But a passionate hatred of the Assad regime is no guarantee of independence. Indeed, a number of key figures in the Syrian opposition movement are long-term exiles who were receiving US government funding to undermine the Assad government long before the Arab spring broke out.

He always was a bad guy, long before the Arab Spring. Undermining his regime was, and is, a good thing, and the Syrian people agree. That's why they rose up against him.

Russia, China veto western-backed Syria resolutions at UN Security Council

Russia and China have vetoed a United Nations Security Council resolution that threatened Syria with more sanctions.

It was the third time in nine months that Russia and China used their powers as permanent members of the 15-nation council to block resolutions on Syria. There were 11 votes in favor of the resolution. Russia and China voted against it, while South Africa and Pakistan abstained from voting.

http://www.rt.com/news/russia-china-...eto-syria-584/

Russia and China are against the people of Syria. They will be the losers when the rebels take over; they are already a few miles from the criminal's headquarters. Go rebels!

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Russia and China are against the people of Syria. They will be the losers when the rebels take over; they are already a few miles from the criminal's headquarters. Go rebels!

Scumbag tyrants stick together, they don't want any UN resolutions that could be used as precedent against their own regimes.

Originally Posted by Deb C

-Deb! Congragultaions on finding a worse example than Gandhi to cite for WWII. Taking Gandhi's advice would have been disastrously genocidal, but he at least had the virtue of apparent sincerity. Start with page 93...

http://books.google.com/books?id=4R-...20side&f=false

...where old Woody says:

It is the job of all artists, painters, dancers, writers, singers, sculptors, musicians, critics, actors, everybody everywhere, to join hands with the war workers, and work harder to root out, expose and kill out the fascist enemy everywhere, at home and abroad. Words must be turned against the Nazis like red hot machine gun bullets and 500 pound bombs, mowing their poor, misled soldiers to the ground like brutes and monsters, blowing their factories and munitions dumps into ten milion pieces.

Of course, that was after 22 June 1941, when Woody miraculously changed his tune (so to speak). Your quote clearly comes from the time when the Nazis and the Communists were carving up Europe, starting with Poland.

BTW, Woody didn't mention anything about giving all those "artists, painters, dancers, writers, singers, sculptors, musicians, critics, actors" guns, "since they wants to fight."

Woody had this to say about Lindbergh:

Hitler said to Lindy, "stall 'em all you can. We're gonna bomb Pearl Habor with the help of old Japan."

Of course, Lindbergh actually ended up fighting the Japs (including shooting down a plane). Unlike old Woody.

Originally Posted by Odin

Scumbag tyrants stick together, they don't want any UN resolutions that could be used as precedent against their own regimes.

-Sort of like when Russia stuck with Saddam. But your tune was a little different then.

Originally Posted by RyanJH

...To Eric - I generally distrust statements along the lines "Anything would be better than..." Don't underestimate the human propensity to screw things up worse than they started...

-We intervened in Libya, and we don't know how that's going to turn out. We didn't in Egypt, and that doesn't look so good right now.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

...what about Mexico? Here there ARE practical reasons to engage in constructive mutually beneficial foreign policy initiatives. No, we should not send troops there due to past bad experiences in Mexico. Now, why is it that we hear all this stuff about "murder and torture" in Syria, but scarcely anything about torture and suffering in Mexico?

-Differrence: The mass murderers in Syria are the government, working on behalf of said government.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

...Iraq, for all intensive purposes is a failed state...

-Actually, Iraq is one of the least screwed up Arab countries right now. Of course, the Kurdish part (as you hint at) is the safest.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

The cheapest option is to just muster the troops out. Again, we do not need anywhere near the Cold War troop levels...

-Dumb in the long run. We aren't anywhere near Cold War levels. What you advocate has been an American failing since the beginning. It's easier to maintain a military (once you gave it), than to try to build one up after you've torn it back down. Do we need an army of 560K? Probably not. But the further down you go, the less of a basis you have to re-build on. And I guarantee, we will...

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-We intervened in Libya, and we don't know how that's going to turn out. We didn't in Egypt, and that doesn't look so good right now.

