First ceasefire was settled back in February after first Aleppo offensive. Russians respected it. Scale down their air forces. SAA respected it too. In April Nusra started offensive in southern Aleppo. Russians even denied air cover for IRGC and Iranians suffered heavy causalities. They were mad about that and criticized Russia heavily. In June cease fire collapsed. Nusra was never separated from other rebel factions. Russians and SAA resumed their offensive. Jihadists were winning and Kerry even asked for SAA withdrawal from Aleppo in one moment. But situation on the battlefield took wrong turn for Nusra and co. Turks withdrawn major jihadi factions from Aleppo for them to take the part in Euphrates Shield operation. Kerry agreed to Russian proposals. Pentagon was furious. Deir er Ezzor attack happened. The rest is well known history
6
Spending $6,000,000,000 in a Syrian war is stupid.
USA arming of "moderate terrorist" is stupid and immoral.
Going to war with Russia of Syria is stupid.
Having Syrian refugees come to the USA like they did in Europe is even more stupid.
Let Russia have Syria as well and return the refugees as well.
Leaving Syria is no embarrassment for the USA. Obama & Clinton has embarrassed the USA enough with Libya, Syria, debt, and other atrocities that have made the USA the laughing stock of the entire world.
USA arming of "moderate terrorist" is stupid and immoral.
Going to war with Russia of Syria is stupid.
Having Syrian refugees come to the USA like they did in Europe is even more stupid.
Let Russia have Syria as well and return the refugees as well.
Leaving Syria is no embarrassment for the USA. Obama & Clinton has embarrassed the USA enough with Libya, Syria, debt, and other atrocities that have made the USA the laughing stock of the entire world.
17
Well said.
The war in Syria is a mess. American efforts to support moderate rebels have harmed more than helped. Better to end the war, get foreign troops from both sides out of the country, and try to pick up the pieces.
Bashar al-Assad should then be relatively easy to ease out of power if there is a better alternative. In any case, the Assad government is much better for Syrians than anything the rebels would put in place.
The war in Syria is a mess. American efforts to support moderate rebels have harmed more than helped. Better to end the war, get foreign troops from both sides out of the country, and try to pick up the pieces.
Bashar al-Assad should then be relatively easy to ease out of power if there is a better alternative. In any case, the Assad government is much better for Syrians than anything the rebels would put in place.
12
wants the United States to stand up to Russia and assert its intention to remain a major geopolitical player in the region.
It's a good way for the neocons to finally score their war with Iran too. And what the heck, let's throw Hezbollah and a few more terrorist organizations in the mix. Get 'rem all together there somehow and Trump or Clinton or maybe even Putin will just decide to nuke everything and hide in bunkers safe and sound until the fallout stops. Wearing a radiation suit they can all pretend their living on Mars later.
It's a good way for the neocons to finally score their war with Iran too. And what the heck, let's throw Hezbollah and a few more terrorist organizations in the mix. Get 'rem all together there somehow and Trump or Clinton or maybe even Putin will just decide to nuke everything and hide in bunkers safe and sound until the fallout stops. Wearing a radiation suit they can all pretend their living on Mars later.
5
Americans don't like Muslims in their own country so the idea that we should go to war in Syria because we care about Syrians is ludicrous. Liberals might have good intentions but those ideals aren't what shape our interventions. We didn't invade Iraq because we love Iraqi people. We hated Hussein and wanted free flow of oil in the region.
Russia is the complicating factor. Watching them cement themselves makes americas blood boil. Syria has always been Russia's ally. But Putin has been an enlarging threat to the west.
This isn't about Syrian people. It's a proxy war with russia. Russia and the west both detest the militants. But Russia enlarging their military footprint in the Middle East raises alarms.
Conflict with Russia is a gravely serious thing. Obama is clearly concerned about that. I don't have answers and doubt that anyone does.
Russia is the complicating factor. Watching them cement themselves makes americas blood boil. Syria has always been Russia's ally. But Putin has been an enlarging threat to the west.
This isn't about Syrian people. It's a proxy war with russia. Russia and the west both detest the militants. But Russia enlarging their military footprint in the Middle East raises alarms.
Conflict with Russia is a gravely serious thing. Obama is clearly concerned about that. I don't have answers and doubt that anyone does.
6
Can't we do it like Charlie Wilson's war? We don't need to die. It is not our war. But what is going on there is wrong and we have an obligation to help.
3
Wrong. Once again we get the view from someone ensconced in an ivory tower far away from reality. You don't continually back down from a bully like Putin. This professor's specious logic would allow Putin to continue to invade other countries. That logic emboldens Putin. At some point we have to tell Putin you've gone far enough. We have yet to test his mettle. If it means using force for a show of strength, so be it. This should be done in conjunction with our allies. You cannot stop Putin as this author naively suggests to wait it out. He's already plotting his next invasion.
1
The easiest way to fix the problem, as far as the US is concerned, is to simply strike the word from Google's search engine data base. Then virtually it will no longer exist for us and we needn't have to worry about it ever again and we can pretend like it never even existed in the first place. Isn't technology wonderful, when appropriately used?
3
Our only real choices, in my opinion, are to create leverage through some sort of military intervention, or to honestly accept the atrocities, if we decide that it's just not worth it to us to intervene. That's it.
We can't appeal to the reason and decency of the irrational and indecent. Either we think it's worthwhile to intervene or we don't, but it's disingenuous to pretend that we can negotiate peace without leverage.
I don't know much about the situation, but I trust in the knowledge and good judgment of the diplomats who signed the dissent memo, and it was their opinion that negotiation without leverage is futile. I believe them. This essay is so reasonable-sounding; if only negotiation without leverage were possible.
My sense is that if we don't intervene, we'll pay a greater price in the end, but either way, I'd prefer that we be honest about the essential futility of negotiation without leverage. My two cents only.
We can't appeal to the reason and decency of the irrational and indecent. Either we think it's worthwhile to intervene or we don't, but it's disingenuous to pretend that we can negotiate peace without leverage.
I don't know much about the situation, but I trust in the knowledge and good judgment of the diplomats who signed the dissent memo, and it was their opinion that negotiation without leverage is futile. I believe them. This essay is so reasonable-sounding; if only negotiation without leverage were possible.
My sense is that if we don't intervene, we'll pay a greater price in the end, but either way, I'd prefer that we be honest about the essential futility of negotiation without leverage. My two cents only.
6
What has been revealed as abundantly clear is that if the US doesn't have some force behind it's words, the regime and it's allies couldn't care less about anything resembling a just peace, no matter how many attempts are made. There is simply no powerful motivation or incentive for the regime to take it seriously or make concessions, nor for Russia to force it to.
It Assad takes Aleppo, he will hold all the strong cards in any negotiation, which will lead to a charade of a "peace deal", where at best some of the more pliant opposition figures will get token cabinet posts.
Is this a situation that we can tolerate, that a despicable murderer of hundreds of thousands will be getting of scott free? I think i know what conclusions future historians will land on.
It Assad takes Aleppo, he will hold all the strong cards in any negotiation, which will lead to a charade of a "peace deal", where at best some of the more pliant opposition figures will get token cabinet posts.
Is this a situation that we can tolerate, that a despicable murderer of hundreds of thousands will be getting of scott free? I think i know what conclusions future historians will land on.
1
Unfortunately, the NYT keeps misinforming its readership by referring to this as the 'Syrian civil war', when it more accurately should be called the 'Syrian regime change strategy'. The Times should also be very clear with its readers by telling them that the US was the instigator and has been behind the so-called 'rebels' since the outset. Using foreign proxies in an effort to hide its actions, the US has worked very hard and spent a lot of money to oust the Syrian regime, which has been a secular, modernizing force in Syria. And, what has been the goal? To put those same al-Qadea affiliated rebels in charge, which is mystifying, as well as downright stupid. The US, along with it's undemocratic, intolerant friend, Saudi Arabia, should back off completely, and spare what's left of Syria the agony of further destruction. It should stop funding mercenary armies of religious nut cases with our tax dollars. Enough is enough. We have no business there.
15
The authors neglect to mention Russia's key condition, i.e. that the cease-fire terms be made public to the UN Security Council. Our administration wanted to conceal its promise to separate "moderate opposition" from Al-Qaeda, which would continue to be targeted by joint action, Instead the agreement, which was immediately denounced by Sec.Carter, among others. was blown-up by the "mistaken" airstrike on the Syrian position,. Now that Russia and Syria are continuing to pound the Al-Qaeda held portion of Aleppo without American cooperation, the administration is screaming blood murder as the agents of its coveted "regime change"are being destroyed. However, we Americans, who have not forgotten who is the enemy, should be ecstatic.
17
Syria is, now, undoubtedly a quagmire for whichever power would intervene. On that count, I agree with the authors.
But it's worth considering that, as the Syrian conflict began and then deepened, both of these men were on the National Security Council and a core part of the Obama Administration's early failures on the subject of how to handle protests that became armed conflict and then all-out civil war.
There may well have been a time in the past of this conflict where the US could have intervened and both saved lives and protected its interests. If that time is past, it is partly due to the decisions of advisors like Mr. Simon and Mr. Stevenson. So then: what's to suggest that they're any more right now?
But it's worth considering that, as the Syrian conflict began and then deepened, both of these men were on the National Security Council and a core part of the Obama Administration's early failures on the subject of how to handle protests that became armed conflict and then all-out civil war.
There may well have been a time in the past of this conflict where the US could have intervened and both saved lives and protected its interests. If that time is past, it is partly due to the decisions of advisors like Mr. Simon and Mr. Stevenson. So then: what's to suggest that they're any more right now?
3
". . . a negotiated political transition involving Mr. Assad’s eventual departure." What evidence is there that he will go anywhere now? later? eventually? Where is he to go? To the gallows like Saddam? To be mutilated in the street like Gaddafi? To hibernate in Russia like Snowden? He has demonstrated that he will ruthlessly hold on to power and, it appears, with the backing of Putin, he can. Where do we come in? I don't get it.
7
I was just cleaning out my dead fathers archive and saw articles of the NS propaganda in the waning years of WWII. The parallels to this article are startling.
Maybe the US population is convinced by this propaganda, but they are not asked. This war is lost. Number 3 war lost in the Islamic world. Nobody cares what we have to say. Our check bounced one more time.
And time it is to tell the Americans that the sway over the world is done with. We have no ideas, no ideology and not enough troops to continue to be the top dog. We can't even raise the next generation to be among the top 30 in education worldwide. Game over.
Maybe the US population is convinced by this propaganda, but they are not asked. This war is lost. Number 3 war lost in the Islamic world. Nobody cares what we have to say. Our check bounced one more time.
And time it is to tell the Americans that the sway over the world is done with. We have no ideas, no ideology and not enough troops to continue to be the top dog. We can't even raise the next generation to be among the top 30 in education worldwide. Game over.
8
Was this column a "light re-write" of a late 1930's column originally entitled "Don't Intervene Against Hitler?" How'd that "plan" work out? Russia has no "interests in Syria;" Russia wants to steal Syria. Missiles should have been launched 5 minutes after Russian bombers started their slaughter to close the runways. They need to be launched right now. All Russian aircraft on the ground should have been annihilated by missiles or bombs. The U.S. should call an emergency U.N. session for this p.m. for a U.N. resolution of a no fly zone and should enforce one including shooting down the Russian murderers if the U.N. balks or if Russia uses its veto. Although not U.S. citizens, those being killed are Humans and the U.S. needs to get going, as usual, to do the work the world itself refuses to do.
5
The authors ignore any analysis of the challenges involved in creating a Syrian safe zone and ignore even the possibility that it could be done without triggering World War III. We have been here before with the Russians (think the Berlin airlift, for example), gone nose to nose, and gotten them to back off enough for us to achieve our objectives.
Due to space limitations, I'll just summarize the plan for the no-fly zone, which is stage one for creating a safe zone. 1) Create an international coalition to support the effort. Make our humanitarian priorities clear: Every refugee that enters the zone is another casualty avoided. 2) Inform Russia and Syria, flat out, that any breach of the zone or hostile lock-on of coalition aircraft will result in disruption or destruction of the threat. 3) Accept in advance the probability that the zone will be tested and we will need to respond. (Note that unlike commercial airliners, like the one Russians shot down in Ukraine, our fighters are equipped with ejection seats, as unfortunate an experience as ejecting is.)
Neither the Syrians nor the Russians have anything to gain from escalating beyond the initial confrontation. They will back off, however reluctantly, after they go through their inevitable histrionics.
Due to space limitations, I'll just summarize the plan for the no-fly zone, which is stage one for creating a safe zone. 1) Create an international coalition to support the effort. Make our humanitarian priorities clear: Every refugee that enters the zone is another casualty avoided. 2) Inform Russia and Syria, flat out, that any breach of the zone or hostile lock-on of coalition aircraft will result in disruption or destruction of the threat. 3) Accept in advance the probability that the zone will be tested and we will need to respond. (Note that unlike commercial airliners, like the one Russians shot down in Ukraine, our fighters are equipped with ejection seats, as unfortunate an experience as ejecting is.)
Neither the Syrians nor the Russians have anything to gain from escalating beyond the initial confrontation. They will back off, however reluctantly, after they go through their inevitable histrionics.
2
When George W. Bush made the disastrous decision to invade Iraq - and then proceeded to botch the war - he laid the framework for ISIS, Syria, and the rest of the chaos enveloping the Middle East. By engaging in failed "endless wars" in Iraq and Afganistan, he limited the ability of the United States to mount any kind of effective response to the area's problems. We spent too much in lives and treasure in Iraq and Afganistan with too little to show for our efforts. It is easy and simplistic to blame Obama for Syria. Obama was elected (twice) to disengage America from the Middle East. He has been doing this. Our country is tired of open-ended military involvement which have little hope of success.
Obama is trying to do what he can to bring peace to Syria. His choices are few and all are pretty bad.
Maybe a President Hillary Clinton will be more aggressive. I guess we'll see soon enough.
Obama is trying to do what he can to bring peace to Syria. His choices are few and all are pretty bad.
Maybe a President Hillary Clinton will be more aggressive. I guess we'll see soon enough.
4
As the "errant" US strike on Syria that killed 60 government soldiers tells us, there is no way to pursue peace in Syria through the use of military force without greatly increasing the risk of a tactical accident leading to a wider war. Russia has far more business being in this part of the world than does the U.S. If there were another revolution in Cuba tomorrow, how would the U.S. feel about the Russians trying to prop up the Castro regime by supplying their government with weaponry?
3
Post Obama whoever becomes President and decides to get involved militarily in Syria, will find the tide turning when American body bags start arriving.
Unfortunately Obama will be praised and glorified post intervention after American blood is spilled on oil-less sands of Syria which he tried so hard to avoid!
Unfortunately Obama will be praised and glorified post intervention after American blood is spilled on oil-less sands of Syria which he tried so hard to avoid!
1
What a mess. The United States's has two-front posture in Syria. On the one hand, it opposes Assad, and Russia's support of him. On the other hand, the States is supposed to be working with Russia to thwart ISIS. Really? My understanding of Foreign Relations 101 is that you're supposed to avoid dealing with two enemies at once. To make things worse, on the one front, that enemy is Russia, on the other front, Russia is helping thwart the terrorist enemy. How does this make for a sane policy in the region?
2
The fiasco of the Arab 'Spring' in Syria can be directly related to the as yet to be judged war criminal George W. Bush's illegal intervention in neighboring Iraq and the subsequent spiral of instability the American invasion of Iraq triggered culminating in the events of 2011 when several totalitarian regimes were toppled in North Africa and the Middle East. Bush's irresponsibility was compounded by that of his successor Obama and allies who encouraged the Arab 'Spring' without a second thought about the day after. In the end, a bipartisan disaster which is instrumental in Americans' lack of esteem for politicians today and the rise of Donald Trump.
3
This editorial is correct, that to intervene in Syria would do little good and potentially tremendous harm by bringing the US closer to direct conflict with Russia. While the US would like to depose Assad, the problem there is not only that Russia supports him, but also the lack of a good answer to the question, "And then what? Who will take his place?"
In many ways, that failure to think past the initial battle for control was exactly the reason the US invasion of Iraq failed so dismally. We do not understand, and cannot control, the myriad factions that struggle for supremacy when a dictator is toppled in the Islamic world, whether in Iraq, Libya, Egypt, or Syria. The inescapable truth is that if a brutal dictator is removed, what will most likely take his place is chaos followed by another brutal dictator and/or a hard-line Islamic theocracy. There simply is no good option from the American point of view. Any attempt to prevent either continuing bloodshed or renewed oppression under a different name would require a true occupation over the course of generations, and untold costs. Ask Britain how well Empire worked out in the end. We should stay out of fights we cannot win, and if Putin wants to take the Middle East mess on, let him.
In many ways, that failure to think past the initial battle for control was exactly the reason the US invasion of Iraq failed so dismally. We do not understand, and cannot control, the myriad factions that struggle for supremacy when a dictator is toppled in the Islamic world, whether in Iraq, Libya, Egypt, or Syria. The inescapable truth is that if a brutal dictator is removed, what will most likely take his place is chaos followed by another brutal dictator and/or a hard-line Islamic theocracy. There simply is no good option from the American point of view. Any attempt to prevent either continuing bloodshed or renewed oppression under a different name would require a true occupation over the course of generations, and untold costs. Ask Britain how well Empire worked out in the end. We should stay out of fights we cannot win, and if Putin wants to take the Middle East mess on, let him.
3
Just read the second line of this article: "The trouble began when an errant American airstrike illed some 60 Syrian government soldiers."
Now, try to imagine the reaction in the US if some foreigner killed 60 Americans - no doubt they are people with mothers and partners and children and siblings, who have lost a loved on.
Do you imagine the NYTimes casually reporting that we don't need to get angry, because the 60 Americans had been killed by mistake - sure someone had been firing missiles, apparently carelessly, but since they hadn't actually intended to kill 60 Americans, well, that's OK then.
Now, try to imagine the reaction in the US if some foreigner killed 60 Americans - no doubt they are people with mothers and partners and children and siblings, who have lost a loved on.
Do you imagine the NYTimes casually reporting that we don't need to get angry, because the 60 Americans had been killed by mistake - sure someone had been firing missiles, apparently carelessly, but since they hadn't actually intended to kill 60 Americans, well, that's OK then.
7
If we intervened further, how many more Syrians would be killed?
It's 70 years of our seesaw Middle East policies that have created this mess and now the crows are coming home to roost. We insist on having 738 military bases and installations in over 138 foreign countries and our ever present zeal to play global hegemony [in areas of the world where we are not liked] these are the outcomes! The reality is many of these countries have their wealthy elite living here in the United States. We should force them to give up their 5th Avenue penthouses unless they fix this situation permanently! That goes for Syria, Iran, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and ISRAEL! Yes I said it! They are just as responsible!
"Steven Simon, a professor at Amherst College, was the National Security Council’s senior director for the Middle East and North Africa from 2011 through 2012. Jonathan Stevenson was the council’s director for political-military affairs for the Middle East and North Africa from 2011 to 2013."
In other words, keep doing what we've been doing. Because that's working out SO WELL. Sorry guys, you messed up. President Obama messed up. You were so afraid of another Iraq that you gave us another Rwanda.
May I also critique your "winning" Russian policy? Not being mean to Putin hasn't worked, either. He is an aggressive bully. We need a no-fly zone for the Syrian people, full stop. But a helpful side-effect will be to show Russia that they can't act without consequence.
In other words, keep doing what we've been doing. Because that's working out SO WELL. Sorry guys, you messed up. President Obama messed up. You were so afraid of another Iraq that you gave us another Rwanda.
May I also critique your "winning" Russian policy? Not being mean to Putin hasn't worked, either. He is an aggressive bully. We need a no-fly zone for the Syrian people, full stop. But a helpful side-effect will be to show Russia that they can't act without consequence.
2
It is the US that is incapable of delivering on its agreement with Russia. Obama couldn't even stop his own airforce from bombing the Syrian troops in act of blatant insubordination. And Obama has never had much influence over America's "allies" Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar - who do most of the legwork in this proxy war. On the contrary, this is a classical case of the tail wags the dog and Obama is under constant pressure to support those terrorist loving countries.
3
THE SYRIAN CRISIS: Will it lead to the spread of jihadism globally? Absent the air power and advanced weapons systems provided by Russia, it would be far more difficult for Syria's president to continue on his current monstrous path. Because he would not have the deterrence he has got now covering him with Russia's involvement. Eventually Russia's involvement in the quagmire will end up damaging that nation's security. There are plenty of Muslims in Russia and surrounding nations who are going to act on their grievances against Putin's monstrous actions in Syria and elsewhere with domestic violence. Meanwhile, I agree the least worst solution is to go back to negotiations to end the conflict and bring some relief to those suffering so terribly under Asad's cataclysmic war. He himself has said that war is always terrible, though he uses the words to make himself look and sound better to the world. He has not the slightest compunction about continuing the slaughter in Syria. What will he have left? Great piles of smoldering rubble including some of civilization's earliest and most important cultural treasures, along with the millions of Syrian refugees and those who have suffered so horribly. As Marx said, each revolution sows the seed of its own destruction. So Assad beware. The seeds of your own destruction will find fertile soil and you will bear the burden of your crimes against humanity, especially those against your nation. He's an unrepentant monster.
3
Misters Simon & Stevenson:
thank you for bringing your experiences to the pages of the NYT.
you have provided interested readers with the opportunity to listen and to
explore beyond the thunder and clamor of our industrial-military-complex operating in conjunction the many-failed Nation-Remakers.
so far in the 21st century,
too many have abandoned all rational thought
because it is so much easier to engage in emotional reactions;
particularly behind the blind belief that warfare is the only solution.
4
When will we learn? We cannot intervene in other nation's internal problems? We only wind up making things worse, and are almost always viewed with hatred and scorn as the outsiders we are. There is no better way to create more terrorists than act as we have here and elsewhere in the M.E.
Yes, it's tragic that the Syrians are killing and maiming each other, but they have to resolve this, not non-Syrians. We need to fully extract ourselves from the M.E. and Afghanistan, and allow them to forge their own destiny, while we focus our attention and resources on our own pressing problems at home.
Yes, it's tragic that the Syrians are killing and maiming each other, but they have to resolve this, not non-Syrians. We need to fully extract ourselves from the M.E. and Afghanistan, and allow them to forge their own destiny, while we focus our attention and resources on our own pressing problems at home.
35
This isn't being resolved by Syrians. It is being "resolved" by Russia's mass murder of innocents.
2
How does our involvement make this situation better? Those killed or wounded don't care whose country the death came from. Regardless of our intentions, our involvement equates to "Killing them to save them". We should provide humanitarian aid, and - applying strict vetting procedures, and perhaps limited quarantining - admit refugees, but we should not add to the violence and carnage by military involvement.
11
If we stop our action in Syria, Assad, with Russian help will exterminate every Syrian that he feels is not 100 and 10 percent loyal to him. The carnage will continue. Assad was indiscriminately killing his people even before the US got involved. It is convenient but wrong to blame all the horror in the Middle East on the US but that is far too naive. This is like Fascist Spain and Nazi Germany bombing villages.
2
You have, perhaps unwittingly, mentioned every reason why the U.S. should not become any further involved in Syria than if already has.
Yes. Assad is an authoritarian butcher who has been slaughtering his own people since assuming power, and now with his Russian overlords, he will wreak even more havoc -- but U.S. involvement would do nothing more than extend this conflict, and serve no means to an end.
Yes. Assad is an authoritarian butcher who has been slaughtering his own people since assuming power, and now with his Russian overlords, he will wreak even more havoc -- but U.S. involvement would do nothing more than extend this conflict, and serve no means to an end.
Obama seems to imagine that erring on the side of caution means erring on the side of doing nothing, and he criticizes, or his administration and apologists criticize, advocates of force as pushing for hazy do-somethingism. But why should we think that it's less cautious to intervene, considering the evident consequences of not doing so?
This "and then what ...?" approach can be played in the reverse direction. Envision the future if Syria is allowed to be razed. What about when the death toll starts to reach proportions that even the common man thinks unbearable? What about starvation? What are the consequences to America's image, even apart from the million-plus deaths that this war will produce?
Putin's Russia is driven by a deep hatred for, and less obvious fear of, the West, particularly of America. It's clear to me that Putin wants the U.S. out of Europe. He wants to offer an alternative to the godless, 'gay' West. There is certainly a kind of fascism on display in Russia. When a state like this can push around a superpower that, in Kerry's words, actually cares about international law, how exactly is that going to affect the way America is seen in the world?
