Donald Trump manages to be more sensible on Syria than Hilary

[The Grand Nudger]

See, I don't think that all the radicals will hate America for allowing Russia in (if they don't already!). I think that if it's Russian attack bombers doing the dirty work, that's where the mud's gonna stick, mostly. Yes, these radicals may be the world's problem, but so long as they're in Syria shooting at Russians, are they ours? Should we hunt them up and invite them to a duel? No. As Sun-Tzu wrote, never interrupt an enemy in the act of making a mistake. They are digging int a war that's been running for five years and shows little sign of ending.

They arent in russia shooting at russians...they've been shooting at isis.  The russians are overhead.  These people will have a narrative of being attacked from the air by foreign powers - which is a sticking point for isis, lol.  Makes them really salty.  If they ever get tired of that shit, isis is literally just outside the city, and won't mind the help. 

No doubt it's a humanitarian crisis. But Syians are concerned enough to flee, at mortal consequence in too many occasions, for their own concerns. I don't think it's a "stretch" at all to say they're concerned. Indeed, that sort of drain from their own country spells worse for its future, and buttresses your own point. But -- what decisive action can we take that you'd recommend? What can we do, in our opinion?

I think that nothing we can do will change anything, unless we are willing to engage in another ten-year deployment and throw another 5,000 lives and a couple of trillion dollars down the drain.

How'd that work out in Iraq?

........exactly......

Oh, I'm not fantasizing. What I'm doing is arguing to stay out of a fight that is not ours to begin with. We are getting something out of Russian involvement there (see above for tie-down etc); not much, admittedly, but we are letting two adversaries have at each other. It's a shame that civilians are dying in the crossfire, but you're a retired infantryman, right? You know better than most that that is part and parcel in the bargain.

Unfortunately it is, because we not only directly contributed to isis, we drew a line in the sand against assad and then abandoned people when he crossed it.  

If the Russians deem that opprobrium acceptable, more power to 'em. Military power is not the only lever, and while other levers might work slower, cut pretty sharp all the same.

-and you ask me above and again below what we could do to keep russia from bombing civilians?  

Yes, actually if you want to stop the bombing of civilians, you're going to have to fix Syria ... because that's pretty much what the problem is, if you haven't noticed already. They are bombing civilians because the country is broken. Air Force propaganda aside, you cannot bomb someone to the negotiating table -- if people want to fight, it's going to happen.

WTF are you talking about?  Civilians are being bombed because russia seeks continued strategic access, and sees opportunity in this chaos.  Not because syria is fucked up.

Now, how would you propose dissuading Russia in their course of action? Be realistic. As awful as what they are doing is, the ony real alternative is to send in our own ground troops, and either put them on a tight leash to serve as targets, or open up the possibility of open war with a nation possessing nuclear arms. Is it worth that? I will refer again to the Trolley Problem. I'm not saying you must "offer a plan" ... but I am saying that there may not be any plan at all that can fix this.

Military power is not the only lever.

How would you prevent "others" -- in this case, Russia -- from making things worse, without provoking a wider war with a nuclear power?

Again, fantasy, and an endorsement of appeasing belligerents.

I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm speaking from a strategic and not emotional viewpoint. I share your distress at the suffering Syrians are enduring; I know a couple here with family back there and wish I could give more than kind words. But I'm talking in terms of American strategy. In this case, we cannot stop the dirtbag from being a dirtbag. But what we can do is make sure the blood sticks to his hands.

You want justice? Get thee to a courtroom. I'll happily testify to the shittiness of your accused in this case. But I doubt it will do much. And bombs won't either, because all you'll do is widen the conflict.

Trolley Problem.

Your right, it's really hard, so lets do nothing, and count the deaths of civilians as currency for some later punishment that will not matter to the dead.

I think you're imposing your own thinking onto the issue. Putin's gauging is very close to the mark. He knows we suffer imperial overstretch; he knows we can't even afford to replace a 30-year-old tank. Could we beat them in a short Syrian war? No doubt, no doubt at all -- my high-flyin' Air Force will make sure of that.  

