Michael asks an important question to which there are no simple answers. Certainly, one factor was naiveté regarding Arab and Afghan culture, which in turn was the result of our very poor intelligence capabilities--handicapped since the 1970s by excessive reliance on "technical" means of collection at the expense of human intelligence.
A second factor is the West's reflexive opposition to anything that seems like "colonialism" or "imperialism" (which are Europe's abiding sins, not ours). In the U.S., cultural relativism created a groundswell of opposition on the Left to anything that looked like "imposing" our values on the Iraqis and Afghans.
That last cannot be stressed highly enough. When combined with a fetishization of democratic "forms", in which democracy = elections, the kind of wide-ranging reconstruction of Iraqi and Afghan society was not going to happen. The Democrats had more than enough votes and influence to block any such policy, and the support of the media (the only group in America more clueless about Iraq and Afghanistan than the Central Intelligence Agency).
The French, had they invaded Iraq, would certainly have installed a puppet government in Baghdad and not hesitated to remove it if it stepped out of line. The British would have been more subtle, installing an apparently independent but compliant ruler "advised" by a thoroughly aculturated resident commissioner. We, however, are far too lacking in guile to resort to such devious or effective means.
I. Avoid war by every possible means, in all possible circumstances, but always act as if war might start at any time. Train intensively and be ready for battle at all times . . . The highest purpose of combat readiness is to reduce the probability of having to fight.
II. Gather intelligence on the enemy and his mentality, and monitor his actions continuously. Efforts to do so by all possible means might not be very productive, but they are seldom wasted.
III. Campaign vigorously, both offensively and defensively, but avoid battles, especially large-scale battles, except in very favorable circumstances. . . employ force in the smallest possible doses to help persuade the persuadable and harm those not yet amenable to persuasion.
IV. Replace the battle of attrition and occupation of countries with maneuver warfare . . . [T]he object is not to destroy your enemies, because they can become tomorrow's allies. A multiplicity of enemies can be less of a threat than just one, so long as they can be persuaded to attack one another.
V. Strive to end wars successfully by recruiting allies to change the balance of power. Diplomacy is even more important during war than peace . . . The most useful allies are those nearest to the enemy.
VI. Subversion is the cheapest path to victory. So cheap, in fact, as compared with the costs and risks of battle, that it must always be attempted, even with the most seemingly irreconcilable enemies.
VII. When diplomacy and subversion are not enough and fighting is unavoidable, use methods and tactics that exploit enemy weaknesses, avoid consuming combat forces, and patiently whittle down the enemy's strength. This might require much time. But there is no urgency because as soon as one enemy is no more, another will surely take his place. All is constantly changing as rulers and nations rise and fall. Only the empire is eternal -- if, that is, it does not exhaust itself.
The West's attitude to the Syrian conflict was described as "hypocrisy" and sharply criticised by the Patriarch of the Syriac Catholic Church in Beirut, Ignatius Ephrem Joseph III. "For many governments it's merely a matter of economic interests. They don't really care about the fate of the Christians in the Middle East. Otherwise they would advocate equality before the law and the observance of human rights for all, including in those countries where the so-called Arab Spring has not taken place", the Beirut Patriarch claims in an interview with the international Catholic charity "Aid to the Church in Need". It's primarily a matter of safeguarding freedom of conscience and religion for all. But this equality before the law does not exist. "It is this that seriously threatens our survival throughout the region", the head of the Syriac Catholic Church stressed.
Don't you know that we are already there? It all part of something that was put in motion some time ago. Stuart, Nelson. I like the way you guys tip your hats,we called it a paragraph check. I guess some things never change.
Michael asks an important question to which there are no simple answers. Certainly, one factor was naiveté regarding Arab and Afghan culture, which in turn was the result of our very poor intelligence capabilities--handicapped since the 1970s by excessive reliance on "technical" means of collection at the expense of human intelligence.
A second factor is the West's reflexive opposition to anything that seems like "colonialism" or "imperialism" (which are Europe's abiding sins, not ours). In the U.S., cultural relativism created a groundswell of opposition on the Left to anything that looked like "imposing" our values on the Iraqis and Afghans.
That last cannot be stressed highly enough. When combined with a fetishization of democratic "forms", in which democracy = elections, the kind of wide-ranging reconstruction of Iraqi and Afghan society was not going to happen. The Democrats had more than enough votes and influence to block any such policy, and the support of the media (the only group in America more clueless about Iraq and Afghanistan than the Central Intelligence Agency).
The French, had they invaded Iraq, would certainly have installed a puppet government in Baghdad and not hesitated to remove it if it stepped out of line. The British would have been more subtle, installing an apparently independent but compliant ruler "advised" by a thoroughly aculturated resident commissioner. We, however, are far too lacking in guile to resort to such devious or effective means.