This kind of Kissingerian calculating is awfully wrong and shameful. If we don't stand up for what's right, if we are seen as bowing to a power that supports a mass murderer, that will harm us immensely. I want neither a war with Russia nor timorous behavior towards it. We should stand firm and stop the killing.
This "and then what ...?" approach can be played in the reverse direction. Envision the future if Syria is allowed to be razed. What about when the death toll starts to reach proportions that even the common man thinks unbearable? What about starvation? What are the consequences to America's image, even apart from the million-plus deaths that this war will produce?
Putin's Russia is driven by a deep hatred for, and less obvious fear of, the West, particularly of America. It's clear to me that Putin wants the U.S. out of Europe. He wants to offer an alternative to the godless, 'gay' West. There is certainly a kind of fascism on display in Russia. When a state like this can push around a superpower that, in Kerry's words, actually cares about international law, how exactly is that going to affect the way America is seen in the world?
This kind of Kissingerian calculating is awfully wrong and shameful. If we don't stand up for what's right, if we are seen as bowing to a power that supports a mass murderer, that will harm us immensely. I want neither a war with Russia nor timorous behavior towards it. We should stand firm and stop the killing.
3
There are two camps in defense and security affairs: keep doing the right things as always – American Exceptionalism, foreign regime change, world’s policemen, and imperialism - called the old-fashion war camp and there is the other one – rethink the mistakes made since WWI about jingoism, ground troop dispatch to wherever is immune to the advice of the U.S., military-political-economic colonialism on the globe, empire-building-scheme, the you either with us or not syndrome, militarized mission under the cloak of Jeffersonian democracy propagation across the world, anti-terrorist new crusade against anyone who dare to resist repression – called the anti-war camp.
Syrian civil war is an extension of the Iraq war, the Dumpster Fire and mother of all fiascos, launched in 2003. Now “liberal hawks and traditional conservatives alike” “call for a tougher American policy in Syria” in 2016. “Both V.P. candidates - Sen. Kaine and Gov. Pence … advocated more aggressive American action.” The Obama administration which is the role model of H.R.C.’s is about to lose its cool in the heat of a blistering Russo sun.
The fact of the matter is that the war camp while having no majority support pretends ignorance and the anti-war camp does but it’s been held back from wielding power because the extremely hawkish H.R.C. and her campaign cannot wait for the big money those merchants of death shovels.
To halt the imminent American-Russian war the anti-war camp must support D.J.T.
Syrian civil war is an extension of the Iraq war, the Dumpster Fire and mother of all fiascos, launched in 2003. Now “liberal hawks and traditional conservatives alike” “call for a tougher American policy in Syria” in 2016. “Both V.P. candidates - Sen. Kaine and Gov. Pence … advocated more aggressive American action.” The Obama administration which is the role model of H.R.C.’s is about to lose its cool in the heat of a blistering Russo sun.
The fact of the matter is that the war camp while having no majority support pretends ignorance and the anti-war camp does but it’s been held back from wielding power because the extremely hawkish H.R.C. and her campaign cannot wait for the big money those merchants of death shovels.
To halt the imminent American-Russian war the anti-war camp must support D.J.T.
3
This is hardly the time to tout a fool into office of President of this country.
Trump has neither the know-how, or the ability to listen to anyone other than himself, which makes him imminently more dangerous.
Trump has neither the know-how, or the ability to listen to anyone other than himself, which makes him imminently more dangerous.
If a United States President fails to back up diplomacy with military power, the results will be disastrous like we are seeing in Syria. There is no peace without the muscle to back it up. Treaties and cease fires are meaningless without the "bog stick" that needs to accompany them. Hiding your head in the sand and pretending the situation will go away if ignored is not only cowardly but also stupid.
1
I totally agree with this op-ed. The arrogance and ignorance pervading many of the comments to this piece continues to amaze me. I suspect it all begins with the rabid disdain for Obama that comes with perspectives totally lacking in substance but full of loathing for the outgoing president.
3
Russia and the Syrian government need to be tried as war criminals for the deaths of the Syrian people.
1
The religious sects in the region will have to settle their own civil wars. America and the rest of the world should only work to contain the war zone and protect innocent citizens.
Funny that the Left accuses the Right of being warmongers, but it is was the comments from the Left on the Arab Spring in Syria were glowing and positive, as if all that was needed in the Muslim world was a regime change and the wretched violence that Islam has been raining down on all of civilization for 1400 years would be magically gone.
Every time a ruthless dictator is removed, the populace goes back to killing each other, until another ruthless dictator takes charge. That this is sad and incomprehensible does not change that it is true.
Every time a ruthless dictator is removed, the populace goes back to killing each other, until another ruthless dictator takes charge. That this is sad and incomprehensible does not change that it is true.
5
Why should we send even one of our young men or women into Syria to die when their capable, military aged men are comfortably sitting in Europe sipping lattes in Sweden or pints of pilsner in Europe, collecting welfare?
Let the Syrian people fight for their own country, rather than running away to Europe, as have close to one million military age men, leaving their woman and children behind.
If Syrians will not fight for their own country, why should we?
Let the Syrian people fight for their own country, rather than running away to Europe, as have close to one million military age men, leaving their woman and children behind.
If Syrians will not fight for their own country, why should we?
8
Despite what the NYT claims the strategy is confused. We want to rid Syria of Assad and Islamic fundamentalism? That seems like mission impossible. The problem is that even the non-ISIS Sunnis are not pro-American. They will take any guns on offer but they don't want to become a satellite of the US. The US does not seem to have any real allies in Syria. Risking a war with Russia makes no sense. The US is starting to behave like a colonial power. It is not wanted but insists it must be obeyed.
8
If we can't intervene, when this administration should of done something 5 years ago, then I can't understand how they can talk about human rights suffering anywhere around the world or refugees and taking in refugees. Making places around the world safe and livable, whether Africa or the middle east should be a top priority, as it is about prevention and early intervention, not about daily bleeding and emergency aid. The problem with the liberal model, whether in this country relating to crime, education, the federal debt, or abroad, is there isn't the ability and understanding of what to do, and stick with it, there is only talking, meetings, and throwing money at organizations and dictators, and war done wrong under the direction, not of the military but politicians. That obviously hasn't worked either here or abroad the last almost 16 years.
5
It was the generals (Petraeus et al) who came up with the deeply flawed premise and execution of "counter-insurgency"; the politicians just supported them because they assumed military leaders would know best. We can't occupy the world; the oil and cold-war based political mistakes of the past and the instability created by the blind military ambition of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars have created a situation where there is no alternative to governance in Syria other than US or Russian occupation. All we can do is everything possible to minimize the violence, provide humanitarian assistance, and avoid indirect assistance of terrorist elements (as others have pointed to in the comments). Unfortunately, good old fashioned military toughness just isn't as sure-fire as it used to be, if it ever was.
1
The story is very simple . Group 1- assad and russian ,Group 2 we have some moderate or so called rebells, Group 3 -bad guys or isis.
Assad wants to save his country , atleast from his interview and wants to destroy Group 3 and compromise with group 2.
US wants to destroy group 3 but arm group 2 against group 1
Russia wants to destroy group 3 ,control group 2 to compromise with assad.
where is the problem..its common goal to eliminate group 3, but the problem is with group 2, they have weapons and support from west and they fight with group 1 and may be help group 3 , you can not have middle group in this war.
completely disarm group 2 or dont supply weapons from west and other parties . then group 1 will only fight group 3 bad guys and in few months peace will be possible.
with out group 2 , west does not have much business there , may be thats why they want to supply arms to group 2 . If group2 /rebels becomes compromise wtih assad ,then assad and russia will fight with group 3 bad guys .West has not war to fight .
In this grand schema , looks like west want to some work and war is also work for people .group 2 needed work ,so they take weapons and fight with other groups , group 3 bad guys ,god knows what these bad guys really want.
between all these group fights , civilians are the victims , since no one wants to take blame ,they blame other groups, as though west acts like they have forgoten all illegal middle east wars.
Assad wants to save his country , atleast from his interview and wants to destroy Group 3 and compromise with group 2.
US wants to destroy group 3 but arm group 2 against group 1
Russia wants to destroy group 3 ,control group 2 to compromise with assad.
where is the problem..its common goal to eliminate group 3, but the problem is with group 2, they have weapons and support from west and they fight with group 1 and may be help group 3 , you can not have middle group in this war.
completely disarm group 2 or dont supply weapons from west and other parties . then group 1 will only fight group 3 bad guys and in few months peace will be possible.
with out group 2 , west does not have much business there , may be thats why they want to supply arms to group 2 . If group2 /rebels becomes compromise wtih assad ,then assad and russia will fight with group 3 bad guys .West has not war to fight .
In this grand schema , looks like west want to some work and war is also work for people .group 2 needed work ,so they take weapons and fight with other groups , group 3 bad guys ,god knows what these bad guys really want.
between all these group fights , civilians are the victims , since no one wants to take blame ,they blame other groups, as though west acts like they have forgoten all illegal middle east wars.
1
Don't intervene in any country, Period. If the locals do not fight hard enough to protect their own lives and freedoms, there's nothing an outside power can do for them. No outside power can stay engaged in warfare in another country for ever. In any case, the weak who lack the determination to fight for themselves would go down as soon as the outside helpers quit their place. It would happen in Syria; it would happen in Afghanistan. The sooner we quit those places, the better for us. There's absolutely no rationale or reason in the world for us to to continue accepting anymore casualties.
3
this would all make sense if the Russian end game was limited to support of the Assad regime. but its not. Syria is a testing ground to see how the US and its allies would react to further Russian expansion in eastern Europe. with the invasion of Georgia, Crimea, and eastern Ukraine the Russians have already seen that the US and is European allies are unwilling to go beyond the sanctions regime to oppose them. What is clear is that putin is willing to drive the Russian economy into the ground in order to achieve his goal of restoring the soviet empire. with the recovery of the price of oil he will certainly have enough money to fund his military adventurism. so while confronting Russia in Syrian is fraught with problems and difficulties it will be far better to do it there than in Europe.
2
Perhaps we could deliver humanitarian aid by truck to Aleppo. That is, send the Marines & the Air Force to escort a large overland convoy to aid the people of Aleppo. We would do this, first and foremost, because it is the right thing to do, second, because it helps the people we are supporting, and, third, because it demonstrates that we can and will use military power without committing us to longer battle.
3
You want to blame somebody for the tragedy in Syria?
The correct blame goes to HRC, Susan Rice, Samatha Powers, and Obama
This insane quartet, have been involved in a transparent scheme to do a 'regime-change' operation in Syria for a long time
They have supported arming & funding so-called moderates in an effort to take down the legitimate government in Syria, and without their involvement there would be no civil war, and the country would probably be in as normally peaceful state as any country in the region is
SAFE ZONE? You mean like Afghanistan, Iraq, or Libya?
Before US efforts to destabilize Assad, Syria was much more peaceful than any of those US Success-Stories are currently
If we want a peaceful Syria, the best option is to help Assad end the rebellion against him, and restore order
Most of the rebels fighting Assad, never agreed to any cease-fire, and they had no intentions of stopping their side of the conflict, they just wanted the US to give them a chance to re-group and re-arm.
The US isn't going to take over the country and guarantee freedom, if that was the alternative, then I would support it- but only if I believed we would really do that, which would be a hugely larger version of ongoing mission in the Bosnia.
INSTEAD, the only credible endgame of the HRC-Rice-Powers-Obama "Great-Game" would be to give the world another Lybia.
The correct blame goes to HRC, Susan Rice, Samatha Powers, and Obama
This insane quartet, have been involved in a transparent scheme to do a 'regime-change' operation in Syria for a long time
They have supported arming & funding so-called moderates in an effort to take down the legitimate government in Syria, and without their involvement there would be no civil war, and the country would probably be in as normally peaceful state as any country in the region is
SAFE ZONE? You mean like Afghanistan, Iraq, or Libya?
Before US efforts to destabilize Assad, Syria was much more peaceful than any of those US Success-Stories are currently
If we want a peaceful Syria, the best option is to help Assad end the rebellion against him, and restore order
Most of the rebels fighting Assad, never agreed to any cease-fire, and they had no intentions of stopping their side of the conflict, they just wanted the US to give them a chance to re-group and re-arm.
The US isn't going to take over the country and guarantee freedom, if that was the alternative, then I would support it- but only if I believed we would really do that, which would be a hugely larger version of ongoing mission in the Bosnia.
INSTEAD, the only credible endgame of the HRC-Rice-Powers-Obama "Great-Game" would be to give the world another Lybia.
3
The situation in Syria is heartbreaking but I agree that American intervention would be a terrible idea. We keep wanting to forget how disastrous our wars have been lately. Adding the potential conflict with Russia is just too dangerous. They are absolutely NOT just another power in the world. Besides how well did our "rebuilding" of Iraq or Afghanistan go? I'm terrible with quotations but madness is doing the same thing over again and expecting different results.
2
Any proposal to create a no-fly zone has to be met with this simple question: The US shoots down a Russian plane, or vice versa. Please tell me your next move. Note: bluster about American resolve and power present, past, or future, is not a response. Tell me what you _do_.
And by the way, I trust that someone, somewhere, is documenting Russian and Syrian bombings of hospitals for eventual war-crime trials.
And by the way, I trust that someone, somewhere, is documenting Russian and Syrian bombings of hospitals for eventual war-crime trials.
1
This article validates Obama's feckless, irresponsible and unstatesmanlike disengagement in Syria. Russia's atrocities are a direct consequence of Putin's realization that Obama will not be provoked into intervention no matter how egregious the offense.
The only rational way forward is to make it clear to the Russians that actions have consequences. Insure no-fly zones. Bomb Assad. Knock the Russian and Syrian planes out of the skies.
The only rational way forward is to make it clear to the Russians that actions have consequences. Insure no-fly zones. Bomb Assad. Knock the Russian and Syrian planes out of the skies.
2
When we blindly and unequivocally support Israel, regardless of its policies, whether they undercut our vital interests or slaughter Palestinian or Lebanese civilians or drain our Treasury,
why is it so shocking to find that Russia unconditionally supports Syria, regardless of Syrian polices or the mayhem its government causes?
why is it so shocking to find that Russia unconditionally supports Syria, regardless of Syrian polices or the mayhem its government causes?
5
This Middle East war is no simple equation. We want to promote democracy and end dictatorship by protecting the Syrian rebels. Syrians want to put an end to the rebels with the help of the Russians. Our experiments with democracy have repeatedly failed in our lifetime. Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Egypt, if we keep trying there will be more to come. That region has a dangerous mix of religion and politics and never had a life style even close to democracy in a thousand years. This is complicated with a split in the religion – Shia and Sunni. Both Saudi Arabia and Iran will stop at nothing in protecting their religious identity. Syrian war is in fact a shia and sunni war and is in the interests of Saudi Arabia and Iran. Immigration is another mistake, we or Europe can not evacuate entire Syria or Afghanistan or any other country. In fact it has racial taint to it. If these refugees were black would they have the same support – I have my doubts. A protected zone with all the support within their borders is the best option. Please stay away, we have lost enough
3
We risk a larger conflict with Russia, but I think Russia is acting since the US won't.
The US and Russia have a common goal to prevent global jihadism from being embraced by 1 billion Muslims. We should let Russia protect its southern flank in Ukraine, Chechnya, and even Syria. Russia may be full of corruption, but so are we -- ours is just more subtle.
9
The key fact is that the cease-fire fell apart with an "errant American airstrike." Rather than relying solely on diplomacy, the U.S. is trying to have it both ways in Syria: diplomacy and limited war. But war is impossible to totally control and gives both the Russians and Syrian regime an excuse to ramp up the violence. Simon and Stevenson are right: stick to diplomacy, not further military intervention. But let's go further-- end our military operations in Syria and ask rebels, Syria and Russia to do the same. In other words, work toward a true cease-fire by reducing our contribution to the violence.
3
Haven't we been down this road before? Why is everyone so quick to suggest military might? It also seems that those who most want to go to war have the least invested and were the most likely to dodge it when their turn came. I for one applaud Obama's steadfastness. I have had enough of Middle East wars. Let the international community, especially those closest geographically take the lead for a change.
3
Does anyone remember how the South tried to drag Great Britain into our Civil War? There was a great debate in Britain over the American Civil War and British public opinion was generally pro-South. The South wanted Great Britain to intervene, create blockades and force the North to make peace - recognizing their independence.
In my opinion the Syrian rebels should surrender and get on with reconciliation and reconstruction of the country. We need to stay out of this.
In my opinion the Syrian rebels should surrender and get on with reconciliation and reconstruction of the country. We need to stay out of this.
1
Yes, "The goal now should be reducing harm, saving lives and keeping prospects for a political deal alive." One person familiar with the situation suggested we air drop humanitarian aid to those who can't escape. We should do that with "U.S.A" blazoned on every package sent. If Russia decided to do the same thing that would be great for those trapped. Save them with kindness.
4
Right, and Assad with Russian help will execute anyone caught will that humanitarian aid. Assad is a man who indiscriminately uses deadly nerve gas on his own people.
The most obvious step the USA can take is not even mentioned in this op-ed: influence Free Syrian Army fighters to withdraw from Aleppo and influence the USA's abominable ally Saudi Arabia to encourage their jihadis to withdraw from Aleppo.
Russia is not on a campaign to murder civilians in Aleppo. Russia is supporting Assad's attacks on anti-Assad fighters operating in Aleppo.
If the immediate goal is to save what civilian lives survive today in Aleppo, the USA should do all it can to move the battlefield elsewhere and leave its goal of deposing Assad for another day. If the USA is strategically incapable of letting go even temporarily of regime change in Syria for another day or allowing Russian influence is Syria from increasing, them it should stop crying crocodile tears about civilian deaths in Aleppo.
Russia is not on a campaign to murder civilians in Aleppo. Russia is supporting Assad's attacks on anti-Assad fighters operating in Aleppo.
If the immediate goal is to save what civilian lives survive today in Aleppo, the USA should do all it can to move the battlefield elsewhere and leave its goal of deposing Assad for another day. If the USA is strategically incapable of letting go even temporarily of regime change in Syria for another day or allowing Russian influence is Syria from increasing, them it should stop crying crocodile tears about civilian deaths in Aleppo.
8
I, for one, don't want "them Free Syrian Army refugee fighters" as neighbors, so where do you propose to send them?
2
Much as I hate having to say it, Saudi Arabia is in fact a partner of the United States of America, supplied with intelligence, and billions of dollars in munitions and sophisticated military hardware including fighter planes, and bombers, most of which are used in Yemen, killing hundreds of thousands of men, women and children, in a pointless war to destroy a particular Muslim faction; other of the munitions are being secretly transferred by the Saudis, to ISIS, and other radical factions, in an American led effort to maintain conflict and war in the region.
It's all about the money.
It's all about the money.
2
While I agree with the overall direction in this article, it seems the writers just couldn't resist repeating some disputed issues.
Quote from article: "The trouble began when an errant American airstrike killed some 60 Syrian government soldiers"
According to Russia, two F-16s and two A-10s carried out four strikes. and according to a Syrian military source, "Then, there was machine gun fire on the wounded soldiers and the paramedics from the planes,”
Then ISIS, which surrounded the camp, attacked.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/17/dozens-of--soldiers-dead-in-a...
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-09-17/first-u-s-led-air-stri...
Then there is the accusation of Assad using chemical weapons when there were UN inspectors in Syria. Doesn't make sense, does it?
Quote from article: "The trouble began when an errant American airstrike killed some 60 Syrian government soldiers"
According to Russia, two F-16s and two A-10s carried out four strikes. and according to a Syrian military source, "Then, there was machine gun fire on the wounded soldiers and the paramedics from the planes,”
Then ISIS, which surrounded the camp, attacked.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/17/dozens-of--soldiers-dead-in-a...
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-09-17/first-u-s-led-air-stri...
Then there is the accusation of Assad using chemical weapons when there were UN inspectors in Syria. Doesn't make sense, does it?
5
I see a lot of excellent post here today. Have to complement e.s in his assessment of the situation. In my opinion the U.S has been arming all rebel groups in the area, wither directly or indirectly. These policies has to stop!
The policy to oust Assad to prevent a humanitarian crisis has now killed hundreds of thousands of Syrians, and displaced millions. In my opinion more gains could have been made by diplomatic means, without the suffering of millions, and the deaths of thousands.
The policy to oust Assad to prevent a humanitarian crisis has now killed hundreds of thousands of Syrians, and displaced millions. In my opinion more gains could have been made by diplomatic means, without the suffering of millions, and the deaths of thousands.
3
Syrian massacre of innocent civilians is now in its fourth year, and it can partially blamed on Obama, who got cold feet in 2012, and reneged on his promise to order air strikes on Assad's air force. Syrian people, as well as others began to lose respect for our c-in-c whom they once held in esteem.Graham Greene wrote that turning points in life r seldom recognized for what they r the time, and this was definitely 0'S moment of truth, and he came up short.How many Syrian lives would have been saved if he had followed through,and if he had, he would not be facing the credibility gap he faces today?ME is no place for on the job training.. U either come prepared to act intelligently and humanely,with language and cultural skills, or u don't!Reluctance to save lives while holocaust in Syria was taking place is similar to Allies' refusal in WWII to bomb German troops escorting the trains to Auschwitz.0 has relied heavily on advice on ME from Jarrett, who is pro Iranian.Like the Iranians, Assad and his Alawite people r Shiites.Hunch that O in 2012 was already looking forward to a nuclear deal with Iran and feared bruising the sensibilities of the Ayatollah.
1
It's in its FIFTH year -- And the delay in 2012 came only when President Obama decided to ask Congress if further military intervention should be deployed, after he had already set it in motion.
But you're right. The U.S did miss the opportunity.
But you're right. The U.S did miss the opportunity.
1
N.Smith. Thanks for the correction, but Obama could have acted by executive fiat, but he saw Cameron's parliamentary defeat in GB and decided that discretion was the better part of valor, and backed down, This was a turning point in his presidency. What do we, the American people, have against electing someone with a truly cosmopolitan background? 0 has proven no better than BUSH when it comes to ME affairs. In letting down the Syrians,O committed a major moral and political mistake. Remember Talleyrand's famous quip:"C'est pire qu'un crime, c'est une faute!"We need more sophisticated, more worldly statesmen to lead the nation, and none of our recent presidents fit the bill.
1
It is odd to me that both interventionists and non-interventionists always look at this issue in a binary either/or framework. While I agree with the belief that the United States should not be escalating the situation in isolation, I also believe there are other avenues open to addressing the ongoing conflict.
The Syrian civil war has caused many problems both with ISIS and the refugee crisis that are shared by many countries in the region and Europe as well as in the United States. We should be pursuing international solutions with the UN and NATO that broaden the scope of parties at the table. Due to the Iraq war, the US has lost a lot of credibility and it is easy for the Russians to play off of that. But the Russians aren't the mighty foe they once were and could be pushed much harder with a broader international effort led by the United States to solve the refugee crisis.
The Syrian civil war has caused many problems both with ISIS and the refugee crisis that are shared by many countries in the region and Europe as well as in the United States. We should be pursuing international solutions with the UN and NATO that broaden the scope of parties at the table. Due to the Iraq war, the US has lost a lot of credibility and it is easy for the Russians to play off of that. But the Russians aren't the mighty foe they once were and could be pushed much harder with a broader international effort led by the United States to solve the refugee crisis.
3
Assad is a butcher akin to all the worst we have known. If ever there was a case for helping an oppressed people - this is it. Shoulder fired anti aircraft or anti aircraft guns and missiles would do the trick. To do nothing but talk just condones the slaughter and precedes the next Putin adventure.
We have missiles that can launch from safety and are precision guided to crater runways. We can naval blockade Assad.
Make no mistake, this slaughter is Obama's choice and will not appease Putin for long.
We have missiles that can launch from safety and are precision guided to crater runways. We can naval blockade Assad.
Make no mistake, this slaughter is Obama's choice and will not appease Putin for long.
4
Thank you for this editorial and your conclusion that attempts to negotiate should be tried again. The goals of Messrs. Kerry and Lavrov appear most reasonable among the many proposed actions. Perhaps the expense Russia is incurring will stimulate Russia's appetite for a political solution. Also, given the leaked documents from Syria that provide enough evidence to convict Assad in the International Criminal Court in The Hague, the time for that action seems to be closing in, like NOW.