The real question is -- is such a war in our national interest?

I don't think it is.

Nor is it in theirs.  It's in no ones interests, so why are we discussing it?  

The problem with this reasoning is that the only thing that can stop Russia is ... wait for it ... an act of war. That's kinda why the spectre of war arises in this conversation. You ain't gonna stop them with chocolates and gift bags.

Perhaps if you floated your preferred solution, this conversation could be clarified? What do you think we should do to fix the situation in Aleppo?

Remind me, is military power the only lever or isn't it?

I'm impressed with the level of opposition I'm finding here, at the suggestion that we do something to stop warcrimes in progress. At the notion that it somehow serves a non-existent interest of ours. At the notion that threats of war are a reason to let warcrimes occur. I get that decades of misadventure in the middle east have made us timid......but this is a bit much. I'm perpetually amazed at how eager we are, as a nation, to do questionable shit... and how reluctant we become when the right thing is staring us smack in the face.

[Thumpalumpacus]

They arent in russia shooting at russians...they've been shooting at isis.  The russians are overhead.  These people will have a narrative of being attacked from the air by foreign powers - which is a sticking point for isis, lol.

Yeah, that's kinda my point, you know. Take issue with the verbiage all you want while you buttress it, it's all good.

Unfortunately it is, because we not only directly contributed to isis, we drew a line in the sand against assad and then abandoned people when he crossed it.  

Wait, here's some goalpost-moving. I never said Obama's statements about that situation were wise, and you won't badger me into defending them.

-and you ask me above and again below what we could do to keep russia from bombing civilians?  

Yes. You, voluble in this thread as you are, have yet to provide on idea about how to stop that which we both deplore.

Unlike you, I'm honest enough to admit that I have no answer, and instead devolve to protecting the national interest.

For all your henpecking, you've yet to offer what you think would be a solution.I'd like to see what you think would be workable, and I'd like to think you've thought this through enough to present as much.

WTF are you talking about?  Civilians are being bombed because russia seeks continued strategic access, and sees opportunity in this chaos.  Not because syria is fucked up.

In case you didn't notice, Syrians were being barrel-bombed by Assad long before the Russians got involved. If you need links for some information, I'll be happy to oblige ... all you have to do is ask.

Military power is not the only lever.

No shit, Sherlock. What do you propose?

Your right, it's really hard, so lets do nothing, and count the deaths of civilians as currency for some later punishment that will not matter to the dead.

Pretty sure I never advocated doing nothing.

I'm also sure you have not yet advocated anything.

You could, of course, direct me to your post with your suggested course of action.

Oh, wait ... you can't.

Nor is it in theirs.  It's in no ones interests, so why are we discussing it?  

Because short of war, what can America do to fix the crisis in Aleppo?

Really, follow along.

Remind me, is military power the only lever or isn't it?

That kinda depends on the situation. But hey, don't let Maslow's Hammer fill up your toolbox.

BTW, I missed your preferred solution, Rhythm. Do you have one, or do you not know either? Be honest.

[The Grand Nudger]

A diplomatic solution would seem to be preferable, don't you think?  Rather than a military solution, or no solution.  Russia has interests, both in syria and outside of syria.  People with interests often negotiate, if they feel that they cannot get what they want by the means currently employed, or if they value those interests more than whatever they're doing. They ceased the bombing for awhile before.....what do you think they were waiting for, then? They run out of gas, had to wait for a truck to pull up?

I have absolutely no qualms with a military solution regarding -assad-. He's a relative non issue, it's his friends that need to be (and can be) bribed.

[The Grand Nudger]

Let's explore a little more, shall we?  What putin wants and what the us want in syria are very nearly the same things.  They're -using- assad and his grudge against aleppo.  His only purpose -to them- is being a yesman for their involvement.  Their bombing is more than likely a tool to grant them, not assad, a better position at the negotiating table.  

