Syria

~~John Wilkes Booth~~ · 09-18-2013, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djchameleon

I don't think he cares about looking weak or else he would have just done the strikes without going to Congress first.

He also wouldn't agree to the current Syria agreement about turning over the chemical weapons.

All the republicans are saying that he's the weakest president to ever hold the job. They got war/violence blue balls, they just wanted the US to blow up shit.

Obama knows striking is a risky move and his political opponents will pounce on him if it backfires. They'd also pounce on him if he backed out. There was really no easy way out for Obama. Going to Congress forced his opponents and supporters alike to own some share of the responsibility in the decision. Of course it seems to have been a miscalculation on his part, since ultimately he did want them to vote it through.

The compromise with Russia and Syria actually provides another potentially convenient way out for Obama. Some people are saying this also makes him look bad, and makes Putin look strong. But Obama has a point when he points out that Assad probably wouldn't be willing to come to the table if there wasn't a tangible military threat.

If this compromise doesn't work, it seems like the momentum for Obama's proposed strikes has sort of deflated. I'm not sure what would happen next in that case.

Dr_Rez · 09-18-2013, 08:32 PM

Why so Syrias?

Sequoioideae · 09-18-2013, 10:23 PM

I'm not great with politics, but I've taken a rather morbid fascination to the conflict in Syria. How it came to be, what it will bring, and what does it mean for the entire world regarding the final outcome. The great deal of confrontation comes from the Alawites and the Sunnis, and the formers grip on power over the country. Sunnis represent a good 2/3 of the population, while the Alawites represent a measly 1/10. So, the revolution came to be because of sectarianism. The current civil war has a lot of deep routes in the early days of Islam, and the different ethic classes that occupy Syria. I do apologize if this has been elaborated on, but I decided to educate myself a but before I actually said anything on the conflict itself.

Regarding foreign powers getting involved, I'm really not too comfortable with this at all. It's just a hot mess, and even after watching several documentaries and reading several articles, I'm still not sure exactly what should be done. I would appreciate it a bit if someone can condense this issue down a bit for me.

~~butthead aka 216~~ · 09-18-2013, 10:29 PM

informative reddit post

Quote:

Chemical weapons aren't why the president is interested in Syria. The US has actually been interested in helping the Syrian rebels for a long time. That last link is from the past few days, but they're all connected, which I'll get to.
The US has brought several motions to the UN. Things involving military force, military aid, or war in general are brought to the UN Security Council, a 12 member group consisting of 5 permanent members: US, UK, France, China, and Russia. The permanent members of the council have a special privilege: if any one of them vetoes a motion, it fails automatically. As I said, the US has brought several motions to the UN, which I linked above. All of them have failed, and all of them have failed because Russia (and China) have vetoed them using their veto powers.
So the US has long been interested in helping the Syrian rebels-- why is Russia concerned with vetoing efforts to help them? This is what it's all about: the politics of power. Realpolitik.
Syria, ruled by Bashar al-Assad (who functions basically as a dictator) is Russia's only ally in the Middle East region. The Russians sell a lot of arms to the Syrian government, and importantly the Russian's only naval base in the Mediterranean is based in Tartus, Syria. So, for geostrategic reasons alone, we can see that Russia is interested in keeping the friendly Syrian government in power. Though this isn't the Cold War, Russia is a competitor, so to some extent the US is interested in seeing the Syrian government fall because it would reduce the influence of a competitor in the region.
Another ally of Syria is Iran. You see, al-Assad is an Alawite-- a sect of Shiite Islam. Iran is majority Shiite Islam. The history is too long to recount here, but basically: Islam is divided into two major branches, Sunni and Shiite, which are not friends with each other. Iran and Syria are the only countries in the Middle East with Shiites in power, and Iran is the only country that actually has a majority of its citizens Shiites. It's in Iran's interest to keep the Syrian government in power, as they are the only other Shiite buddy in the region. This, too, is a reason why the US wants the Syrian government to fall; one of our longstanding goals is to remove the Iranian theocracy and prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Removing a friend of Iran reduces their power and influence. Recently to this end of stopping Iran, the US has spent several years encouraging international adoption of economic sanctions against Iran.
Then, there is Israel to consider. Syria borders Israel to its north, and the two have had quite a lot of tension before; during the Six-Day War, Israel occupied the Golan Heights and effectively annexed it, in contravention of international law. The two have not been on good terms. In 2006, Israel got into a short war with its other neighbor to the north, Lebanon, during which time Syria threatened to join the war on Lebanon's side. Naturally, Israel would rather the Syrian government fall. As the US is an ally of Israel and Israel in turn provides an ally to us in the region, it's in our interest to help Israel's interest.
Looking more broadly, there are regional issues. As I mentioned earlier, Syria's government is Shiite, while the majority of the Middle East is Sunni. Another element is that the majority of Syria is also Sunni; the Shiites comprise 10-20% of Syria's population, while Sunnis are 60-70%. However, Bashar al-Assad and his father before him (also a dictator) are Alawite Shiites, and so Shiites have reigned supreme in Syria, building up resentment among the Sunni citizens because of decades-long minority rule by a group that the Sunnis consider to be heretical. This tension in the Middle East as a whole, Sunni vs. Shia, and in the country of Syria specifically, have provided sectarian lines for the population to divide themselves among. And because people in other countries want to see their particular side win, this means that foreign-based sectarian groups have rushed to help their side win the war, making it a regional proxy for the division between Sunni and Shia. Those groups, by the way, include Hezbollah, a Shia paramilitary group who has long been an enemy of Israel, as well as the Al-Nusra Front, a Sunni Islamist paramilitary group who are associates of Al-Qaeda. Obviously, this situation could easily cross borders outside of Syria and develop into a regional war. Since the US depends on the Middle East for oil, this would obviously be a bad situation for the US.
BUT WAIT! THERE'S MORE! And as always, it involves oil (and natural gas).
Qatar, a small country next to Saudi Arabia, (and coincidentally a good US ally) sought a few years ago to build a natural gas pipeline from itself up to Turkey, and from there on to Europe. Turkey (also a good US ally) was also interested in this deal, as it would make Turkey a key player in Europe's energy sector by being the transit conduit for a large component of Europe's oil and gas, which would go through the proposed Nabucco pipeline connecting Turkey to Europe. However, this all fell through. Instead, Iran, Iraq, and Syria came to a deal to transport gas from the South Pars gas field in Iran through Iraq and then to port in Syria, from where it could be sold to Europe, bypassing Turkey. The kicker? The South Pars gas field is shared between Iran and Qatar, so if Iran got a pipeline in place first, there would be no need for a pipeline from Qatar to Turkey, meaning both Qatar and Turkey don't get the money and influence they desire. So, obviously, Turkey and Qatar are interested in seeing the Syrian government change its mind, and unsurprisingly, have both condemned the Syrian government and encouraged support for the rebels. So, being that Turkey and Qatar are both allies of the US, it is once again in US interests to help their allies. But the US is interested in the Turkish-Qatari gas line for an entirely separate reason as well.
Russia is a big natural gas exporter. In fact, they supply much of Europe with its natural gas, to the point where they are a monopoly in most Eastern European countries, and double-digit percentages to France, Germany, and Italy. This dominance has also given them monopoly-pricing, which has caused friction between Russia and other European countries. In 2009, this got so bad that Russia cut all gas deliveries to Europe for 13 days, creating an energy crisis in Europe that was only resolved after Ukraine (the main country Russia's pipelines go through) basically folded to Russian demands. Now, this is obviously terrible for our European allies, as they have little or no options when it comes to Russia's demands. So, Europe has been trying to diversify its natural gas suppliers. Unfortunately, it has not done so successfully so far. Guess who was one potential supplier? That pipeline from Turkey. Europe badly needs another supplier of gas, though, so they'd likely be willing to accept gas from the Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline even though that would involve buying gas from Iran, helping its economy. This is bad for the US, precisely because we sought economic sanctions on Iran to stop Europe from buying oil and helping its economy. So, once again it is in the United States' interest for Syria to change its mind on the pipelines. Additionally, since Russia is a rival, reducing its control over European energy markets is a strategic goal for the US in and of itself, so helping our European counterparts also helps us. Helping them, of course, means overthrowing the Syrian government.
Tl;dr The US has strategic and geopolitical reasons for needing to overthrow the Syrian government. Inevitably, this also includes trade deals regarding oil.