1
What a spineless defense of what has been a clear administration foreign policy blunder, can't believe these guys were actually in the NSC.....all I read here is fear of poking the Russian bear (a declining power who so far has shown no appetite to engage with formidable military powers) and a big pile of excuses for standing pat and deferring to a limited ISIS-focused military strategy which - at this pace - will eradicate the group's territorial control by the early 2020s. At minimum, there needs to be no-fly zones and safe zones for both civilians to flee to and for moderate rebels to train and regroup. This should have been done back in 2012.
3
Imagine you were in Aleppo. Or your children. Would you want other country to let Assad bomb you and their soldiers to rape you, or would you want them to (1) ground their runway and bombers and (2) set up a safe zone near Turkey or Lebanon border (they will provide ground force while US provides air support) where you will be safe?
Even if the operation is less than perfect -- nothing is, imagine a football or basketball team that never makes a mistake, or look at your own life, nothing gets done perfectly -- and leaves some dead, wouldn't it be worth it to save some lives? That life could have been you, me, our children.
Even if the operation is less than perfect -- nothing is, imagine a football or basketball team that never makes a mistake, or look at your own life, nothing gets done perfectly -- and leaves some dead, wouldn't it be worth it to save some lives? That life could have been you, me, our children.
3
Stay out of Syria. We have rushed into various Middle East countries when we have a handful people shout they want democracy. We actually are so naive that we believe them. Then we get all hot and bothered and rush him with the military to save these people -- only to discover after the war is that they don't want democracy, they just to be the next dictator. They fool us every time.
We have made a total ruin out of the Middle East. Whenever the US military goes in to "bring democracy" we totally ruin the country and make way for civil war. Those who wanted democracy are nowhere to be seen or heard from. WHy? They have all joined Al Quada, ISIS, al Nusra or whatever Islamic Terrorist group is handy.
We seem not to have learned our lesson. Stay away from the Middle East. That region is like Uncle Wiggly's Tar Baby - touch it and you can't get free of it.
Don't worry about the Middle East. If they want to kill each let them. Or else they will start killing you. Stop tying to rule the world. Stay home == America has problems that could use the money we squander on the military. Do something at home for a change.
We have made a total ruin out of the Middle East. Whenever the US military goes in to "bring democracy" we totally ruin the country and make way for civil war. Those who wanted democracy are nowhere to be seen or heard from. WHy? They have all joined Al Quada, ISIS, al Nusra or whatever Islamic Terrorist group is handy.
We seem not to have learned our lesson. Stay away from the Middle East. That region is like Uncle Wiggly's Tar Baby - touch it and you can't get free of it.
Don't worry about the Middle East. If they want to kill each let them. Or else they will start killing you. Stop tying to rule the world. Stay home == America has problems that could use the money we squander on the military. Do something at home for a change.
19
I don't understand why there was an "errant American airstrike" during a ceasefire. Why were they bombing at all at that time? This seems to have been the incident that brought that particular ceasefire to an end and to escalate the fighting.
11
They thought they were bombing ISIS, which was not part of the ceasefire.
1
Please, not another quagmire. Why can't we learn from Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. We haven't won a war in more than half a century. Why can't we just stay out of it?
30
Finally, an intelligent op-ed published by NYT that actually makes sense. The only country that can impose no-fly zones over Syria is Russia. They have a modern high-tech S-400 air defense system in place right now, so they can make US stop flying bombing missions over Syria in an instant. Russia is now installing a missile defense system, so US will not be even able to attack Syria using long range missiles after a couple of weeks. Russian forces are in Syria legally, since they were invited by the Syrian government, everyone else such as US forces, Turkish forces are there illegally. The reason that Russia lets them operate is because they believe that they are helping their cause by eliminating ISIS terrorists.
We cannot have another failed state in the Middle East. Arming of Libyan opposition by Clinton has brought in death, destruction & ISIS. It is time to pick the lesser of two evils: Assad. It is time to stop arming Syrian rebels - Syria has never been a democracy, and will never be one. We seem to have no problems supporting an authoritarian like Erdogan in Turkey, so it is time to accept Assad, and not start a war with Russia about this, as a hawk like Clinton might want to do.
We cannot have another failed state in the Middle East. Arming of Libyan opposition by Clinton has brought in death, destruction & ISIS. It is time to pick the lesser of two evils: Assad. It is time to stop arming Syrian rebels - Syria has never been a democracy, and will never be one. We seem to have no problems supporting an authoritarian like Erdogan in Turkey, so it is time to accept Assad, and not start a war with Russia about this, as a hawk like Clinton might want to do.
16
I haven't seen ANY evidence that Clinton wants to start a war with Russia.
And if you have, tsate your sources.
And if you have, tsate your sources.
1
Instead you want a country where the leader indiscriminately murders non-combatants, including the elderly, women, children and babies? Have you no humanity?
How much of intervention or involvement would it be to supply security for humanitarian actions, by anti-aircraft-missiles or aircraft, everytime, for the respectve time being? How much blame could that put on the US, on the west, on who ever?
I cannot see anything more wrong than letting the killing go on.
I cannot see anything more wrong than letting the killing go on.
3
You do remember Russia is involved here, don't you???
Now, think what would happen if any one of their aircraft were to be hit by an anti-aircraft missile.
Now, think what would happen if any one of their aircraft were to be hit by an anti-aircraft missile.
2
What you guys forget is there is huge support for boots on the ground in Syria. All Trump supporters favor that as well as boots on the ground in Iran. After November there will be courage in the White House and on the ground. Courage not brains. Heaven help us.
6
You can be certain that all those supporting boots on the ground, will be the last to go.
And Heaven help us if Donald Trump gets into the White House.
And Heaven help us if Donald Trump gets into the White House.
1
Thank you New York Times for speaking the truth on this issue. If the United States thinks it can "arm rebels" with sophisticated munitions and weaponry and not have this end up killing innocent men, women and children...we are no better than Assad.
14
Academics advocating inaction. Wonderful. In he meantime there is a Rwanda unfolding in front of our very eyes in addition to unbearable refugee pressure on Europe - all driven by one man, Assad, empowered by his villainous Russian benefactors. It's time for action, not inaction. Inaction is what got us here.
3
Are you in the service ? Planning to sign up ? Sending your children/grandchildren to die the ME ? The ME residents have been killing each other for centuries so don't be naive and think we can make a difference. Iraq anyone ?
I'd take the moral demands of the hawkier types a lot more seriously if THEY were willing to go fight, if THEY were willing to have their kids go fight, if THEY were willing to come up with one thin dime more by way of taxes to pay for these little adventures, and if THEY had let out so much as a single peep when the President asked for Congress' support and Congress heroically left town at something resembling warp speed.
Oh, and it'd also be nice if the folks demanding ACTION showed the slightest willingness to take in refugees, or at least spend a few bucks on them. Instead, of course--and this perfectly dovetails with their "go get 'em! I'll watch!" approach--they're actively screaming at the very notion of taking refugees at all.
Oh, and it'd also be nice if the folks demanding ACTION showed the slightest willingness to take in refugees, or at least spend a few bucks on them. Instead, of course--and this perfectly dovetails with their "go get 'em! I'll watch!" approach--they're actively screaming at the very notion of taking refugees at all.
35
Yes, put Chelsey Clinton and the Trump kids, all four older ones in fatigues, and yes, give Barron a Kalashnikov to help.
4
Yes, thank you! You said it better than I ever could.
i am sorry but I am tired of the present US policy, that is attempting to support "good" resistors vs bad.
Both of these have one goal to defeat Assad, and they (understandably) do work together.
By now we can see that Assad will not be defeated, and the bloodshedding will not stop.
So sorry, lets defeat all opposition, then have a UN supervised free election and live with the result.
Nothing else will work, "the Assad first has to go" has to be dropped. The support of the opposition, with weapons and money only extends the suffering of the Syrian people.
Both of these have one goal to defeat Assad, and they (understandably) do work together.
By now we can see that Assad will not be defeated, and the bloodshedding will not stop.
So sorry, lets defeat all opposition, then have a UN supervised free election and live with the result.
Nothing else will work, "the Assad first has to go" has to be dropped. The support of the opposition, with weapons and money only extends the suffering of the Syrian people.
4
You do realize that the reasoning behind ousting Assad primarily lies with the fact that he's been torturing and killing his own people for some time now, don't you???
But I do agree, the "Assad has to go" part of the argument has to be dropped.
Things in Syria would quickly go from worse to worst, if he were deposed and only a power vacuum were left.
But I do agree, the "Assad has to go" part of the argument has to be dropped.
Things in Syria would quickly go from worse to worst, if he were deposed and only a power vacuum were left.
1
What many Americans don't understand is the fact international law exists and that forbids the interference of states in the internal affairs of other states. Certainly when, as is the case here, they are supporting an armed rebellion (by Salafist terror groups) and are even sending arms and other equipment needed for this war. This is an act of agression, a war crime and a casus belli for going to war against the agressor nation. It's in fact remarkable the UN does nothing against this. When, as we all should know, the UN was founded to make the world safe from such forms of agression. Ban Ki-moon should have resigned for this already in 2011.
9
I have studied law school in one of the top law schools, and I can tell you that international laws get made by imperfect people using imperfect processes that leave a lot of loopholes and problems (although that should be obvious without studying it). If you compared it to a product like smartphone, international law today is like the cheapest, worst phone you can ever buy when we need iPhone.
Simply, if a law doesn't serve the people it should serve, then it's failing. Same as a product. Today it's failing miserably as it lets millions of people die and suffer when it could have prevented it.
Simply, if a law doesn't serve the people it should serve, then it's failing. Same as a product. Today it's failing miserably as it lets millions of people die and suffer when it could have prevented it.
1
It's not clear, by the way, whether you are condemning Russia or US
All countries are bound by the Westphalian Rules and the Charter of the United Nations except US. That is what exceptionalism means, so popular in the mouths of US politicians.
FINALLY! Someone is offering a real strategy. POTUS should make it clear that if Assad or Russia attack the Kurds the U.S. will respond with cruise missiles on Syrian regime targets and provide the Kurds with shoulder fired anti-aircraft missiles. The Kurds are the red line for the U.S.
But they are not to be defended against their main enemy Turkey?
1
I concur intervention will do more harm than good. I would like to point out former Governor Mitt Romney was right and President Obama was then and still is now wrong. Russia is not our enemy, Russia is a geopolitical adversary, but not an enemy. This administration does not understand Russia and the latest foreign policy move has been to threaten the suspension of U.S.-Russia bilateral engagement on Syria and this blunder makes Russia look like a date stood up to her allies and does nothing for us. I have little hope the next administration will do better and the can, allegorically, will be kicked down the road.
2
This is one of the most one-sided arguments I've come across to date.
You might want to do a bit more research before jumping to the conclusion that this administration has done, and is doing nothing to come to some kind of agreement with Russia over Syria.
In any given situation where two sides are involved, no one is ever totally right or wrong.
Another thing -- the talks between Secretary of State Kerry and his Russian counterpart, Sergey Lavrov, are only temporarily suspended.
You might want to do a bit more research before jumping to the conclusion that this administration has done, and is doing nothing to come to some kind of agreement with Russia over Syria.
In any given situation where two sides are involved, no one is ever totally right or wrong.
Another thing -- the talks between Secretary of State Kerry and his Russian counterpart, Sergey Lavrov, are only temporarily suspended.
"Syria" no longer exists. 75% of the population are "internal refugees". The economy is destroyed, with the total economic cost to Syria of all war in its lands estimated at $152 Billion, more than 4 times its annual GDP. Think about that a little. That means every single citizen of Syria has accumulated a personal debt (held by the Syrian government) equivalent to 4 years worth of each person's earnings.
We need a wholesale attitudinal change in foreign policy. Either we are all going to have to learn how to live together, or we will perish together. There is no type of nationalist political ideology -- Democratic, Islamic, Secular -- or any external actor state (Russia, United States, ISIL) - whose needs could possibly justify the destruction of the country for some "higher" aim. There is no "higher" aim. The country is annihilated, clear and simple. The "problem" is that people see violence and warfare as effective means to achieve political aims.
The old saying holds: there is no way to peace. Peace is the way. No-Fly Zones, secret arms deals, secret mercenaries. These are the violent dream wishes of people unhinged from normal reality -- who hold out hope that coercive violence might be the "answer" to everything. It hardly ever is. For every so-called "good" war, there are 10 "bad" ones. But people keep thinking that "maybe this one will turn out good." Dream on. When everyone picks up a gun and starts yelling, people die. We need a mental reboot.
We need a wholesale attitudinal change in foreign policy. Either we are all going to have to learn how to live together, or we will perish together. There is no type of nationalist political ideology -- Democratic, Islamic, Secular -- or any external actor state (Russia, United States, ISIL) - whose needs could possibly justify the destruction of the country for some "higher" aim. There is no "higher" aim. The country is annihilated, clear and simple. The "problem" is that people see violence and warfare as effective means to achieve political aims.
The old saying holds: there is no way to peace. Peace is the way. No-Fly Zones, secret arms deals, secret mercenaries. These are the violent dream wishes of people unhinged from normal reality -- who hold out hope that coercive violence might be the "answer" to everything. It hardly ever is. For every so-called "good" war, there are 10 "bad" ones. But people keep thinking that "maybe this one will turn out good." Dream on. When everyone picks up a gun and starts yelling, people die. We need a mental reboot.
3
This problem is ingrained in the people and land of the Middle East. This problem is thousands of years old and it's about time we faced up to the fact that this is never going to be fixed. This is permanently a lost cause. The best we can do is to ensure that no Americans are killed over this issue.
3
Syria, before 2011, was a stable sovereign country of about 22 million people of disparate faiths living in their own homes, eating, worshipping the deity of choice, tending to their needy, and getting educated in their schools, governed, etc., until the "International Community" intervened to arm, train, and deploy thugs, murderers, child decapitators, mercenaries, and criminals from neighboring lands in support of wealthy partners to destroy Syria. The job is almost done. The only reason for further intervention would be to finish the job.
2
You don't seem to realize that the "stable sovereign country" you're mistaking Syria to be before 2011, was actually a brutal police-state held in check by Bashar al-Assad, who made sure that all dissenters had a way of quickly and quietly disappearing into his jails, as not to disturb the "order" he imposed upon the Syrian people with a heavy hand -- just like his father before him.
1
America should stay out of civil wars on the other side of the world. That sounds cruel, considering the slaughter of innocents, but we can do little militarily without making the problem worse for the Syrian people. Our focus should be on humanitarian efforts while containing the carnage to the borders of Syria. Russia must bear the consequences of its actions in Syria, but that will come in time. Russia's intervention on behalf of Assad risks spreading the hatred to its own large Muslim population.
3
How about having oil-producing countries (and this includes the U.S.) threatening Putin they will stop buying his gas/oil...by offering their product to Europe and any other nation now dependent on Russia's...unless he is willing to stop the Syrian massacres by withdrawing support for the Assad-Putin 'killing machine'. And returning to diplomacy to oust criminal Assad, and participate in a transition government faithful to the well-being of its own people, including the right to dissent and constructive criticism; by now, anything is better than our current indifference while innocent folks are being slaughtered to no measure.
2
Don't Intervene in a civil war that's just basic common sense - Let's hope our leaders can handle that much. I know the competency bar gets lowered every day now, but please! This Syrian situation should have been handled 5 years ago before the migrants invaded Europe. The UN, EU & the USA and maybe even NATO should have set up a "Safe Zone" for the refugees. Instead the White House thought they could get rid of Assad and bring Peace, Love & Understanding to the Middle East. Didn't Baby Bush and his litany of errors and misjudgments teach us anything?
3
Creating a non-flight zone...huh, so that ISIS and Nusra can get out of their holes they are currently dug in to keep safely subjugating and killing civilian population and fight pro-government forces on even terms. Why would we want that exactly ? Unless we want to preserve ISIS and Nusra in Syria. Then the US must be frank about it - just say already "We support Al-Qaeda in Syria". Enemies yesterday, dear allies against Russia today. Enemy of my enemy is my friend even though that enemy is responsible of taking thousands American lives. It's all about a bigger picture, right ? A greater good. The US wants Assad out and to defeat Russia and Iran in the region, so they ally themselves to its sworn enemy.
Once again, what exactly is a no-flight zone ? Any no flight zone will automatically become safe zone for ISIS and Nusra. They are the biggest force in the region and they can immediately overrun any "moderate" force the US has in mind to place in that no-flight zone. Will they treat civilians well in those zones ? Of course not. They will automatically found their feudal sharia little kingdoms in those zones and will take all humanitarian aid for themselves, preserving the civilian population only as a life shield.
But that would make sense if the US wants to ally itself to Nusra (Al-Qaeda) in order to fight Russians. But you are making a deal with the devil here. Is that devil better than a secular government of Syria ? What ever you chose, civilians will still suffer.
Once again, what exactly is a no-flight zone ? Any no flight zone will automatically become safe zone for ISIS and Nusra. They are the biggest force in the region and they can immediately overrun any "moderate" force the US has in mind to place in that no-flight zone. Will they treat civilians well in those zones ? Of course not. They will automatically found their feudal sharia little kingdoms in those zones and will take all humanitarian aid for themselves, preserving the civilian population only as a life shield.
But that would make sense if the US wants to ally itself to Nusra (Al-Qaeda) in order to fight Russians. But you are making a deal with the devil here. Is that devil better than a secular government of Syria ? What ever you chose, civilians will still suffer.
6
The logic of Simon and many of the commenters is impeccable. Logic is totally absent from most of the criticism of the Administration. And yet – Are we saying that in the 21st century there are no limits to brutal atrocities? Perhaps surprisingly, Russia has joined Assad in perpetrating heinous war crimes and atrocities. If we now say that our smug, self-assured logic will insulate us from a complex and possibly imploding world how can we be assured that we will not eventually be engulfed in flames ourselves?
2
Exactly! I woke up this morning to Nick Kristof's column taking the opposite position, and I felt he was wrong, but didn't know why. As long as Russia is so committed and has so much at stake, the United States would be stupid to get in any more deeply militarily. It would be risky, costly and politically unsustainable. Humanitarian aid, yes! Diplomacy, of course. Fight ISIS, absolutely. But the impulse to say "We have to do something" has taken us down too many of the wrong roads. We should have learned by now.
8
Amen!
Bashar al-Assad is the leader of Russia's only Arab Muslim nation state ally including Russian air and naval base operations. But the Alawite sect of the Assad family is a minority of the Shia Muslim minority. There is no logical nor reasonable military nor diplomatic solution to any sectarian civil war conflict. Plus there is the ethnic fight among Europeans, Arabs, Kurds, Persians and Turks.
The most loyal effective opposition to Assad is al Qaeda, al Nusrah Front, ISIS/ISIL and the Kurdish peshmerga. That is the moderate opposition. Moreover, the lesson of Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya is that a coup leads to chaos. Based upon lies about Iraqi WMD's and an Iraqi connection to 9/11/01 American intervention killed, wounded, displaced and made refugees of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi human beings.
Vladimir Putin has no more effective control over Assad than America does over Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Moreover since 9/11/01 only 0.75% of Americans have volunteered to put on an American military uniform. Typically none of them are among the families and friends of the liberal and conservative clucking war hens.
What is happening in Syria is not an existential threat to America. Russia is much closer to the Syrian and Iraqi turmoil. Plus Russia has a raging ethnic sectarian Chechen Muslim native and neighboring insurgency. The Soviet Union was humiliated in Afghanistan. Syria will not be any kinder to them.
Bashar al-Assad is the leader of Russia's only Arab Muslim nation state ally including Russian air and naval base operations. But the Alawite sect of the Assad family is a minority of the Shia Muslim minority. There is no logical nor reasonable military nor diplomatic solution to any sectarian civil war conflict. Plus there is the ethnic fight among Europeans, Arabs, Kurds, Persians and Turks.
The most loyal effective opposition to Assad is al Qaeda, al Nusrah Front, ISIS/ISIL and the Kurdish peshmerga. That is the moderate opposition. Moreover, the lesson of Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya is that a coup leads to chaos. Based upon lies about Iraqi WMD's and an Iraqi connection to 9/11/01 American intervention killed, wounded, displaced and made refugees of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi human beings.
Vladimir Putin has no more effective control over Assad than America does over Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Moreover since 9/11/01 only 0.75% of Americans have volunteered to put on an American military uniform. Typically none of them are among the families and friends of the liberal and conservative clucking war hens.
What is happening in Syria is not an existential threat to America. Russia is much closer to the Syrian and Iraqi turmoil. Plus Russia has a raging ethnic sectarian Chechen Muslim native and neighboring insurgency. The Soviet Union was humiliated in Afghanistan. Syria will not be any kinder to them.
8
We have been unable to intervene, militarily and effectively, from Vietnam through Libya. Especially when operating at a distance. I do not consider Afghanistan 1979-1989 an exception. That was an own-goal by Russia.
We are better at deterrence. As hard as it is to watch what is going on in Syria, our recent efforts....50 years worth....demonstrate that we do not have a good response and could well make the situation worse, for the Syrians, the rebels and ourselves.
WW2 is not a good reference point. The world is different now.
The exceptions might be Panama and Grenada: our back yard, and hardly the same as Syria, even Panama was tricky. And Russia could have cared less.
We are better at deterrence. As hard as it is to watch what is going on in Syria, our recent efforts....50 years worth....demonstrate that we do not have a good response and could well make the situation worse, for the Syrians, the rebels and ourselves.
WW2 is not a good reference point. The world is different now.
The exceptions might be Panama and Grenada: our back yard, and hardly the same as Syria, even Panama was tricky. And Russia could have cared less.
1
Those who look at the frightful pictures of Aleppo and demand a response should ask themselves "What then?" Our military record thus far this century is one of unrelieved disasters, each of which has made the situation in the Middle East much worse. Again and again we have demonstrated our incapacity to effect a favorable outcome there. And yet there are those who think we should keep blundering on.
13
Then what do we do with the people suffering? Forget about humanitarian aid and just walk away? How can we so cruel and mean?
2
It's not a matter of "walking away" --- Or, perhaps it has slipped your attention that humanitarian aid convoys (and even hospitals) are increasingly coming under attack???....that's where the problem lies.
What is missing in the authors' argument is:
Intervention in Syria discussed and agreed on by most top experts such as David Petraeus, who has more successful experience and expertise in this than almost anyone else alive, has one goal: Save millions of innocent civilians, including children, who could not care less about sectarianism or wars. People who simply want to go to school, go to work, feed their children. People who don't want to see their children raped or massacred.
That's why a safe zone that protects civilians is proposed.
I strongly encourage anyone reading this to also read Nicholas Kristof's column.
Intervention in Syria discussed and agreed on by most top experts such as David Petraeus, who has more successful experience and expertise in this than almost anyone else alive, has one goal: Save millions of innocent civilians, including children, who could not care less about sectarianism or wars. People who simply want to go to school, go to work, feed their children. People who don't want to see their children raped or massacred.
That's why a safe zone that protects civilians is proposed.
I strongly encourage anyone reading this to also read Nicholas Kristof's column.
1
I disagree with this article, despite some seemingly-valid rationales. The advocacy here is for obeisance to the militaristic whims of Russia. Letting Assad and Russia have their way will mean the utter destruction of Aleppo, and all of the innocent people therein. "Trying again" at the diplomatic table is just enabling thugs and murderers. Just because Russia had dibs on Syria during the Cold War is no excuse for enabling slaughter now. Putin needs to be backed down in the only way he understands.
1
One million and a half of Aleppo citizens live in the government side of Aleppo. One million of Aleppo citizens who fled Aleppo resettled in the most pro government cities in Syria. 60% of Syrians living in government areas are Sunnis. All minorities support Assad and his government, even Kurdish Syrians allow government and Syrian military presence in their major cities like Al-Hasakah and Al-Qamishli. From all this you can easily conclude that the only Syrians who doesn't support the government are actually ISIS and Al-Qaeda and some groups who's only job is to deliver weapons to the two groups.
3
Also the US not intervening in Syria is laughable:
1. We have had over 5,000 airstrikes in Syria according to official figures:
http://www.defense.gov/News/Special-Reports/0814_Inherent-Resolve
2. An estimate of 800 - 1300 civilians have been killed by our strikes according to Airwars which monitors the events:
https://airwars.org/data/
Can we stop acting like the US is not heavily involved in Syria and has not killed civilians?
1. We have had over 5,000 airstrikes in Syria according to official figures:
http://www.defense.gov/News/Special-Reports/0814_Inherent-Resolve
2. An estimate of 800 - 1300 civilians have been killed by our strikes according to Airwars which monitors the events:
https://airwars.org/data/
Can we stop acting like the US is not heavily involved in Syria and has not killed civilians?