LOL. How do you recall how Texas and Hawaii (and, to a degree, California) became states?
How did Panama become a nation, when Columbia refused to allow the Canal?
You have heard of the Platt Amendment in your history lessons, no? And that Americans don't just filibuster on the floor of their Senate?
The US basically hasn't had a clue on the Middle East ever since the King Crane Commission. Since then, just like it squandered the good will and respect of the Latin Americans newly independent, it has blown it ever since.
Neither I nor any nation other than the Syrian people can bring about the list you provided.
Then it ain't gonna happen. Ever, this side of the Parousia. Facts are facts.
Okay... I likely agree.
Quote
But let's examine your underlying premise. If true, then the United States should not exist, because it attained its independence only through outside military intervention.
You're moving the goalposts. I never said that Syria could not become independent without outside help (as the US did). But France's intervention did not lead to numbers 1-4 of your prior list, to which I am referring. That will have to come from the Syrians themselves, much as it had to come from the new Americans themselves. Military intervention had nothing to do with those coming about other than helping to separate the colonists from England. Taking out Assad won't see those steps happen, and you just said so yourself above.
Quote
Japan should not be a peaceful and democratic country, because peace and democracy were forced upon it at the point of a gun. Same for Germany.
Bad examples, you should know well that democracy wasn't forced on these nations at all. I'm not saying that the Weimar Republic or Takahashi's Japan mirrored the writings of Thomas Jefferson, but you must concede that returning these countries to democracy was a much, much different task than planting it in Syria would be, and expecting it to flourish "at the point of a gun."
Quote
There are lots of examples of external intervention resulting in a lasting and stable peace. People today just lack the gumption to admit that forces settles quite a lot of things, whereas moral posturing settles nothing.
Again, you seem to be attributing a causal relationship between an intervention and an ensuing peace - one may lead to the other (and it took over a century for peace to truly settle in the United States after the intervention) and often times it leads to even more bloodshed. Again, what determines the aftermath of forced regime change is the populace that is taking over, and in the case of Syria... as you note, it ain't gonna happen.
Let's also ask none other than Paul Wolfowitz about the nature of blowback in our Middle East interventions:
Quote
"[W]e can now remove almost all of our forces from Saudi Arabia. Their presence there over the last 12 years has been a source of enormous difficulty for a friendly government. It's been a huge recruiting device for al Qaeda. In fact if you look at bin Laden, one of his principle grievances was the presence of so-called crusader forces on the holy land, Mecca and Medina. I think just lifting that burden from the Saudis is itself going to open the door to other positive things."
So yeah. Some bad stuff comes about from sending troops to patrol the Middle East.
Quote
As compared to what pertained in Afghanistan under the Taliban, or Iraq under Saddam, the present situation is a great improvement. Not perfect, but better than it was. The problem in Iran was not the U.S. intervention in the 1950s, but the failure to intervene in 1979.
Even if we accept as a given what you assert here, and it's a stretch, you need to be able to also explain to Nelson and others who actually did the work (much less pay with their lives or limbs) that making Iraq not as bad of a place under a Shiite theocracy vs a Sunni dictatorship was really a necessary endeavor.
I mean, Iran is thrilled about gaining a new ally in the region in place of a mortal enemy, but that's not really what we mean to be talking about.
I also find it ironic that you don't think that the US intervening Iran in the 1950s to replace a democratically (if Soviet-leaning) elected leader with a brutal despot is a "problem."
How are you so quick to abandon democracy?
Quote
The problem in Vietnam was not that we lost, but that we failed to live up to our solemn guarantees under the Paris Peace Accords. We were the guarantor of South Vietnamese independence.
No, the problem is that we took on the role of guarantor of South Vietnamese independence.
To what clear benefit of the United States, much less the involvement in that part of the world at all?
If you say to check Soviet expansion, then you have more faith in the Soviet communist economy then you should.
That being said...
Quote
Many of the Vietnamese who escaped settled here, in Northern Virginia. They are among my friends, their children are my children's friends. There is still great bitterness at the betrayal by the U.S., but also great gratitude that the U.S. (eventually) took them in and allowed them to rebuild their lives. For my part, I feel only shame at the way in which we treated an ally and violated our sacred oath. And I feel anger that the people responsible for this betrayal of trust were never held to account.
... I agree that being "lukewarm" was worse than being hot or cold to begin with. I grew up going to a Vietnamese Christian fellowship group that my parents helped with (exemplary evangelicals they were) and I can't imagine anyone being very thrilled about what happened.
You can say how "if we had only intervened THIS way" all you like, but part of the reality of launching a war is that it never goes according to plan - I think you would know that. It's why long-term nation building aint our thing.
Quote
Now, on to Syria: I did not say there should be an intervention, but rather that only an intervention could work.
