We Are Faced with a Decision in Syria because

[MineralMan]

we have allowed ourselves to become involved in centuries-old disputes in a region we neither understand or control. We have done this consistently since the end of WWII, interfering with borders, factions, and other elements of Middle Eastern political realities without a clue of why we were doing that, except for one thing:

The Oil Must Flow!

So, now, one brutal leader of yet another Middle Eastern country appears to have used chemical weapons on the people in his own country. It's one more insanity in a region that is rife with insanities. So, President Obama and, indeed, the entire world is faced with a decision about what to do.

Our policies have always been confused in this region, due to our reliance on oil from that region. Everything else takes a back seat to that single issue. We don't understand the factions, sects, and tribal rivalries that beset the area, and we don't much care. We only care about the oil that needs to flow. And it's not just the United States. Everyone wants the oil, so everyone chooses sides and defends the indefensible while condemning the other indefensibles.

We need to leave. We should never have gone there. But, there we are. The West created Israel, despite centuries old disputes. We set borders for other states, as well, paying no attention to the realities of the region.

We have made this mess worse, and now we're so deeply entrenched in the region that our hands are being forced.

The Middle East is a cosmic clustersex mess. And we're right in the middle of that mess, and through our own doings.

There are lots of arguments on DU about whether we should strike Syria and destroy the stockpiles of chemical weapons. I'm not participating in those arguments. Here's what I want:

I want us to pull out of that area 100%, now. Today. I want us to influence our allies to do precisely the same. We should do that, while declaring our intent to apply absolute economic sanctions against any nation that threatens the peace in that region. Just cut off all trade with such nations. Period. We should agree with all other nations not to supply any arms whatever to the region. To any part of the region. Period. We should back away completely and use nothing but economic sanctions to influence the region.

If they want to fight with each other, we should let them do so, but cut them off economically. We should not be participants in what has been a centuries-old conflict that has no apparent resolution.

We should say goodbye to the Middle East and tell the region to behave itself or face complete shutoff of all economic trade. We should enlist the rest of the world in support of this policy. Period.

That's my opinion, and it's one I've held for over 50 years. Your opinion might differ.

[dionysus]

1. kick

[MineralMan]

2. Thanks for kicking.

Mine won't be a popular view, I'm sure, but most of my views aren't popular ones.

[The Straight Story]

3. Some updates:

Britain proposes Syria resolution; Russia objects
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/security-council-members-meet-informally-syria

'American action is imminent,' IDF source says
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/1.544036

NATO chief says evidence points to Assad being responsible for chemical attacks in Syria
http://blogs.aljazeera.com/topic/syria/nato-chief-says-evidence-points-assad-being-responsible-chemical-attacks-syria

Israel calls up reservists over Syrian threat
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/tensions-rise-israelis-scramble-gas-masks

PM: Poland will not join strikes on Syria
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/pm-poland-will-not-join-strikes-syria

Jordan: No attack on Syria from our soil
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/jordan-no-attack-syria-its-soil

Military intervention in Syria would need U.N. approval: Brahimi
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/28/us-syria-crisis-brahimi-idUSBRE97R0EW20130828?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter&dlvrit=992637

[MineralMan]

4. Yes, I know. I'm following it.

I am just not participating in the arguments about it. We will probably make an air strike or a series of them. It's just more of our years of meddling in things we do not understand, and all over oil.

I don't support any of it. The only action I could support is a massive airlift to take all US personnel out of the region. We can just leave all the crap we've brought there behind, after disabling any warmaking equipment.

And, while we're at it, we should withdraw every last US military person from Europe, Asia, and the rest of the world. Leave the stuff there and get the fuck out of town. Bring everyone home, and put them to work fixing the decaying infrastructure here and rebuilding our industries.

Enough. I won't study war any more. I never signed up for the course in the first place, and I want us out of that business. Keep stuff here to stop any invasion, and that's it. We should use our economic massiveness to influence the world, not our military hardware.

I'm sick of it. Let's make peace. Let's encourage others to make peace. If they won't, let's cut them off and leave them to figure out their own stupid messes. WE CANNOT FIX THE ENTIRE PLANET!

[The Straight Story]

8. And this: live link, 235-Foot Rocket to Launch From California Coast With Defense Satellite

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Vandenberg-Air-Force-Base-Rocket-Launch-Delta-Defense-Satellite-221477621.html

Hmmmm

[MineralMan]

12. Not related. Those launches take a long, long time to plan.

This has nothing to do with that. Simultaneity does not imply causation. The world's a complex place, with many things happening at the same time.

We do not have "defense satellites" stockpiled for launch. This launch is the culmination of long, long planning. It has nothing to do with Syria.

[The Straight Story]

14. Yeah, I was joking, just a good excuse for the link - just watched it

was pretty awesome

[sufrommich]

5. I agree,although as long as the world depends on oil

to survive,the Middle East will be the world's greatest clusterfuck. The best thing that could happen is technology that makes the need for oil a thing of the past.Until then,the Middle East will remain a giant chess board.

[MineralMan]

6. Fine. Let them keep producing oil.

We can buy it from them. So can the rest of the world. We should simply refuse to play games with Middle East politics over oil.

If they're stupid enough to blow themselves up over oil, then they can be my guest. We shouldn't help them do that, though.

[sufrommich]

9. The ever diminishing oil reserves almost guarantee

that more powerful nations like China,the US,Russia,Europe will attempt to hold sway over oil producing nations.It would be nice if the whole world would be willing to stop falling over themselves to appease nasty regimes in order to procure oil,but I don't see that happening anytime soon.

[MineralMan]

10. Yes. And there you have the entire Middle East conflict

in a nutshell. We suck at it, and so do all of the other major nations. And the people in the Middle East pay for that suckage with their lives, all too often.

The DU arguments have nothing to do with what the actual causes of this are. They're philosophical arguments about governing the US, made by people with no knowledge or forethought, it seems to me.

Should we bomb Syria? Well, of course not. Will we? Probably, because of what I wrote in the OP.

It's all stupid beyond all measure, and it's all over oil. Feh!

[sufrommich]

11. I'm not disagreeing with you. Just commenting

on the utter lack of will among nations to stop the madness. The people in the Middle East will suffer until we don't need their oil anymore and by we I mean any country willing to look the other way to appease despots with oil.Sad but true.

[avebury]

7. K&R nt

[randome]

13. I see your points very clearly.

But I think, objectively speaking, the entire Middle East region is beset with revolutions and counter-revolutions and internal turmoil, not to mention the egregious human rights issues.

That is emphatically NOT to say that they 'deserve' our bombs or that we somehow have an obligation to put them in their place. I'm simply pointing out that the region is still stuck in centuries old disputes that should have long been resolved. That creates extremely complicated national issues and it may not be so easy to simply say we have no business there.

(Sorry, have to get back to work or I would have fleshed this out better!)
[hr][font color="blue"][center]You should never stop having childhood dreams.[/center][/font][hr]

[Bluenorthwest]

15. Well hell has frozen over, I agree with you almost completely.

I'd say 'since the end of WW1' but WW2 is even more of a marker. Almost no one knows anything about the actual history and geopolitics of the region. I agree about that too.
I'll add that the only bombs I have ever actually heard fall were falling on Syria. A person does not forget that sound.

[librechik]

16. ok--so let's boot the petroleum oligarchy and invest a trillion or so on alternatives.

I'm for it--if you can get anybody with power to go along, let me know. I've been looking for 50 years. Jimmy Carter couldn't make it stick.

[MineralMan]

22. I have no illusions of being able to influence anyone with power.

Sadly, I'm afraid none of us here are able to influence much, really. Locally, perhaps, but not on a global scale.

[OldEurope]

17. Some thoughts.

Your European allies cannot just leave them alone because they are responsible for a huge portion of that mess.
It started after WWI, when the Ottoman Empire collapsed. Britain and France were involved in that collapse, Turkey was an enemy because they were allies of Germany. Germany lost and so did Turkey and the other Europeans divided the land into protectorates and colonies. They had no respect whatsoever on the historical borders or tribal areas or languages or anything else that might have been important to the inhabitants. Just look at the borders of Syria, Libya, or any other country in Africa: thousands of miles straightaway from the drawing board. Americans might find this normal because your state borders are also drawn with a ruler. But those countries in Northern Africa had existed thousands of years in other boundaries. Look how the Kurds are spread around three or four countries because noone even bothered to ask them what their country was. Hell, this were the cradles of civilization and we treated them like ...like...I have no English word for this.

In WWII many soldiers from those protectorates fought on behalf of the Europeans. After the war they were denied freedom from the occupying. For example the Sultan of Morrocco, Mohammed, was displaced to Madagascar because the French did not want to give up their occupation. (They had to, anyway, because Morrocans were victorious. Perhaps you know that song, "Ride to Agadir"?)

