• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump Doubles Down on Obama's Syria Failure

Jack Hays

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,823
Reaction score
28,342
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
President Obama was late and weak in Syria, missing the chance to snuff out that civil war before it really began. Years of destruction and hundreds of thousands of deaths followed. Now President Trump seems prepared to double down on Obama's failure. The region will be worse off, and the US position will be weakened as a result.

Would you trust America?By Michael Gerson

". . . American policy in Syria since the outbreak of civil war in 2011 has been a story of confusion, hesitation and betrayal. President Barack Obama’s special adviser for transition in Syria, Frederic Hof, recently provided an important part of the historical record. In a blog post on the Atlantic Council’s site, he described Obama-era policy on Syria as a series of commitments broken and red lines ignored. Obama “would deal with internal dissent,” writes Hof, “by taking officials through multi-step, worst-case, hypothetical scenarios of what might happen in the wake of any American attempt, no matter how modest, to complicate regime mass murder.” Eventually it became clear to Hof that the real reason for this reluctance was an overriding desire to secure a nuclear deal with Iran, even if this meant sacrificing “Syrian children and their parents.”
The Syrian conflict, in Obama’s description, was “someone else’s civil war.” This is one area of disturbing foreign policy continuity between Obama and President Trump. In July 2017, the Trump administration ended the covert CIA operation to arm anti-Assad rebels. “This is a momentous decision,” observed one official on background. “Putin won in Syria.” Now the president has frozen more than $200 million intended for Syrian reconstruction and announced — apparently against the advice of his military — “We’ll be coming out of Syria very soon.” This would involve the withdrawal of about 2,000 U.S. troops. “Let the other people take care of it now,” says Trump.
Just to be clear, “the other people” are Russians, Iranians, Hezbollah terrorists and members of the Assad regime. The victory of Assad might eventually bring what President John F. Kennedy called “the peace of the grave [and] the security of the slave.” But the immediate result of an American withdrawal would be a major escalation of the conflict in eastern Syria. It would also remove protection from our few remaining allies on the ground — rewarding their faith with one more parting slap. . . ."
 
The problem in Syria, as with many ME nations, is that no national government is in charge of much and must use force to do much of anything. Many try to portray the Syrian civil war as having two sides: Assad's forces (which now include Russian aid) vs. some united them (which we are aiding). The reality is that them in Syria consists of multiple groups often fighting each other. Syria after Assad will be much like Iraq after Saddam or Libya after Gadaffi - various factions (some local and some not) fighting each other and terror groups taking full advantage of the chaos and confusion to gain power.

Trying to create a democracy from scratch in any nation currently without it, while total chaos and/or civil war is underway, is mission impossible. These ME areas, although called nations, are more of a collection of warring tirbal leaders and religious factions and have been so for centuries. It seems to take an often brutal leader with the support of a superpower to even pretend to govern their entire area and population.
 
Jack Hays said:
President Obama was late and weak in Syria, missing the chance to snuff out that civil war before it really began. Years of destruction and hundreds of thousands of deaths followed. Now President Trump seems prepared to double down on Obama's failure. The region will be worse off, and the US position will be weakened as a result.
Click to expand...

Obama's involvement in Syria was something I didn't like. To the bolded though, what business is it of ours to snuff out ANY civil war of another country?
 
ttwtt78640 said:
The problem in Syria, as with many ME nations, is that no national government is in charge of much and must use force to do much of anything. Many try to portray the Syrian civil war as having two sides: Assad's forces (which now include Russian aid) vs. some united them (which we are aiding). The reality is that them in Syria consists of multiple groups often fighting each other. Syria after Assad will be much like Iraq after Saddam or Libya after Gadaffi - various factions (some local and some not) fighting each other and terror groups taking full advantage of the chaos and confusion to gain power.

Trying to create a democracy from scratch in any nation currently without it, while total chaos and/or civil war is underway, is mission impossible. These ME areas, although called nations, are more of a collection of warring tirbal leaders and religious factions and have been so for centuries. It seems to take an often brutal leader with the support of a superpower to even pretend to govern their entire area and population.
Click to expand...
This is a great post, and I couldn't help but think of allusions to the growing discord within the States.

While not a true comparison, I think we should keep in mind what happens when groups retreat to cultural & political identity, forming tribes, rather than having their highest identities & respect for each other as equal citizens.

When we think firstly of ourselves in terms of White or Brown, Dem or Repub, Liberal or Conservative, and we see the other guys as something less or less worthy, are we not in danger of sliding further? We are strongest when we stand together. We better get some tolerance and respect for each other, around here. We can see where the alternative leads.
 