I'd make the case that the us and other involved parties can grant russia the legitmacy they desire in ways that a man who gassed his own people simply can't (not necessarily in syria, but legitimacy -in syria- hardly seems to be the prize).  Further, this negotiating table has to materialize soon, before turkey and suadi arabia (hello iran, pewpewpew) hop in proper...because dealing with them won't be the walk in the park that bombing civilians and unconventionals has been. Those two, point of fact, will fuck them up royally.

They know this too.  The business with turkey and the kurds is just a warning shot. 

A Russian/US brokered transition is the goal.  If that can't happen unless they stop the bombing of aleppo, and if we can offer them what they hope to get out of that bombing (that better seat above) without the need of the bombing in question...they'd probably be interested. Assad is the only fly in the ointment, but as this develops he's becoming more of a liability than he's worth to -anyone- involved. That russia desperately -needs- a us more amenable to working with russia, even making concessions, is evident in their involvement in our current election cycle. If you think were overextended...imagine russias predicament juxtaposed against putins need to win? They -know- they won't get what they want if they have a hostile white house to deal with, no matter how many towns in syria they level.

Personally, I think we have alot of leverage here (and so does russia), but we cant use it while playing up to cold war stereotypes and fears, by repeating the mistakes of both of our countries pasts. The idea that russia cant be stopped -in this particular thing- without a declaration of war or direct hostilities between our countries, is, imo, one of those mistakes. An offer to help de-escalate is what we have here, I don't think any tough guy bullshit (like, say, a no fly zone) will work because it can't get russia what they want (or us, please, russia, pound the shit out of isis with your bombers)...and so they'd have no reason to come to the table in the first place....and we obviously lack the will at present, even if we don't lack the ability. We're basically dealing with the national equivalent of a kid screaming "acknowledge me!" while they do shit that could hurt themselves and everyone around them. Not exactly a difficult request to meet.

[Thumpalumpacus]

A diplomatic solution would seem to be preferable, don't you think?  Rather than a military solution, or no solution.

Of course. But that requires both sides to be looking for such a solution. This doesn't seem to be the case here.

 Russia has interests, both in syria and outside of syria.  People with interests often negotiate, if they feel that they cannot get what they want by the means currently employed, or if they value those interests more than whatever they're doing.  They ceased the bombing for awhile before.....what do you think they were waiting for, then?  They run out of gas, had to wait for a truck to pull up?

The fact that Assad's opposition is so fractured means that negotiations are much more complex. Is it easier to sign a cease-fire with one opponent, or six or seven? Be realistic here.

And yes -- cease-fires can be and often have been pauses used for resupply.

I have absolutely no qualms with a military solution regarding -assad-.  He's a relative non issue, it's his friends that need to be (and can be) bribed.

The problem with this reasoning is that the only bribe that would seem to sate Russia is secure basing, and the folks who stand in the way don't seem amenable to negotiating. The rebels, too, seek a military solution to Assad's regime. Who's going to knock heads here? Us?

What bribe would you offer Russia for that nation to stand down its forces? And how would we obtain the compliance of the many rebel factions which have heretofore disregarded the cease-fire negotiated in September?

I get your angst over Aleppo, and I'm not saying that to be an asshole. It's an unfolding tragedy, people starving, gassed, shelled. But what can we Americans do? Tell Russia to knock it off or else? Or else what? And is that country worth our what else?

I keep searching your posts for suggested policies, and keep drawing blanks. What do you think we ought to do?

Be specific.

[The Grand Nudger]

Of course. But that requires both sides to be looking for such a solution. This doesn't seem to be the case here.

It absolutely does.  Russias involvement in syria is nothing other -than- a quest for legitimacy, that they feel has been denied to them.

The fact that Assad's opposition is so fractured means that negotiations are much more complex. Is it easier to sign a cease-fire with one opponent, or six or seven? Be realistic here.

And yes -- cease-fires can be and often have been pauses used for resupply.

I don't think that this was the case, in this case.  I think they took a minute, listened to the offer, and felt that it wasn't sweet enough yet.

