Saturday, December 21, 2024

Russian Naval Base in Syria

The Russians have long cultivated a relationship with Syria for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is the access to a Mediterranean naval base. 
Before this week, Moscow in part projected power in Syria and beyond through two military installations: Hemeimeem air base near Latakia and Tartus naval base on the Mediterranean.[1]
With the overthrow of Assad, the Russians have been ejected (or elected to leave to avoid combat and losses) from Syria and the Tartus naval base. 
Open source intelligence photos indicate that Russian military ships have departed from Tartus naval base …[1] 
The loss of a Mediterranean naval base greatly complicates Russia’s attempts to exert influence in the region and cedes dominance in the region to the West.
 
Given that there is no coherent ruling government in Syria, at the moment, Russia faces difficult choices:
 
  • Abandon the Syrian base
  • Fight to conquer and hold the base
  • Pull back and hope that they can work out a future diplomatic arrangement that would allow them to use the base again with whatever force eventually seizes power
 
None of the choices are particularly palatable or easy.
 
Similarly, the US faces choices although it does not need the base for its own use:
 
  • Do nothing which could result in Russia regaining the base one way or another
  • Hope to work out an eventual political arrangement that would deny Russia the use of the base
  • Eliminate the base as a functional facility thereby denying it to Russia
 
The last option, eliminating the base, would require the US to destroy the facilities to deny them to Russia.  There is precedent for this.  Israel has already launched heavy attacks that have destroyed Syria’s naval assets, air force, and chemical weapons, among other targets so that those assets cannot be used against Israel in the future.
 
Since Syria no longer exists as a coherent country with a functioning, recognized government, attacks on potential threats are not a legal obstacle.  Right now, Syria is open, unclaimed territory controlled by various factions.  The US has the opportunity to act boldly, if it wishes.
 
Now, just for fun, let’s stir the pot a bit and rattle the timid …
 
An extremely bold move would be for the US to actually seize and occupy Syria, thereby obtaining a large foothold of sovereign US territory in the Middle East, surrounding Lebanon, hugely bolstering Israel and, potentially, securing actual stability in the region.  Of course, the drawbacks are many and far from insignificant.  Such an act would require a completely different approach to dealing with the various factions (an absolute smashing imposition of discipline and peace via military might), a zero tolerance policy towards terrorism, and a domineering approach to foreign relations with neighbors.  Before you go off the deep end attempting to rebut this, consider that the most stable regimes in the region have done exactly this.  Modified to exclude conquest of neighbors, this approach could work.  The US becomes the biggest warlord and rules by might – the way of the Middle East.
 
Anyway, back to the main premise of the post, crisis, unrest, and turbulence creates opportunity for the bold.  We have an opportunity to reduce Russian influence and, possibly, improve the Middle East.  Do we have the boldness to do it?
 
Once upon a time, we acquired our entire country through various bold acts. Do we still have the courage and boldness to seize the future?
 
 
 
__________________________
 
[1]Breaking Defense website, “Russian bases and Hezbollah weapons: Key questions follow fall of Syrian regime”, Agnes Helou, 12-Dec-2024,
https://breakingdefense.com/2024/12/russian-bases-and-hezbollah-weapons-key-questions-follow-fall-of-syrian-regime/

43 comments:

  1. Putin knows importance of cut-loss and run.

    Look what Bush Jr. and Republicans did on Iraq.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Putin is busy with his 3 day* special military operation
      against Ukraine, no extra troops propping up the Basher.
      *Biblical Days =?? in secular days?
      As for the US, the USAF has been blowing up stuff in Syria along with the IAF and the THK.
      Seem like the Israelis and Turks are going to build
      a co-prosperity sphere in occupied Western Arabia.

      The Russkie backup plan is decamping to Libya.

      Delete
    2. Track records of these tell us - not going to happen but a mess in Syria.

      Delete
  2. That's a pretty good tease. But can you imagine all the buffoons who will argue that the US should indulge in Nation-Building, and advancing women's rights, and DEI, and sex changes, and ...?

    ReplyDelete
  3. What vital national interest would doing this serve? Seems it would fatally undermine our political narratives vis a vis Russia/Ukraine and China/Taiwan, especially if the US is brutal enough to prevent Syria from turning into Iraq 2.0.

    Working with the Syrians to deny Russia a future base seems to be more cost effective. Concentrate resources for more vital national interests (defense of Guam, ensuring unmolested naval passage in the Red Sea).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "What vital national interest would doing this serve?"

      Curtailing Russian access to Mediterranean naval bases and reducing Russia's influence would certainly serve our national interests. That's not even debatable. Whether it's worth the resources and cost is what's debatable.

      "undermine our political narratives "

      How so? I'm not seeing it. Feel free to explain.

      "Working with the Syrians"

      Do you understand that, currently, there is not 'Syrians'? Just a bunch of warring factions, none of whom control the country. Do you really have a basic grasp of the situation in Syria? The Internet has maps of the areas of control by the various factions. Perhaps you should study those to realize just how fractured and non-unified the country is. There is no country of Syria. Just unclaimed and unrecognized territories waiting for someone to move in and establish control.

      Delete
    2. I've deleted your subsequent comment for being blatantly political and dishonest. Feel free to repost if you can achieve a level of objectivity and logic.

      Delete
    3. Actually taking Syria would allow the US to further strategically decouple from Turkey. Given the direction Erdogan appears to be taking his country, I believe this is a good thing. Turkey has been a bit of a challenging partner since at least the 70s when they invaded Cyprus.

      Incirlik could be replaced with a base in Syria. Heck, we could have multiple bases. Perhaps one where the Russian base was located and another further inland in Kurdish territory. Removing Incirlik as negotiating leverage for the Turks would allow us to deal with them more directly (i.e., stop undermining us, or you'll be out of NATO).

      We would have a great deal of leverage since one of Turkey's prime directives is to prevent the creation of a Kurdish state. Controlling western Syria would give us the power to create such a state if it suited our interests.

      -Huskers1995

      Delete

    4. Original anon here, subsequent comment wasn’t me.

      Our position with respect to Russia is that it is an expansionist, revisionist power and that it invaded Ukraine despite that country posing no threat to Russia.

      We likewise view China as an expansionist revisionist power, seeking to control the South China Sea and conquer Taiwan, by force if necessary.

      Conquering Syria would be to do what we accuse Russia and China of doing but only more egregiously. While I know you don’t want political talk here, from a military perspective it seems relevant in that it would risk alienating our allies (think France and Germany in 2003). We didn’t need allies against Iraq in 2003, but we would against Russia and China. Such an endeavor would also tie up tremendous resources as the locals will likely create an insurgency.

      When I said work with the Syrians, I meant your second bullet (i.e. work for a political solution, either with a future national government or the local group in charge of the area) to deny Russia access to its base. Not that Russia is in any danger of challenging the US Navy anyway, but if we want to deny them that base, a $1 trillion+ war in the Middle East seems an expensive way to go about it. The last time we had an expensive war in the Middle East, we lost funding for the excellent F-22 Raptor because the budget was tight and the Raptor wasn’t useful for COIN. Relevant to that point, the Iraq War was also launched in a far better fiscal environment.

      Delete
    5. Wouldn’t aggressively pushing against Turkish interests (creating a Kurdish state or threatening to remove them from NATO) risk having the Turks align with the Russia/China/Iran bloc?

      Delete
    6. @Anon Turkey has actively pushed against US interests for some time now. They have been allowed to do this for two reasons:

      1. The Bosporus
      2. Incirlik Air Base

      We obviously can't do anything about #1, it's a fact of geography. But, I'm not going to overstate its importance either. I'm not convinced that Turkey (the current regime) would allow our ships through if we were in a war against Russia anyway. Even if they did, how long would unarmored US ships survive in the Black Sea under constant missile barrage? Is there even much benefit to having wartime access to the Black Sea? What could we accomplish within the Black Sea that we couldn't from another (potentially safer) position?

      As to #2, we can do something about Incirlik Air Base. As I proposed above, we could replace it with one (or more) not far away in Syria.

      The Kurds have arguably been more loyal American allies than the Turks have been for some time. The US would certainly be justified in rewarding this loyalty. The threat of this action would help keep Turkey in line. Turkey cannot allow a Kurdish state because it would put the entire southeast portion of its territory at risk of secession.

      I think my stance comes down to answering this question: How valuable is Turkey as an ally at this point?