2
There are always better ways to solve conflict than going to war. Obama knows this, as does Secretary Hillary Clinton. I would bet my bottom dollar both have had their heads together discussing all the ways to finding a good solution to these Syrian difficulties. There is no use to entertaining a full on American intervention in the Russian led attacks on Syria and any UN effort to bring aid to those in Alleppo will fail, because Putin is vindictive, wants to show his absolute power, one that begs a reaction. It is far better that America still it's knee jerk reaction, think instead of how to outsmart this bully, one who has plotted and planned his way forward since Cold War and KGB days. Many older CIA operatives might be useful here to shed light on the past Cold War objectives that may work here. Trump does not know nor does Pence who would outlaw Syrian refugees in his own state, "in case these poor Syrian women and children" become a danger to people of Indiana, Trump/Pence say to try a safe zone, but where in Syria would that be and how would the people get there with bombs all over and around them or take Assad out, leaving the Syrians helpless against Russia-but neither solution would work.
1
The the only solution that makes any sense and does not require a ramping up of American forces in Syria is through a UN peace keeping mission that is intended to open the door to humanitarian aid. I realize that Russia holds a veto over UN action, but if the situation were portrayed in humanitarian terms (akin in principle to a natural catastrophe such as flooding, etc), the UN could justify such a mission without Security Council approval.
Of course, this assumes that many other nations are as concerned about Syria as the U.S. seems to be. But it seems to me, at least (a life long idealist) that western democracies are based in part on a guiding principle of offering humanitarian assistance for those in need, as complicated as this is to achieve, witness the reaction in parts of Europe to the flood of ME refugees.
The UN has acted in the Balkans, in Africa, and elsewhere to ease suffering. With concerted leadership from the U.S. and other nations, I believe the time has come for an effective UN intervention, based upon humanitarian aid.
Of course, this assumes that many other nations are as concerned about Syria as the U.S. seems to be. But it seems to me, at least (a life long idealist) that western democracies are based in part on a guiding principle of offering humanitarian assistance for those in need, as complicated as this is to achieve, witness the reaction in parts of Europe to the flood of ME refugees.
The UN has acted in the Balkans, in Africa, and elsewhere to ease suffering. With concerted leadership from the U.S. and other nations, I believe the time has come for an effective UN intervention, based upon humanitarian aid.
1
How would that help Syria to defeat the terrorists?
Don’t intervene in Syria seems to be the most reasonable option for the United States. Particularly in view of the news that special envoy Mistura of the United Nations has just offered the islamistic rebels of East-Aleppo that he is ready to personally lead them out of the battle zone of Aleppo, even with their arms, in order to avoid the ultimate tragedy of this war torn city. One can only hope that the rebels are reasonable and realistic enough to accept his offer and do not, as their fanatic mentality may suggest, fight to the very end in order to achieve the glory of martyrdom.
1
This is what the world looks like when America stops playing the cop on the beat. We've wanted this for a long time. Here it is. Live with it. For better or worse. It had to be tried at least once. President Obama shows courage in the most uncanny ways.
How many people were disciplined for this "errant American airstrike?" So far, zero. Some mistake.
2
Thank you! I agree. We have other (domestic) areas that are a greater priority.
We should not allow even one of our military personnel to be injured, maimed or killed in this Syrian conflict. Not when their young, able bodied men are all fleeing en masse to Europe and other places, enjoying their cafes and cigarettes while we do their dirty work.
How would you feel if a Syrian family was settled into the apartment next door to you while your own young daughter or son was off fighting in the ME?
Get out and stay out. Let them sort out their own conflicts, civil wars, dictatorships, failed governments and internal religious/clan hatreds.
How would you feel if a Syrian family was settled into the apartment next door to you while your own young daughter or son was off fighting in the ME?
Get out and stay out. Let them sort out their own conflicts, civil wars, dictatorships, failed governments and internal religious/clan hatreds.
4
The author writes that "ineffective strikes could be ended, but this would make the United States look incompetent." By allowing the slaughter in Aleppo to continue, the United States already looks incompetent. America's humiliating acceptance of behavior Secretary Kerry has declared "unacceptable" only encourages Assad to commit further atrocities and emboldens Moscow.
The article provides no options essentially let us not take action that could lead to war. This is the same logic and rational used when Hitler was threatening Europe. Unfortunately force has merit when used effectively as a tool in negotiations. The current stalemate and approach is unacceptable unless one can live with the human crisis that is evolving in Syria.
"There are probably limits to Moscow’s deference to Mr. Assad’s blood lust, but it is unclear what they are."
Don't bet on it.
Don't bet on it.
1
Yes. It's terrible. And horrible. And outside of continuing Diplomatic talks with Russia, there's nothing much more the U.S. can do about it.
Make no mistake about it. This is Russia's show now, which is why any untoward step this country makes in Syria could only result in a further deepening of hostilities.
German SPIEGEL is reporting two more Russian naval cutters are steaming toward the Syrian coast, in addition to their one and only aircraft carrier which set sail last week.
In addition to supporting the Assad regime, Russia has its own interests in protecting its Naval installation at Tartus.
They have been in Syria for several decades, and will defend their position till the last.
Americans who only see the horrific suffering in Aleppo, and other cities, while decrying the lack of U.S. involvement should keep this in mind.
Syria is already a very crowded stage, with several players (including Iran) waiting in the wings.
And as terrible as it is now, the power-vacuum left by Mr. Assad's dethroning would usher in something even worse.
We would be wise to take our lessons learned from Iraq and Libya and restrict any further involvement to the conference table.
Make no mistake about it. This is Russia's show now, which is why any untoward step this country makes in Syria could only result in a further deepening of hostilities.
German SPIEGEL is reporting two more Russian naval cutters are steaming toward the Syrian coast, in addition to their one and only aircraft carrier which set sail last week.
In addition to supporting the Assad regime, Russia has its own interests in protecting its Naval installation at Tartus.
They have been in Syria for several decades, and will defend their position till the last.
Americans who only see the horrific suffering in Aleppo, and other cities, while decrying the lack of U.S. involvement should keep this in mind.
Syria is already a very crowded stage, with several players (including Iran) waiting in the wings.
And as terrible as it is now, the power-vacuum left by Mr. Assad's dethroning would usher in something even worse.
We would be wise to take our lessons learned from Iraq and Libya and restrict any further involvement to the conference table.
6
Stay out of Syria, in fact pull out of the Middle East entirely, stop supporting Israel in their quest for US - Israel hegemony in the Middle East, stop threatening Russia. All in all, end America's imperial ambitions to rule the world. America's home front is the one that needs fixing.
7
The whole episode falls into the category of no options for the US. The end product of the US escalating their efforts in Syria would be to make a bigger smoking ruin than exists. Rearranging the rubble with no helpful effect stopping Assad and his partners in Russia and Iran. Russia faces serious demographic problems at home and poor economic prospects. The war obviously provides Putin with an opportunity to show that Russia is still a player. The long term costs will catch up soon enough. Assad will be faced with sanctions until his wretched regime ceases to exist. Iran seems the weak link of the three with interests in ending its economic isolation. They can not hope to achieve this goal with the Syrian disaster hanging around their neck. The USs efforts to use proxies has ruined any effort to be seen as an unbiased player. Turkey and Saudi Arabia add to the gang that will ultimately make Syria a totally destroyed society.
1
We have no vital strategic interests in Syria. Period. It is a six-sided catastrophe being driven by the 100 year war of religion between Iran and Saudi Arabia over how many imams and mullahs can dance on the head of a burqa. I feel bad for the Syrian people but sending 19 year old Americans to get torn apart to referee Sunni-Shia blood feud is not in our national interest. Obama is wise to say enough with mideast wars. We don't understand the culture. We can't trust any of the players. We need to learn our lesson and stay the hell out!
6
It is quite extraordinary that an Op Ed in a major American Newspaper should omit reference to refusal by the Secretary of Defence in USA to obey an Instruction from his Commander - in - Chief to accept and work with the ceasefire.
2
"Indeed, Mr. Assad seems to enjoy practically unlimited leverage over Russia."
Nonsense. This is completely backwards. It is Assad who serves Putin and not the other way around. The intentional slaughter of UN aid workers is the proof. The only way forward is to make Russia's investment in Assad/Syria so expensive that Putin will drive Assad to the negotiating table. The sooner Putin bleeds out, the sooner he will force Assad find compromise.
Nonsense. This is completely backwards. It is Assad who serves Putin and not the other way around. The intentional slaughter of UN aid workers is the proof. The only way forward is to make Russia's investment in Assad/Syria so expensive that Putin will drive Assad to the negotiating table. The sooner Putin bleeds out, the sooner he will force Assad find compromise.
2
Bleeding Putin out..
What does that look like? How do we make that happen?
Tough talk...
What does that look like? How do we make that happen?
Tough talk...
So far US support for Syria's rebels has focused on ground-to-ground munitions. If we push more ground-to-air munitions then the cost for Putin will escalate rapidly. Jets and helicopters are expensive, stingers are relatively cheap. Didn't that work against Russia in Afganistan thirty years ago?
We in the West see the images of suffering in Syria--especially images of suffering children--and our impulse is to do something--anything--but just do it.
We need to come to grips with the harsh facts. Among the complications is something pointed out by a BBC article from a couple of years ago: There are around 1,000 separate groups fighting in Syria, many of them loosely coalesced into larger groups. (see http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-24403003). And as Obama has argued, the one group protecting the Christians is the secularist Assad.
The word "quagmire" comes to mind.
We need to come to grips with the harsh facts. Among the complications is something pointed out by a BBC article from a couple of years ago: There are around 1,000 separate groups fighting in Syria, many of them loosely coalesced into larger groups. (see http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-24403003). And as Obama has argued, the one group protecting the Christians is the secularist Assad.
The word "quagmire" comes to mind.
3
Isn't the definition of insanity trying the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different result? That's what the authors of this article prescribe. Doesn't anybody have a new idea?
3
Our involvement in the Syrian CIVIL war should extend to providing support for the humanitarian resettlement of Syrian refugees both in this country and to aid our European allies in their efforts on behalf of these poor people. This may cost us in "treasure" but will not cost the lives of more young American military volunteers. We can't continue to waste the lives of our most patriotic citizens in failed adventurism as the world's policemen.
This is America. We know how to make more money. Spend it on humanitarian efforts -- not on more killing and not to thumb our noses at Vlad "The Impaler" Putin.
This is America. We know how to make more money. Spend it on humanitarian efforts -- not on more killing and not to thumb our noses at Vlad "The Impaler" Putin.
As of this morning, the French have begun working on a new ceasefire proposal for the UNSC. All we can reasonably to is keep trying.
1
There's no incentive for Russia or Assad to stop what they're doing. Perhaps we should be the bad cop to France's good cop. Intentionally bombing a UN aid convoy is a crime that cannot be left to stand.
Why should blame for America’s military policy in Syria be laid at the feet of Obama, anymore than the inaction of the feckless Republican-controlled Congress who, when Obama asked for their stance, refused to vote for war in Syria?
6
Right, just sit and simper while the slaughter continues on one hand while on the other we are in full militarized mode against Dash. Telling ourselves Assad and Putin will take care of themselves. Policy by John McCain is not the answer but neither is directing American response from mommies kiddie coral either. The ME needs to go on lockdown ASAP.
Simon and Stevenson haven't any more answers than a blind mole. And their willingness to let despots freely kill and call it policy is criminal. To continue down this road is suicidal and will in a very short time create a ME and a world so out of balance nothing will right it.
The New York Times and a large segment of its readers are no more than pin ball machine flippers blindly reacting to their last unpleasant response to asinine decisions made by our government. Thing is though, heads up now, this is not the Iraq/Afghan conflict, this is an entirely new situation and If we can't put the monster back in the box which is to all parties advantage then you haven't seen anything yet.
Simon and Stevenson haven't any more answers than a blind mole. And their willingness to let despots freely kill and call it policy is criminal. To continue down this road is suicidal and will in a very short time create a ME and a world so out of balance nothing will right it.
The New York Times and a large segment of its readers are no more than pin ball machine flippers blindly reacting to their last unpleasant response to asinine decisions made by our government. Thing is though, heads up now, this is not the Iraq/Afghan conflict, this is an entirely new situation and If we can't put the monster back in the box which is to all parties advantage then you haven't seen anything yet.
2
When YOU offer to go fight, when YOU offer to have your kids go fight, when YOU ask to have your taxes raised to oay for this stuff, when YOU start demanding that your Cingressman starts supporting this President, then you can start making these demands with a tad bit of moral authority.
1
This makes no sense.
Our policy should reflect our capabilities, not good intentions.
Our policy should reflect our capabilities, not good intentions.
Good arguments, however a no fly zone could still be at least considered.
A no fly zone helped to protect the Kurdish population in Iraq, without loss of life. Also, President Clinton's limited engagement in Bosnia did prevent wholesale slaughter of Muslims civilians. This is happening again in Aleppo, tragically.
It would really depend on the risk to U.S. airplanes. Our air force is designed to take out Russian antiaircraft systems effectively- especially the newest 5th generation airplanes. Even if Russia sold the latest technology to Syria, a Russian S-300/400 missile would have a really hard time even finding an U.S. F-22 or F35 stealth fighter, much less shooting it down, before it is destroyed. Even US ground systems and airplanes cant see these planes in recent military exercises, so I doubt the U.S. military would have a huge problem with even the newest Russian antiaircraft systems.
If a no fly zone can protect civilians without loss of life to the U.S. military, I would not automatically take that off the table at this point, as the slaughter of civilians there are really war crimes at his point, especially in Aleppo.
A no fly zone helped to protect the Kurdish population in Iraq, without loss of life. Also, President Clinton's limited engagement in Bosnia did prevent wholesale slaughter of Muslims civilians. This is happening again in Aleppo, tragically.
It would really depend on the risk to U.S. airplanes. Our air force is designed to take out Russian antiaircraft systems effectively- especially the newest 5th generation airplanes. Even if Russia sold the latest technology to Syria, a Russian S-300/400 missile would have a really hard time even finding an U.S. F-22 or F35 stealth fighter, much less shooting it down, before it is destroyed. Even US ground systems and airplanes cant see these planes in recent military exercises, so I doubt the U.S. military would have a huge problem with even the newest Russian antiaircraft systems.
If a no fly zone can protect civilians without loss of life to the U.S. military, I would not automatically take that off the table at this point, as the slaughter of civilians there are really war crimes at his point, especially in Aleppo.
3
I wholeheartedly agree with the authors' conclusions. Whenever I hear hawks, whether from the conservative or liberal side, press for armed intervention, I wonder whether these people remeber anything about Iraq at all? We in the end caused this conflagration in the Middle East by our Iraq invasion, and one would think that teaches humility instead of triggering yet again phantasies of omnipotence. And whoever is willing to risk war with Russia over the amalgam of vicious parties in the Syrien conflict, - no white knights there -, needs to have his head examined. The notion of 'indispensable nation' is almost always most deeply lodged in the heads of those who never directly bear the cost in blood and treasure for their ideas.
9
"Disastrous foray into Libya"? There have been a few thousand deaths in Libya. There have been half a million deaths and tens of millions of refugees in Syria. Only a framework that places zero value on Middle Eastern lives and all value on American prestige and rhetoric could consider Libya the worse outcome.
6
The Obama administration has been consistent throughout in making clear that our fight was with Daesh because of the wider threat to the Middle East it represented. It made a decision early on that no good purpose would be served by getting directly involved in Syria's civil war and that decision was the right one. We had no authorization under international law for attacking the Assad regime which, like it or not, was the internationally recognized government of Syria and we such remains the case.
Russia on the other hand is operating as an ally of the legal ruling government of Syria with whom it has a long standing relationship that dates back to the Cold War. Again, like it or not, their intervention, brutal as it is, has a firmer international legal footing than our own.
We flouted international law when we invaded Iraq since we had no specific authorization to do so. We are right not to repeat this calamitous mistake.
Russia on the other hand is operating as an ally of the legal ruling government of Syria with whom it has a long standing relationship that dates back to the Cold War. Again, like it or not, their intervention, brutal as it is, has a firmer international legal footing than our own.
We flouted international law when we invaded Iraq since we had no specific authorization to do so. We are right not to repeat this calamitous mistake.
11
What about millions of civilians, including children, who don't care about the war?
And isn't it true that most of the killings are done by Assad and Russia? And that the rebels are fighting only because they have seen the brutality of Assad and simply cannot accept that regime and are now resisting helplessly, without enough means and hence dying helplessly?
And isn't it true that most of the killings are done by Assad and Russia? And that the rebels are fighting only because they have seen the brutality of Assad and simply cannot accept that regime and are now resisting helplessly, without enough means and hence dying helplessly?
Pretty weak tea.
Advocating the status quo despite its obvious futility seems a peculiar position.
Advocating the status quo despite its obvious futility seems a peculiar position.
1
I've seen a lot of talk in the press about how ISIL is an ideology or world view that can't be defeated -- that loan wolf attacks will be impossible to stop even if we take back the territory they control in Syria and Iraq. I disagree with this, and here's why:
ISIL's ideas have taken hold as an ideology or world view to the degree they have only because they control territory. It is one thing to hold an idea in one's head, to talk about it as an abstract idea with friends, etc... yet it is something completely different to be able to tie that idea to the land and the resources.
When a person dreams of a better life, almost universally they dream of a 'place'. They want to find a better place. We even talk about heaven as a place. It is the fundamental nature of the human brain that places make things real to us.
If you take away the place you take away the reality of the hope and it becomes just an abstract idea without a place. It isn't real anymore. I believe you could eliminate upwards of 90% or more of attacks if you remove the place, the territory, the realization of this fantasy.
Afghanistan was not desirable territory. It had no resources and no real future as the Caliphate of their fantasies. If they want to go somewhere, they should be forced somewhere that provides them no potency or resources. Nobody believed a Caliphate was even possible when they were stationed in that desolate country -- not even their leader believed it possible.
ISIL's ideas have taken hold as an ideology or world view to the degree they have only because they control territory. It is one thing to hold an idea in one's head, to talk about it as an abstract idea with friends, etc... yet it is something completely different to be able to tie that idea to the land and the resources.
When a person dreams of a better life, almost universally they dream of a 'place'. They want to find a better place. We even talk about heaven as a place. It is the fundamental nature of the human brain that places make things real to us.
If you take away the place you take away the reality of the hope and it becomes just an abstract idea without a place. It isn't real anymore. I believe you could eliminate upwards of 90% or more of attacks if you remove the place, the territory, the realization of this fantasy.
Afghanistan was not desirable territory. It had no resources and no real future as the Caliphate of their fantasies. If they want to go somewhere, they should be forced somewhere that provides them no potency or resources. Nobody believed a Caliphate was even possible when they were stationed in that desolate country -- not even their leader believed it possible.
Unfortunately we have a feckless President and his Nobel Peace prize stood in the way of making the tough decision. Yes America didn't need another war to be involved in but that decision was made when President Obama kept redrawing his red line. So here we are several years latter and a Sec of defense who has more frequent flyer miles than all the airlines combined. (Hey NY Times that's a story right there) The time to have become involved was 5 years ago, now it's only embolden Putin to raise his status and power and also China who sees an opportunity to make strategic moves that should have been addressed 7 years ago. We have a President who thinks appeasement and leading from the rear makes the world stronger. If that is the case just pull all the troops from Europe and Asia and bring them back home. We can save a ton of money and keep getting discount prices at Walmart.
1
there are ways, short of outright intervention on the ground or even in the air, to take down slow and low flying helicopters. Few of these shot down, and we may find a new willingness on the part of the Putin-Assad axis to negotiate. Their arrogance comes from a perception of complete impunity. Both of them demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that they are mass murderers to whom the suffering of civilians does not matter.
Russian presence in Syria does make some sense. Prior to that intervention nobody had Plan B, how to avoid a massacre of Alawites when the regime collapsed, and it was pretty close to collapsing. But one needs to force them to negotiate from the position of parity, because they will not negotiate when they think that they are in a position of strength.
More broadly, western allies need ever more urgently to get realistic about Russia. Russia just announced a new budget: increases for the military and the internal repression force, cuts for everything else. That regime staked its own survival on war. It is well past time to acknowledge that some sort of a war is upon us whether we like it or not. It will take a premeditated effort, otherwise known as a doctrine, to stop it from going hot. It may very well get hot if Putin has a feeling of impunity, weakness of the adversary and finally tries to press his advantage one step too far.
Russian presence in Syria does make some sense. Prior to that intervention nobody had Plan B, how to avoid a massacre of Alawites when the regime collapsed, and it was pretty close to collapsing. But one needs to force them to negotiate from the position of parity, because they will not negotiate when they think that they are in a position of strength.
More broadly, western allies need ever more urgently to get realistic about Russia. Russia just announced a new budget: increases for the military and the internal repression force, cuts for everything else. That regime staked its own survival on war. It is well past time to acknowledge that some sort of a war is upon us whether we like it or not. It will take a premeditated effort, otherwise known as a doctrine, to stop it from going hot. It may very well get hot if Putin has a feeling of impunity, weakness of the adversary and finally tries to press his advantage one step too far.
Please......your solution is to continue to engage in diplomacy with Putin. You refer to your solution as "unsatisfying". Putin is committing war crimes in Syria. His strategy has numerous goals.....one being the use of refugees as a political weapon against Western leaders who have applied economic sanctions. While a military escalation by the US is not advisable...there must be other actions, economic and diplomatic which would make Russia pay for crimes against humanity. Continuing to talk gives Russia international credibility. It should be the policy of the United States to isolate Russia on every level.
I think it to be an unwise decision for the US to intervene in the Middle East affairs especially when involving Russia, who is definitely not afraid to strike back . If we march in saying no-fly zone in Syria we are risking a major war. The goal should be to reduce harm and save lives.
I cannot think of a single way the U.S., except military contractors and manufacturers, have benefitted from the war in Irak. Let's not repeat this mistake in Syria.
As much as I feel sorry for the victims in Aleppo, I agree with this op-ed piece. The U.S. cannot resolved a civil war by military intervention.
As much as I feel sorry for the victims in Aleppo, I agree with this op-ed piece. The U.S. cannot resolved a civil war by military intervention.
1
So, in your opinion, Syria is not our problem. Not the US'. Not the EU's. It's Russia's problem.
That's good to know. We can send the refugees THERE then.
That's good to know. We can send the refugees THERE then.
1
The authors are advocating for the very definition of insanity -- doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting different results.
The U.S has more than 800 Military bases in 70 Countries. Russian Military base in Syria is the ONLY Russian base outside of the former Soviet Union. Putin whose "Mission" is to restore Russia Greatness will do Whatever it takes to keep the Russian Military base in Syria. Only an Assad Victory can guarantee that.
Unlike Gaddafi in Libya, Assad has 2 powerful Allies Russia and Iran that will do whatever it takes to keep Assad in Power.
To paraphrase a Candidate running for President, the U.S should tell its Allies: We Came, We Tried, we Failed." and focus on destroying ISIS.
Unlike Gaddafi in Libya, Assad has 2 powerful Allies Russia and Iran that will do whatever it takes to keep Assad in Power.
To paraphrase a Candidate running for President, the U.S should tell its Allies: We Came, We Tried, we Failed." and focus on destroying ISIS.
1
I agree 100% with this article!
Please, let's learn from past mistakes. No more boots on the ground in the Middle East!
Please, let's learn from past mistakes. No more boots on the ground in the Middle East!
How these highly experiences and credentialed experts managed to write so many words about the Syrian conflict without once mentioning Iran is beyond comprehension. Was it willful ignorance or just plain ignorance?
Syria has a government. Its not a likable government, but it is legitimate.
There is a rebellion against the government of Syria. And said government is ruthlessly destroying the rebels. Much like the United states would do to secessionists or rebels.
Authoritarian governments are not necessarily bad in places ill prepared for democracy and civil society. Syria is such a place.
The first step toward peace in Syria is for the rebellion to end. All forces should unite behind Assad to end ISIS.
Over time, the regime will come to an end on its own. Until then, the people of Syria can live, run businesses, and not be bombed. Lack of political rights will only impact the political class. So be it.
There is a rebellion against the government of Syria. And said government is ruthlessly destroying the rebels. Much like the United states would do to secessionists or rebels.
Authoritarian governments are not necessarily bad in places ill prepared for democracy and civil society. Syria is such a place.
The first step toward peace in Syria is for the rebellion to end. All forces should unite behind Assad to end ISIS.
