicsAreKewl]

The interesting thing about Russia, as I see them, is they are sticklers for international rules. They may not be a haven of freedom, and they have their own interests separate from the U.S., but I don't see them as really hostile or "rogue." They play the international law card well because it's the best way to maintain their balance of power with the U.S.

 

Did you see the Assad interview with Charlie Rose? It was interesting, he seems like a Western-style politician. I don't know much about his regime, though, so maybe he's really a despot.

Bashar went to medical school in London, so he has a grasp of western culture and can represent himself well on television.  I would say he's more of a parody of a western-style politician.

"Lol, let's hold elections this year. Oh, how convenient! 99% of the population chose me again." 
 

 

well he's sort of a mix between a despot and a western style politician I think.  the attempts to frame him solely as a despot ignore the fact that he protects minorities in his country and that there are significant segments of the population that support him (that may even be a majority of those living in Syria at this point according even to some independent sources I've read)... but attempts to frame him as a good guy would ignore that he's attacked protesters and done various other unsavory things.  in general I still have the sense that Assad values his stockpiles as a deterrent to attack, not something he desires to use, much like the US does with its own WMD stockpiles. 

The Assad family is responsible for a huge number of Christian deaths (see the Lebanese civil war). Bashar himself is responsible for the assassination of many Lebanese Christian leaders. While he does protect Christians in his own country, we can't overlook the fact that he kills Christians in another. Remember that Sadam also protected some minority groups. That didn't make him any less of a crummy person. 

Edited September 11, 2013 by CatholicsAreKewl

[4588686]

Obama administration has now been dealing with Russia as its biggest geopolitical foe 

 

 

No we're not.  Russia is a swiftly declining power that has some influence on a state in an important region that is declining in importance.  Chinais our biggest geo-political foe. Russia is just a side show.  

[Aloysius]

I don't think the Middle East is declining in importance, and I don't think Russia's influence broadly in the region is declining either.  I think you're way overstating that.

[CatholicsAreKewl]

Everyone gets props!

[Apotheoun]

Russia is in the process of re-militarizing, and it still has thousands of nuclear warheads.

[CatholicsAreKewl]

I don't think a "World War" is a serious possibility here. The world wars were fought over expansionist powers (Austria, Germany, Japan) on the same continent (well, not Japan, but they were piggybacking off of a European war). Nobody today has anything to gain from a world war, except maybe a state like Iran or North Korea, to destabilize everything, but what would be the purpose of trying to do that now. Russia, China, and the U.S. don't have perfect relationships but they're all part of the international order, and have no reason to want a world war. Maybe some elements in the Islamic world would want a world war, but what serious basis do they have to provoke one? I don't think they have that much clout to be able to cause such a thing, and they can't even unite among themselves.

You're right, a lot of things would need to happen before it escalated into a world war but it is a possibility. I'll explain in more detail a couple of things that could go wrong...

Lets say we got attacked by Hezbollah and we responded by hitting Lebanon. Attacking both Hezbollah and Assad, who represent two Shi'ite groups, would prompt Iran to enter the conflict. Russia is a longtime ally and protector of Syria (since before the Cold War). We can expect Russia to act in some way if we strike as well. Israel, being so close to the action, might decide to join the fun if it doesnt end up being dragged into it. Iraq's government is shiite run and they're not so happy about us fighting an alawite. I doubt they'll enjoy the prospect of us fighting Iran as well. Imagine engaging with an army that we trained and equipped.

This example is pretty extreme but we should consider all possibilities before entering into a conflict. Obama bushed us by getting America trapped in this situation without knowing the possible outcomes. Russia is our saving grace right meow. Edited September 11, 2013 by CatholicsAreKewl

[Aloysius]

don't forget Mr. Magoo... er.. I mean... John Kerry, who seems to have inexplicably stumbled into a peaceful delay lol