The problem with this reasoning is that the only bribe that would seem to sate Russia is secure basing, and the folks who stand in the way don't seem amenable to negotiating. The rebels, too, seek a military solution to Assad's regime. Who's going to knock heads here? Us?

Without russia backing him up, any number of people.  Secure basing, sure..why not.  Who in syria is going to say no to a cohesive and cooperating US/Russian force?  Fine, let them have their base (we've certainly secured such accomodations many times ourselves), but I think that legitimacy, again, is even sweeter.  Even backing them on securing bases grants legitimacy.

What bribe would you offer Russia for that nation to stand down its forces? And how would we obtain the compliance of the many rebel factions which have heretofore disregarded the cease-fire negotiated in September?

I don;t -want- them to stand down, I would like to see the bombing of aleppo stopped.  I want them to beat the shit out of isis, just like they said they would.  It would be even better if we did it together.

I get your angst over Aleppo, and I'm not saying that to be an asshole. It's an unfolding tragedy, people starving, gassed, shelled. But what can we Americans do? Tell Russia to knock it off or else? Or else what? And is that country worth our what else?

Or else they will inevitably be embroiled in a war against two states that they cannot handle, due to thir entanglement with assads allies, and the kurds......states that do have the will that we don't, currently.  

I keep searching your posts for suggested policies, and keep drawing blanks. What do you think we ought to do?

Be specific.

Like, leashing in turkey and SA while legitimizing base agreements...and cooperating with them in the destruction of isis as a unified force? Provided they cease bombing aleppo and agree to a transition away from assad? There is, ofc, the issue of sanctions as well. Honestly, I don't see russia as holding any chips beyond the borders of syria (and what's that, real estate in hell, lol?)...and how much is it worth to them if they can get a few of these things? The world will condemn them if they continue, regardless...further robbing them of the larger prize even if they succeed, which isn't a given. The trick is to allow them to back out of the course they're on while appearing to gain something, to win. The course they;re on doesn;t get them want they want either, so I;m guessing it wouldn't be impossible...they're not morons.

[Minimalist]

Russia is building up chips with the Assad family.  Why in hell should they risk some negotiated settlement where the ultimate winner might be someone who owes them nothing?
The USSR's intervention in Afghanistan was also designed to prop up an unpopular regime and that effort failed spectacularly.  Syria promises to be a better outcome for them.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Let's explore a little more, shall we?  What putin wants and what the us want in syria are very nearly the same things.

Yeah, as I said earlier, there is an overlap of interests.

 

They're -using- assad and his grudge against aleppo.  His only purpose -to them- is being a yesman for their involvement.  Their bombing is more than likely a tool to grant them, not assad, a better position at the negotiating table.  

Sure -- they're sticking their foot in the door so that when everyone sits at the table, they'll have a chair too.

I'd make the case that the us and other involved parties can grant russia the legitmacy they desire in ways that a man who gassed his own people simply can't (not necessarily in syria, but legitimacy -in syria- hardly seems to be the prize).

This is where I think you're going off the rails. Russia is not looking to Assad to legitimize themselves; Russia is giving Assad the only legitimacy he has -- and that's mighty thin, at best. Were it not for Russia, Assad's head would be in Damscus and his body would be in the desert, a year ago.

We don't have the power to grant Russia what they want -- security for their western Syrian bases -- unless we want to lay down a massive deployment (and, by the way, raise another generation of jihadis resentful of American occupation, BTDTGTTS).

 Further, this negotiating table has to materialize soon, before turkey and suadi arabia (hello iran, pewpewpew) hop in proper...because dealing with them won't be the walk in the park that bombing civilians and unconventionals has been.  Those two, point of fact, will fuck them up royally.  

Well, first, that negotiating table collapsed last month, and second, the Iranians have been there for years; the Revolutionary Guards have lost 1100 personnel in this civil war. I don't know about the Saudis, I understand they're kinda busy bombing the shit out of the Yemenis -- but the crisis in Aleppo is a result of the failure of a negotiated cease-fire, not a result of no negotiations. The problem seems to be that neither side can stop shooting, no matter what is said at the table.

