The real reason the West won't move on Syria:

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

I realize this argument may be a little controversial to some, but I believe there's a very simple reason Syria's civil war will never widen the way some other wars, like say, Libya's did. That reason is that Syria is the last vestige for contemporary Russia of the old Soviet Empire in the Middle East, in the days when damn near every Arab dictatorship was Russia's best customer and even Palestinian terrorists were Commies, not Muslims. Russia, of course, has inherited Soviet veto power in the Security Council. Russia naturally has no reason to want to sacrifice a sure base like that of the Assad regime for a more uncertain and very likely anti-Russian (just as Egypt and Libya are likely to turn anti-US for the same reason) regime.

Oil hasn't got squat to do with the refusal to intervene here. There is quite a bit of oil in Syria, too, after all, while Damascus is led by the Ba'ath so any argument made against Saddam's regime as a 'threat' applies equally to these sorry assclowns who have an even more embarrassing record (at least Iraq got Kuwait conquered, Syria couldn't even hack that much). The fundamental cause of the paralysis at the UN and the international community as a whole is that the USA is not, whatever its rhetoric and that of its more grandiloquent critics, the only power center in the world, and Syria's sugar daddy ain't about to give up the ghost on this regime without a guarantee from whatever comes after it.

This is also why Turkey hasn't simply invaded Syria yet, because Russia would attempt to attack it, albeit given how unimpressive it was against Georgia it'd be in for a hell of a beating against the Turks. The only way to kill the Assad regime is to move Putin, there is no other.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-19738441#sa-ns_mchannel=rss&ns_source=PublicRSS20-sa

Comments

[danalwyn.livejournal.com]

Also, with Syria being a lot more complicated than Libya from a military standpoint, I don't think you'll see much US action before the election. Obama doesn't want to end up in another long, open-ended campaign in Syria, especially when it's not as simple as just lobbing things from offshore. At least, nor before election season. The US just doesn't want any problem with Russia right now, for a number of reasons.

If I had a higher opinion of American realpolitik, I would accuse the Americans of slowly luring the Russians into a trap, and seeing if they can get the Russians to commit considerable troops to support the Syrian government, letting the Russians and the rebels duel it out. It would be a near worst-case scenario for the Russians, but I don't think the US or the west in general acts that far in advance.

I don't think that Russia would attack Turkey though. It's just not convenient. If they had considerable forces in position on the border, like they did in the Georgia War, they might risk a punitive action, but geography isn't in their favor here. Still, they would make life miserable for the Turks in a number of different diplomatic ways. Or at least they would try (and probably make lives difficult for the Turks in Syria by supporting a separate Alawite country).

It will be interesting to see how much the determination of the Russians to support Assad will go. Right now I would predict that it will fall short of major troop commitments, but it will be interesting to see if they do decide to go that way.

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

Politically speaking, starting a war (any war) serves the sitting President well in up coming election.

Right now Obama is being portrayed as weak. Media reports that he has apologised for the film that sparked protests and got one of his ambassadors killed. I can't see how that works in Obama's favour.

Obama would prove he has balls if he attacked Syria (or even Iran). Americans love a hawk in the Whitehouse, just as they love heroes in action films. The American public supports displays military might even as they are tired of war.

[danalwyn.livejournal.com]

I think that the media portrayals aren't hurting him as much as if he started an action in Syria and it showed no sign of ending by the time the election came around. If he takes all US assets away from Iran to go to Syria he'll get flak anyway, and I think there's been a calculated decision that the members of the public who like a hawk president may not be voting for him regardless. I think (and this is just my opinion) that there's a lot of risk in an intervention, and not a lot of benefit.

[tcpip.livejournal.com]

I think the reason that Obama hasn't attacked Syria is that he actually wants the UN Security Council's authority first. Given that Russia won't agree, the round about approach is going to be "safe havens" and the like.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

More complicated? The same factors would apply to both: send in the foreign air power and shatter a regime that has obvious weaknesses.

[danalwyn.livejournal.com]

More complicated because all the targets aren't within twenty miles of the ocean (or the Turkish border if the Turks are willing to let us use their airspace). That's going to complicate the SEAD job since you can't do easy standoff anymore (you can't guarantee that you're over 'neutral' territory when you launch, meaning you have to execute a much more thorough campaign).

There were a lot of things in Libya in the West's favor. One of them was that the Libyan military has sort of been at the bottom of the Arab sorting algorithm of competence (well, closer to the bottom than Syria if we can imagine that). Another was geography - the US likes projecting its power via maritime means. That was easy against Libya, which was basically a seacoast and a desert. It'll be harder against Syria which has both a better air defense network and a deeper geographical front. It might make things too long for the US to want to engage in.

It doesn't mean that it wouldn't work. It would just take more time, and the US public doesn't seem to want to invest a lot of time in it (not during an election year).

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

War is supposed to be good for business and good for the economy. The last decade has proven this wrong. Oil or not, USA simply can't afford to wage a war in which it can't predict the outcome.

Besides, Syria hasn't proven to be a direct (or even an indirect threat) to USA. At least it hasn't been marketed to the American public as such. There is still time to have FOXnews explain how Syria has a cache of WMD's or something.

But your right, perhaps Obama would rather not intervene because this Putin's baby to handle. Russia is indeed handling this although not on the side of "Good".

I could see Obama send strikes (drones?) into Al Hasakah in NE Syria in order to show/prove solidarity with Kurdistan... who are arguably USA's best ally in the region.

[mikeyxw.livejournal.com]

Wars really aren't good for the economy as a whole. (http://economics.about.com/od/warandtheeconomy/a/warsandeconomy.htm) I haven't seen anyone who is taken seriously argue otherwise.

I'd expect a no-fly zone before drone strikes.

[luvdovz.livejournal.com]

If by "base" you mean geopolitical ally, sure. If you mean a base for military presence, well, the Russian "base" in Syria has been largely overrated.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

It's the only overseas naval base it has left. Russia clings to those things with a bitterness one expects of a declined empire that still thinks it's a superpower.

[luvdovz.livejournal.com]

That base is "little more than a floating refueling station and some small barracks" in the best case, or "a potential harbor to ONE Russian aircraft carrier", the Admiral Kuznetsov, in the worst case.
http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/russias-syrian-base-potemkin-port-7200

Sounds like a mighty military presence!

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Russia only *has* one aircraft carrier. Given Russia has never really had a navy for good, logical geographical reasons those bases would be important well out of any 'rational' viewpoint.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

This is also why Turkey hasn't simply invaded Syria yet, because Russia would attempt to attack it,

Naw, it's because of pressure from EU foreign ministers on Turkey, and the refusal of NATO to lend Turkey military support against Syria over the shooting down of a jet last June, despite Turkey's flimsy citing Article 5 of the NATO treaty.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

That wasn't flimsy, if it had been a US jet that would be a war right now. As it's just Turks it's not that big a deal, just as the PKK blowing up women and babies is held to be irrelevant in terms of Turkish interaction with Kurds.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

It was flimsy. It was a single jet shot down, it was apparent Turkey was acting proactively in an effort to gin-up-the-game, no Syrian ground forces were used, blah blah blah.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

And if it had been a US jet shot down we would have gone to war with them.

[rjf-snyker.livejournal.com]

Why Russian attack on Turkey?

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Because Turkey would tear Syria apart in a war and Russia wouldn't have that.

[rjf-snyker.livejournal.com]

This is not a threat to Russia, which could end the war. Turkey is allies for us. They helped us with Georgia, restricting passage through the straits.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Excellent point!

[eracerhead.livejournal.com]

The US won't invade Syria because, frankly, the US population doesn't really give a shit about how two-bit nations govern themselves, only how they affect us.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Iraq might differ with that one, given it didn't really do much to us even at the height of its dickery. Iran and even Israel, yes. Us? No.

[eracerhead.livejournal.com]

I would argue that most US citizens didn't care about Iraq before Bush and really don't much care about Iraq now.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

That.....doesn't really discredit the point that the USA invaded Iraq for shits and giggles the second time.

[dexeron.livejournal.com]

Iraq's a special case. We needed a bogeyman to direct all of the rage at post 9/11. Saddam fit the bill. Most of the country couldn't have given a rat's about Iraq, but enough were led to believe that there was at least SOME connection between Iraq and Al-Qaeda (which is, of course, so absurd as to be laughable.) Without some kind of reason (like vengeful bloodlust), I can't see the people getting onboard any further action over there.