As has been mentioned repeatedly, Iraq is also a Shia majority country. Its government is a coalition government which includes Shia in the governing power. Bahrain is also likely a Shia majority country. Finally, Azerbaijan is a Shia majority country, although it depends on how you define the Middle East as to whether it is a Middle Eastern Shia majority country.
Additionally, the Middle East is not an absolute majority on US oil imports; according to recent figures, OPEC is actually a plurality of around 40%, with Middle Eastern countries of OPEC accounting for 21% of imports, and Canada accounting for about 30% of US imports. This is because of the rise in oil production in Canada owing, in part at least, to the Alberta Tar Sands, which have brought a lot of jobs as well as controversy to the Alberta province. If you want to know more about this, there is probably a post on it over at /r/canada or /r/canadapolitics.
Lastly, there is some discussion as to whether Israel really wants the Syrian government, and al-Assad specifically, to fall. Several posters suggest that Israel would rather al-Assad stay in place because he's the 'devil we know' for Israel. That being the case, Israel may not be interested in regime change so much as stopping conflict from crossing over their northern border.

~~John Wilkes Booth~~ · 09-19-2013, 12:55 AM

That post highlights a few of the geopolitical agendas that are tied up in the ultimate result of the conflict, but I don't think it identifies a clear reason for the US to strike.

It mentions that it is in America's and Israel's geopolitical interest for Assad's regime to fall because they are allied with Iran and Russia. This is true. Unfortunately for the US, the opposition is not a clearly preferable option to Assad. There is no predicting what elements will seize power post-Assad, and as far as Israel is concerned they've had relative peace with Syria for quite some time now and would be foolish to gamble on a revolution providing a more favorable situation for them.

As far as the Sunni/Shia divide, you could have just as well suggested that the sectarian civil war along those ancient battle lines that followed the 2003 Iraq invasion could have spread to the broader middle east. It seems that whenever instability breaks out in part of the mid-east, the sectarian divisions leftover from before the time when the west partitioned these 'countries' boils to the surface. I don't see the conflict in Syria sparking a region-wide sectarian war, but that's just me.

So ultimately, I think while Assad is far from ideal, Washington is ultimately not willing to risk it on the rebels. This is the debate they have been having for the entire duration of the conflict. Of course they'd love to see Assad fall, but how can they be sure any support they lend doesn't lead to the rise of a regime that is even more hostile to the US?

This is why Obama is only talking about strategic strikes and not 'regime change.' He knows very well that a few strikes won't collapse the regime. That isn't the intent, and thus any strategic goals that depend on the regime falling are ultimately not being pursued here.

09-18-2013, 08:32 PM	#72 (permalink)
Dr_Rez Registered Jimmy Rustler Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: USA Posts: 5,360	Why so Syrias? __________________ Best chance of losing virginity is in prison crew Always Checks Credentials Crew nba > nfl crew Shave one of my legs to pretend its a girl in my bed crew

09-19-2013, 12:55 AM	#75 (permalink)
~~John Wilkes Booth~~ Account Disabled Join Date: Jul 2013 Posts: 2,235	That post highlights a few of the geopolitical agendas that are tied up in the ultimate result of the conflict, but I don't think it identifies a clear reason for the US to strike. It mentions that it is in America's and Israel's geopolitical interest for Assad's regime to fall because they are allied with Iran and Russia. This is true. Unfortunately for the US, the opposition is not a clearly preferable option to Assad. There is no predicting what elements will seize power post-Assad, and as far as Israel is concerned they've had relative peace with Syria for quite some time now and would be foolish to gamble on a revolution providing a more favorable situation for them. As far as the Sunni/Shia divide, you could have just as well suggested that the sectarian civil war along those ancient battle lines that followed the 2003 Iraq invasion could have spread to the broader middle east. It seems that whenever instability breaks out in part of the mid-east, the sectarian divisions leftover from before the time when the west partitioned these 'countries' boils to the surface. I don't see the conflict in Syria sparking a region-wide sectarian war, but that's just me. So ultimately, I think while Assad is far from ideal, Washington is ultimately not willing to risk it on the rebels. This is the debate they have been having for the entire duration of the conflict. Of course they'd love to see Assad fall, but how can they be sure any support they lend doesn't lead to the rise of a regime that is even more hostile to the US? This is why Obama is only talking about strategic strikes and not 'regime change.' He knows very well that a few strikes won't collapse the regime. That isn't the intent, and thus any strategic goals that depend on the regime falling are ultimately not being pursued here.