and now appear to have a problem with the fact that this is precisely what we are already doing. Our interests are mutually incompatible with other nations' interests, bringing us naturally into conflict.Originally Posted by Captain Adverse
If you want to modify or explain your position, let me know. I'd be more than happy to discuss it. Simply referencing that you've mentioned it to others without even links, however, is a poor tactic, and makes you appear dodgy.
so? What in the world makes you think that China or Iran care about whether or not other nations have a claim to critical chokepoints upon which their security and economic posture depend? Shutting the Strait of Hormuz is an Iranian option, and a very serious one - it's one they've threatened before, and the only reason they haven't done it commensurate with their increases in regional influence is because of the presence of the 5th Fleet in Bahrain. Similarly, the Chinese maintain a rife of territorial disputes in this area with Vietnam, Malaysia, the Philippines, Japan, and Indonesia; and doesn't use it's (relatively) overpowering navy to seal the deal because of the 7th Fleet and forward-deployed U.S. forces in Okinawa (and starting now, Australia).The "Strait of Hormuz" is shared like the Straits of Malacca. That means no single nation bordering it has absolute control over it, and therefore exclusive claim to it
What, did you think that in the absence of the U.S. these nations were going to suddenly become followers of Kant and the Perpetual Peace, submitting their national interests to UNCLOS arbitration? Sorry. Asia, Africa, and the Middle East don't live in Kant's world (yet), but in Hobbes'.
While Syria's civil war is hardly "none of our business", I'm not aware of anyone calling for us to try to end it one way or the other - for example, the way we did in Libya. Should we attempt to do so, we should make sure that we do so in such a way as to get the greatest relative gain for minimal expenditure of resources (as we did there). Plenty of my fellow conservatives felt the need to critique the President because he was The Other Guy over Libya, but with the exception of some embarrassing rhetoric (lead from behind ... really...), it was actually quite well done.Syria is involved in a civil war, that is none of our business. Like I've told everyone else, if YOU feel the need to fight for one side or the other feel free to gear up and GO there. You have my blessing. Sending American troops, or using American force in "air and missile strikes?" Nope, not without a clear declaration of war by Congress.
In the intermediate period in Syria, however, America should nonetheless pursue her interests by both striking key portions of the regimes infrastructure that it is in our interest to destroy or secure (such as her IADs functions and CW stores) while at the same time providing coverage to fleeing groups of civilians. So long as it is contained, Syria's civil war can serve our interests by drawing extremists out of Iraq, and serving to split the efforts of groups who would otherwise be targeting the Suez Canal and Israel, as well as draining the resources of the nation who would otherwise be extending and deepening her influence in Bahrain, and Iraq. But you have to secure the WMD before it get's lost, and you have an interest in being the one providing protection to civilian populaces.