Over time, the regime will come to an end on its own. Until then, the people of Syria can live, run businesses, and not be bombed. Lack of political rights will only impact the political class. So be it.
3
Painfully pragmatic and I agree. I look at the photos and video and wonder what will be left for anyone to fight for soon.
Confronting Russia in Syria is a no win situation. Yes, the US has overwhelming superiority in weapons systems over the Russians, but that does not guarantee that we will accomplish what we set out to do in Syria.
Putin will not back down. His generals has said as much. Those that are advocating confronting Russia and Assad are simply myopic at best. No one is going to follow us in that confrontation. Not the Europeans, the Turks or the Saudis.
Syria is not worth it, and we can stanch the call for war by simply withdrawing our military assets from that theater.
Putin will not back down. His generals has said as much. Those that are advocating confronting Russia and Assad are simply myopic at best. No one is going to follow us in that confrontation. Not the Europeans, the Turks or the Saudis.
Syria is not worth it, and we can stanch the call for war by simply withdrawing our military assets from that theater.
2
I agree completely. While the loss of life is terrible, it is not the roll of the US to inject itself into every conflict across the globe. We are NOT the worlds police force. Syria was an enemy of the US for decades because of our support of Israel and will be once again after the war ends. I think we should let Syria kill its own if chooses to. The rebels started the war to begin with. If they want it to end, just surrender.
Neither side has clue one beyond their hand wringing and refusal to look down the road more than a few feet past their childish sentiment. And do not let saving lives or creating a map for the future be part of the conversation.
The agony of innocents no longer registers with American liberals nor the writing on the wall. How tragic when the only actor with the power to make things better goes from being knee jerk warrior to a knee jerk isolationist coward. And down this road after it is even more TO LATE you all will switch again.
Can you say long range plan? Can you say coherent policy? Can you not see the positive power of setting boundaries for belligerents?
The agony of innocents no longer registers with American liberals nor the writing on the wall. How tragic when the only actor with the power to make things better goes from being knee jerk warrior to a knee jerk isolationist coward. And down this road after it is even more TO LATE you all will switch again.
Can you say long range plan? Can you say coherent policy? Can you not see the positive power of setting boundaries for belligerents?
"errant American airstrike"
Everything the US does is a mistake but everything Russia does is deliberate.
The Pentagon performed the airstrike in open revolt of the President. That's not a mistake that was a deliberate attack by our government.
The US media needs to stop whitewashing our actions while demonizing others like Russia. Using salt instead of sugar with my tea is a mistake. A military attack based on false premise is criminal.
Everything the US does is a mistake but everything Russia does is deliberate.
The Pentagon performed the airstrike in open revolt of the President. That's not a mistake that was a deliberate attack by our government.
The US media needs to stop whitewashing our actions while demonizing others like Russia. Using salt instead of sugar with my tea is a mistake. A military attack based on false premise is criminal.
4
While Obama is concerned about a few homes being built in the contested areas of Judea and Samaria he is so off base about the rest of the Middle East. He and our State Dept. are clueless because they refuse to acknowledge the realties and goals of the Arab and Muslim mind set. Islam isn't a religion of peace and tolerance. They expect to be treated like an equal by the West but it isn't reciprocated by them. We must recognize that we have no friends or allies in that part of the world accept for Israel and possibly Jordan and Egypt. Being a Muslim and identifying with their own tribe and being ruled by dictatorial regimes is the basis of Arab power. When are we going to recognize that Muslim countries will never accept us just like the Palestinians will never accept Israel. As Western tolerance and democratic values are anathema to the Muslim world. We are deluding ourselves if we think otherwise. A fanatical long term religious war is being waged against the West and we refuse to recognize it. We don't need to be kind and commit voluntary suicide to benefit those that will one day wish to terrorize us. The Saudis and Gulf countries know this and that is why they haven't taken in even one Syrian refugee.
3
Mr. Stevenson appears to have a hart of stone.
Wholesale Murder, children maimed and killed.
War crimes committed.
If Mr. Stevenson's point prevailed during Hitler's genocide,
I and millions of others would not be alive today.
How does Mr. Stevenson sleep at night?
Wholesale Murder, children maimed and killed.
War crimes committed.
If Mr. Stevenson's point prevailed during Hitler's genocide,
I and millions of others would not be alive today.
How does Mr. Stevenson sleep at night?
2
"Russia resumed its disingenuous grandstanding"
True, and seeing through that to real motives is a major difficulty in understanding events.
Also true is that the US resumed its disingenuous grandstanding. That is just as much an impediment to real understanding.
Diplomats lie. Politicians lie. It is a defining characteristic. Seeing through that is the first difficulty in understanding events, these events, and most international events at all times.
A good example of that is by these authors in this article, "The goal now should be reducing harm, saving lives and keeping prospects for a political deal alive."
They don't propose only saving lives and reducing harm. They want that in a way that gets the US the results it desires in a political deal.
The harm did sputter to a stop years ago, and the US got it going again by starting this support. Why?
That "political deal." This article does not spell out what is so important to get in that deal.
What is so important to the US that we'd do all this and risk worse? Assad did our torture for us on renditions, from NYC to torture a Canadian for example. He sent troops to fight Saddam the first time around, and did cooperate against the common Sunni insurgent enemy in Iraq the second time around. We set up a Shiite government that he gets along with.
The key questions evaded here are the real US motives, the real deal sought, and the real Russian motives. Without those, the rest is just disingenuous grandstanding.
True, and seeing through that to real motives is a major difficulty in understanding events.
Also true is that the US resumed its disingenuous grandstanding. That is just as much an impediment to real understanding.
Diplomats lie. Politicians lie. It is a defining characteristic. Seeing through that is the first difficulty in understanding events, these events, and most international events at all times.
A good example of that is by these authors in this article, "The goal now should be reducing harm, saving lives and keeping prospects for a political deal alive."
They don't propose only saving lives and reducing harm. They want that in a way that gets the US the results it desires in a political deal.
The harm did sputter to a stop years ago, and the US got it going again by starting this support. Why?
That "political deal." This article does not spell out what is so important to get in that deal.
What is so important to the US that we'd do all this and risk worse? Assad did our torture for us on renditions, from NYC to torture a Canadian for example. He sent troops to fight Saddam the first time around, and did cooperate against the common Sunni insurgent enemy in Iraq the second time around. We set up a Shiite government that he gets along with.
The key questions evaded here are the real US motives, the real deal sought, and the real Russian motives. Without those, the rest is just disingenuous grandstanding.
5
Mark,
As usual you tell it like it is; commendable.
As usual you tell it like it is; commendable.
4
Syria, as a modern state, no longer makes sense. Neither does Iraq for that matter. The US invasion in 2003 has set off tremors in the Arab world that will reverberate for years. The only thing we can do is try and limit the damage - but it is considerable.
More or less completely lacking in serious study of history via books, American couch potato foreign affairs experts feel themselves serious people when they propose dabbling in various conflicts, according to how it suits them emotionally. So we have inane and insane suggestions to go get Iran, or dump arms into Ukraine.
We get these vacuous trends in popular thinking because the American public has not had a stake in the game of our-war making since Vietnam. This in turn is the result of careful manipulations by the powers that be in the Pentagon and Federal government, plus business and the media. The all volunteer military under a President with war powers is a national disaster in our midst.
You want sense with respect to American intervention? Create a serious & real public stake in every war. Restart a draft, and for every conflict include some draftees with few deferments. When the stake to go to war is the cost of a magnetic ribbon for your car or cyclical whining over the care given some other family's "wounded warriors" or occasional carping about deficits, we will always make very poor decisions about military involvement.
We get these vacuous trends in popular thinking because the American public has not had a stake in the game of our-war making since Vietnam. This in turn is the result of careful manipulations by the powers that be in the Pentagon and Federal government, plus business and the media. The all volunteer military under a President with war powers is a national disaster in our midst.
You want sense with respect to American intervention? Create a serious & real public stake in every war. Restart a draft, and for every conflict include some draftees with few deferments. When the stake to go to war is the cost of a magnetic ribbon for your car or cyclical whining over the care given some other family's "wounded warriors" or occasional carping about deficits, we will always make very poor decisions about military involvement.
Not Our Problem!
2
Whether in Asia or the Middle East we are witnessing the declining influence of the US. When other countries look at us what do they see? A dysfunctional congress, a presidential election devolving into something out of a Monty Python skit, violence in our cities that appears intractable, and increasing national debt (to name a few). Both Russia and China see this as an opportunity to expand their influence, and they are doing so with little concern for serious repercussions. And there is nothing either of our presidential candidates can do to "Make American great again". Those days are over.
This business of the USA thinking that we are the adults and the smaller countries are the children has to stop. Too many people still think this is World War II and we are going in and taking out the bad guys, and will be met by cheering crowds tossing roses. I'm sure that's exactly what Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld were thinking (George W. wasn't thinking) when they took out Saddam. Now they just blame it all on Obama.
We cannot solve these complicated problems with force. We cannot save all the children, we cannot stop all the violence and unfairness. To think that we can is proof that many people just don't understand the awful reality of many of these situations.
We cannot solve these complicated problems with force. We cannot save all the children, we cannot stop all the violence and unfairness. To think that we can is proof that many people just don't understand the awful reality of many of these situations.
1
The Syrian crisis is becoming increasingly complex and intractable due to the civil war – which was triggered by a repressive government led by Bashar al Assad – who let loose a reign of terror on protesters fighting for civil liberties and democratic reforms.
The whole narrative of the civil war changed when Russia helped out their ally, Assad, (who was facing defeat at the hands of the rebels) by supplying him with artillery, tanks and strike aircraft. Iran, on the other hand, sent Hezbollah fighters to augment the Syrian army. Both these events changed Assad’s fortune (who had come under increasing international pressure to demit office).
The signing of an agreement between the US and Russia gave a glimmer of hope that had the potential to end to end the humanitarian crisis which has claimed tens and thousands of people and similar numbers have sough refuge in Europe. If the US decides to abandon its role in Syria, we will soon be faced with a catastrophe which will kill millions of people living in Aleppo and other areas which are under the control of rebels and ISIS.
The US should immediately step up its diplomatic efforts to put pressure on Russia not to get embroiled in the conflict, as their efforts to save one person- Bashar al Assad has claimed more than 400,000 lives. As regards the role of the United nations, unless structural reforms are brought that takes away the veto power from few select countries, the UN will continue to remain dysfunctional.
The whole narrative of the civil war changed when Russia helped out their ally, Assad, (who was facing defeat at the hands of the rebels) by supplying him with artillery, tanks and strike aircraft. Iran, on the other hand, sent Hezbollah fighters to augment the Syrian army. Both these events changed Assad’s fortune (who had come under increasing international pressure to demit office).
The signing of an agreement between the US and Russia gave a glimmer of hope that had the potential to end to end the humanitarian crisis which has claimed tens and thousands of people and similar numbers have sough refuge in Europe. If the US decides to abandon its role in Syria, we will soon be faced with a catastrophe which will kill millions of people living in Aleppo and other areas which are under the control of rebels and ISIS.
The US should immediately step up its diplomatic efforts to put pressure on Russia not to get embroiled in the conflict, as their efforts to save one person- Bashar al Assad has claimed more than 400,000 lives. As regards the role of the United nations, unless structural reforms are brought that takes away the veto power from few select countries, the UN will continue to remain dysfunctional.
"Indeed, Mr. Assad seems to enjoy practically unlimited leverage over Russia."
That's perhaps the stupidest line from this whole article.
Imagine this appearing in a Times op-ed:
"Indeed, Mr. Netanyahu seems to enjoy practically unlimited leverage over the United States."
You'd regard that as pretty stupid, right? Because aren't the situations parallel?
Actually there are major differences. Unlike Netanyahu, Assad has no lobby in Russia in any way comparable to the power and influence of the Israeli lobby in the US, actually no lobby at all, nor has Assad ever addressed the Russian legislature to 28 standing ovations, as Netanyahu has done in the US congress.
Who has leverage over whom?
That's perhaps the stupidest line from this whole article.
Imagine this appearing in a Times op-ed:
"Indeed, Mr. Netanyahu seems to enjoy practically unlimited leverage over the United States."
You'd regard that as pretty stupid, right? Because aren't the situations parallel?
Actually there are major differences. Unlike Netanyahu, Assad has no lobby in Russia in any way comparable to the power and influence of the Israeli lobby in the US, actually no lobby at all, nor has Assad ever addressed the Russian legislature to 28 standing ovations, as Netanyahu has done in the US congress.
Who has leverage over whom?
This misses the point. Russia is conducting a proxy war to punish the US and the EU for sanctions over Crimea. The Syrian diaspora is weakening the EU and making it harder for NATO to effectively represent the joint resolve of the allies. Syria is a pawn that the Russians are happy to destroy to make their point. Only a solution that attacks root causes will work here. That solution might have to include an acknowledgement of Russia's actions in Ukraine and the partial lifting of sanctions. We might not like it, but dealing with Ukraine is morally better than letting a third country be devastated this way. We should also take a longer view on Ukraine/Crimea understanding that this was simply one move on the chessboard.
1
How about we do what that other great world power China is doing about the conflict in Syria and Iraq, which would be nothing?
It isn't often I'm in agreement with the Times, but this is one of them.
The time to have acted militarily was when President Obama drew his feckless "line in the sand."
Also, I'm not sure I'd characterize Assad's military as having "blood lust" as much as "fighting for their lives."
The time to have acted militarily was when President Obama drew his feckless "line in the sand."
Also, I'm not sure I'd characterize Assad's military as having "blood lust" as much as "fighting for their lives."
On the same page as this article a LibHawk calls for "cratering" Syrian airfields "from Turkey" with missiles. In the comments below many suggest letting "Turkey" do that. If "Turkey" does that it is aggressive war, not defensive, and NATO need not act when Turkey is "cratered" in return.
The New Hour last night was extremely frightening, as the LibchickHawk appears to be set for CinC, all panelists agreed military might must be used.
The frightening tis is the writing of false history the three engaged.
That the theory of Obama was it was inevitable Assad would fall to a "domestic insurgency".
Mr. President, declassify all the information and advisements you were given from 2011, and name by name the sources of said same.
It is my belief that those who LIED to you, promising success of street action, then shooting, the insertion of Saudi paid foreign proxies, etc., should not be able to stick you with paternity of their "orphan".
Further, I do not believe the circle in the Kremlin that crushed the Chechen thing will wait to January 21 for a Cuba 62 style showdown. They know the value of Americas winter holiday period
And many of them believe Krushchev missed the perfect chance.
Please release all the information so we can know in voting, including the Dem candidates "advisement".
I know that will take great courage. Be a profile
The New Hour last night was extremely frightening, as the LibchickHawk appears to be set for CinC, all panelists agreed military might must be used.
The frightening tis is the writing of false history the three engaged.
That the theory of Obama was it was inevitable Assad would fall to a "domestic insurgency".
Mr. President, declassify all the information and advisements you were given from 2011, and name by name the sources of said same.
It is my belief that those who LIED to you, promising success of street action, then shooting, the insertion of Saudi paid foreign proxies, etc., should not be able to stick you with paternity of their "orphan".
Further, I do not believe the circle in the Kremlin that crushed the Chechen thing will wait to January 21 for a Cuba 62 style showdown. They know the value of Americas winter holiday period
And many of them believe Krushchev missed the perfect chance.
Please release all the information so we can know in voting, including the Dem candidates "advisement".
I know that will take great courage. Be a profile
The one thing not mentioned in this op-ed is the threat of destabilization in the immediate area surrounding Syria. This conflict has already spread across the borders of Turkey, Lebanon, Iraq, and Israel in varying degrees and has the potential to destabilize Jordan and possibly Saudi Arabia. Do you think once Assad and his Iranian masters consolidate his power everything will be rainbows and sunshine? No the Iranians will then feel free to pursue directed and much more complex assaults on Israel and this will create the potential for an even larger regional or world wide conflict. I fear that the power vacuum of the last few years will have devastating consequences for the region and the world in the years to come.
I agree. The US cannot solve the Syrian problem. We shouldn't be enmeshed in a struggle where we can't tell the good guys from the bad guys. It's too bad about the citizen population, and we should do as much as we can to help them.
Also (continuing from an earlier post I made), it's not clear to me that Libya is a great piece of evidence for nonintervention. Did the intervention of not only the US, but also other NATO countries, really go that badly? Well, there's a civil war in Libya that follows. But there are often civil wars following the toppling of dangerous regime, even one that everyone agrees ought to go. The status quo before intervention wasn't a peaceful Libya under Gaddafi's repressive rule. It was an ongoing civil war in which Gaddafi was targeting civilian population centers through shelling and air strikes. The NATO intervention targeted those things, successfully. The only way NATO's behavior could be construed as having bad consequences is that, through preventing civilian attacks, it influenced the outcome of the war. But that argument supposes that Gaddafi staying in power was a good thing, because it would somehow be more peaceful in Libya, despite the fact that Libya at the time was in a state of war. In general, I think the peace argument for repressive authoritarian regimes is a bad one. It understates the harms authoritarians can do to their people, which often eclipse the harms of a civil war followed by a stable peace.
The argument I find persuasive on humanitarian grounds against a major intervention in Syria, and maybe in Libya, is that US action lacks apparent legitimacy, and so it might be self-defeating, since people might not accept whatever outcome we try to force.
The argument I find persuasive on humanitarian grounds against a major intervention in Syria, and maybe in Libya, is that US action lacks apparent legitimacy, and so it might be self-defeating, since people might not accept whatever outcome we try to force.
1
I think I agree that we shouldn't make a large-scale intervention, although I'm not sure about the reasons given here.
Russia has indicated its willingness to back Assad, and we would risk confronting them if we were to commit to backing Assad's opponents. But isn't our position then symmetric with Russia's? If they persist in backing Assad when the US commits to ousting him from power, then they risk confronting us. It's not clear to me that we would be the only aggressor in that scenario; Russia's support for a mass-murdering dictator and its bombing of hospitals in Aleppo is certainly aggressive intervention. So I'm not sure why we are obligated to defer to Russia any more than they're obligated to defer to us. Now, maybe the idea is that Russia has indicated that it's more committed than we are, so that it would be prudent for us to be flexible when Putin is inflexible. That's fine. But generally it's a better metastrategy in bargaining to indicate that you're inflexible. A losing metastrategy is to indicate through one's actions that one will back down in the face of inflexibility. Now, there are puzzles here--this resolves into metastrategies and metametastrategies that are essentially games of chicken and strategies to avoid the bad case where both parties are inflexible and go to war. But just that there are puzzles indicates that it is not so clear that the mere inflexibility of Russia's unreasonable position counts against confronting them.
Russia has indicated its willingness to back Assad, and we would risk confronting them if we were to commit to backing Assad's opponents. But isn't our position then symmetric with Russia's? If they persist in backing Assad when the US commits to ousting him from power, then they risk confronting us. It's not clear to me that we would be the only aggressor in that scenario; Russia's support for a mass-murdering dictator and its bombing of hospitals in Aleppo is certainly aggressive intervention. So I'm not sure why we are obligated to defer to Russia any more than they're obligated to defer to us. Now, maybe the idea is that Russia has indicated that it's more committed than we are, so that it would be prudent for us to be flexible when Putin is inflexible. That's fine. But generally it's a better metastrategy in bargaining to indicate that you're inflexible. A losing metastrategy is to indicate through one's actions that one will back down in the face of inflexibility. Now, there are puzzles here--this resolves into metastrategies and metametastrategies that are essentially games of chicken and strategies to avoid the bad case where both parties are inflexible and go to war. But just that there are puzzles indicates that it is not so clear that the mere inflexibility of Russia's unreasonable position counts against confronting them.
1
Yankee go home. The world has had enough of your regime changes that only change things for the worse.
4
I sit in silence as I read a remarkable piece of advice. I so agree with this column. Russian has as much chance of reining in Assad as China has with North Korea.
The world is full of insane blood thirsty creatures running countries with huge armies and tiny hearts, and I am tired of my country, the US, trying to be the world's cop. Let us leave the Middle East, and tend to our own who need so much. If you doubt that there is a terrible amount of suffering right down the street, open your eyes.
Hugh Massengill, Eugene
The world is full of insane blood thirsty creatures running countries with huge armies and tiny hearts, and I am tired of my country, the US, trying to be the world's cop. Let us leave the Middle East, and tend to our own who need so much. If you doubt that there is a terrible amount of suffering right down the street, open your eyes.
Hugh Massengill, Eugene
10
Don't intervene in Syria? How about we don't intervene anywhere?
We can cry a river of tears about any one of a dozen places in the world where horrific atrocities are being perpetrated on a daily basis. The Times is running an op-ed piece today about the life of a seven year old in Syria, her awful life..... and how somehow it's all our fault. That's spelled S-y-r-i-a, folks. Not Syracuse.
We can bankrupt ourselves being someone else's hero.... for about five minutes. We certainly tried (to bankrupt ourselves, that is) in Iraq. And look at all the good will it earned us from the Shia, delivering them from the torture chambers of Saddam. So now the NYT has a really great idea! Let's invade Syria! SAVE THE NUSRA FRONT!!! Now there's a lovely group. There's enough American blood on their hands to fill a reservoir.
Disingenuous, misguided, whatever you want to call these foreign incursions, when you do it time and time again with the same lousy result.... then it's simply called stupid.
We can cry a river of tears about any one of a dozen places in the world where horrific atrocities are being perpetrated on a daily basis. The Times is running an op-ed piece today about the life of a seven year old in Syria, her awful life..... and how somehow it's all our fault. That's spelled S-y-r-i-a, folks. Not Syracuse.
We can bankrupt ourselves being someone else's hero.... for about five minutes. We certainly tried (to bankrupt ourselves, that is) in Iraq. And look at all the good will it earned us from the Shia, delivering them from the torture chambers of Saddam. So now the NYT has a really great idea! Let's invade Syria! SAVE THE NUSRA FRONT!!! Now there's a lovely group. There's enough American blood on their hands to fill a reservoir.
Disingenuous, misguided, whatever you want to call these foreign incursions, when you do it time and time again with the same lousy result.... then it's simply called stupid.
5
Every call to intervene in the Syria shares a fatal flaw. No one, it seems, can see past Assad's ouster as an end point in the conflict. This recalls the same myopic approach which doomed the U.S. in Iraq when chaos erupted without a plan for creating a viable political order after Saddam fled. Take a look at the miserable track record of U.S. sponsored toppling of foreign dictators in the post war era. Americans seem to have enduring belief in the myth that the only impediment to global democratization is the removal of bad actors like Assasd.
The Allied occupation of Germany lasted for 10 years after the end of WWII. Unless the United States is prepared for a very costly long-term engagement to rebuild a broken country of little to no strategic interest whose religion and culture we do not share, then the U.S. has little to gain by intervening in the conflict.
The Allied occupation of Germany lasted for 10 years after the end of WWII. Unless the United States is prepared for a very costly long-term engagement to rebuild a broken country of little to no strategic interest whose religion and culture we do not share, then the U.S. has little to gain by intervening in the conflict.
Another dumb piece of propaganda pretending to be something else in this "publication."
The West and arab allies should have formed a no-fly zone 5-6 YEARS ago, so there would never have been a multi-million-strong refugee flow that would de-stabilize Europe AND syria. Now both places are being affected instead of just one, syria.
In 3 months, regardless of who is elected, there will hopefully be leadership again found in the White House, and the era of a free hand for iran and putin will come to an end.
The West and arab allies should have formed a no-fly zone 5-6 YEARS ago, so there would never have been a multi-million-strong refugee flow that would de-stabilize Europe AND syria. Now both places are being affected instead of just one, syria.
In 3 months, regardless of who is elected, there will hopefully be leadership again found in the White House, and the era of a free hand for iran and putin will come to an end.
1
To the entire world, we look like a paper tiger, and in point of fact, that is what we are.
Our corporate owned government, including ownership, for spectacular financial gain by the military industrial alliance, Big Food, Big Pharma, Big Insurance, Big Banking, essentially the mega domestic and international corporations, have thrown any semblance of decency aside, in favor of a singular unbridled avaricious drive to own all wealth and all resources on the planet.
Our 1,000 plus military bases located everywhere on the planet, including the latest in Niger, Africa, a major weaponized drone bade, constitute proof of such.
Here at home the outrageous inequality, and the two charlatans foisted on us as Presidential candidates, to maintain and increase this inequality, is all the proof we need here.
The entire corporate owned government needs to go, including every member of Congress and the Supreme Court, so we can begin again.
And with respect to Syria, given that we created the chaos in the Middle East, we need to reverse it, and begin by chasing Russia out of Syria.
Our corporate owned government, including ownership, for spectacular financial gain by the military industrial alliance, Big Food, Big Pharma, Big Insurance, Big Banking, essentially the mega domestic and international corporations, have thrown any semblance of decency aside, in favor of a singular unbridled avaricious drive to own all wealth and all resources on the planet.
Our 1,000 plus military bases located everywhere on the planet, including the latest in Niger, Africa, a major weaponized drone bade, constitute proof of such.
Here at home the outrageous inequality, and the two charlatans foisted on us as Presidential candidates, to maintain and increase this inequality, is all the proof we need here.
The entire corporate owned government needs to go, including every member of Congress and the Supreme Court, so we can begin again.
And with respect to Syria, given that we created the chaos in the Middle East, we need to reverse it, and begin by chasing Russia out of Syria.
2
And then what? Try to democratize Syria the way we have with Afghanistan?
3
@Mel Farrell
Don't flatter "us"...We did not creat the chaos in the Middle East, nor did we ever fix it, nor can anybody fix it!
Don't flatter "us"...We did not creat the chaos in the Middle East, nor did we ever fix it, nor can anybody fix it!
3
X,
I wish I had an answer; regardless we cannot stand by, as we did before we were shamed into joining Britain to destroy Hitler; millions died then, while we talked and talked, and talked some more.
And here we stand, idly observing, intervening only when there is great economic benefit, on top of the riches gleaned from the use of weaponry.
Our moral compass is broken.
I wish I had an answer; regardless we cannot stand by, as we did before we were shamed into joining Britain to destroy Hitler; millions died then, while we talked and talked, and talked some more.
And here we stand, idly observing, intervening only when there is great economic benefit, on top of the riches gleaned from the use of weaponry.
Our moral compass is broken.
1
Re: "American supporters of intervention, including the vice-presidential candidates, often say that the United States should create a no-fly zone in Syria to protect civilians from Mr. Assad and Russia’s bombs. But imagine how this might work: An American warplane enforcing a no-fly zone would risk fire from a Russian-made antiaircraft battery or fighter. (Just this week Russia shipped new antiaircraft systems to Syria.)"
So the US should enforce a no fly zone where there is no risk of fire from unfriendly forces? Why, then, would a no fly zone be necessary?
So the US should enforce a no fly zone where there is no risk of fire from unfriendly forces? Why, then, would a no fly zone be necessary?
1
I agree with this opinion piece 100%. The American people do not want yet another military involvement in the ME. Thank goodness for President Obama for his restraint and not going into Syria with guns blazing- like the GOP would do. The GOP are constantly harping that Obama looks weak because he doesn't use the military with reckless abandon the way they would.
Obama looks at the long game and knows how to learn from the past. The same neocons that got us into Iraq based on lies are now clamoring for more and more shows of military strength- of course, it is not their sons and daughters who will be losing their lives. They never learn- never.
Trump talks like a tough guy and wants to emulate his best buddy- the thug Putin. He says he loves war.
Yes, Trump can afford to love war- he has no loved ones in the military and he himself was a draft dodger. Moreover, since he pays no taxes- it is not his tax dollars going down the drain in yet another ME war.
Obama looks at the long game and knows how to learn from the past. The same neocons that got us into Iraq based on lies are now clamoring for more and more shows of military strength- of course, it is not their sons and daughters who will be losing their lives. They never learn- never.
Trump talks like a tough guy and wants to emulate his best buddy- the thug Putin. He says he loves war.
Yes, Trump can afford to love war- he has no loved ones in the military and he himself was a draft dodger. Moreover, since he pays no taxes- it is not his tax dollars going down the drain in yet another ME war.
8
Syria, is not worth the human or financial price. The Middle East is a quagmire with no exit. American needs to remember Iraq.
The bigger issue is what would be left of Syria after Assad and a Russia finish this final destruction. Another failed nation in the desert of the M E.
The bigger issue is what would be left of Syria after Assad and a Russia finish this final destruction. Another failed nation in the desert of the M E.
1
As simple as it sounds, I think Buddhist thought here is appropriate - if you want to stop violence, stop being violent, even in your thoughts. And on a more complex note, stop arms sales - now. Powerful arms dealers profit from all these violence to the tune of billions every year. War just gets us more war and more war and more war....and violence just gets us more violence and more violence and more violence.
4
The article is correct in the most important regard, it is simply too late to do what needs to be done, America has waited too long. The main problem is Assad has no incentive to go to the negotiation table...he is winning the war against the rebels with Russia help, the US will continue to help him with ISIS and he is probably content to leave the Kurds alone for now, so in a year or so he will be pretty close to having his country back.
Basically we probably need to just continue to aid the Kurds as much as Obama's backbone to stand up to Turkey will allow and defeat ISIS then leave an advisory force (Special OPs plus) to help the Kurds and make sure Assad or Turkey don't decide to launch a full scale assault in 3 or 4 years on the Kurds once things settle down.
Basically we probably need to just continue to aid the Kurds as much as Obama's backbone to stand up to Turkey will allow and defeat ISIS then leave an advisory force (Special OPs plus) to help the Kurds and make sure Assad or Turkey don't decide to launch a full scale assault in 3 or 4 years on the Kurds once things settle down.
1
Getting entangled into another quagmire does not make us a stronger superpower. A superpower to me is a country that is strong at home as well. One with first class infrastructure and education systems. First in the world in renewable energy and space exploration. One that opens it's arms to refugees around the world and is first to aide in a disaster. It's frustrating watching what has gone on in Syria, but a unilateral full blown military operation would not look any different. We would just have a civil war with hundreds of dead Americans and trillions of dollars wasted--Iraq and Afghanistan x3.
3
This piece was a simplistic apologia for a policy that the authors apparently supported from the beginning. Of all the interpretive inaccuracies, let me highlight 2. First, the "peace process" pricess didn't start to unravel with the inadvertent US middle strike. It was the Russian backed militias that continued violations from moment one. Second, each "reduction in violence" has been followed by an increase in death and destruction to the citizenry of Aleppo. There was no ratcheting down of violence at all.
1
Insanity, it's been said, is doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different result. Simon and Stevenson's article cites abstruse military and geopolitical arguments which are probably true, but which most of us cannot fully grasp. But most of us can understand that the premise of America democratizing/pacifying anything in the Middle East was based on a foolish misperception of how that part of the world operates. Does anyone expect that "getting rid of Assad" will result in a Ghandi-like figure rising to benevolent rule, or the region gratefully welcoming the American empire to establish order? Please. The USSR collapsed under the weight of overextended ambitions. The best way to fight Russia in Syria is to let them have it.
6
Yes, you can try again to re-energize political talks/diplomacy; but unless more imaginative and assertive proposals are brought to the table, the results may not be different than our current failure to thrive. The current stalemate of world powers, while Syria's Assad continues to kill with 'gusto' (and for which he must be constrained by the ICC as a war criminal), is a sort of action as well, the decision to sit on our hands...and look the other way. The 'Ostrich' head hiding in the sand ought not be an option. Has our brain become a prune, dried- up of alternate ideas that might work?
War is never a good option.
On rare occasions (WW2) it's less awful than every other option.
This isn't one of those occasions.
On rare occasions (WW2) it's less awful than every other option.
This isn't one of those occasions.
1
Aleppo is not war, Aleppo is murder.
A (mostly) intelligent editorial in the NYT, at last. (The authors have the "chlorine chemical weapons" wrong. The Nusra Front terrorist group took control of the only chlorine producing plant in Syria a few years ago (see Vanessa Beeley and Eva Bartlett - both reporters on the ground in Syria). FYI: The terrorists in Syria use "hell cannons" on Syrian civilians, filled with chemicals, nails, and schrapnel.
"... the United States has an ethical responsibility to reduce the suffering caused by Syrian and Russian bombing of civilians."
The argument that the U.S. must bomb sovereign Syria to reduce the suffering of Syrians is not a logical argument. Rather, isn't it time we put pressure on our NATO allies, such as Turkey, to stop the flow of terrorist mercenaries and weapons across its borders into Syria?
And, wouldn't it reduce suffering in Syria if our CIA to stop arming, training, and paying the terrorist mercenaries from 83 countries who invade sovereign Syria illegally to commit heinous acts of barbarism against women, children, elders and non-Salafist believers? And, wouldn't it reduce suffering if we allowed our military to be more serious about taking out ISIS, and Nusra Front?
How about the U.S. puts some pressure on Israel to stop helping the terrorists on the Southern border of sovereign Syria? (And, while the U.S. is at it, how about we tell our very expensive ally (Israel is costing us $3.8 billion over the next ten years) to get out of Syria's Golan Heights?
"... the United States has an ethical responsibility to reduce the suffering caused by Syrian and Russian bombing of civilians."
The argument that the U.S. must bomb sovereign Syria to reduce the suffering of Syrians is not a logical argument. Rather, isn't it time we put pressure on our NATO allies, such as Turkey, to stop the flow of terrorist mercenaries and weapons across its borders into Syria?
And, wouldn't it reduce suffering in Syria if our CIA to stop arming, training, and paying the terrorist mercenaries from 83 countries who invade sovereign Syria illegally to commit heinous acts of barbarism against women, children, elders and non-Salafist believers? And, wouldn't it reduce suffering if we allowed our military to be more serious about taking out ISIS, and Nusra Front?
How about the U.S. puts some pressure on Israel to stop helping the terrorists on the Southern border of sovereign Syria? (And, while the U.S. is at it, how about we tell our very expensive ally (Israel is costing us $3.8 billion over the next ten years) to get out of Syria's Golan Heights?
67
Is this a Kremlin troll? Blanket use of the term terrorism to describe anyone fighting against Assad's forces is propaganda straight from the talking points of the Syrian government and Russia.
1
That's 38 billion,they always go first class when someone else is paying.
2
> "Rather, isn't it time we put pressure on our NATO allies, such as Turkey, to stop the flow of terrorist mercenaries and weapons across its borders into Syria?"
* * *
ANOTHER MANIFESTATION of the same type of nonsense concerns people drowning in the Mediterranean Sea.
We could end it YESTERDAY, by stopping them from getting in the water in the first place. Those people didn't bring any boats or life-preservers with them into those camps,
IF we REALLY cared about them, we would
* Stop them in the first place
* Massively intensify our aid to the refugee camps, and the countries that host them
{certainly end the wasteful nonsense like issuing them Debit-Cards, and semi-western style supermarkets. This insane social-engineering scheme means that a small number of people get a much improved lifestyle, while a massively larger group gets considerably less aid, and far worse lifestyle}
* Either help Assad restore order in Syria, or stop meddling and let Russian help him
Both Putin & Assad want a peaceful Syria, while the HRC/Rice/Powers/Obama quartet only want another chessboard to experiment with their Social-Engineering Great-Game.
* * *
ANOTHER MANIFESTATION of the same type of nonsense concerns people drowning in the Mediterranean Sea.
We could end it YESTERDAY, by stopping them from getting in the water in the first place. Those people didn't bring any boats or life-preservers with them into those camps,
IF we REALLY cared about them, we would
* Stop them in the first place
* Massively intensify our aid to the refugee camps, and the countries that host them
{certainly end the wasteful nonsense like issuing them Debit-Cards, and semi-western style supermarkets. This insane social-engineering scheme means that a small number of people get a much improved lifestyle, while a massively larger group gets considerably less aid, and far worse lifestyle}
* Either help Assad restore order in Syria, or stop meddling and let Russian help him
Both Putin & Assad want a peaceful Syria, while the HRC/Rice/Powers/Obama quartet only want another chessboard to experiment with their Social-Engineering Great-Game.
1
Prof Simon would have been perfect in 1938. He would have urged the United States to not confront Nazi Germany.
At what point do we as a country stand up to Putin. Everyday that we wait, emboldens him. He is sure that we will not defend eastern Europe because we now have an aversion to conflict.
I would argue this is not about a humanitarian issue, it is a geopolitical one, in which we need to stand up to and stop Russian aggression.
At what point do we as a country stand up to Putin. Everyday that we wait, emboldens him. He is sure that we will not defend eastern Europe because we now have an aversion to conflict.
I would argue this is not about a humanitarian issue, it is a geopolitical one, in which we need to stand up to and stop Russian aggression.
20
Look at the map. Syria is an away game for us. We don't speak the language, we don't share or trust the culture, the logistics are expensive, in short we don't understand the situation. Putin is essentially on his home field, his national interests are immediate, he's looking for a way to divert his citizens' attention from domestic economics.
WW2 and 1938, .Munich, Chamberlain all belong to a different world.
WW2 and 1938, .Munich, Chamberlain all belong to a different world.
3
This is not Russian aggression. It is the resurfacing of centuries old conflict between Sunni and Shia. America has no dog in that fight. Obama was and is right that American military intervention is the last thing we should contemplate let alone do.
1
And to what end, Dr. Strangelove? Today is a far different situation than the world faced in 1938.
The US has no aversion to military conflict, as the past 15 years have shown. What US civilian and military leaders have an aversion to is going to war with a nuclear power, in a part of the world where we have only "interests". We and NATO "contained" the USSR for 50 years knowing that war would be a zero-sum game. That fact hasn't changed.
The US has no aversion to military conflict, as the past 15 years have shown. What US civilian and military leaders have an aversion to is going to war with a nuclear power, in a part of the world where we have only "interests". We and NATO "contained" the USSR for 50 years knowing that war would be a zero-sum game. That fact hasn't changed.
The trouble began when the United States, specifically the Obama national security staff, too shell shocked from the Iraq war, didn't protect a nascent pro-democracy peaceful rebellion in Syria with a no fly zone early enough, didnt mobilize the European Union and the UN against the use of chemical weapons by Assad, and didnt call the Soviet Union's bluff regarding protecting Assad against the will of his people. Instead, the US and the European Union continued and continue today to worry the more important issues in the region, like how many new settlement apartments the Israelis are planning to build in the West Bank, or making sure settlement West Bank agricultural products are properly labelled. And the in meantime, almost half a million are dead, including womena and children, and almost 5 million new refugees.
7
YES, OUR EFFORTS IN iSRAEL ARE MISGUIDED. We cannot even condemn that country when they bomb the hell out of Gaza and kill thousands of women and children every few years.
1
True. Imagine how prepared we would have been in Bush did not thrust America into an unjust, unnecessary war with Iraq and cause us to be shell-shocked from so much fighting, blood and death. Not to mention the drain on our economy and our tax dollars.
Is there a reason another country could not have taken the steps that you accuse President Obama's administration of failing to do?
Is there a reason another country could not have taken the steps that you accuse President Obama's administration of failing to do?
3
Let me guess,
Your false sympathy for Syria is just a way to deflect illegal actions by Israel? You don't care about Syria or Assad. You just care about making sure you can steal Palestinian land without repercussions. Israel's actions in Gaza showed us what Israel thinks of civilians.
Your false sympathy for Syria is just a way to deflect illegal actions by Israel? You don't care about Syria or Assad. You just care about making sure you can steal Palestinian land without repercussions. Israel's actions in Gaza showed us what Israel thinks of civilians.
3
Given our track record in the middle east to date, this is the only sensible conclusion. The only winners in the last 20 years have been the war profiteers, at the cost of many thousands of lost and crippled lives, trillions of dollars, and a severely diminished US international reputation.
77
You must be young, James. After Vietnam, nothing but nothing that the USA did could possibly diminish the USA's reputation any further, at least not here in Oz, where we followed those who blindly led.
3
And destruction of entire cities/regions. War always sets civilization back.
I hate to burst your bubble James, but there are "thousands of crippled and lost lives" in Israel as well. You're "sensible conclusion" is nothing more than an uneducated reaction to a mind boggling, impossible area.
1
If one were concerned about the refugees, they would not be recommending safe zones inside Syria for the displaced people. A safe zone inside Syria established and protected by the very players who armed and financed the rebellion and terrorists is a provocation for a sovereign nation.
If you wanted refugees safe all the countries neighboring it can provide safe zones like Turkey, Qatar, Jordan. Other countries blowing up money and supplying arms can house the displaced like Kuwait, KSA. In zones in these countries the refugees can be safe til they can return.
evil men/Women, want the safe zone right inside Syria, so that they can thumb nose at the Syrian government, and should the zone be attacked - then the dead refugees can be paraded for propaganda purposes. The bloodier the better.
they want the Syrian blaze to intensify.
If you wanted refugees safe all the countries neighboring it can provide safe zones like Turkey, Qatar, Jordan. Other countries blowing up money and supplying arms can house the displaced like Kuwait, KSA. In zones in these countries the refugees can be safe til they can return.
evil men/Women, want the safe zone right inside Syria, so that they can thumb nose at the Syrian government, and should the zone be attacked - then the dead refugees can be paraded for propaganda purposes. The bloodier the better.
they want the Syrian blaze to intensify.
5
Our intervention in Iraq went so well. How could anything go wrong in Syria ?
65
Iraq? What about Vietnam? On the other hand, the US-led NATO intervention in Afghanistan went quite well, and in the former Yugoslavia very well. As did the US intervention (thank God and also the Soviets) in WW2.
My obvious point is that you have to look at every intervention on its merits, learn from where things went well and where things went badly.
A no-fly zone worked fairly well in northern and southern Iraq to protect the Kurds and the Marsh Arabs respectively. It could also work in Syria.
My obvious point is that you have to look at every intervention on its merits, learn from where things went well and where things went badly.
A no-fly zone worked fairly well in northern and southern Iraq to protect the Kurds and the Marsh Arabs respectively. It could also work in Syria.
2
First, let's not forget that our arming of Saudi Arabia and the theocratic jihaidsts that we chose to call rebels is one reason this slaughter has gone on so long!
We had no business getting involved on ANY LEVEL. Many well nourished young Syrian men roaming Europe demanding that the west free them from Assad while they live in Vienna or Berlin safe from any harm. If the Syrians want to be rid of Assad let them do it! We need to stay out of it.
We had no business getting involved on ANY LEVEL. Many well nourished young Syrian men roaming Europe demanding that the west free them from Assad while they live in Vienna or Berlin safe from any harm. If the Syrians want to be rid of Assad let them do it! We need to stay out of it.
50
Who are the good guys in Syria?? We do not want another Libya or Iraq!!
9
It is not just the Russians who are in Syria, but also the Iranians. What about the Syrian people? Do they get a say? Obviously Assad is merely a puppet of Russia and Iran. Something has to be done to level the playing field in favor of the opposition to Assad and to stop the incessant bombing and war crime like actions of Russia, Iran and Assad. A negotiated agreement sounds great but does that mean going back to the prior status quo where Assad was the dictator in command of all Syria? The situation is not right. I am not advocating putting American troops on the ground but something more than words has to be done.
We enjoy participating in war crimes against Yemeni civilians with little media coverage. We are in no position to accuse anyone else of such crimes without scrutiny of our own behavior.
2
I don't know the details in Yemen but you may be right. But all I am saying is that the Syrian people are getting killed and maimed apparently with a lot of Russian and Iranian help. At a very basic level the Syrian people need help. I am not sure how to do this or if that can even be done in any reasonable way.
Shouldn't this piece by "scholars" have started with: ?
Sadly this is a realistic analysis of the situation today. We did miss a window of opportunity in 2012 to neutralize Assad but even then the outcome was not crystal clear given the different factions in the opposition. But being a "liberal interventionist" I have a hard time to stomach a status quo imposed by Russia. We need to recognize that we've entered a new era of cold war but this time with a foe which is less relevant both militarily and economically.
5
The authors - Steven Simon and Jonathan Stevenson - have totally omitted the role that America's allies play in Syria. The idea of a "no-fly-zone in Syria to protect civilians" from Russian and the regime airstrikes didn't hail from Washington, but Ankara. The Turks have been clamouring for such a "safe haven" in the last three years.
It doesn't need "an American warplane" to enforce it, as it would "risk fire from a Russian-made antiaircraft battery or fighter." Let the Turks ensure the safety of a "no-fly-zone" on its border. The US could let them have a few Iron Dome air defence systems or something similar to shoot down Russian or Syrian bombers.
Indeed, the hawks - liberal or conservative - should distance themselves from a military intervention in Syria, as there are many players involved there, making the outcome of such an action unpredictable. There is a risk of a mission creep at best and a full-blown war with Russia at worst. The US should seek a political solution, supporting allies if necessary, knowing it is in a much more comfortable situation than Russia, which is on its way to get stuck in a quagmire. I don't doubt that Putin is eager to get the US on board, so that Russia doesn't sink further into the abyss.
It doesn't need "an American warplane" to enforce it, as it would "risk fire from a Russian-made antiaircraft battery or fighter." Let the Turks ensure the safety of a "no-fly-zone" on its border. The US could let them have a few Iron Dome air defence systems or something similar to shoot down Russian or Syrian bombers.
Indeed, the hawks - liberal or conservative - should distance themselves from a military intervention in Syria, as there are many players involved there, making the outcome of such an action unpredictable. There is a risk of a mission creep at best and a full-blown war with Russia at worst. The US should seek a political solution, supporting allies if necessary, knowing it is in a much more comfortable situation than Russia, which is on its way to get stuck in a quagmire. I don't doubt that Putin is eager to get the US on board, so that Russia doesn't sink further into the abyss.
25
Iron Dome is ineffective and is not designed to take down a plane.
1
It is difficult for the average guy like me to know what to believe about Syria. The MSM seems to act as a willing pawn that is manipulated by the US government, just parroting the lies and the spin that they are told, and feeding the public only what the politicians and the military wants us to know.
But there are some questions that beg to be asked:
Did the CIA backing of the rebels in Libya to topple Gadaffi end up with Islamist rebels going to Syria? Did the US weapons end up with Isis? Why does Assad have to go? This policy of regime change doesn't seem to be working. What about the oil pipeline that Turkey wanted to cross Syria? Is it playing a role in all this?
But there are some questions that beg to be asked:
Did the CIA backing of the rebels in Libya to topple Gadaffi end up with Islamist rebels going to Syria? Did the US weapons end up with Isis? Why does Assad have to go? This policy of regime change doesn't seem to be working. What about the oil pipeline that Turkey wanted to cross Syria? Is it playing a role in all this?
1
> "Let the Turks ensure the safety of a "no-fly-zone" on its border. The US could let them have a few Iron Dome air defence systems or something similar to shoot down Russian or Syrian bombers"
Sounds like a good idea *on paper*, but Turkey is an untrustworthy ally.
Recep Tayyip Erdoğan is a simple guy who is only interested in 2 things:
1) Furthering the Grip of Islam on the Country of Turkey
2) Relentlessly attacking Kurds
ANY notion that we could hand this off to him, "to handle", is similar to using a couple hundred rattlesnakes to guard a schoolhouse full of children.
Sounds like a good idea *on paper*, but Turkey is an untrustworthy ally.
Recep Tayyip Erdoğan is a simple guy who is only interested in 2 things:
1) Furthering the Grip of Islam on the Country of Turkey
2) Relentlessly attacking Kurds
ANY notion that we could hand this off to him, "to handle", is similar to using a couple hundred rattlesnakes to guard a schoolhouse full of children.
1
Oh what a tanged web we weave when we invaded Iraq to deceive.
After nearly 500,000 deaths, many millions refugees and entire cities blown apart, take of intervention now is like installing smoke detectors after your house burns down. There is nothing left to protect.
The situation in Syria is so dire and hopeless that one could argue that our support of opposition groups to Assad just made the whole affair many times worse. If Assad was able to steamroll over his opponents at the beginning of the uprising, Syria might still be a functioning nation. That's what happened in Egypt. It's a military dictatorship but Egypt has not fallen into chaos.
Syria is chaos on steroids. I'm in no way justifying Assad who undoubtably should be placed on trial for crimes against humanity. But with the exception of Jordan, the entire Arab/Muslim world is run by brutal dictators. (Iraq, which we liberated, isn't run by anyone). The Persian/Muslim world is also run by dictators.
Apparently, our democratic values just don't fit in over there. Maybe we should accept that reality and stop trying to help. We always end up helping the casket makers most of all.
After nearly 500,000 deaths, many millions refugees and entire cities blown apart, take of intervention now is like installing smoke detectors after your house burns down. There is nothing left to protect.
The situation in Syria is so dire and hopeless that one could argue that our support of opposition groups to Assad just made the whole affair many times worse. If Assad was able to steamroll over his opponents at the beginning of the uprising, Syria might still be a functioning nation. That's what happened in Egypt. It's a military dictatorship but Egypt has not fallen into chaos.