After WWII America in a terrible teamwork with Europe did everything to make things even worse. The new Israel is happily supported in it's Apartheid, the democratically elected President of Iran Mossadegh was killed and substituted by an ridiculous puppet, so America became the worst enemy of Iran. Dictators were flattered and swaddled until they seemed no longer usefull, then their countries got invaded and left in an even worse mess. America even supported Al Quaida to fight against Russia in Afghanistan, remember?
Surrogate wars stirred up the region and the West was involved, sucked political and economic benefits out, and did nothing to help them, the people.

And now you are suggesting that we should just turn over and leave them alone with this.

I think all well-meaning people should try to find a way out of this. The UN should send troups to protect the people of Syria.

I hate wars but I hate doing nothing also.

[MineralMan]

20. I used WWII as a marker, because very few on DU

have any idea what happened after WWI in that region. Sadly, we'll soon have forgotten about WWII, as well, since the generation that fought that war is almost gone, my 89 year old parents among them.

While I agree that we should try to help find a way out, I see no indication that we have any earthly idea how to do that. Instead, we have bollixed the entire region up and continue to do the same. We could send UN troops, but which "people of Syria" would they be protecting? There's the rub, as Willie the Shake said.

We mucked about and created an ugly stew of the region. I have no confidence that we can find a solution for it. No confidence whatever, so I truly believe we'd do better by doing nothing in that region. Nothing at all.

[OldEurope]

23. Nothing at all.

You can do that.

Europe can't. The victims and refugees of the Middle East are dying in our backyard. Children and grannies and youngsters who would like to have a chance for a decent education.

It's heartbreaking.

I still believe that UN troops could be a solution like in Bosnia.

[MineralMan]

24. Then European nations should get together and send troops.

The United States is not in the mood just now to send more troops. You folks can do as you please.

[OldEurope]

26. You are right.

Unfortunately my thoughts are not what European politicians think. They will go there if America does but they will not do something without American support. France did something in Mali but that is far from the ME. Germany will not send anyone anywhere except for providing Airbases and stuff.

I wish, I wish there could be a solution.

[MineralMan]

29. Here's what I think. European countries need to get used to

the idea that the United States will soon be done with defending Europe from non-existent threats. We should have been done with that some time ago, and it's very likely that our military presence in Europe will soon be sharply decreased.

Yes, Europe comes along, in small numbers, if the US does something, but rarely commits heavily. Enough of that, I think. Enough of a lot of things, I believe.

It's time for Europe to take control of its own military business. We're weary of it, and are just about ready to cease doing it.

[OldEurope]

33. I agree, in respect of Europe.

But America has also done a lot of shit in the ME in the last 50 years. And so I think you should also participate in the solution.

So, leave us alone. But please, leave us really alone. No Monsanto, no hormonefed pork, no GMOs.

No, I don't want to insult anyone, and, yes I know this sort of argument is ridiculous. I just wanted to show that the world IMHO is to complicated for the solution you are suggesting.

[MineralMan]

34. There is, I believe, no solution the West can create in that region.

As for Monsanto, Pork, and GMO, simply stop buying it. Just don't order any of it for import. See how simple that is? Don't eat it. Grow grains, raise livestock, and tell the US to keep their products out of your country.

However, if you order it, we'll be happy to supply it. No problems there.

[OldEurope]

35. GMOs etc

There are negotiations for a trade agreement, that will allow American corporations to sue European countries for obstruction of free trade if they try to restrain anything that is allowed in America. There is no real court or public trial, just a secret commission, because it is a contract and not an agreement between two states (Not sure about the legal names).
And it always ends up this way: our regulations are impeding your companies, so we (the taxpayers of NotAmerica) have to pay your companies for a potential loss. They do not even have to prove a real loss. Just because we do not want their GMOs that were permitted by your authorities, they can claim an unlawful restriction and thus get a huge amount of money from German taxpayers.

For example: A city of a Million or so calls for bids for a caterer for it's schools. That's a huge amount and they have to follow the international rules for bidding. When this City does not want GMOs in the school meals it is called discrimination of American caterers and the taxpayers would have to pay huge sums to any American bidder who just liked to step in. The bidder would not even have to prove that it really wanted to provide school meals, they only have to prove the discrimination. And no public put out whatsoever, just secretly paying.

Many in Europe do not trust your authorities anymore, especially in things like GMOs, pesticides, hormones, fracking, pharmaceuticals, industrial food, and anything else where one can gain a lot of money. But then, we are not sure that we can trust our own authorities, either.

Edited to add: There are no rules for labeling GMOs, so we could not be able to avoid them.