This is true. but Eric is happy about the ensuring purple finger affect. Since the purple finger effect != my US *nationalist tendencies, I tend to become a shade of green with cynicism. By "nationalist", I mean the diametric opposite of being a "globalist". While foreign policy should be based on "what are our interests are". As such:
1. A nationalist foreign policy is one where intervention is not carried out unless there is some existential threat to the US.
2. Forbidden actions:
a. Interventions based upon emotional appeal.
b. Interventions which serve globalists' interests.
c. Interventions which serve economic oligopolies

2.Policies deamed actionable:
a.An explicit policy of hardening soft targets like the power grid.
b.An explicit policy of determining and rectifying single points of failure in sort targets (infrastructure like the power grid).
c.An explicit policy of assessing 4th generation tactics and weapons. See struxnet. Appropriate militar assets will be deployed in a manner to mitigate and neutralize specific actors in the conduct 4th generation warfare against US targets. Said actors include, but are not necessarily limited to, organized crime organizations, multinational corporations, and rogue states.

These policies set forth shall also be used as a "jobs redeployment program" to neutralize assorted bleating from the MIC about jobs lost when useless weapons programs get cancelled and bases which are not aligned with the policy are closed. The soldiers shall be mustered out, but may be redeployed if their skill sets match those as set down in "the policy". If there is a shortage, then the musterees may train up to fill the jobs with the approval of the DOD, department of asymmetric warfare.

-Differrence: The mass murderers in Syria are the government, working on behalf of said government.

Yes, it may be a difference. However, Mexican drug cartels fall under "organized crime organizations". Also, since they do things like use military type weapons right here in the US, then there is a clear national interest in neutralizing them (when on our soil). Their actions in Mexico are of course a different matter. Mexico as a sovereign nation would deserve equal say in any actions (if any) we jointly agree to undertake. The policy forbids unilateral actions like the use of drones in Mexico without their approval.

-Actually, Iraq is one of the least screwed up Arab countries right now. Of course, the Kurdish part (as you hint at) is the safest.

Yes, and I hope Iraq has the sense to keep the PKK at arms length to preclude issues with Turkey.

-Dumb in the long run. We aren't anywhere near Cold War levels. What you advocate has been an American failing since the beginning. It's easier to maintain a military (once you gave it), than to try to build one up after you've torn it back down. Do we need an army of 560K? Probably not. But the further down you go, the less of a basis you have to re-build on. And I guarantee, we will...

1. Why dumb in the long run? I'd use the money now going to black hole projects like the F-35 boondoggle and build some wind turbines or something.
2.I certainly see no need for based in Germany. Sorry Europe, though sort of messed wrt Euro are big boys now. They can take care of themselves.
3.I prefer the term "creative destruction". With 4G warfare, an internet connection would substitute for a base just fine. They're just sitting ducks in any event if some suicide bomber decides he/she wants to commit asymmetric damage. In a lot of places, they go against "the policy". The policy is meant to be aligned with the general domestic affairs agenda as set forth in "the platform".

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Russia and China are against the people of Syria. They will be the losers when the rebels take over; they are already a few miles from the criminal's headquarters. Go rebels!

I don't think China has a dog in this fight. Russia has a military base. So:
Russia vetoed as a case of national interest.
China vetoed since they are more into realpolitik. I think the hand wringing at the UN gave them nausea and they wanted relief.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

I don't think China has a dog in this fight. Russia has a military base. So:
Russia vetoed as a case of national interest.
China vetoed since they are more into realpolitik. I think the hand wringing at the UN gave them nausea and they wanted relief.

That's a pretty stupid excuse for China not to do the right thing. Their real problem is that they themselves fear an uprising among their people, so they prefer to side with the dictator. They will lose out when the dictator falls, and the new regime is more friendly to those nations that helped them take power. They ought to wake up to that fact and get on board with the transition process! But whatever, they aren't going to listen to me.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

That's a pretty stupid excuse for China not to do the right thing. Their real problem is that they themselves fear an uprising among their people, so they prefer to side with the dictator. They will lose out when the dictator falls, and the new regime is more friendly to those nations that helped them take power. They ought to wake up to that fact and get on board with the transition process!

The text in bold defines precisely why China is engaging in realpolitik.

Originally Posted by definition

Realpolitik (see also Political realism; from German: real "realistic", "practical" or "actual"; and Politik "politics", German pronunciation: [ʁeˈaːlpoliˌtiːk]) refers to politics or diplomacy based primarily on power and on practical and material factors and considerations, rather than ideological notions or moralistic or ethical premises. In this respect, it shares aspects of its philosophical approach with those of realism and pragmatism.

But whatever, they aren't going to listen to me.

Yup, and the I think the same will apply for Xer's when they/us get into power. Methinks Eric will not be happy then the day arrives when idealism and ethical premises get ditched in favor of realism and pragmatism. (For the latter 2 are adjectives which define Nomad generations.)