Syria is chaos on steroids. I'm in no way justifying Assad who undoubtably should be placed on trial for crimes against humanity. But with the exception of Jordan, the entire Arab/Muslim world is run by brutal dictators. (Iraq, which we liberated, isn't run by anyone). The Persian/Muslim world is also run by dictators.
Apparently, our democratic values just don't fit in over there. Maybe we should accept that reality and stop trying to help. We always end up helping the casket makers most of all.
175
Absolutely! Afghanistan has only known 40 years of stability during Zahir Shah in the 30's. Both sides of that was continual invasions by foreign troops and internal fighting amoung tribes.
It seems only a brutal dictator can keep the peace over there. Sad.
It seems only a brutal dictator can keep the peace over there. Sad.
2
" If Assad was able to steamroll over his opponents at the beginning of the uprising, Syria might still be a functioning nation."
Well... that's certainly food for thought. I guess I can't argue with the premise that if a dictator is able to quickly slaughter all opposition it would lead to a more stable situation. By the same logic, if ISIS was allowed to simply "steamroll" over their opponents, the net bloodshed might be even less. Obviously, Saddam Hussein was a stabilizing force in Iraq and if the cost of that stability is his occasional extermination campaign against disfavored minorities (such as the Kurds), well, that's life. I mean, by definition an ethnic/racial/religious/political minority is comprised of less people than the majority, yeah? Obviously, we don't want anyone to die, but if it comes down to it, the math is clear. Why risk losing, say, 500,000 lives in defense of 100,000?
Well... that's certainly food for thought. I guess I can't argue with the premise that if a dictator is able to quickly slaughter all opposition it would lead to a more stable situation. By the same logic, if ISIS was allowed to simply "steamroll" over their opponents, the net bloodshed might be even less. Obviously, Saddam Hussein was a stabilizing force in Iraq and if the cost of that stability is his occasional extermination campaign against disfavored minorities (such as the Kurds), well, that's life. I mean, by definition an ethnic/racial/religious/political minority is comprised of less people than the majority, yeah? Obviously, we don't want anyone to die, but if it comes down to it, the math is clear. Why risk losing, say, 500,000 lives in defense of 100,000?
> "But with the exception of Jordan, the entire Arab/Muslim world is run by brutal dictators"
REALITY-CHECK: With the exception of King Abdullah II of Jordan
ANY Leader in the middle East who isn't some kind of brutal dictator, will soon be removed and replaced by another one who is
REALITY-CHECK: With the exception of King Abdullah II of Jordan
ANY Leader in the middle East who isn't some kind of brutal dictator, will soon be removed and replaced by another one who is
Neither Russia nor the US can control their clients in Syria; this is no old-style proxy war. I find it hard to believe that Russia would risk a catastrophic conflict over a flyzone - for all of our differences we also share strategic interests elsewhere that neither party will seriously risk. But it seems unlikely to do much good, either, as it would only add new tension and escalate small-scale antagonism. It's clear that no imposed stability will hold in Syria, as in much of the ME - any escalation is a no-win for everyone. It doesn't play well in the headlines, but there's really nowhere sensible to go except in the direction of negotiated political solutions, with full awareness that those are unlikely to succeed in doing anything but limiting what appears to be an inevitable sustained misery for that country. I applaud Kerry's efforts.
Most Americans really do wish that we could "strong-arm" solutions that would ease the terrible suffering of citizens, but we all know how that goes.
It's simplistic, but I think that Americans now believe that in most cases the ME is best left to resolve its own massively complicated problems, even though our previous interventions have created and sustained many of those. And I hate to bring the ever-present election into this discussion, but though I'm not sure that Hillary will resist her most worrisome foreign policy inclinations, the thought of crazy-toddler Trump et alia responding to this situation is absolutely appalling.
Most Americans really do wish that we could "strong-arm" solutions that would ease the terrible suffering of citizens, but we all know how that goes.
It's simplistic, but I think that Americans now believe that in most cases the ME is best left to resolve its own massively complicated problems, even though our previous interventions have created and sustained many of those. And I hate to bring the ever-present election into this discussion, but though I'm not sure that Hillary will resist her most worrisome foreign policy inclinations, the thought of crazy-toddler Trump et alia responding to this situation is absolutely appalling.
41
To be frank, given the US-spurred rush of weapons to the opposition years ago, this so-called civil war was actually an invasion by proxy by the US. It has become yet again another tragically failed neocon pet project. The Pentagon sabotaged the last cease fire with another "mistaken" attack. It is time to end the horrific suffering, the unending streams of drowning refugees, and the very real threat of a third World War, and acquiesce to the inevitable: US out, Assad in.
97
> "To be frank, given the US-spurred rush of weapons to the opposition years ago, this so-called civil war was actually an invasion by proxy by the US. It has become yet again another tragically failed neocon pet project"
IMHO, this isn't one you can pin on the NEOCONs
THIS Misadventure {and Libya too} were delivered by NEO-LIBERALS from the HRC/Susan-Rice/Samatha-Powers/Obama "School" of Magical Thinking
{Of course, the Military-Industrial-Complex never, ever saw a war or conflict that they didn't want somebody else to fund their entry into}
IMHO, this isn't one you can pin on the NEOCONs
THIS Misadventure {and Libya too} were delivered by NEO-LIBERALS from the HRC/Susan-Rice/Samatha-Powers/Obama "School" of Magical Thinking
{Of course, the Military-Industrial-Complex never, ever saw a war or conflict that they didn't want somebody else to fund their entry into}
Thank you for publishing this smart editorial! We need to stop our ongoing process of eliminating dictators and leaving a vacuum to be filled with whatever madmen come along to fill it. We should stop all our military activity in the Mideast and allow the people of the Mideast and their close neighbors to sort it out. Every civilian we kill, by mistake or not, creates hundreds more people who hate us. The people who own and operate this country have as their goal perpetual war for perpetual profits. This is certainly what we will get from the next President Clinton. She will keep the war going for her funders. There is no money in peace.
46
Unfortunately many (including at the NY Times) still think of the U.S. president as some sort of Superman figure who can accomplish anything if he wants to. The U.S. can no more save Syria than Donald Trump can save America.
Russia may ultimately regret its heavy-handed support of the genocidal dictator Bashar al-Assad. But Russia has the power to make the lives of Syrians miserable because Russian dictator Vlad Putin has much power than does any U.S. president (which is why Donald Trump admires Putin so much). Sen. Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire said that Trump was her role model (before she realized this was not a smart thing to do and retracted her statement). Well, Vlad Putin is Donald Trump's role model. And al-Assad has strong allies in Russia and Iran.
In fact, if anything we should be wary of what President Hillary Clinton might try to do in Syria. But the U.S. has NO real allies in the region, either in Europe or in the Middle East. And we cannot do this alone. And even if we wanted to do something, George W. Bush's stupid invasion of Iraq, which has cost us a chance to defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan, has cost us the ability to form alliances.
Meanwhile on Monday and Tuesday this week almost 10,000 refugees were rescued at sea on the Italian coast...as the EU does NOTHING to help countries like Italy and Greece...which protect the EU's southern and eastern borders.
Russia may ultimately regret its heavy-handed support of the genocidal dictator Bashar al-Assad. But Russia has the power to make the lives of Syrians miserable because Russian dictator Vlad Putin has much power than does any U.S. president (which is why Donald Trump admires Putin so much). Sen. Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire said that Trump was her role model (before she realized this was not a smart thing to do and retracted her statement). Well, Vlad Putin is Donald Trump's role model. And al-Assad has strong allies in Russia and Iran.
In fact, if anything we should be wary of what President Hillary Clinton might try to do in Syria. But the U.S. has NO real allies in the region, either in Europe or in the Middle East. And we cannot do this alone. And even if we wanted to do something, George W. Bush's stupid invasion of Iraq, which has cost us a chance to defeat the Taliban in Afghanistan, has cost us the ability to form alliances.
Meanwhile on Monday and Tuesday this week almost 10,000 refugees were rescued at sea on the Italian coast...as the EU does NOTHING to help countries like Italy and Greece...which protect the EU's southern and eastern borders.
132
Dictator Putin? Its not just laughable , but irresponsible to say Russia is a dictatorship, Ive studied dictatorships, and live in Moscow and have yet to witness the fear I saw and felt in most US cities. We agree that fear is the fabric of a dictatorship, yes? If so, than the US is a dictatorship .Holding more prisoners than Stalin did, holding less hope than Russia , less unity, the hegemon is like a frantic drug addict who has destroyed his neighborhood and many other neighborhoods, now age has talen over the infantile mind. The infantile mind of America is jubilant if you agree with him, but deadly if you disagree.
The smiles and laughs I saw this morning on the metro--- ballerinas, businessmen, babushki and students said that there is no fear here, not from Putin anyway. The boy empire would do best to read of Napolean and Hitler before attempting to attempt regime change here. Start in DC first.
The smiles and laughs I saw this morning on the metro--- ballerinas, businessmen, babushki and students said that there is no fear here, not from Putin anyway. The boy empire would do best to read of Napolean and Hitler before attempting to attempt regime change here. Start in DC first.
2
Clearly Putin's troll factory workers are at work again, with a surprise twist. Richard L. Wilson does not pretend to be in the U.S. Dictatorship stars with control of the press, something Putin has largely accomplished in Russia.
3
Conservative criticism of the President, like Pence's, has little or no value; they may have done as good a job with Syria, but more likely a worse one. American risk aversion after Iraq and Afghanistan is of course a major factor, as is the White House's tendency to view the world through a Washington-centered political lens (in large part a Republican contribution). The military-diplomatic strategy at this stage should be simple, that is if left unhindered by politics. Demand an end to the use of air power (prospectively including anti-aircraft missiles) by Assad and Putin, then enforce it by shooting down violators and any active (in use) ground threats to American jets. The imminent threat of this action may produce results, but more likely there will some escalation (and much sonorous chest pounding) to test American resolve. After that negotiations are by far the most likely outcome. But this is all hypothetical. This more aggressive path is unlikely to be taken during an American election, something of which Putin and Assad are well aware.
President Obama has saved us from ourselves, over these past eight years. The natural inclination of the U.S. is over-reaction, jumping into situations based on pure emotion. As if war is a sporting event. God help us if we had mistakenly elected John McCain, a man who has never met a crisis that our armed forces couldn't solve.
We should all be concerned that Obama's steady hand will no longer be at the helm.
We should all be concerned that Obama's steady hand will no longer be at the helm.
334
Yes but Obama endorsed Hillary, the hawk as his successor.
He could have chosen Sanders, a reasonable steady hand who, during the primary gave voice to our concerns of an even greater enemy lurking in the shadows, North Korea.
He chose a hawk as his successor because he is, love him, only interested in being liked by his friends and enemies.
He could have chosen Sanders, a reasonable steady hand who, during the primary gave voice to our concerns of an even greater enemy lurking in the shadows, North Korea.
He chose a hawk as his successor because he is, love him, only interested in being liked by his friends and enemies.
7
Um, Obama has floated the idea (as reported in the NYT) of directly arming Syrian Kurds.
Brilliant, wouldn't you agree? It worked so well for us with the Mujahideen....
Brilliant, wouldn't you agree? It worked so well for us with the Mujahideen....
"The natural inclination of the U.S. is over-reaction"
How can you overreact to one of the worst humanitarian crises in recent years?
If anything, what is happening in Aleppo and other parts of Syria isn't sparking the outrage it should here.
I will be sad when Obama leaves office too, for reasons other than his Syria policy, but this Obama-can-do-no-wrong (he saved us from ourselves, really?) sentiment is disgusting.
How can you overreact to one of the worst humanitarian crises in recent years?
If anything, what is happening in Aleppo and other parts of Syria isn't sparking the outrage it should here.
I will be sad when Obama leaves office too, for reasons other than his Syria policy, but this Obama-can-do-no-wrong (he saved us from ourselves, really?) sentiment is disgusting.
I can't help but remember Romney's statement in the presidential debate that Russia was our biggest concern and how Obama told him he was stuck in 1980s diplomacy.
Obama owes Romney an apology.
Obama owes Romney an apology.
6
@NYHUGUENOT
Not really. This is really about the Mideast, not directly about Russian.
Not really. This is really about the Mideast, not directly about Russian.
1
I agree having served in Vietnam, our last big proxy war with the then old Soviet Union during the Cold War, where we nearly sleepwalked to the edge of the abyss and almost caused a Third World War. And as the authors of this op-ed have noted, the window of opportunity for us to engage in a forceful and robust intervention in the Syrian civil war closed when we agreed with Russia's brokered diplomatic coup which forced President Bashar al-Assad to destroy his country's stockpile of chemical weapons. And an American no-fly zone would only pour more kerosene on the fire and then we would be facing once again a Vietnam-like escalation. So whatever one may think about how President Barack Obama has handled the Syrian civil war, he has avoided yet another ill-conceived and poorly prosecuted war in the Greater Middle East such as our military blunders in Afghanistan and Iraq that he inherited from GWB. There is simply at this point in the historical narrative only for us to try once again for a third ceasefire in Geneva for a political resolution.
191
Agree but why did his administration support the fractions opposing Assad with munitions as well as engaging in the constant bombings.
3
Very realistic analysis of a complicated political and deteriorating humanitarian situation by Mr.Simon. Both neocon style military intervention as in Iraq and the liberal hawk's style of fomenting civil unrest have been abysmal failures. The highly tempting objective of fostering secular democratic institutions has produced the opposite result of political anarchy and increased Islamic militancy. In an attempt to portray themselves as strong leaders to buttress their electoral fortunes, the VP candidates have mindlessly advocated increased American military involvement. This is an extremely short sighted strategy with dangerous long term implications for America. America's involvement should be purely humanitarian. Having helped foment this unrest in Syria under misguided principles of ushering democracy by regime change this is our moral responsibility. The so called secular and democratic oriented rebels by the admission of our own military are a minuscule, almost faceless faction in the complex civil war. Meanwhile Syria's ancient Christian, Yazidis, Druze, and Kurdish minorities have suffered disproportionately in the ugly violence. The autocratic Assad regime had offered them protection and tolerance even if in a dictatorial political climate. It is high time America's militarists of all persuasions learn some lessons and keep out from this type of political meddling. The nation simply cannot afford so many costly wars.
30
What a great article - finally, someone stands up and tells the truth without political or military bias. We've alienated the world with our aggression. The errant bombing which killed Syrian soldiers is one of hundreds we've initiated with other Allied forces in killing innocent civilians. We can't continue to justify such action by stating it's 'keeping America safe' - that excuse is not believable....it's propagated by the military and hawks, like McCain, in Congress. Syria's been a Russian pawn for decades and all of sudden, we're so worried about the Assad regime? John Kerry couldn't negotiate his way out of a paper bag - he's been an embarrassment to our Country. We've been supporting corrupt regimes in Iraq, Afghanistan and now Syria in the hopes of maintaining our 'influence' in the region. We don't belong there and never have - we shouldn't take sides with any of those groups as they may one day turn on us. Thank you for the opinion!
35
Here we go
Obama's administration is COWARDLY abdicating its responsibility towards the Genocide in Syria
Obama's administration is COWARDLY abdicating its responsibility towards the Genocide in Syria
1
But you need not. Please travel to Turkey and join up with the Kurds and cross over into Syria to fight. You can then put your life where your keyboard is and be a true hero.
17
war is not always genocide and our first responsibility it to ourselves and our country. Go there and fight yourself or have your children or nieces and nephews go there and fight. The rest of us want to keep our families safe.
4
The only genocide that is going to happen in Syria is when ISIS/Al Queda ( with our help ) overthrow Assad and every non-Muslim in Syria is killed. Remind me why it is our job to make that happen.
"Regime change" has worked so well to here. Let's keep doing that.
"Regime change" has worked so well to here. Let's keep doing that.
2
Last night I watched the Vietnam era film BORN ON THE FOURTH OF JULY, in which Tom Cruise portray's veteran Ron Kovic. At the time of the film's story I was a college student at Columbia and later a faculty member at the University of California Berkeley. It brought back memories, because these were the two locations where the protests against the war were most extreme.
The film gives a really accurate depiction of the conflicts within families over support for the war (my family divided on the war in a way that was a lot like the Kovic family). Oliver Stone deserves praise for producing and co-writing (with Kovic).
The correct spelling of 'Syria' is V-I-E-T-N-A-M.
To see what we should do instead watch Comedy Party Platform on YouTube (2 min 9 sec). Thanks. [email protected]
The film gives a really accurate depiction of the conflicts within families over support for the war (my family divided on the war in a way that was a lot like the Kovic family). Oliver Stone deserves praise for producing and co-writing (with Kovic).
The correct spelling of 'Syria' is V-I-E-T-N-A-M.
To see what we should do instead watch Comedy Party Platform on YouTube (2 min 9 sec). Thanks. [email protected]
15
The US is perhaps rightly advised by the op-ed that except for confining to extending support to the anti-ISIS campaign, humanitarian assistance to the war trapped civilians, and keeping the window open for the negotiated settlement of the Syrian crisis, it should avoid further involvement in Syria. For, save of its military base in Turkey or concerns for the Kurds the US has no other major geopolitical stakes in Syria comparable to Russia that has military and intelligence assets in Syria and the compulsion of protecting the Assad regime, perhaps for the same reason. Even here too Russia is finding its military involvement unsustainable and costly in the long term hence the frequent truce offers to the US ending as the broken promises. The US should thus avoid being dragged into the quagmire Syria has turned into.
19
"Even here too Russia is finding its military involvement unsustainable and costly in the long term hence the frequent truce offers to the US ending as the broken promises. "
confusing sir... The US and european allies stoked this war armend the rebels directly and through proxies. No one dragged them - they dragged themselves there to oust assad.
Its not going their way - the rebels they armed are cannibals and fanatic jihadis and frankly embarassing.
Russia is protecting its interests whereas american is merely playing out its cold war games and hoping it can be done by bluster or on the cheap.
Meanwhile people are getting slaughtered in the grind.
confusing sir... The US and european allies stoked this war armend the rebels directly and through proxies. No one dragged them - they dragged themselves there to oust assad.
Its not going their way - the rebels they armed are cannibals and fanatic jihadis and frankly embarassing.
Russia is protecting its interests whereas american is merely playing out its cold war games and hoping it can be done by bluster or on the cheap.
Meanwhile people are getting slaughtered in the grind.
3
In a way you are right.
Life is not fair (says an Irishman who knows about Cromwell and the Famine). But the Pollyannas among us, and the shameless opportunistic politicians, go on demanding: do something. Pence was short on detail when asked about a proposed safe-zone. He implied that the people of Aleppo would trek there. He suggested briefly that US ground troops would be needed to cover that trek. How many troops? Of course he didn't say. I think Gen. Shinseki's answer regarding a post-invasion force to hold Iraq was in the ball-park for this Syrian mission: several hundred thousand. Not to mention those consequently needed in Ukraine, Poland, and the Baltics.
Bush invaded Iraq unjustly. Bremer dismissed the Iraqi generals willing to work with America thus driving them into insurgency and later, driving some of them into ISIS. Bush signed the time-table for American withdrawal. Those who blame Obama for not "leaving" troops in Iraq are short on truth. For Obama to override the will of the Iraqi Assembly would have been an act of war requiring several hundred thousand US troops.
Of course, we wish life were fair. I wish we could strike Assad and Putin without causing Russian generals to go berserk in Ukraine, Poland, and the Baltics.
Bush invaded Iraq unjustly. Bremer dismissed the Iraqi generals willing to work with America thus driving them into insurgency and later, driving some of them into ISIS. Bush signed the time-table for American withdrawal. Those who blame Obama for not "leaving" troops in Iraq are short on truth. For Obama to override the will of the Iraqi Assembly would have been an act of war requiring several hundred thousand US troops.
Of course, we wish life were fair. I wish we could strike Assad and Putin without causing Russian generals to go berserk in Ukraine, Poland, and the Baltics.
172
I am so tired of hearing Mr. McCain, standing in front of the microphone, pontificating about how this President fails to have a plan or the will to intervene in Syria. Mr. McCain, do you have the will to tell the American people that the cost of involvement in Syria will be (a) hundreds, if not thousands of young American lives, (b) years, if not decades, of American occupation in Syria, (c) millions, if not billions, of dollars to sustain such an operation, and (d) no guarantee, that any of these human, monetary and political sacrifices will achieve a positive outcome. Until, Mr. McCain, and any other politician who desires to send us deeper into this Syrian conflict, can be honest with the American people about the ultimate cost that must be made, it is just grandstanding. We don’t want your dangerous rhetoric. We want your detailed Syrian intervention plan (what would you specifically do) and then, the cost!
294
Et Hillary, you say?
And that is why Mr. McCain lost.
1
The US regime blathers on and on about dubious " warcrimes" in Syria by Assad and the regime and the MSM are silent about the real warcrimes by Riyadh in Yemen, ny DC in its own country.
7
Actually, US media covers problems like police violence constantly and often in depth, as well as US controversies abroad - you're in Moscow, perhaps you aren't aware of that.
Why we men will not accept the fact that war will never result in anything, but failure, speaks of a denial which is more peculiar to our sex than that of women.
If we carried and brought life into our world we might be less disposed to destroy other human beings and the support systems which sustain them.
As it is and has been for millennia we men are frightened, annoyed and frustrated by our hesitation to reasonably deal with the thought, let alone the reality, of mortality.
Why we deny our death is not hard to understand, but why we refuse to accept it speaks to an unreasonable intransigence more peculiar to men than women
We devised and hold religious belief and practice as a means of controlling the fear of and defense against the reality of mortality and for millennia this practice has allowed us to justifiably kill others by resorting to a power that resides as incomplete in our minds. There is no justification for considering the thought of taking another's life
If we purport to be in any way enlightened we will not, for any excuse, engage in activities which destroy lives and property. While all nations can deny support to groups and organizations which exist as or are in support of terrorism it would mean a cooperation which thanks to male ignorance and greed is unlikely.
An appeal to reason is frustrating when it is denied entrance to the conversation, but as pointed out, unless it is constantly reintroduced minds will never have the chance to succeed.
If we carried and brought life into our world we might be less disposed to destroy other human beings and the support systems which sustain them.
As it is and has been for millennia we men are frightened, annoyed and frustrated by our hesitation to reasonably deal with the thought, let alone the reality, of mortality.
Why we deny our death is not hard to understand, but why we refuse to accept it speaks to an unreasonable intransigence more peculiar to men than women
We devised and hold religious belief and practice as a means of controlling the fear of and defense against the reality of mortality and for millennia this practice has allowed us to justifiably kill others by resorting to a power that resides as incomplete in our minds. There is no justification for considering the thought of taking another's life
If we purport to be in any way enlightened we will not, for any excuse, engage in activities which destroy lives and property. While all nations can deny support to groups and organizations which exist as or are in support of terrorism it would mean a cooperation which thanks to male ignorance and greed is unlikely.
An appeal to reason is frustrating when it is denied entrance to the conversation, but as pointed out, unless it is constantly reintroduced minds will never have the chance to succeed.
6
"...it is clear that Moscow considers Mr. Assad’s survival crucial to protecting its interests in Syria..." So, take out Assad.
3
U took out Gaddafi - and you cannot even afford to have an embassy there now. We came we saw .. he died cackles the former secretary of state.
4
Take out Assad? Been there,done that in Iraq. Saddam gone early in the war and Iraq is still reeling from death & destruction and costing American taxpayers after all these years.
7
Finally a reasonable and measured op-ed in the NYTimes advocating for a non-interventionist approach to the Syria conflict.
Bravo and about time.
But today's paper also features a column by Mr.Kristof, full of the typical talking points of liberal interventionists, yet without the slightest acknowledgement that it was the US's desire for regime change that got Syria into the mess it is today in the first place.
Both opinion pieces also fail to mention the two competing pipelines put forward by Qatar and Iran, aimed to transport gas to Europe through Syria, or the US war state's ongoing determination to hold onto its military posture in the region.
And until we have a real honest conversation about the multiple facets, motivations and consequences of this war, everybody looses - except the many war profiteers. mostly in the US, the world's biggest arms dealer by far.
People dying left and right, but it's just business as usual.
Bravo and about time.
But today's paper also features a column by Mr.Kristof, full of the typical talking points of liberal interventionists, yet without the slightest acknowledgement that it was the US's desire for regime change that got Syria into the mess it is today in the first place.
Both opinion pieces also fail to mention the two competing pipelines put forward by Qatar and Iran, aimed to transport gas to Europe through Syria, or the US war state's ongoing determination to hold onto its military posture in the region.
And until we have a real honest conversation about the multiple facets, motivations and consequences of this war, everybody looses - except the many war profiteers. mostly in the US, the world's biggest arms dealer by far.