I'm happy to hear you aren't calling for an invasion of Syria, but I still don't agree that it would work if we did.
Quote
And such an intervention would mean disarming ALL parties--the government and its army and militias, the opposition and its militias, and, of course, all those Iranian Quds Force guys, too.
Simple enough, right?
Quote
And then, if there is an intervention, the intervening powers will have to set up an interim government, impose a constitution (nothing wrong with that--Douglas MacArthur wrote the one Japan uses to this day)
And Syrians will take to it just like the Japanese... apples to apples, right?
Quote
establish all the missing civil institutions, restore essential services, rebuild infrastructure and begin the long process of tutoring. Remember that West Germany, established in 1949 (after four years of military governance) did not achieve full sovereignty until 1956--more than a decade after the end of World War II. Japan continued under military occupation until 1952.
However long it takes, an occupying force will be needed to impose peace, stability and order, and to prepare the Syrian people for self-government. [quote]
However long it takes... how long do you suppose it would take? How many American deaths?
[quote]That's what intervention implies, not a simple "butcher-and-bolt" punitive expedition. If you want long-term change in Syria, it's going to have to come from outside. The Iranians know that--which is why they are trying to affect change in Syria themselves.
Right, just like all of the other interventions we've undertaken in the Middle East. You keep comparing it to Japan and Germany, and I kind of predicted you would, but I was hoping you'd be intellectually honest enough to give me or others here credit to understand it's in no way whatsoever comparable to what you are describing.
Quote
Countries are not altruistic (though the U.S. comes closer than any other in human history, with the possible exception of the British Empire in its later phases); they make decisions based on their own interests. What the West should be considering now, from a strictly self-interested, strategic perspective, is whether having a stable, peaceful, democratic Syria is worth the effort that will be needed to put one in place. If it is, then they should go whole hog and be prepared to stay in Syria for a decade or more. If not, then they should stop preening and posturing and pretending that denunciations and condemnations and toothless sanctions will have any influence whatsoever on Bashir al-Assad. The war will continue until one side or the other is broken and destroyed--then the other will have its revenge.
Again, your premise is faulty, because you are presuming that it is indeed possible to have a stable, peaceful, democratic Syria. Since you agree that it won't happen if it is up to them, then on what basis are you basing this hypothetical question on? That we can in fact impose it successfully? First, you need to unequivocally demonstrate that this is possible - which I argue you have not.
I do agree, the preening and posturing is silly.
What I do think is more likely is that, just as in Lybia or Egypt or Iraq, we will act to take out the central authority and let it be replaced with chaos. Because that truly does serve the realpolitik of US hegemony in the region. Let the "Axis of Evil" fall into chaos while they slaughter each other by the day. Not what the blessed Patriarch has in mind, no doubt.
The region is unstable by its very nature (and with our help). You can't polish a... well you get my drift.
Quote
The most likely winner in that scenario is Iran, which doesn't quibble when it comes to its own perceived interests. It's been trying to make Syria its puppet for a generation, and now it is likely to succeed. In grand strategy, the tortoise frequently beats the hare. Our problem is we're usually the hare. Where international affairs are concerned, we're Short Attention Span Theater, and instant gratification is our game. Iraq has been won, but it could have been a greater success if we had the nerve to stick it out to the end. Afghanistan is still winnable (as one wit noted, Afghans never lose a war--they just defect to the winning side), but we haven't got the stomach to finish what we started. If Afghanistan falls back into chaos, it will not be due to our military defeat, but our lack of strategic vision and fortitude.
Iraq was indeed won - to Iran. Their mortal enemy is becoming an important ally. Unintended consequences...
Quote
Now, I am betting that no Western power wants to pick up the brown end of the stick in Syria, in which case, nothing will change, the war will go on, and lots of people will die. Whatever the Patriarch wanted, he isn't going to get it (maybe if he had said something a little more plain-spoken, like, "Come save us!", he might have gotten a response). It may have escaped him, as it seems to have escaped a lot of people here, but the only reason the Christian communities of the Middle East survived through the 19th and early 20th centuries was the repeated, continuous and consistent intervention of the Great Powers--whether France, or Russia, or Britain. Time and again, when the Ottomans were oppressing Christians in Syria, or Lebanon, or Anatolia or Greece (and later, the rest of the Balkans), Western military power or the threat thereof brought peace and security. It wasn't a perfect or a lasting solution, but it was one that enabled Christians in the Levant to live.
Well, you ask Nelson if he wants to march over with the brown end of a stick and stop people from dying. Go ahead, ask him. That is what you're talking about.
Speaking of Greece, our intervention there wasn't very popular with my relatives. We don't always prop up "freedom and democracy."