[KoKo]

18. We keep supplying weapons and aircraft plus money to those we wish to influence

I agree we need to stop supplying the weapons, aircraft and the money for influence.

But, there's the Oil and our long term connections with Saudi Arabia and their allies, plus we protect Israel. In addition the MIC depends on turmoil and war and so does the NSA it seems. There's just so much money involved...and so much military hardware we "export" that helps our trade balance... given that now much of what we used to produce here has been off shored to emerging markets.

So...we will still be there with our allies GB, France and the other "coalitions of the willing" we cobble together.. But, if Syria turns out badly..then arrangements might have to be made in our strategy. Although we don't seem to have learned much from our recent interventions which haven't gone well. And, our chance for strategy change in the ME with POB seems to have been overly optimistic.

[MineralMan]

21. It is not merely our "recent interventions" that haven't gone well.

Nothing we have done there, dating back to post WWI days, has gone well. In fact, our meddling created much of the mess in the first place. I see no indication that we have learned from the past, so we're more than likely to continue making a mess, as "recent interventions" have demonstrated. We are both incompetent and intimately involved. That is not a recipe for peace.

[KoKo]

36. Indeed...it goes further back to forcing "Lines in the Sand"...for Territorial Tribes

after WWII. And the Saudi's having al that OIL that they could Fix Price/Barter all over the world at that time.

But...that left the others in the ME...just recovering from British Empire Rule left out...and the Sunni/Shite differences.

It's quite complicated.

EMPIRE forced those LINES IN THE SAND...now it BITES BACK...

[CaliforniaPeggy]

19. I agree COMPLETELY with what you've said here.

Out. Now.

And I still think this even though nobody will follow us.

K&R

[HappyMe]

25. I agree 100%.

[MineralMan]

27. I knew you would. Thanks!

I wouldn't have written the OP except for all the threads made up of people calling each other names over this Syria thing. I read all of them this morning, which led to my post.

Thanks for responding!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

28. We agree again, MM!

[MineralMan]

31. We agree far more than you think.

The thing is that I'm almost 100% about practical action. My principles are often somewhere else than where I am. Everything gets weighed in the balance and realities overbalance the principles often.

It's a question of which direction produces the best outcome that can be obtained today. That's life lived in real time. That's the time frame I live in.

That does not mean practical politics represent my philosophy very well. They don't. But, they're real politics, rather than theoretical politics, so that's the world in which I must live and act.

So, we agree much of the time on principle. We often disagree on application. And there it is. My post today is about what I think would be the best case in the current situation. I have no delusions, however, that the best case solution will be applied, and my input will not influence what actually happens.

That's why my political activities are local, not national or global. At least in local politics, I can actually have an effect.

[kiranon]

30. Agree. We don't understand region and only seem to make things worse.

"The road to hell is paved with good intentions." And, not so good intentions by corporate and military and military wannabe interests. Need to wean this country from oil and should have done so by now. Alternative energy needs government support more than we need to make a "2-day" strike on Syria. I can't imagine what it would feel like to await a missile strike on our country wondering if my children and all the other children will be ok. There is no limited warfare - it all destroys the target and ultimately the perpetrator and spreads hatred into the next generation.

[MineralMan]

32. Yup. But we will, no doubt, act on a temporal basis.

I don't expect anything else. I will be saddened. I'm often saddened.

And then I take my dog for a walk in my neighborhood and let the little children pet him. That helps. I can do that. I cannot do anything about Syria. Recognition of that helps keep me on an even course. In fact, I think I'll walk the dog in a few minutes. I could use some happy kids petting a happy dog right now.

[KoKo]

38. "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

Been True throughout History...n/t

[markpkessinger]

37. K&R

You and I haven't always agreed on things, MineralMan, but I am happy to give this post an enthusiastic K&R!

[MineralMan]

41. Thank you.

[pa28]

39. Reading your post I was reminded of an excellent doc called "The Fog of War".

It's almost like a confessional piece from Robert McNamara regarding the failures of Vietnam we should all listen to.

He warns us in a finger shaking kind of way about the risk of engaging in conflicts we don't fully understand. He says we need put ourselves in the skin of the people our bombs will be landing on first instead of acting on our own half informed impulses.

That's good advice in my opinion.

[MineralMan]

40. Yes, I remember it.

I was born in July of 1945. I remember my father, who flew B-17s in WWII, worrying about Korea. I hid under desks in grammar school during nuclear bomb drills in CA. Later, I worried about Vietnam. For as long as I remember, I have been opposed to armed conflict.

I remain opposed to it.