Chomsky said:
This is a great post, and I couldn't help but think of allusions to the growing discord within the States.

While not a true comparison, I think we should keep in mind what happens when groups retreat to cultural & political identity, forming tribes, rather than having their highest identities & respect for each other as equal citizens.

When we think firstly of ourselves in terms of White or Brown, Dem or Repub, Liberal or Conservative, and we see the other guys as something less or less worthy, are we not in danger of sliding further? We are strongest when we stand together. We better get some tolerance and respect for each other, around here. We can see where the alternative leads.
Click to expand...

We are a long way off from having armed gangs getting the upper hand (except in certain small parts of urban areas). Our violent but infrequent race riots are the closest that we have come to the total chaos that exists in some ME countries. I can't think of any US city, county or state that remotely approaches the level of absolute chaos seen in much of the ME.
 
We should've stayed out of Syria. Our involvement only made things worse when we started arming the so-called "moderates".
 
Some events and some crises are beyond the power of even the mighty US Military and the experienced US State Department to manage, control and ameliorate. There is very little America or the West could have done or can do to spare the people of Syria from the misery and death which comes with civil war and bloody-minded armed factionalism.

What could President Obama have done that wouldn't have made matters worse in Syria while further paupering the debt-ridden US Treasury? What can President Trump now do that would improve things for the Syrians?

If the goal was/is ending the civil war and effecting regime change, then there is little that could have been done or can be done now that wouldn't have made matters worse for the Syrian peoples.

If the goals were/are to limit Russian influence in the ME region and to cut Iranian lines of communication/supply into the centre of the Levant, then that might still be doable, but only by prolonging and deepening the suffering of the Syrian people and the wider Middle East and also Persia. Is that an acceptable price to pay as the cost for such a US policy? Who ever makes the choice, the cost of the butcher's bill will be paid in full and mostly in more Syrian and more Middle Eastern blood.

It is perhaps time to step back and admit that this Syrian charnel-house is now beyond repair by outside forces and rather to focus on saving the lives of refugees and displaced peoples until a new generation of Syrians is ready to challenge the Syrian Regime. Collect data and evidence to build legal cases against the war criminals in all the factions of the Syrian civil war. Attack the regime's financial, trade and political capabilities. Place an arms embargo on them and limit their leaders' travel capacity to only Syria. Then wait to arrest and try any alleged criminals if the opportunity presents itself while a new generation of Syrians grow and find the determination and grit to try to overthrow their tyrant and his ruling oligarchy once again.

Regretfully.
Evilroddy.
 
Last edited:
Praxas said:
Obama's involvement in Syria was something I didn't like. To the bolded though, what business is it of ours to snuff out ANY civil war of another country?
Click to expand...

Chomsky said:
This is a great post, and I couldn't help but think of allusions to the growing discord within the States.

While not a true comparison, I think we should keep in mind what happens when groups retreat to cultural & political identity, forming tribes, rather than having their highest identities & respect for each other as equal citizens.

When we think firstly of ourselves in terms of White or Brown, Dem or Repub, Liberal or Conservative, and we see the other guys as something less or less worthy, are we not in danger of sliding further? We are strongest when we stand together. We better get some tolerance and respect for each other, around here. We can see where the alternative leads.
Click to expand...

In early 2012 there were only two sides and radicals Islamists had not yet grown powerful among the rebels. The government was on its heels and senior commanders were defecting every day. All the rebels asked from us were the tools to fight their own battles. Had we acted in timely fashion, 500,000 people would not have died and Iran's primary channel of Mideast influence would have been eliminated. We would have done well for ourselves and good for others.
 
Roadvirus said:
We should've stayed out of Syria. Our involvement only made things worse when we started arming the so-called "moderates".
Click to expand...

Evilroddy said:
Some events and some crises are beyond the power of even the mighty US Military and the experienced US State Department to manage, control and ameliorate. There is very little America or the West could have done or can do to spare the people of Syria from the misery and death which comes with civil war and bloody-minded armed factionalism.

What could President Obama have done that wouldn't have made matters worse in Syria while further paupering the debt-ridden US Treasury? What can President Trump now do that would improve things for the Syrians?

If the goal was/is ending the civil war and effecting regime change, then there is little that could have been done or can be done now that wouldn't have made matters worse for the Syrian peoples.

If the goals were/are to limit Russian influence in the ME region and to cut Iranian lines of communication/supply into the centre of the Levant, then that might still be doable, but only by prolonging and deepening the suffering of the Syrian people and the wider Middle East and also Persia. Is that an acceptable price to pay as the cost for such a US policy? Who ever makes the choice, the cost of the butcher's bill will be paid in full and mostly in more Syrian and more Middle Eastern blood.

