Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

herding cats

(19,564 posts)
Mon Mar 7, 2022, 07:47 AM Mar 2022

Where was everyone on Syria?

I'm asking because of Ukraine. I remember a lot of anti-intervention stuff being mainstream and I'm curious how people here felt when Russia played their hand there then?

I'm speaking of before the use of chemical weapons. Hopefully everyone agrees that was a bridge too far now.

11 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

Scrivener7

(50,949 posts)
1. I am remembering watching a doctor from inside the war zone begging for help and feeling like
Mon Mar 7, 2022, 07:53 AM
Mar 2022

my veins were full of lead.

But was our non-intervention in Syria more because it was a civil war, which makes any intervention complicated and a good outcome impossible, and because we were already mired in 2 wars where a good outcome was impossible?

In Ukraine, the citizenry is united and the invasion is a completely uninvited and unwarranted aggression. Russia is not there helping one side of a civil war.

herding cats

(19,564 posts)
2. Excellent answer.
Mon Mar 7, 2022, 08:06 AM
Mar 2022

I remember feeling lost and powerless when I saw people begging for our help.

I also understood how it was a proxy war via Russia and didn't know what to do. It felt like there were no right choices.

Celerity

(43,327 posts)
3. Syria was vastly more complex and complicated. I am going to leave it at that. Ukraine is a pure
Mon Mar 7, 2022, 08:06 AM
Mar 2022

raw, naked, murderous, illegal land grab/invasion of a sovereign nation by a major nuclear power (which brings its own complexities in terms of stopping that nation, Russia, from its aggressive war).

DetlefK

(16,423 posts)
4. Syria is 17-way civil war.
Mon Mar 7, 2022, 08:06 AM
Mar 2022

Seriously, take a look at how many militias are fighting there. ISIS, Al-Qaeda, Iranians, Turkmens, Kurds... plus actual syrian rebels fighting for democracy. And on top of that come official militaries.

No matter who you support or fight against in Syria, down the chain of events eventually someone evil will profit from your actions AND from your in-actions.

JI7

(89,247 posts)
6. When it comes to most Muslim countries we can't really win
Mon Mar 7, 2022, 08:20 AM
Mar 2022

even if our intentions are good . The recent attack in Somalia which targeted and hit Al Shabab terrorists is a good example . It is being used to claim the US is invading Muslim countries . But these same people are attacking the US for helping Ukraine and saying they aren't doing anyting for YEmen or other muslim places.

So while I agree that Assad is an evil thug and Russia had a huge role in the mess in the country it's just not something we had a chance of succeeding in .

Many of the people defending Russia are actually using what happened in Syria against the US and West .

It's not a matter of whether we are willing to help but rather whether we would be effective in doing so .

Celerity

(43,327 posts)
9. a bit revisionist, more than a few Dems were against it too, as was a huge percentage of the pubic,
Mon Mar 7, 2022, 08:51 AM
Mar 2022

plus there were other factors that made it from from a slam dunk call

very long article that goes into a tonne of detail


https://tcf.org/content/report/red-line-redux-putin-tore-obamas-2013-syria-deal/

snip

On the one hand, a response could be made strong enough to really rattle the Syrian government, wrecking airports and arms factories or paving the way for rebel advances in major cities. But that would leave the United States responsible for what followed, whether it was internal chaos, massacres, and potential chemical weapons proliferation, or retaliatory strikes against the opposition or allied countries. It would also invite counter-escalation from Russia and Iran, not to mention that it could jeopardize the cornerstone of Obama’s Middle East policy: his secret nuclear talks with Iran. To make matters worse, Obama’s choices were sharply circumscribed by the original sin of his Syria strategy. That is, regardless of what he had said in public, the U.S. president did not really want Assad to fall as long as there was no politically palatable opposition leadership capable of keeping the country together. And there wasn’t.

On the other hand, an attack could be limited to bruising the regime, breaking some property or killing a few nonessential commanders. But judging by past behavior, Assad would then be likely to dig in his heels, taunt the superpower and perhaps fire off more rockets. This brought into play the issue of U.S. credibility, because, as Obama’s deputy national security adviser Antony Blinken had put it, “superpowers don’t bluff.” Indeed, if Obama restricted himself to a symbolic slap or another raft of sanctions, both enemies and allies would be likely to interpret this as a sign of weakness and, rightly or wrongly, as a failure to follow through on his red line threat.

snip

Calling on Congress

snip

At home, the prospect of another military adventure excited many foreign policy pundits, but it met with unrelenting hostility from the constituencies that mattered most to Obama. The Republican-dominated Congress rose in protest, backed by a sizable number of Democrats who sensed that this would not go down well with war-weary voters. Indeed, an August 24 Reuters poll had found 60 percent of voters to be opposed to a U.S. strike in Syria, with only 9 percent in favor. To understand just how tiny a slice of public opinion that is, it bears noting that a similar percentage of Americans worry about extraterrestrial hijackers. Obama thus found himself trapped between two unpalatable alternatives: he could either defy Congress and popular opinion to launch a war he didn’t believe had any chance of success, or he could back down and leave Assad the winner, be branded a traitor by his allies, and wait for the next nerve gas attack. Challenged by his British allies to put the issue to a democratic vote, he ended up finding a third alternative that he hoped would, at least, share the burden more broadly: he threw himself at the mercy of Congress. So, on August 31, Obama announced that while he wanted to order military strikes, he would first send the issue to Congress for approval.

The United States Congress proved as inhospitable to a broad consensus as ever. Most Republicans seemed to relish the chance to bloody a Democratic president by denying him the authorization he needed, despite the fact that some had previously demanded a harder line on Assad. And while many Democrats obediently lined up behind their leader, a significant number kept their eyes on the electorate, which, although somewhat mollified by Obama’s pleas, remained strongly opposed to an intervention. Although the administration tried sincerely to persuade both politicians and the public to fall in line with its proposal for a punitive strike, these efforts were hobbled by the widespread assumption that Obama would be just as happy if Congress blocked an attack. In the end, though the White House did make fragile progress in swaying the Senate, the vote in the House of Representatives seemed impossible to win.

walkingman

(7,597 posts)
11. Predictable reaction
Mon Mar 7, 2022, 09:58 AM
Mar 2022

Bomb non-white civilians in Syria, etc.? Europe & the US shrug. Bomb white Ukrainian civilians? Europe & US publics outraged & demand swift punishment.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Where was everyone on Syr...