People dying left and right, but it's just business as usual.
70
Agreed. No sense in adding fuel to that fire.
8
The authors make a convincing argument that confrontation with Russia is a serious problem when considering implementation of conventional military operations in Syria. Considering the war crimes committed by the Syrian government, should we reconsider some basic policy tenets and make intervention personal?
Could the US military attack President Assad personally? Cruise misses, drones, etc. targeted at personal, as well as military assets might be the only negotiating tool left to prevent continued genocide. It's a very dangerous line to cross, but if not now, when?
Could the US military attack President Assad personally? Cruise misses, drones, etc. targeted at personal, as well as military assets might be the only negotiating tool left to prevent continued genocide. It's a very dangerous line to cross, but if not now, when?
2
I think we've all had enough of the notion that knocking off other nation's dictators works out well for anyone. Consider the consequences. And note that ISIS, as well as any number of other players there, love a vacuum.
4
Then you might get a libya where millions was invested and you cannot even think of having an embassy. Lots of guys happy to pott americans.
Going after Assad personally does not have to mean assassination, which I agree may result in Libya-like consequences. Could we destroy palaces of Assad and other symbols of power on an escalating basis as a negotiating tool? Make it personal.
The idea that Russia and the US have the power to create a cease fire in Syria is delusional. The US has absolutely no idea how to govern territories like Syria, Iraq and Libya. No idea. Russia certainly has a better understanding of how to handle this kind of radical cultural clash, and unfortunately it isn't compatible with the grand delusional vision the US leaders have for the world.
Sorry people, but we live in a happy bubble compared to the rest of the world, and forcing our values upon other societies has never worked and it never will work.
Calling for the eventual departure of Assad is not a clear policy, rather it is an idea. Maybe this kind of thing sounds good to people living in a bubble, but I don't see any connection to reality in this idea.
Sorry people, but we live in a happy bubble compared to the rest of the world, and forcing our values upon other societies has never worked and it never will work.
Calling for the eventual departure of Assad is not a clear policy, rather it is an idea. Maybe this kind of thing sounds good to people living in a bubble, but I don't see any connection to reality in this idea.
131
The question arises who would replace Assad if he was deposed? Syria has degenerated into a Hobbesian "war of all against all, in which life is solitary, nasty, brutish and short." If Mr. Putin has a better understanding of how to govern Syria and repair the damage caused by the civil war, why not grant Russia a U.N. Mandate over Syria, just as the League of Nations granted a similar Mandate to the United Kingdom over the Middle-East? What can possibly go wrong?
1
> "The idea that Russia and the US have the power to create a cease fire in Syria is delusional. The US has absolutely no idea how to govern territories like Syria, Iraq and Libya"
REALITY-CHECK: The US absolutely *COULD* do this, and do it well.
Hand the task to a well funded US Military Operation, and they *COULD* perform this task brilliantly, as we did in Japan & Germany after WWII
BUT, such an operation
*would never be funded adequately
*would be saddled with endless madness from Social Engineers from the HRC/Rice/Powers school of 'magical thinking'
* would never be able to completely replace Political-Correctness with sensible pragmatism
* * * *
BASELINES
* One language Everywhere, English, the defacto International language that will help them assimilate and enter the modern world
* Schooling on a massive scale for everybody, and for those qualified, employ them as teachers
* Find/Make meaningful Productive work for anybody capable who wants it, and almost everyone will
* Single, Unified Command Structure, no separate, individual country-specific operations, EVERYONE in NATO already speaks English
* Biometric Identification System, people begin to establish some type of system where genuine background checks are possible
* Single Paymaster
* CONTROVERIAL= NO CHURCHs anywhere, people are free to worship on their own as they see fit, but when Organized Religion gets into the mix, only bad things will arise, a very big Christianity-vs-Islam war will arise on some level
REALITY-CHECK: The US absolutely *COULD* do this, and do it well.
Hand the task to a well funded US Military Operation, and they *COULD* perform this task brilliantly, as we did in Japan & Germany after WWII
BUT, such an operation
*would never be funded adequately
*would be saddled with endless madness from Social Engineers from the HRC/Rice/Powers school of 'magical thinking'
* would never be able to completely replace Political-Correctness with sensible pragmatism
* * * *
BASELINES
* One language Everywhere, English, the defacto International language that will help them assimilate and enter the modern world
* Schooling on a massive scale for everybody, and for those qualified, employ them as teachers
* Find/Make meaningful Productive work for anybody capable who wants it, and almost everyone will
* Single, Unified Command Structure, no separate, individual country-specific operations, EVERYONE in NATO already speaks English
* Biometric Identification System, people begin to establish some type of system where genuine background checks are possible
* Single Paymaster
* CONTROVERIAL= NO CHURCHs anywhere, people are free to worship on their own as they see fit, but when Organized Religion gets into the mix, only bad things will arise, a very big Christianity-vs-Islam war will arise on some level
Russia's understanding of how to handle a cultural clash is brutal repression. In their eyes, Assad is not brutal enough, else the civil war would have been snuffed out long ago.
It's pretty easy to be a strong "leader" when you're able to get away with brutalizing them.
It's pretty easy to be a strong "leader" when you're able to get away with brutalizing them.
I dont see any consideration given here to targeted airstrikes on government buildings and military installations in Damascus, perhaps killing Assad and other leaders of the government, and rendering warmaking command and control somewhere between difficult and impossible.
1
A no fly zone iosed by Moscow now!
I fully agree, there is no reason to get involved any further in Syria. Thought the years and years of pointless killing, the only clear lesson from Syria is that there is no military success to be had there. Too many have sacrificed too much to back down now. At best, we would contribute to the death and destruction. Is that a good reason to take on more debt?
49
Dribbling support to the Syrian "rebels" would simply prolong the m isery ihdefinietly. Better that one side win descively--here, Russia, to close off the conflict and began rebuilding, than to arm the other side to simply protract the struggle (and flow of refugees).
It is indeed too late to try to create a no fly zone .What if US plane got shot down by russian missile ?Russia already warned that “If the US starts a direct aggression against Damascus and the Syrian army, this will lead to scary, tectonic shifts not only on the territory of Syria, but in the whole region as well.”. But US could stop bombing ISIS. Why aid the russians and Iranians with strikes against isis ? I do not understand. In the 80s US helped the jihadists and that has led to the Russian withdrawal from Afghanistan. Why US is attacking those jihadists now ? Of course ISIS is infamous but a complete victory of Russia and Iran in Syria, is quite dangerous also. There are no good options.Maybe best policy is do nothing,stay neutral, and reassure US allies in the region of the american commitement to their security,if necessary deploying troops to saudi arabia .
Why do you need a no-fly safe zone in Syria. If you care about the refugees they are perfectly safe in Qatar, Turkey KSA - the syrian government isnt bombing these countries surely? Why set up a provocation for the Syrian government by denying its own air space to them if the only concern is protection of the displaced? To the displaced does it matter whether they are on Syrian soil or Turkish soil?
To my mind those who argue for a no-fly zone inside Syria are war mongers... and the dead refugees from syrian resistance to a no-fly zone provocation is welcome propaganda. A chance/excuse to escalate and murder the populace under government control area. They are indeed evil.
To my mind those who argue for a no-fly zone inside Syria are war mongers... and the dead refugees from syrian resistance to a no-fly zone provocation is welcome propaganda. A chance/excuse to escalate and murder the populace under government control area. They are indeed evil.
1
What's so wrong about a direct confrontation with Russia. The only thing Putin will understand and respect is someone who he fears. Would it be a huge risk to unilaterally impose a no-fly zone over Syria? You bet. Would the world (UN) object to such a brazen / lawless action? You bet. Should we care? Not a bit. Ditto for Putin. If the US doesn't have the will to depose Assad, we should summon the greater wisdom to neuter him, and let his Arab enemies contain him on the ground as we and they jointly finish off ISIL. Absent foreign arms and support the Syrians themselves will finish off Assad. Shut down his airport and impose an arms embargo, then watch what happens. Of course, none of this will happen while we have a "Lawyer-in-Chief" in charge of our foreign policy. Shame on Obama.
24
So Rob, you are joining the armed forces ASAP, eh?
8
Are you prepared to put your life or your child's life on the line to depose Assad? After four combat deployments it is time for mine and all others to exit the Middle East. Time for Sunni and Shia to settle their own wars. Obama has dramatically change the direction of our involvement and I pray that Hillary continues the disengagement.
3
Have you considered that cost to the US in blood and treasure? I guess not as you would not have posted this comment straight from la-la land.
As this point the majority of Americans don't want the US to intervene in Syria. It is one of those conflicts that, based on past unsuccessful interventions, the US should stay away from.
It is not in our interest to intervene in Syria. We have no stake in Syria. Look at what our failure in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost us? We are still there with no plausible exit anywhere in sight. And now it looks as if we have to clean up Hillary Clinton's mess in Libya.
No matter how awful a dictator may seems, he is often better than what happens after a US intervention. We lost in Vietnam and are currently losing in the Middle East when our ego sucks us into the whirlpool. We need to learn to stay home for a change.
As this point the majority of Americans don't want the US to intervene in Syria. It is one of those conflicts that, based on past unsuccessful interventions, the US should stay away from.
It is not in our interest to intervene in Syria. We have no stake in Syria. Look at what our failure in Iraq and Afghanistan have cost us? We are still there with no plausible exit anywhere in sight. And now it looks as if we have to clean up Hillary Clinton's mess in Libya.
No matter how awful a dictator may seems, he is often better than what happens after a US intervention. We lost in Vietnam and are currently losing in the Middle East when our ego sucks us into the whirlpool. We need to learn to stay home for a change.
1
"There are probably limits to Moscow’s deference to Mr. Assad’s blood lust, but it is unclear what they are. "
Really?
There is no evidence or reason to believe Putin has any limits at all now.
Ok. So it's too late for a no fly zone.
Putin continues his strategy of flooding Eurooe with refugees.
Sounds like a plan.
Really?
There is no evidence or reason to believe Putin has any limits at all now.
Ok. So it's too late for a no fly zone.
Putin continues his strategy of flooding Eurooe with refugees.
Sounds like a plan.
1
Dear Messrs. Simon and Stevenson:
Can you kindly explain your reasoning in a way that can be understood by the children of Aleppo please?
Can you kindly explain your reasoning in a way that can be understood by the children of Aleppo please?
2
That's a cheap shot. Can you explain you plan - the one that would save the children of Aleppo? We all find it excruciating. The difficulty at this point lies in the miserable outcome likely to ensue if we imagine that more military aggression will actually make anything better.
13
Yes they should request the freedom fighters to leave and bring democracy to Saudi Arabia first .. OK?
1
Syria-ously?
Not again! Our country has to stay out of civil wars. Imagine how our history and that of the world would have been different had Great Britain weighed in on the side of the South!
Chevy
South Hadley, MA
.
Not again! Our country has to stay out of civil wars. Imagine how our history and that of the world would have been different had Great Britain weighed in on the side of the South!
Chevy
South Hadley, MA
.
15
That's such a very good point. Americans are currently violently outraged at the thought that Russia would make small, nonviolent efforts to sway a US election, as they should be. It's odd that we fail to understand the reaction of citizens of other nations when they encounter our ever-"helpful" involvement in their affairs. Impossible for any given side to refuse the help, inevitable that intrusion beyond that acceptance is felt as utterly unacceptable. See, "Why do they hate us?".
Our Country would not exist if it were not for France helping us to fight the British during independence war.
1
"The trouble began when an errant American airstrike killed some 60 government soldiers"
The trouble with the ceasefire began before that, but there is no point in picking this op-ed apart sentence by sentence, which can be done.
It all boils down to two points relating to the position and status of the US as a superpower, in fact the world's only one: 1. The lack of deterrence. Mr. Putin and Mr. Assad have carte-blanche. They can do whatever they want and they know that the US will not react beyond words and will take no action. Not much to say for one's superpower status here. 2. The world looks around and asks, is the US a dependable ally, or dependable at all? Re Syria, the answer is clear and it is no. The US might make promises and might have red lines, but one cannot depend upon it to act. This would be the logical conclusion that allies and friends would draw. Does the US really have their backs? Perhaps, but perhaps not.
So what action should be taken? Trying again to arrange a cease-fire with the Russians would hardly seem to be the correct answer.
The trouble with the ceasefire began before that, but there is no point in picking this op-ed apart sentence by sentence, which can be done.
It all boils down to two points relating to the position and status of the US as a superpower, in fact the world's only one: 1. The lack of deterrence. Mr. Putin and Mr. Assad have carte-blanche. They can do whatever they want and they know that the US will not react beyond words and will take no action. Not much to say for one's superpower status here. 2. The world looks around and asks, is the US a dependable ally, or dependable at all? Re Syria, the answer is clear and it is no. The US might make promises and might have red lines, but one cannot depend upon it to act. This would be the logical conclusion that allies and friends would draw. Does the US really have their backs? Perhaps, but perhaps not.
So what action should be taken? Trying again to arrange a cease-fire with the Russians would hardly seem to be the correct answer.
2
The truth is that non-intervention should have been our policy from Day One. George Washington denounced foreign entanglements, and John Q. Adams tried to remind future Americans to avoid reaching out to destroy foreign monsters. Lesser - significantly lesser - Presidents ignored these warnings, wrongly and stupidly believing they were more "enlightened".
The American "Progressive" movement has always demanded that Americans go off to mercilessly punish everyone else in the world, in order to make the world better for Americans. American guns and bombs and bullets are used to slaughter foreigners, in order to bring the "light" of our country to "enhance" their lives.
No more foreign "aid". No more sending Americans out to kill. Make. It. Stop.
The American "Progressive" movement has always demanded that Americans go off to mercilessly punish everyone else in the world, in order to make the world better for Americans. American guns and bombs and bullets are used to slaughter foreigners, in order to bring the "light" of our country to "enhance" their lives.
No more foreign "aid". No more sending Americans out to kill. Make. It. Stop.
6
Militarism of that sort is not a Progressive position - it's a "liberal" neocon one.
2
US position to 'intervene' or 'not to intervene' in Syria is quite questionable as US special forces are already there. Sometimes; they join hands with Assad/Russia to 'wipe out' Da'esh. Kerry had very warm relations with Lavrov as they both tried in the name of peace to 'finish off' the opposition in Aleppo and Russia got away with this barbarity using chemical weapons on schools and hospitals. Recently; US/Kerry parted away from Russia when Assad/Russia violated Aleppo ceasefire from the beginning. In sheer frustration; US bombed a Syrian position killing 60 Syrian Army personnel. In retaliatory measure; Assad/Russia bombed UN humanitarian aid convoy killing scores of relief workers.
Syrian conflict started in 2001 when Syrian folks getting inspiration from Obama's Cairo speech in 2009, Syrian were also 'rejuvenated' from Egypt and Tunisia citizens' movements to get rid of Hosni Mubarik and Ben Ali.
US stabbed FSA in the back by stopping small weapons supplies to FSA in 2002-2003 when they were about to ouster Assad. Then Iran and Russia 'jumped in' more forcefully with military personnel and tactical/strategic support for Assad. FSA was defeated and this lead to the phenomenal rise of dreadful Da'esh. Obama's crossing 'redline' rhetoric proved to be a 'sham' for Syrian folks....
Syrian conflict started in 2001 when Syrian folks getting inspiration from Obama's Cairo speech in 2009, Syrian were also 'rejuvenated' from Egypt and Tunisia citizens' movements to get rid of Hosni Mubarik and Ben Ali.
US stabbed FSA in the back by stopping small weapons supplies to FSA in 2002-2003 when they were about to ouster Assad. Then Iran and Russia 'jumped in' more forcefully with military personnel and tactical/strategic support for Assad. FSA was defeated and this lead to the phenomenal rise of dreadful Da'esh. Obama's crossing 'redline' rhetoric proved to be a 'sham' for Syrian folks....
2
...US has lost its credibility in Syria/'middle east' and it shouldn't intervene. 'Hats off' to Syrian folks for their heroic effort to topple one of the worst despot, Assad the butcher of Damascus, in modern history. Shame on Russia/Iran/Assad to kill innocent civilians (more than one million). And intellectual dishonesty of conscientious folks in the 'west', who defend Assad knowing the fact he has committed genocide of Syrian folks with absolute impunity, is despicable!!!
1
John McCain said two years ago that if the US delayed taking action in
Syria that the costs of inaction would only grow higher, and they have. By backing down on the red line and failing to create a no fly zone, and by delaying arming the Kurds and the FSA when those moves would have been decisive together, the US all but invited Russian direct intervention and the US backed off removal of Assad as dictator for life in Syria. Now with a strong Russian presence and by taking boots on the ground off of the table, the US has no options for either regime change or for peace on any terms but those imposed by Russia, Hezbollah and Assad. The current policy of continued 'engagement' to try to reach a political solution, whatever that is, is a sad, cynical way of saying that the US is going to be in the chorus on the wings, watching others implement their policies and achieve their ends to the terrible cost of the Syrian people, to US Allies in the region, and to the reputation of the US.
Syria that the costs of inaction would only grow higher, and they have. By backing down on the red line and failing to create a no fly zone, and by delaying arming the Kurds and the FSA when those moves would have been decisive together, the US all but invited Russian direct intervention and the US backed off removal of Assad as dictator for life in Syria. Now with a strong Russian presence and by taking boots on the ground off of the table, the US has no options for either regime change or for peace on any terms but those imposed by Russia, Hezbollah and Assad. The current policy of continued 'engagement' to try to reach a political solution, whatever that is, is a sad, cynical way of saying that the US is going to be in the chorus on the wings, watching others implement their policies and achieve their ends to the terrible cost of the Syrian people, to US Allies in the region, and to the reputation of the US.
3
John McCain has said so much on so many things, it's likely he'll be right once in a while. He was bitterly against inaction on global warming following the re-election of Bush, but then he changed his tune. On Syria, he didn't know what he was talking about--the complexity of the peoples of that area and, indeed, international law.
14
Easy to insist that a course not taken would have had a better outcome. I very deeply doubt it.
6
Thank you for this well-considered piece against military involvement in Syria. I believe it would only make the humanitarian crisis worse and more prolonged.
63
"While Russia's real appetite for a political solution in the Syria conflict is unclear, it is wiser to test unknown political limits than unknown military ones."
This is the heartbreaking reality; we cannot do more militarily without risking even greater catastrophe for civilians--indeed everyone-- than we have so far. We can fight politically for safe zones for civilians, try to provide aid, but just because we are frustrated and horrified does not mean we will be effective with more bombing or troops on the ground.
President Obama is not feckless; he is deeply, deeply heartbroken (and angry) about Syria, and also very wise in his analysis of this disastrous situation, and our choices.
Thank-you for this intelligent, well written piece.
This is the heartbreaking reality; we cannot do more militarily without risking even greater catastrophe for civilians--indeed everyone-- than we have so far. We can fight politically for safe zones for civilians, try to provide aid, but just because we are frustrated and horrified does not mean we will be effective with more bombing or troops on the ground.
President Obama is not feckless; he is deeply, deeply heartbroken (and angry) about Syria, and also very wise in his analysis of this disastrous situation, and our choices.
Thank-you for this intelligent, well written piece.
63
Clearly, President Obama has no intention of materially intervening in Syria. Just as clearly, his administration is washing its hands of Syria as Mr. Obama heads to 20 January 2017 and retirement from power.
That means that so long as Russia is committed to supporting Assad, any solution in Syria likely is years off, many millions more of dead and displaced, and a final outcome that sees Assad ruling most if not all of Syria. This became pretty inevitable with a president’s unwillingness to send missiles to back up a red-line proclamation and Vladimir Putin’s consequent conclusion that the U.S. is a paper tiger, ripe for embarrassment.
The lesson for ALL global strong-men and buccaneers is make the stakes high enough and push us to the precipice, we’ll inevitably cave and back away, leaving them to feast. Leaving the world to further destabilize.
For all the reasons the authors offer, it is indeed far too late for the U.S. to halt the butchery, certainly under the Obama administration – or even significantly affect it. Sadly for millions of Syrians and a destabilized Europe, that wasn’t always the case.
That means that so long as Russia is committed to supporting Assad, any solution in Syria likely is years off, many millions more of dead and displaced, and a final outcome that sees Assad ruling most if not all of Syria. This became pretty inevitable with a president’s unwillingness to send missiles to back up a red-line proclamation and Vladimir Putin’s consequent conclusion that the U.S. is a paper tiger, ripe for embarrassment.
The lesson for ALL global strong-men and buccaneers is make the stakes high enough and push us to the precipice, we’ll inevitably cave and back away, leaving them to feast. Leaving the world to further destabilize.
For all the reasons the authors offer, it is indeed far too late for the U.S. to halt the butchery, certainly under the Obama administration – or even significantly affect it. Sadly for millions of Syrians and a destabilized Europe, that wasn’t always the case.
5
Public support for another military intervention in the Middle East is nonexistent in the general public. Launching a military adventure without that support is a recipe for political disaster.
33
Oh, please. What would you do if foreign head loppers were occupying your country with the aim of killing you and your family and replacing your government with ISIS/Al Queda? We are now funding and arming Al Queda ( you remember the ones that did 9/11 ) in Syria. How is that for irony?
Get out of the way and let Putin and Assad exterminate the radical jihadists. What the hell business is it of ours, ( unless we want to help )? Gosh, I wish it were different but it is not.
Get out of the way and let Putin and Assad exterminate the radical jihadists. What the hell business is it of ours, ( unless we want to help )? Gosh, I wish it were different but it is not.
4
> "Public support for another military intervention in the Middle East is nonexistent in the general public"
Actually, I think they *WOULD* support it if they thought it was going to be done Right - Permanently - Cost-Effectively - Cost-Shared-by-Global-Community
OF COURSE, back in the *Real World* such an operation will never be allowed to occur
The US Military COULD do this, and do it brilliantly,as we did in Japan & Germany after WWII
BUT, they would need massive amounts of money & manpower, and IN THEORY, both of those are available, but given the limitations of Realpolitik, only a fool would invest in such schemes
Not because they *couldn't work*, but because *at-a-minimum*,
Social-Engineers, and Political-Correctness-Police will instantly de-plane and begin to attempt to create a delusional Utopia, rather than a practical pragmatic way forward
REALITY-CHECK: Our Miltiary absolutely could do this, and do it well,
But Political Leaders would make the task impossible to execute
Actually, I think they *WOULD* support it if they thought it was going to be done Right - Permanently - Cost-Effectively - Cost-Shared-by-Global-Community
OF COURSE, back in the *Real World* such an operation will never be allowed to occur
The US Military COULD do this, and do it brilliantly,as we did in Japan & Germany after WWII
BUT, they would need massive amounts of money & manpower, and IN THEORY, both of those are available, but given the limitations of Realpolitik, only a fool would invest in such schemes
Not because they *couldn't work*, but because *at-a-minimum*,
Social-Engineers, and Political-Correctness-Police will instantly de-plane and begin to attempt to create a delusional Utopia, rather than a practical pragmatic way forward
REALITY-CHECK: Our Miltiary absolutely could do this, and do it well,
But Political Leaders would make the task impossible to execute
Agreed. We are already trying to deal with the detritus of less than successful wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Libya debacle. We have an all volunteer army which is stretched to the limit; the country has no stomach for a renewed draft or for another war with uncertain goals and a highly unpredictable outcome. While overthrowing or driving out dictators is tempting, that has not gone so well in recent years debatably doing more harm than good. We must do what we can for refugees and civilians who are trapped in deplorable situations, but the paths we are on are, IMHO preferable to deeper military engagement.
61
The issue with Syria is that there is no side we want to support. Unless America decides it's cool with giving Al-Nusra a country there is no group in Syria that can really take over.
A no fly zone over Aleppo, while it might satisfy the urge to "do something" would succeed in extending the war, it would make the siege less brutal and more prolonged at the risk of a serious conflagration. Ultimately it wouldn't succeed in helping civilians and would fail to address the fact that the Syrian government has superior firepower.
Even if some miracle occurred and rebels were able to completely break the siege on Aleppo you would still be left with the issue that the government, with superior firepower controls the majority of dependable urban centers, would we support a siege by the rebels against them? Or perhaps be happy with a prolonged insurgency in the countryside ?
The best thing that could be done at the moment is to try and secure a peace deal where Assad remains in control with guarantees against reprisal. This combined with funds to rebuild Syria might mean a long term transition of power, it's not a pretty ending but there is none over the horizon, only a longer war with the same result.