I found it interesting that while Syria, Egypt, etc get so much attention, nobody talks a lot about the brutal slaughter of the rebellion in staunch US ally Bahrain. Can't remember Hillary shrieking for a no-fly zone over Bahrain.
Do you think we should back the Bahrainian people in their quest for peace and democracy?
Those who would like us to abdicate that responsibility and look only to immediate threats at our own border have to accept one of two outcomes: either anarchy will reign in the world; or someone else, who does not share our values or our interests, will step up to fill the vacuum we have created.
1) Can you prove in any way, shape or form that "anarchy will reign in the world"?
2) Who is the "someone else" you imagine?
2a) Once this "someone else" took over the rest of the planet, what do you imagine they could do to harm us?
We never had any idea of intervening all over the world. That was, of course, just propaganda. During the Cold War, we of necessity resisted attempts by the Soviet Union to expand beyond the sphere of influence it attained at the end of World War II--that was the essence of the policy of containment: keep the beast in its cage until it died of its own internal contradictions.
That one worked. Post Cold War, we've had rather a muddle trying to figure out what we were going to do. But you should look up and read the U.S. National Security Strategy (AKA the Bush Doctrine) in its complete form. It does not advocate intervention willy-nilly, but it does recognize the need to prevent the collapse of nation-states and to restore stability (or even to provide stability) in failed states, should they have the potential to become breeding grounds for terrorist groups. The dreaded "nation building" is an integral part of that: it's a lot cheaper to fix a broken state before it fails than to have to defeat it and rebuilt it after it does. The entire economic development budget of the United States amounts to less than 1/24th the defense budget; if, with that, we can prevent just one country from collapsing to the point where we must intervene, it's money very well spent--and redounds to our credit elsewhere.
Our real problem is we aren't very good at doing stability and reconstruction, short of destroying a country and rebuilding it in our image, which is what we basically did to Japan and South Korea.
Stuart, Sorry, I used terms that would be readily known in the ops crowd. And it is good you don't know what I am talking about. That could indicate you don't know what your government is up to either. Doesn't matter, I applaud your strong convictions.
Thirty years in the ops community, never heard of it. Asked people who have been in even longer--they never heard of it, either. Pray, do enlighten me.
How about a tab check? It is simply a way of describing looking to the shoulder of another to see if it is all there. Long tab, Ranger tab, airborne etc. I guess it was a First Group/Fifth Group/2-75reg thing. I guess you were on the other side of the predator. Cool.
OK, that I know. It's how you make sure the whole chalk is behind you. I have a friend who was S-3 in 3/75, and never heard him use that. He was a mustang who volunteered for SF and passed through 2nd in his class at the age of 29. He's done eight deployments, two to Iraq and six to Afghanistan, the latter mostly working with "interagency task forces" with the Rangers, D-boys, DEVGRU and OGAs. He doesn't tell me much about those ops, but I gather it's stuff that won't be appearing in books any time soon.
We never had any idea of intervening all over the world. That was, of course, just propaganda. During the Cold War, we of necessity resisted attempts by the Soviet Union to expand beyond the sphere of influence it attained at the end of World War II--that was the essence of the policy of containment: keep the beast in its cage until it died of its own internal contradictions.
So what you're saying is that if the beast wasn't kept in its cage, it wouldn't have died of its own internal contradictions?
Quote
That one worked. Post Cold War, we've had rather a muddle trying to figure out what we were going to do.
That's one way to look at it.
Another way to look at it is that we've done exactly what we've set out to do, if "we" is any given administration at a single point in time.
Quote
But you should look up and read the U.S. National Security Strategy (AKA the Bush Doctrine) in its complete form. It does not advocate intervention willy-nilly, but it does recognize the need to prevent the collapse of nation-states and to restore stability (or even to provide stability) in failed states, should they have the potential to become breeding grounds for terrorist groups.
Was Iraq about to collapse and become a breeding ground for terrorist groups before we intervened?
That happened afterwards.
Quote
The dreaded "nation building" is an integral part of that: it's a lot cheaper to fix a broken state before it fails than to have to defeat it and rebuilt it after it does. The entire economic development budget of the United States amounts to less than 1/24th the defense budget; if, with that, we can prevent just one country from collapsing to the point where we must intervene, it's money very well spent--and redounds to our credit elsewhere.
The estimated cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns is over $1 trillion. You have a funny way of defining cheap.
Quote
Our real problem is we aren't very good at doing stability and reconstruction, short of destroying a country and rebuilding it in our image, which is what we basically did to Japan and South Korea.
So if we aren't good at it (and there is plenty of evidence to support that), how can you say it's the only thing that would work in Syria?
The Byzantine Forum provides
message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though
discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are
those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the
Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the
www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial,
have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as
a source for official information for any Church. All posts become
property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2022 (Forum 1998-2022). All rights
reserved.