      My personal view is that they are overvalued and have become more trouble than they are worth. Alliances only work if the nations have common interests. Those common interests may have existed in the Cold War, but have faded since. Once the shared interests are gone, it makes since for the nations to no longer feign an alliance that was struck decades ago under a completely different geopolitical paradigm.

      -Huskers1995

      Delete
    7. "How valuable is Turkey as an ally at this point?"

      Without either agreeing or disagreeing, another nicely reasoned and well presented comment. Valuable to readers. Well done.

      Delete
  4. Syria is a nice to have not an essential. The Syrian venture has attracted some criticism of the Putin government in Russia.

    If they stay Russia will be beholden to Ankara which could make things awkward viz-a-vie the Black Sea.

    The Med is a US boating lake anyway. There is no need for them to stay.

    If I were the Russian government I would end the deployment.

    This could create other problems for US efforts if instead of bringing the assets home the Russian government redeploys them elsewhere. Imagine if they went say to Iran which doesn't have conventional navy as such? They could help secure supplies to China. Iran and Russia are practically neighbours so resupply would be no problem.

    But no Syria is a мертвая утка.








    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "мертвая утка."

      Dead duck?

      Delete
    2. "Trump"

      Comment deleted. We're not going to discuss pure politics.

      Delete
  5. This is my take on the issue.

    Everyone, perhaps Turkey most of all, has been taken by surprise by the rapidity of the Syrian government’s collapse, and absolutely nobody has a good take on what comes next.

    With regard to the Russian bases I think that the Russians will probably abandon them, not because they couldn’t retain them for a while at least (both Turkey and the so-called interim government have requested the Russians to remain). Agree that the bases are nice-to-haves rather than essential, and that if they were to stay on they would be doing so with the ‘permission’ of Erdogan, and they certainly wouldn’t want to give him that sort of leverage.

    If the Russians think they need bases in the area they could probably establish new ones in North Africa, for example in Libya, or possibly even in Algeria, and use them as refuelling facilities for its limited Mediterranean naval presence, and to provide logistical support to Russian interests and allies in West Africa, but at the end of the day I don’t think it’s that important to them.

    This has obviously been a humiliation for Russia, and a slap in the face for Iran, and at least a significant temporary boost for Israel, but whether in the long term the fall of the Assad regime will be to the West’s advantage or disadvantage depends mainly on whether Turkey, which at present seems to be the governing authority, is able to consolidate its power, restrain the Jihadi coalition that it trained, equipped and supported, and generally keep a lid on things.

    But with regard to that, Turkey is not in a good economic state at the moment, with a recession looming, and inflation at 45%. It’s in no position to wear the cost of a full scale occupation of the whole of a hostile Syria, and even an extended conflict with the Kurds is likely to prove highly problematic both for the Turkish economy and the Turkish armed forces, as the Kurds are tough fighters.

    A weak Assad government that was distancing itself from Iran and even apparently supplying Israel with useful information allowing it to target IRG personnel inside Syria, might with hindsight be seen as having been preferable to another civil chaotic war, with Syria ultimately fracturing along ethnic and religious lines, and with the United States being drawn in to prevent the forming of another Jihadi Caliphate, or to defend its Kurdish allies from a Turkish genocide, or possibly both at the same time.

    If there remains any understanding of what used to be called Statecraft within the State Department, I would hope that whoever is running the show at the moment would be doing all in their power to keep the United States as far as possible from what is likely to prove another bloody Middle Eastern nightmare, let the Israelis look after themselves, let the Turks own what they have broken, and let the Russians do whatever they decide to do.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "You only think"

      Comment deleted. As always, we're not going to engage in the purely political on this blog. Feel free to address the military related political aspects of the situation but not the purely political. Thank you.

      Delete
  6. How long would such an occupation take and how many troops. It is good to deny Russia a warm water port but they still have Crimea so we don’t achieve that much.
    The troops used for the occupation cause an opportunity cost because they cannot be used against more pressing opponents such as China.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "The troops used for the occupation cause an opportunity cost because they cannot be used against more pressing opponents"

      Would your thinking change if the troops were 'free'? Because we potentially have several tens of thousands of free troops in Europe. There is no need for us to maintain troops in Europe so all those troops are potentially available to be reassigned.

      "they still have Crimea so we don’t achieve that much."

      I would disagree. There's a world of difference between having a disputed port in Crimea, isolated in the Black Sea, where any ship wanting to get out has to pass through a couple of straits controlled by a NATO member country and having a free and clear port on the Mediterranean!

      If you (Russia) want to exert influence in the region with your navy, you can't do much from the Black Sea. On the other hand, Russian ships operating from Syria can exert a great deal of influence with free access to the Med.

      Delete
  7. The circa 70000 troops in Europe are not enough for Syria but they do need a better use other than soaking up expensive COLAs and BAHs while they conduct very little training because of local restrictions and lack of ranges. The best use of them is disbanding units, shutting down those expensive bases and cutting the manpower to let Europe pay for their own problems.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "they still have Crimea so we don’t achieve that much."

      What do you base that assessment on? That's seven or so divisions! Syria is around a quarter the size of Texas. It's not like we'd be trying to occupy all of Europe or Asia!

      If we approached this intelligently we might not have to fight much at all. Identify the several major warlords and offer them bribes to pacify their own areas. Make it profitable for them NOT to fight us. Maybe pick one warlord and annihilate him as an example to the others. Hussein pacified an entire country; why can't we?

      Delete
    2. I think we should stay far away from Syria. We have proven over and over again that we really don't understand the Middle East very well, and any meddling we do generally serves to make things worse. The US doesn't have any effective diplomats any more which is a disaster looking for a place to happen. Iran should be a friend, not an enemy. China should be a friend, not an enemy. Russia should certainly be a friend, not an enemy. The US and UK collectively caused much of the grief that has us in the situation we are now. Perhaps backing off a bit might be the smarter thing to do...

      I particularly like this quote:
      "If you ever feel useless, remember it took 20 years, trillions of dollars and 4 US presidents to replace the Talibans with the Talibans."

      — Dr Norman Finkelstein

      Delete
    3. "I think we should stay far away from Syria."

      That's certainly a legitimate school of thought and, given our record, it's hard to argue against. On the other hand, if we would learn some lessons, we could do some good.

      "any meddling we do generally serves to make things worse."

      Perhaps true, however, not doing anything gives rise to consequences, too. Not preventing terrorism at its source gives rise to future terrorism. Not stepping in and eliminating a potential dictator gives rise to a future, likely anti-US dictator who controls a country. Not defending civilians who are being abused results in untold thousands of innocent deaths. You'll recall that we attempted to deal with ISIS by using a largely peripheral, hands off approach and all it did was ensure the growth of ISIS and thousands of brutally murdered civilians because we were reluctant to get involved.

      Inaction IS an action with consequences, good and bad, just like 'meddling'. So, it's nowhere near as simple as 'don't get involved' and everything will be good.

      Too often, not 'meddling' is just appeasement and history assures us that is a poor choice leading, invariably, to greater suffering down the road.

      Give it some more thought and see if you alter your thinking a bit.

      Delete
    4. @Norman Iran has state-sanctioned death to America chants on a weekly basis. I'm going to take them at their word that they don't want to be our friend, no matter how much we kowtow to them. Perhaps with a change in regime that could change, but until then, they won't be our friend.

      China, similarly, has a national trajectory (retaking their "rightful place" as global leader/hegemon) that comes into direct conflict with the US. If the US wants to remain global leader, its interests will conflict with the PRC's.

      The reality of human nature (and diplomacy for that matter) is that nations will have different interests and goals. This makes it impossible for us to be friends with every nation (unless we bow down to them and grant them their every desire, at which point I would contend that we are no longer sovereign).

      I find your viewpoint to be foolish. Past foolishness does not require foolishness in the future. You characterize our past involvement in the Middle East as "meddling". I actually agree with this characterization, as our involvement there over the past 2 decades or so has lacked the seriousness and strength required. However, your response to this lack of seriousness and strength is to pull out entirely, which I believe would lead to even greater chaos than our weak involvement has allowed.

      In short, I believe we understand the Middle East well, but we don't like doing what the region requires. We don't like that we can't craft pluralistic liberal democracies in this region due to conflicts between religious and ethnic groups. We don't like that this region requires strength and consistency. We don't like that there aren't simple solutions to issues that have existed for centuries and will remain for centuries into the future. In the Middle East, there will be winners and there will be losers. Getting comfortable with that reality would do us a lot of good.

      -Huskers1995

      Delete
    5. Iran is a problem completely of our own making. Toppling a democratically elected government at the behest of the British through MI6 was completely unnecessary, and has lead directly to the current problems. Iran is a great place with a crappy government.

      China has never been expansionist and colonialist in the way the British and US have been. They like trade, and will take action to facilitate their ability to profit from trade. BRI and BRICs come from the desire to improve trade, and BRICS has a great deal to do with the US throwing sanctions around at random. The world is tired of this. BRICS exists because the US is increasingly considered an unreliable hegemon, and de-dollarization is probably inevitable at this point. And BRICS is growing like a weed, as even the most casual observer of the Kazan summit would recognize.

      Taiwan is a separate issue, but the claim by the Chinese that it is a renegade province is not completely unreasonable, as it's independence is the result of an unfinished civil war, and it sure isn't worth the west going to war over. I expect reunion is going to happen one way or another given enough time, and it may be political or kinetic. No way to tell at this stage.

      We had a golden chance to become pals with Russia at the end of the cold war when their economy was in ruins, and we completely screwed that up by insisting on pushing NATO further and further eastward. Even today some people want to keep pushing the sliver of what is going to be left of Ukraine into NATO membership.

      I'm curious Huskers. While telling me my viewpoint is foolish, have you ever spent much time in the Middle East outside of the Military? My general take is the people that think its simple don't have much civilian experience there, but anyone that has spent years there in the business community recognizes its horrifically complex and not a region where any reasonable westerner wants to get involved in trying to solve their governance problems.

      Just sayin'.

      Delete
    6. @Huskers

      "our involvement there over the past 2 decades or so has lacked the seriousness and strength required."

      That's the problem. Most westerners have an inadequate sense of history and really don't understand the problem, so they try to apply "fixes" that are totally inappropriate.

      The modern middle east problems started just over 100 years ago when Churchill chaired the 1921 Cairo Conference that redrew boundaries in the middle east after the fall of the Ottoman Empire. Nobody has been happy ever since. It was a tragic mistake that still haunts the region.

      The US got involved in 1952/3 which beget the disaster that is Iran. This isn't just a couple of decades of meddling, it goes way, way back.

      Delete
    7. "Iran is a problem"

      Let's not veer off into politics that don't directly relate to military matters. The history of the political actions is not the purview of this post or blog unless you care to tie them directly to military matters.

      Thank you for your cooperation.

      Delete
    8. Syria’s population is close to Iraq’s in the early 2000s, which tied up over 100,000 coalition troops for the better part of a decade. That adventure also relied heavily on local security forces and militias to help stabilize the country. The total cost of the war was in the trillions, much of that cost being incurred when wages and prices were much lower.

      It was thought in 2002 that a war against Iraq would be cheap. Now that we’ve had that experience, the cost and force levels of Iraq should be our baseline estimate for a similar action against a similarly sized middle eastern nation.

      Given nakedly imperial motives in the Syrian case, I suspect that a Syrian adventure would be more aggressively opposed (both inside and outside Syria) than Iraq. In 2003, Russia was not providing substantial material assistance to insurgents. In the 2020s you should assume massive overt support from Russia and maybe even China (who would mirror our flowery language about a rules based international order). There will be no “coalition” and the action will likely be opposed by every middle eastern government save Israel. At the same time, commenters are also opting to make Turkey, the second largest military in NATO, an enemy while at the same time creating an American territory directly on their border.

      Honestly I don’t see how this is a great idea unless you are coming at it from an Israeli security perspective, but as an American I’m not really keen undertaking an expensive war for their benefit.

      In the early 2000s we were in a recession with no retired baby boomers and a healthy budget with a slight deficit. In 2025 the boomers are mostly retired and the budget situation is far worse.

      If we have $2 trillion extra to spend on the military, I would think it best to spend it on naval forces (more SSNs especially), reopening the F-22 production line and maybe modernizing it a little bit, Guam base defenses, B-21, NGAD, F/A-XX, R&D, etc. I don’t think we have extra money though. Any Syrian adventure would just make the cuts to naval and air forces more extreme, likely handing China an implicit victory in the South China Sea without firing a shot.

      Delete
    9. "Honestly I don’t see how this is a great idea"

      Perhaps because you see only an exact duplicate of the Iraq war? On the other hand, read the collection of comments (mine, in particular!) and you'll see multiple, alternate paths that would be easier and less costly to implement.

      You're also failing to consider the future implications of whatever expenditures might occur. For example, in the Iraq war, we achieved some significant benefits for now and the future. A source of unrest, terrorism, and regional aggression was permanently removed, we gained a degree of basing and cooperation, and established a foothold in the region. Had none of that happened, we'd have had to spend untold billions dealing with the negative consequences. So, it cost a great deal but we did gain a significant amount. It was not perfect, by any means, but it was not a pure waste, either.

      The potential benefits of a Syrian takeover would be huge and, if the move were properly executed, would be worth the cost.

      Your reaction is a knee jerk reaction based wholly on an isolated aspect (cost only, not the benefits) of a past action. Please try to objectively consider the cost, benefits, and alternate means as you form an opinion on the desirability of a Syrian takeover. One might form a legitimate negative opinion but it wouldn't be from using the criteria you did. Please give it some additional thought.

      I would also reiterate a likely successful approach which is to make regional/tribal leaders happy (bribes), stamp out the malcontents, occupy only those areas we need and leave the rest alone, and so forth. This greatly reduces the both the numbers of people we would need to fight and the area we need to control. Again, give it some additional thought.

      Every great venture of mankind has been opposed by people saying it couldn't be done ... until it was done.

      Delete
    10. To be clear, I don’t think it will be a complete carbon copy of Iraq or Afghanistan. My general sense is to expect higher costs, not only due to inflation but circumstantial reasons.

      The United States had a lot of residual good will in 2001-2003 from 9/11 and it was the dominant economic and military power then. It at least had pretexts to go into Iraq and Afghanistan. China is now the worlds dominant industrial power and in terms of basic weapons of war we’re outpaced by even Russia.

      My expectation is that the international reaction would be far worse. Zero NATO and Arab support. Unless we are very accommodating to Turkish interests they will probably join the Russia/China/Iran/North Korea axis, and help supply insurgents with weapons to kill American soldiers, maybe even use their territory to allow staging of insurgent groups. Russia, China, and Iran would supply billions worth of weapons and supplies to insurgents, perhaps also some boots on the ground in Turkey to equip and train insurgents on weapons. Moscow in particular would have every reason to maximize US losses, with an ideal outcome including the sinking of US ships in the Mediterranean. China perhaps begins basing troops and equipment in Turkey. Other ME nations will also turn away from the US and align overtly with Russia and China for protection and out of distaste for the US blatantly occupying a ME nation for no other reason than because it can, kicking our forces out of their countries. The political support for an imperial action in the US is likely to be very low at home, with low troop morale and even poorer recruitment than we already have.

      Just bribe the locals? Maybe that works, maybe it doesn’t. What happens if our allies through bribery seem unwilling or unable to actually solve the insurgent problem in their territory? What if our local warlords are taken out by insurgents or hits by Russian/Chinese intelligence? We can’t simply assume a few bribes will make our problems go away. Failing to control all the territory will just leave more room for insurgents to operate.

      The war will be conducted by the same feckless military leadership you’ve railed about for years.

      In the end we get… a base or three in the Middle East? While probably losing others we already have.

      The costs, while admittedly uncertain, have a good chance of being as high aa Iraq, potentially far higher. The benefits seem rather meager and might well be completely offset through the destruction of all our political relationships in the region. It’s not 2003 any more, there is now a competing economic and military bloc, which will be more than happy to step in and take away the rest of our basing infrastructure in the region without having to fire a shot.



      Delete
    11. "My expectation is that the international reaction would be far worse."

      Well, you certainly go on to describe the absolute worst possible outcome and consequences combined with the absolute minimal benefits. To paraphrase someone (I don't remember who), there's nothing like a good, objective, reasoned analysis and that was nothing like a good, objective, reasoned analysis.

      There's no point discussing this further. We've each made our points so the readers can decide for themselves what approach they prefer.

      I'll offer one final thought of a more general nature. The US was not founded and built on timidity. It was also not built on an overly sensitive concern for other countries. The kind of timid, the sky is falling, maximum negative consequences view that you espouse would have us still cowering at Plymouth Rock, unable to move for fear of the Indian nations banding together (and probably allied with the Spanish, French, and English!) to fight us. Fortune - and history - favors the bold.

      Delete
  8. So my first gut feeling was to stay uninvolved. I've grown averse to boots on the sand of anything remotely Muslim. Plus, doing so seems to fly in the face of the principles we normally preach. But... the more I considered it, the more interesting it became!!
    I'm not sure we want to expend effort on the whole country. Maybe break off the NE, and either cede it to Iraq, or let it self-determine. Maybe some token acreage to Turkey as a bargaining chip (??). Give the part of the population most unhappy about living under US rule a place to run to. Then we'll know where they are. Focus our efforts on the populated and developed area, basically everything west of the Euphrates. (This may or may not be worthwhile).
    I see some big positives here. First, giving Israel a stretch of non-threatening border is a good thing. Creating a solid ME position with ports on the Med that aren't subject to any NATO nation dissent about what operations are run from them is a big plus. Being able to build up forces there, we would be able to support Israel (and the whole region) against terrorist groups, as well as Iran proper.
    If we were to do this, it'd have to become actual US territory. Idk about it becoming an actual state, but if not, somthing very close. Start out with fully formed, US citizen manned government. Locals can assimilate into it over time, but it would be an absolutely American system, modeled on a state. Constitutional rights, three branches of govt, and the whole system. While it'd take time, eventually it could become a shining example that the region couldn't deny was prosperous and free. It'd be a massively expensive undertaking, but one that might be worth doing.
    On the other hand, becoming mired in another situation where success is measured by how much the troop loss drops isn't appealing. To do this, we'd have to toss out all the old ROEs, and get the job done quickly and ruthlessly- which often creates a new generation of dissenters and rebels. But, maybe a US model for the new territory would win them over. It's a tricky proposition, as I see Muslims and a free western society as generally incompatible. But, it could become an immigration destination for Muslims from across the region interested in a modern democratic society. It might just work...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Maybe break off the NE, ... Maybe some token acreage to Turkey as a bargaining chip"

      That's some good, creative, statesmanship thinking. Outstanding.

      " It'd be a massively expensive undertaking"

      Would it? Consider what our two decade involvement in Afghanistan cost us and we wound up with nothing. If we were willing to spend that kind of money, resources, and lives to no purpose, wouldn't we be willing to spend at least that much on something that we could benefit greatly from? Something to think about.

      Delete
    2. "I see Muslims and a free western society as generally incompatible."

      More incompatible than, say, the feudal Japanese at the end of WWII or the German society at the end of WWII? Now look at them. We had the correct model at the end of WWII. Why not apply it to this?

      Delete
    3. "More incompatible than, say, the feudal Japanese at the end of WWII or the German society at the end of WWII? Now look at them. We had the correct model at the end of WWII. Why not apply it to this?"

      The Japanese and Germans were both quite homogeneous cultures. The Middle East absolutely isn't, and Syria is the epitome of that.

      The problem isn't the religion, its the tribal culture where every tribe distrusts every other tribe, and alliances shift constantly.

      And the NE of Syria is where the Kurds are, and they for absolutely for sure want their own state. And they are quite happy to fight for it if they every quit squabbling amongst themselves.

      Delete
  9. "If we were willing to spend that kind of money..."
    Good point, although to be real, we spent that money, and those lives, in a good faith attempt at reaching foolish goals, created by people with no knowledge or understanding of history, the people, the tribalism, or the religion and its different factions. Would doing it again, but with our own (mostly self serving) goals be worthwhile? Probably.

    "More incompatible than, say, the feudal Japanese at the end of WWII or the German society at the end of WWII?"
    I'd say yes. Germany was a "western" society already, they just got led astray while they were floundering under the weight of recession and the post war punishment imposed after WWI. Now, the Japanese were less compatible, but western influence had already started, and they were starting to trend that way, Albeit under basically military rule. So, westernization and freedoms weren't unheard of.
    Now, the Islamic/Muslim populations are a whole different animal. The religion is pervasive and has deep control and influence that deviates from our ideas of morality, and it doesn't espouse personal choices or freedoms. Add that in with the fact that we are talking about a population where a good percentage of it lives in the last century technically and intellectually, , and yes, I'd say that there a huge level of incompatibility- one that might not be overcome for generations of.only the best results.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But you're correct...we do have the model CNO, its just that first we have to reach VE/VJ day as quickly as possible, and then rebuild in our image in a way that makes their religion secondary to freedom and capitalism. Not an easy task... possible?? Maybe. But it'd take nation building to a whole new level...