A Russian/US brokered transition is the goal.  If that can't happen unless they stop the bombing of aleppo, and if we can offer them what they hope to get out of that bombing (that better seat above) without the need of the bombing in question...they'd probably be interested.

But we can't offer that, can we? Do you want to put 30,000 troops into Syria in order to secure Russian basing rights? I sure don't. But that's what they want -- secure Mediterranean bases. How can we offer them that without putting an occupying force in place ... and giving hostages to fortune? Can you give us any idea of how many troops, over how many years, such a task might require?

 

Assad is the only fly in the ointment, but as this develops he's becoming more of a liability than he's worth to -anyone- involved.  That russia desperately -needs- a us more amenable to working with russia, even making concessions, is evident in their involvement in our current election cycle.  If you think were overextended...imagine russias predicament juxtaposed against putins need to win?  They -know- they won't get what they want if they have a hostile white house to deal with, no matter how many towns in syria they level.

Perhaps. But I'm not thinking Russian concessions really jibe with, as you put it, "Putin's need to win". Nor do I think either nominee for POTUS will present a "hostile" face to Russia.

Russia's having deep troubles, no doubt -- oil staying between $42 - $50/bbl when the Russian budget is predicated on $60/bbl. But that says to me that Russia won't be amenable to compromise ... especially now that Syrian national forces have gained the upper hand in the war. They control the western half of the country, and are besieging its last major road-hub. Do you for a moment think they'll walk away from the brink of victory to accept compromise?

I don't. Not for a moment.

Personally, I think we have alot of leverage here (and so does russia), but we cant use it while playing up to cold war stereotypes and fears, by repeating the mistakes of both of our countries pasts.  The idea that russia cant be stopped -in this particular thing- without a declaration of war or direct hostilities between our countries, is, imo, one of those mistakes.  An offer to help de-escalate is what we have here, I don't think any tough guy bullshit (like, say, a no fly zone) will work because it can't get russia what they want...and so they'd have no reason to come to the table in the first place....and we obviously lack the will at present, even if we don't lack the ability.

I don't think we have much leverage at all. After the Iraq fiasco, what Middle-Easterner would welcome us? It'd be like Reagan's joke -- "Hi, I'm from the government, here to help."

I've got no doubt we could stop the Russians if things came to blows, but you and I both know that not only won't happen, but shouldn't happen. I'm not dabbling in Cold-War stereotypes in my posting here, either. I've got a lot of respect for Russian statecraft -- they've been around the block a couple of times and play games inside of games inside of games. But -- our problem is that we have nothing to offer them. We cannot give them what they want (basing security), because we don't control that. The Syrian rebels threaten their basing security. What happens if we stop supporting the rebels?

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm not sure that chips with the assad family are worth much.  Those chips are a direct and current cause for the continued status that they -seem- to want to shed. In any case, the ultimate winner in syria is going to owe the russians, if the russians are part of the coalition that installs them. That's the basis of loyalty for assad as well.

@Thump

We're capable of offering something that's worth a hell of alot to russia, that goes beyond base security (and how secure is a base that erdogan is rattling sabers at if you;ve turned yourself into a pariah state through warcrimes?). I'm not proposing that they step away from victory, which isn't secure or a given in any case, but that they step onto the victors podium with someone other than assad. They're already cultivating rebel groups willing to deal. Why not deal with them, and cut assad out? Why not be seen /w the US, brokering a peace that benefits them...the us who has already supported those rebel groups? Or, I suppose, they can continue to be outcasts, languishing in sanctions...but you know...have assads syria as an ally...for all that's worth.

[Minimalist]

I'm not sure that chips with the assad family are worth much.  Those chips are a direct and current cause for the continued pariah status that they -seem- to want to shed.

The Alawites have a vested interest in supporting the status quo and the Russkis.  Without them and Assad they will be on the receiving end of the genocide.