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

Yup, and the I think the same will apply for Xer's when they/us get into power. Methinks Eric will not be happy then the day arrives when idealism and ethical premises get ditched in favor of realism and pragmatism. (For the latter 2 are adjectives which define Nomad generations.)

A dose of pragmatism might be a welcome change. But in general, notions like "wait till (whatever generation) takes power" are doomed to disappointment by those who depend on them. There are always many generations around, and these days even more than before. This time, as boomer prophets finally go away, they will be replaced by the new prophets immediately. That might be very good too, since too many of we boomers are getting stuck in the wrong kinds of idealism as we get older.

The Center for Strategic and International Studies has a pretty well balanced write up on this topic. Its worthy of a quick read. A partial quote follows.

Syria is not Libya. While the later may be geographically much larger, it is a mostly empty country with a small population and very limited military capacity. In contrast, Syria’s population is more than three times larger than Libya, has more than 30 times the latter’s population density and a much larger and far more capable military overall. All of these factors complicate any calculus on military intervention in Syria, whether in terms of the level of potential military opposition, or with regards to the risk of high civilian casualties.Opposition forces in Syria do not control territory, nor do they currently have military resources at their disposal to mount more than hit-and-run attacks. Most attacks by the FSA, while potentially coordinated, seem to have limited tactical or strategic depth and have yet to present a serious challenge to units loyal to the regime. While Libya’s opposition forces were divided, Syria’s are far more so, with little unity or agreement on the use of violence as a means to an end, and discord about the potential role of foreign intervention. The bulk of the security forces remain largely loyal as decades of over-recruiting from mainly rural minority groups bares fruit in terms of a strong corporatist military culture.As the US and its allies weigh options for their next-steps in their Syria policies, they need to consider a number of key military and political factors that shape the prospects for any form of direct intervention:

• Syria’s military forces have many qualitative limitations, particularly in terms of modern weapons, combat readiness, and recent combat experience. They are, however, very large and months of protests, and concern over a potential Israel strike on Iran, have made them more alert. They would need to acquire more modern and capable systems, such as major surface-to-air missiles (SAMs) and a new sensor and C4I network to defeat a major US-led air operation, but it would take a far more advanced operation than was the case in Libya, and Syria’s leverage over Hezbollah, and Syrian long range missiles, air and coastal defense systems, and chemical and biological stockpiles present another kind of challenge.

• Despite defections and desertions, Syria’s praetorian military units may have little choice but to rally around the Asad regime. Given their limited prospects in a post-Asad Syria, heavily Alawite elite units with sizeable numbers of loyal Sunnis will likely perceive no alternatives to defending the regime in the event of wider intervention.

• Armed opponents of the regime, such as the Free Syrian Army, are an important development. However, their size, structural limitations, their predominantly Sunni character and as-of-yet limited command and control and offensive capabilities mean that the FSA has limited prospects in the short term for presenting a meaningful counterweight or alternative to the Syrian military. It is far more likely that the group’s insurgency will be used as a platform by the Asad regime to weaken an already divided Syrian opposition.

• Syria’s internal divisions are not new. However the Asad regime has managed to escalate Sunni-Alawite tension to the point that it has taken a life of its own and could be difficult to bring under control by any of the country’ political forces. This presents the risk that any escalation in Syria’s instability is likely to be sectarian, with real prospects for deepening divisions and broadening communal segregation. A divided Syria, once an unlikely worst case scenario for Syrians, grows increasingly probable as a result.

• Given Syria’s relatively high population density and the close proximity of civilian and military centers, it is unlikely that airstrikes in or near major urban centers – even with advanced targeting – will result in fewer casualties than the number of Syrians the Asad regime is thought to have killed so far.

• The Asad regime may react by pursing strategies that risk deeper regional destabilization as a means of deterring its regional and international opponents. It could also undertake desperate efforts to secure the future of the Alawite community. Syria’s potential responses – which include turning to regional proxies and its BCW-capable ballistic missile holdings – range in scale but all have potentially catastrophic consequences for Syria and the region. They also vary considerably based on what triggers Syrian escalation.

• In the event of further escalation in Syria, there is no certainty that regional spillover effects can be contained. Lebanon, Jordan and Iraq are susceptible to instability, as are Israel and Turkey. The scale of Sunni-Shi’a regional acrimony, the stalled Arab-Israeli peace process and uncertainty about future political forces warrant a degree of caution.