It is perhaps time to step back and admit that this Syrian charnel-house is now beyond repair by outside forces and rather to focus on saving the lives of refugees and displaced peoples until a new generation of Syrians is ready to challenge the Syrian Regime. Collect data and evidence to build legal cases against the war criminals in all the factions of the Syrian civil war. Attack the regime's financial, trade and political capabilities. Place an arms embargo on them and limit their leaders' travel capacity to only Syria. Then wait to arrest and try any alleged criminals if the opportunity presents itself while a new generation of Syrians grow and find the determination and grit to try to overthrow their tyrant and his ruling oligarchy once again.

Regretfully.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...

Had we acted in early 2012 we could have been very effective at little cost or risk.
 
Jack Hays said:
In early 2012 there were only two sides and radicals Islamists had not yet grown powerful among the rebels. The government was on its heels and senior commanders were defecting every day. All the rebels asked from us were the tools to fight their own battles. Had we acted in timely fashion, 500,000 people would not have died and Iran's primary channel of Mideast influence would have been eliminated. We would have done well for ourselves and good for others.
Click to expand...

Ah so you’re a neo con interventionalist with 20/20 hindsight. Thank you for clarifying that.
 
Jack Hays said:
Had we acted in early 2012 we could have been very effective at little cost or risk.
Click to expand...

Jack Hayes:

Perhaps you are right. I don't know. I agree that acting would have been easier than it is now and that toppling the Assad Regime may have been easier unless Russia committed itself earlier and more forcefully in the defence of the Assad Regime.

But what would have followed in the wake of the toppling and the power vacuum which regime-change would have created? Would a transition to a peaceful, democratic, civil society have been possible, given the many armed and radical factions at play in Syria, or would the country have sunk into sectarian and factional civil war anyway? ISIL and other groups were consolidating power and beginning to flex their muscles. They would not have simply disappeared in the wake of regime change. Would the mistakes of dismembering Ba'athist Iraq have been repeated in Ba'athist/Alawite Syria to further reinforce ISIL with the expertise of Syrian ex-military officers and men? Would a foreign occupation have been needed to maintain order and if so would a Syrian insurgency to such an occupation have emerged to entangle the country in more warfare and a brutal foreign-led counter-insurgency programme?

Finally whose interests would such a Syrian intervention have served? I suspect that the peace, prosperity safety and political freedom of the Syrian people would have been a lower interest on the geo-political totem pole. So I remain skeptical that US or Western intervention would have made a great deal of difference in either body-counts or future prospects in Syria. But again, I admit, I really don't know.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
Last edited:
Praxas said:
Ah so you’re a neo con interventionalist with 20/20 hindsight. Thank you for clarifying that.
Click to expand...

I and my colleagues knew it at the time. Our President was unfortunately pusillanimous and missed his window of opportunity.
 
Evilroddy said:
Jack Hayes:

Perhaps you are right. I don't know. I agree that acting would have been easier than it is now and that toppling the Assad Regime may have been easier unless Russia committed itself earlier and more forcefully in the defence of the Assad Regime.

But what would have followed in the wake of the toppling and the power vacuum which regime-change would have created? Would a transition to a peaceful, democratic, civil society have been possible, given the many armed and radical factions at play in Syria, or would the country have sunk into sectarian and factional civil war anyway? ISIL and other groups were consolidating power and beginning to flex their muscles. They would not have simply disappeared in the wake of regime change. Would the mistakes of dismembering Ba'athist Iraq have been repeated in Ba'athist/Alawite Syria to further reinforce ISIL with the expertise of Syrian ex-military officers and men? Would a foreign occupation have been needed to maintain order and if so would a Syrian insurgency to such an occupation have emerged to entangle the country in more warfare and a brutal foreign-led counter-insurgency programme?

Finally whose interests would such a Syrian intervention have served? I suspect that the peace, prosperity safety and political freedom of the Syrian people would have been a lower interest on the geo-political totem pole. So I remain skeptical that US or Western intervention would have made a great deal of difference in either body-counts or future prospects in Syria. But again, I admit, I really don't know.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...

We will never know, but the result could hardly have been worse than what happened.
 
Praxas said:
Ah so you’re a neo con interventionalist with 20/20 hindsight. Thank you for clarifying that.
Click to expand...

Neoconservative internationalists are not 'Independent' in the slightest. They would probably identify as Centrist but certainly not 'Independent'.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom