Given the deep ethnic divisions and history of bloody religious war in Syria, genocidal warfare was always the inevitable outcome of destabilization, particularly when Petraeus and Clinton encouraged (and aided) the intervention and arming of Libyan and other foreign Jihadis funded by Saudi Arabia and the GCC.

Now, we are pursuing a Big Beirut strategy of Balkanization of Syria into several zones run by ethnic militias. If you can think of any other options at this point, we'd like to hear them.

Same result either way.

I have never expected anything but Balkanization of Syria, and Iraq too for that matter, and Lebanon and some other places in the neighborhood better watch out. I expect at least 4 pieces when the dust all settles, none of which will think much of the USA.

Last edited Tue Mar 26, 2013, 10:38 AM - Edit history (1)

Either way, we have two formerly powerful Ba'athist states that have been neutralized or destroyed. Their ethnic Balkanization makes them less a check to the regional expansion of power and influence by Israel, Jordan, the Saudis and the Gulf Emirates.

This might also relatively strengthen Turkey, except that the Syrian Kurds are likely to secede as have those in Iraq. Turkey, if it wishes to hold onto eastern Anatolia will have to be considerably more adept and nimble. Iran and parts of Armenia have the same Kurdish problem.

The biggest problem for Israel isn't Iran. It's a radicalized Egypt and the Jihadis camped out across Syria and Iraq in another civil war, which can be expected to be considerably less cooperative and predictable than were Mubarack, Hussein and Asad. Israel may end up missing the dictators.

Lebanon is already Balkanized. Big Beirut appears to be model.

I also agree that none of which will think much of the USA or the European powers who have set up this process of erasing the post-World War One Whitehall lines in the sand, as well as Post-World War Two Pax Americana.

This likely won't end well for America. We shouldn't have created a vacuum and held the door open for the Saudi/GCC Jihadi militias to rush in.

The details may vary, the overall drift is towards local control.

It all starts with the Neocons/Bushites and their ignorant narcissism, they destroyed the old order, so to speak, and there is nobody who can put it back together these days, nobody.

I expect Turkey and the Kurds to work things out. Everywhere else it's going to be ugliness for some time to come.

I am doubtful that our foreign policy wonks are even of one mind about Syria, let alone having some effective plan.

All the shifting secret alliances, colonial intrigues, provocations, assassinations, interventions, proxy wars. It's all too familiar.

You don't want to push the WWI analogy TOO far, but it works surprisingly well.

More than anything else, I think, that war resulted from the instability and uncertainties of shifting secret alliances between Great Powers and local proxies, ignited by the covert intrigues of secret services that operated largely beyond the control of governments. Please, see, http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/11/15/271437/-The-History-of-Political-Dirty-Tricks-Pt-1-The-Okhrana-and-the-Paris-Bourse ; and, http://journals.democraticunderground.com/leveymg/211

Even before the assassination of the Austrian Archduke in Sarajevo, there was several rounds of proxy wars in 1912 that stretched across the Balkans region (Turkey, Albania, Bulgaria, Serbia, Montenegro), and a long history of provocations and manipulation of markets by self-interested intelligence operators that proceeded it.

I have read many histories of WWI, the Yurpean ones tend to frame it in Yurpean ways, outside of that they all tend to see it from where they sit. I tend to see it as two or three regional wars that impinged on each other, harming or destroying everybody who got involved.

I like the analogy mainly because of the general and global cluelessness of the ruling elites at the time, they were stuck deep in the past and completely unable to adapt or reform. Which is why it was so destructive, and continues to be destructive. It is worth remembering, every day, that the current mess derives in a direct line from that mess. Denial has a steep cost.

But anyway, I see the same thing today, the hubris, the provincialism, the arrogant ignorance and deep faith in the failed status quo. In the period of rapidest change in human history, by orders of magnitude, all effort is bent to stall progress. And denial has a steep cost.

Do you think the elites continue to be truly clueless, or that they're simply running complex competing games, each hoping that they can game the system so as to be able to anticipate and manage uncertain outcomes?

Or, do you think that is just evidence of their collective cluelessness, and is the way it was a century ago when it led to disaster - the system was then and is now actually chaotic, which randomizes the outcomes of all subsets of the game?

I believe we agree that it is unlikely that there is any one ruling elite successfully running the show for its own gain for any extended period. But, there may be several lesser elites who do rather comparatively well out of seeming chaos.

I certainly think you have captured things well in your concluding statement:

I think you have a combination of the truly clueless and the cluefull and inclined to cling to privilege all the more because of that. Within that context, of course, each pursues their own interest as they see it, all concluding that it would be folly for them to let down their guard.

Well, certainly I would agree that there is too much credulity about our ability to control the events that we set in motion. Even assuming we went about things in a competent way, which we seem largely to have forgotten how to do.

Agreed, hogs at the trough. The modern successors to the old "free companies". Quite breathtaking some of the "returns" these guys "earn".

Thank you, likewise.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_company

It's a minor difference, but a difference. Since Spring 2011 the policy has been to provide "non-lethal" aid -- coordination, logistics, supplies, money,and attendant vetting of opposition groups, but not to directly arm the rebel groups. Anyone we approved had to go to the Qataris or other sources for their weapons.

The reported movement of SA-7 and other heavy arms from Libya to Turkey that was exposed by the Benghazi attack, however, showed the US was at least tolerating escalation of the arms trade in areas such as Eastern Libya supposedly under our control, and the use of these by Jihadist groups showed we weren't all that particular about who got them and how they were used.

After Benghazi, there was a reevaluation of the existing covert arms program, and a decision to back-off to some degree until some greater controls could be imposed. I believe that program evaluation -- the cutoff of some Saudi-supported Salafist groups -- resulted in a sharper rift within the Administration than is publicly admitted, and led to the departures of those who were pushing the previous program.

Some more of the particulars of those events surrounding Benghazi and the policy rift were made public in February: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/08/us/politics/panetta-speaks-to-senate-panel-on-benghazi-attack.html?_r=1&

there's another excerpt from that same article that I read elsewhere. Somehow, even as jaded and untrusting as I have become, this small burst of epic stupidity surprised me:

Some money and some CIA help, no big intervention, no American arms shipments--probably more than we should have been involved, but it's clear that these people can't get their shit together, and the extremists will dominate. His only mistake was his policy of "Assad must go". Why say that, unless you plan to have some real control over that outcome? Also, don't say "chem weapons are my red line for military intervention", because lying jackasses like McCain and Mike Rogers will try to come up with just that so that we send planes and guns.

There is no good side in this. We need to stay out of it.

I have to remember that the fighters who started this revolution 2 years ago are now all mostly dead. They were the ones who were begging us for help. They've been killed and have been replaced with more radicalized fighters. That should surprise no one. They have also been replaced with defectors from the Syrian military, latecomers who couldn't believe there was a problem until the kitchen got too hot.
The revolution was never about religion, it was about tyranny and brutality. So we shouldn't be too proud about patting ourselves on the back for doing nothing.

And weaken the Shiite axis of Iran-Iraq-Syria-Hezbollah. They saw their opportunity when the Arab Spring broke out and took time off from repressing their own movements for democracy to try to bring down Assad.

If you follow the Wikipedia timeline, "peaceful demonstrators" were killing Syrian cops very early on, and from there, it was off to the races. But those nice folks like the emir of Qatar and the Saudi royals are ensuring that the revolution continues, no matter how many Syrians have to die for them to achieve their aims. And London and Paris and Washington are on board with that, too.

There are plenty of bloody hands in this mess.

Do you spend a lot of time trying to reframe? Where do you see me talking about what the revolution was/is about? I was talking about what I think is going to happen. What the hell do I care about patting myself on the back? WTF? You'll fit in real good here on DU with all the many other reframers.

Obviously, doing nothing impresses no one. But sometimes doing very, very little is the right thing to do.

"DO SOMETHING!"

"Okay, what?"

"I DON'T KNOW, BUT YOU CAN'T JUST STAND THERE AND DO NOTHING."

It is not emotionally satisfying. And the media are engaging in a sort of TMZ/Inside Edition type of reporting in many cases.

And everybody who knows, knows that.

"I didn't know I didn't have to do what people said."

See the New York Times story I linked to above.

There is a heavy assumption woven into the headline, to the effect that Obama is necessarily attempting to control events on the ground.

That would be a new form of imperialism. Perhaps, just perhaps, there is also the premise that the Syrian people should decide for themselves.

Largely because I think what happens there is really none of my business. There are states in Africa that have experienced this sort of thing for the last 30 years, and I rarely, if ever, see LBN posts about them.

Yes, it sounds callous from a human rights perspective. I wish it was different, from a human rights perspective. I wish there were better answers and strategies, from a human rights perspective.

But ultimately, there's a limit to what one can accomplish. In any case, I doubt very much that the people of Portugal, say, or Argentina are bemoaning the collapse of their leaders' "Syria policy," precisely because they don't have one. It's probably time that we in the United States get to experience the same luxury of not having X policy.

going to collapse.

seems to have been the right thing to do. But when events show that it was right, then it's" in shambles".
The author of this article didn't get the memo. Obama isn't the imperialist from Texas. The President is behaving in a way consistent with what he campaigned on. I want him to continue to do so.

Who's fighting who and who are we against or in favor?