      Delete
    2. Who are you going to use to do this? Who is going to be seen to be compatible with the local religious beliefs and tribal champions? There is basically no one. So think this this through if you don't want to see a 30 year insurgency.

      Delete
    3. "Who is going to be seen to be compatible with the local religious beliefs and tribal champions?"

      Why would we want to try to be compatible someone else's religion or culture? That would be foolish. All we have to do is co-exist through the use of bribes, occasional common interests (more bribes and some infrastructure), military might (highly respected in the Middle East - might makes right), appeals to self-interest on the part of tribal leaders, and the absence of threat towards those who do not threaten us. We essentially did this in dealing with Germany and Japan at the end of WWII.

      Delete
    4. "then rebuild in our image in a way that makes their religion secondary to freedom and capitalism."

      This is exactly what happened in Germany and Japan at the end of WWII. Over the years, the common people recognized the personal benefits to our system and willingly adopted it. They didn't have to be forced into it at gunpoint after the first few years. We were simply there to set the pattern and provide security while they regained their footing.

      Similarly, with Syria, you set up the mechanism, make the benefits obvious, and let the common people come to us while we maintain security. Consider the example of many of the Middle East countries such as Saudi Arabia and the like. They had the same cultures, originally, but came to see the benefits of a more free market and [somewhat] freer society. There's no reason Syria couldn't do the same if managed properly.

      Delete
    5. "They had the same cultures, originally, but came to see the benefits of a more free market and [somewhat] freer society."

      That is an interesting view of life in Saudi. Its also completely wrong. Saudi is the exact opposite of a free market. If you are a Saudi national, the government takes care of you cradle to grave. The restrictions on personal freedoms are horrendous. Its like living inside a slowly closing vice. Go hang out in the town square on a Friday and watch the public executions and the hand chopping. Saudi is nothing like the west. Seriously.

      If you want to talk about living conditions in the Middle East, Saudi is by far the worst except for maybe Yemen.

      Dubai. Pretty good, but there are still ways to end up in prison for mistaking the general tolerance for western freedoms. Happens to many westerners every year.

      Qatar. More restrictive than Dubai, but still a great place to live once you understand the culture and work within it. Or work outside it but don't advertise what you are doing. Home to the biggest US base in the Middle East, but you rarely see US service members in Doha.

      Kurdistan (Iraq). Pretty good in Erbil, but there are many no-go areas like Mosul. Generally, its safer the closer you get to Iran, and more dangerous the farther west you travel. Not a bad place for women.

      Kuwait. Saudi Arabia mini-me. Very restrictive and not a fun place to live unless you like being told what you can and can't do. Not a fun place for western women.

      Saudi Arabia. If you work for Aramco and live in one of their compounds, not too bad. If you live in the general population it's horrendous. You need to take a crash course on local norms or you can end up in a world of hurt. If you are married, don't even consider taking your wife there. She will legitimately hate it with good reason. The restrictions on women in public are dire. The religious police are a nightmare.

      Syria used to be quite western. I have many Syrian friends who left Syria due to the civil wars. Now under HTS its going to be a horror show, and reading many of the comments here is interesting. As in Iraq and Afghanistan wars interesting.

      There are no big advantages for the US getting tangled up in Syria. Its not particularly interesting geographically. Yes, you get a port, and the NE corner is less than 500 miles from Tehran. But the cost of doing this is going to be stupendous right when the US is rapidly going broke. Use the money saved to fix the military.

      So why bother?

      Delete
    6. Did someone say that Middle East countries were an exact, carbon copy of the US? Of course not. However, it is undeniable that many have adopted Western ways to varying degrees, as did the Germans and Japanese.

      You clearly have no interest in objectively acknowledging and evaluating the potential gains that would come from occupying Syria and how those gains would balance against the costs and difficulties.

      Merry Christmas!

      Delete

Comments will be moderated for posts older than 7 days in order to reduce spam.