• The prospect of direct escalation in Syria may trigger kneejerk reactions from both Iran and its Lebanese ally Hezbollah. This includes deflecting attention from Syria and heightening the costs of intervention by escalating tensions with Israel. Should intervention take place, there is little to prevent Iran and its allies in Lebanon and Iraq from undertaking potentially destabilizing action in Syria not unlike the cycle of violence in Iraq in the wake of the US invasion.

• Russia has emerged as a key player in balancing against further intervention in Syria. It is likely that Moscow will opt to heighten the stakes further through military posturing in the Mediterranean and “game-changing” military aid to Syria to deter the US and its allies from further escalating in Syria and raising the prospect of Libya-style intervention in the Levant. Other members of the so-called “BRICS” countries, crucially China, can also be expected to bandwagon with Russia at least at the level of the UN Security Council.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

... By "nationalist", I mean the diametric opposite of being a "globalist". While foreign policy should be based on "what are our interests are". As such:
1. A nationalist foreign policy is one where intervention is not carried out unless there is some existential threat to the US.
2. Forbidden actions:
a. Interventions based upon emotional appeal.
b. Interventions which serve globalists' interests.
c. Interventions which serve economic oligopolies

-Is there anyone arguing?

The real problem is getting people to agree on the definition of "existential threat" vs. "emotional appeal" "globalist interest" and "economic oligopoly".

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

...
2.Policies deamed actionable:
a.An explicit policy of hardening soft targets like the power grid.
b.An explicit policy of determining and rectifying single points of failure in sort targets (infrastructure like the power grid).
c.An explicit policy of assessing 4th generation tactics and weapons. See struxnet. Appropriate militar assets will be deployed in a manner to mitigate and neutralize specific actors in the conduct 4th generation warfare against US targets. Said actors include, but are not necessarily limited to, organized crime organizations, multinational corporations, and rogue states... If there is a shortage, then the musterees may train up to fill the jobs with the approval of the DOD, department of asymmetric warfare...

...With 4G warfare, an internet connection would substitute for a base just fine. They're just sitting ducks in any event if some suicide bomber decides he/she wants to commit asymmetric damage. In a lot of places, they go against "the policy". The policy is meant to be aligned with the general domestic affairs agenda as set forth in "the platform".

-GIs are not "sitting ducks" against suicide bombers or anything else. There are too many would-be suicide bombers, bomb makers, and their help who would tell you otherwise, if they weren't dead.

I can see you're a devotee of Hammes and Lind. They have their points, but they're over-rated. Some of it tilts into crackpotism, as self-styled "revolutionary" thinkers often do. See JFC Fuller and Emilio Douhet for the last 4T for previous examples of carckpot-ism. When push comes to shove, internet connections do not substitute for boots on the ground.

The "Asymetric" and "4G" stuff isn't as crackpot as Playwrong's MMT, but...

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

...
1. Why dumb in the long run? I'd use the money now going to black hole projects like the F-35 boondoggle and build some wind turbines or something.
2.I certainly see no need for based in Germany. Sorry Europe, though sort of messed wrt Euro are big boys now. They can take care of themselves...

-The US has a long, sad track record of cutting numbers of trained guys after every war. The most exteme example would probably be right after WWII, when the US Army had actually (and finally) become fairly effective as conscript armies go. Five years later, it was almost gone.

We currently have, man for man, probably the best army we've ever had, based on skill and (hard won) experience. It's easier to maintain ability than to try to rebuild it from scratch.The more guys we keep, the better off we'll be for the next go-round. Can we keep a 560K man regular army? No. But anything much below 500K is asking for trouble, because it'll take a long while to build it back up. Maybe shifting guys to the reserves/National Guard would at least keep them around, in shape, and up to date.

Your emphasis on cutting seems to be on gear, though. I'll that while soldiers frequently get much more effective with age, equipment rarely does...

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

...Their real problem is that they themselves fear an uprising among their people, so they prefer to side with the dictator. They will lose out when the dictator falls, and the new regime is more friendly to those nations that helped them take power. They ought to wake up to that fact and get on board with the transition process! But whatever, they aren't going to listen to me.

-If they lose.

Perhaps you remember Iraq, March of 1991?

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-Is there anyone arguing?

The real problem is getting people to agree on the definition of "existential threat" vs. "emotional appeal" "globalist interest" and "economic oligopoly".

I think the term, already here. I'd rephrase "cutting gear" to "chainging gear and chucking useless crap like hypoxia? The F-22 seems to be "shoot your self in the foot weapon". New? Yes. Effective? No, unless you intend to off your own men.