Lord Jim wrote:
I would have thought that the events in Iraq and Syria since we have taken essentially a "hands off" position would have been a real eye opener for the hand wringers who always advocate America doing nothing internationally as the best course, the folks who don't believe we can do anything effectively, if we get involved it will only make the situation worse, blah, blah, blah.....
[blah blah blah blah blah ... ]
You still haven't answered my very simple question: How is America in any way responsible for the Syrian civil war? Be specific as to cause and effect.
(As to the historical issues, Syria's current problems have virtually nothing to do with either the Balfour Declaration or the partition of the Ottoman Empire.)
Here's an exercise,
Jim:
1. Identify the U.S. national interest(s) in Syria.
2. Identify the U.S. national interest(s) in the Syrian civil war.
3. To the extent these may be different, explain how to effectively advance each and what the costs v. benefits are, both economically and in American lives.
4. Describe how U.S. national interests conflict and/or coincide with those of all other parties/factions in Syria, in the region, and globally.
5. Describe the ultimate result to be obtained.
6. Estimate the likelihood of success in achieving that result and over what period of time.
7. What are the likely consequenes of failure at every stage, and how are they going to be handled?
8. How much of any of the above will be tolerated (let alone supported) by the American people, and what is the likely effect on domestic politics?
Lord Jim wrote:The price the US will now have to pay is already much higher than if we had been properly engaged three years ago; (when we could have kept ISIS in check in Iraq with a force that would have kept the Sunni militias in the fight, and in Syria with robust support for the non-sectarian rebel forces) and the more timidly we behave now the higher the ultimate price will be.
The U.S. is not required to pay any price in Syria, and by the way our engagement in 2013 eliminated the use and most if not all of the stockpiles of the Syrian government's chemical weapons. And who is it exactly that you think is actually fighting ISIS/al-Qaeda/al-Nusra et al in Syria? Are you now saying we should have been aggressively backing the Syrian government all along? Make up your mind.
, that's exactly correct. Rubato might want to look at which nations were NOT included on that list he posted before continuing his argument.
OOPS.
