Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Aside from maybe the arab league about Syria, i'm still wondering who invited the US/NATO to "intervene" anywhere

Bullockist wrote:Aside from maybe the arab league about Syria, i'm still wondering who invited the US/NATO to "intervene" anywhere

Then you should read history books. Honestly and truly. You do not know that Saudi Arabia requested US assistance after Saddam struck Kuwait? You do not understand how we got into Libya, Kosovo? If you don't you might want to look it up. Many of these entanglements that the US gets into start off as UN actions or requests for help from allies. Look it up.

Bullockist wrote:Aside from maybe the arab league about Syria, i'm still wondering who invited the US/NATO to "intervene" anywhere

who says we need to be invited? One thing we pride ourselves with here is being the big bad ass who goes and does what ever we please.

Andrew1975 wrote:
No, what you are doing is using nit picking as a diversion. Anyone else can see from the context exactly who I am referring too. There is no one proper term that one can use to encompass all the people of the middle east and surrounding areas.

Its not a diversion, and its an important distinction which many people fail to make. Its also something I consider particularly annoying.

Plus, there is a proper term for all the people of the Middle East: people of the Middle East.

Andrew1975 wrote:
You can dish it out but you can't take it huh? Typical.

My argument is pretty simple, really, and I've made it in fairly straight forward manner. Removing dictators from power, or keeping them in power, is not necessarily better or worse in terms of achieving a set of foreign policy goals, because foreign public opinion isn't necessarily important or even significantly impacted by our operations in country.

From what I can gather, your argument is that the approval of either Arabs, Muslims, or the people of the Middle East (I wasn't sure which one you meant until now) is of central importance to our foreign policy in the Middle East, and it should be a key concern.

Andrew1975 wrote:
But I'm not saying either. I'm saying that unnecessary and poorly thought out actions taken by the west have not only created, and fueled terrorism, but made us targets of it. These same actions have made it very difficult to make true and lasting political ties.

The Saudi government is very supportive of the United States and has been for a long time, the Egyptian state was also a close ally for decades. Pretty much all of the gulf states (Bahrain, the UAE, Oman, Qatar, and Kuwait) have close ties to the US. Jordan is also a close US ally, and Iraq is obviously closely connected to us at this point as well. Oh, and don't forget Turkey.

Really, looking at the Middle East, the only states we don't have close relationships with are Iran, Lebanon, Syria, and Yemen. So, if our actions in the Middle East have made it difficult to form strong political ties, it certainly isn't manifested in very many places.

Andrew1975 wrote:
I' don't think the US should be spending money and lives like they are nothing.

I'm fairly certain the only coalition soldier killed in the Libyan operation was British guy who died in a car accident in Italy.

Andrew1975 wrote:
1 billion here, one billion there, billions and billions on Iraq and trillions into the military beast just so we can go on these missions.

Yeah, foreign policy costs money.

Andrew1975 wrote:
France was the one that began the whole Libya saber rattling. If they were so concerned they should have handled Libya on their own or better yet get the Arab league to handle it.

I still don't understand your preoccupation with the Arab League, especially in light of dismissing the UN as an invalid means of resolving grievances. But that aside, you're also acting like we didn't have a material interest in Libya, and that it was all because of those dirty French; which is absolutely not the case.

Andrew1975 wrote:
Syria will not be another Libya. The Syrian military is an all together different beast.

Of course not, which is why we probably won't intervene.

Andrew1975 wrote:
No, it wouldn't because I'd run your car with you in it over a cliff. Either argue or don't argue but this is just pathetic.

I am arguing. The point I'm illustrating is that arguing that option X is cheaper than option Y is meaningless if option X is not feasible.

Andrew1975 wrote:
Yeah, because post world war 2 Germany and Japan were real problems as compares to say Iraq?

We didn't have to rebuild them, and whether or not something was a real problem isn't important relative to your argument. You said there were issues that can make nation building more or less expensive, I argued that nation building is intrinsically expensive. And now I'm going to add that you're not likely to be rebuilding a nation that doesn't have significant reason to dislike you; you are likely to be rebuilding a nation you just fought a war with.

Its not a diversion, and its an important distinction which many people fail to make. Its also something I consider particularly annoying.

Plus, there is a proper term for all the people of the Middle East: people of the Middle East.

But I'm not exclusively talking just about people in the middle east though. Pakistan is not the middle east nor is Libya technically.

My argument is pretty simple, really, and I've made it in fairly straight forward manner. Removing dictators from power, or keeping them in power, is not necessarily better or worse in terms of achieving a set of foreign policy goals, because foreign public opinion isn't necessarily important or even significantly impacted by our operations in country.

I don't agree with this. The countries we are discussing are dictatorships that more and more are on the edge of rebellion. We may make political inroads with a ruler here and there, but we are doing little to improve our image with the people that are eventually going to replace them. Part of this is that the people we chose to back use anti western policies in an attempt to control their people.

From what I can gather, your argument is that the approval of either Arabs, Muslims, or the people of the Middle East (I wasn't sure which one you meant until now) is of central importance to our foreign policy in the Middle East, and it should be a key concern.

It's not of central importance, but it should be a major concern when the general public of "the area" has a very bad view of us. Yes we have made political inroads with some governments, but not their people. How many times have we seen leaders we have propped up in the middle east fail, only to be replaced by new governments that are anti west. It will be interesting to see where the loyalties of the new governments of Libya and Egypt lay.

The Saudi government is very supportive of the United States and has been for a long time, the Egyptian state was also a close ally for decades. Pretty much all of the gulf states (Bahrain, the UAE, Oman, Qatar, and Kuwait) have close ties to the US. Jordan is also a close US ally, and Iraq is obviously closely connected to us at this point as well. Oh, and don't forget Turkey.

Yes their leaders are supportive because they have been bought a long time ago, their people much less so if not openly hostile in some cases. The current state of governmental stability in "The AREA" leads me to believe that while we still want to keep good relations with the leaders, it may also be time we look at ways at getting your average person to not see us as the devil.

I'm fairly certain the only coalition soldier killed in the Libyan operation was British guy who died in a car accident in Italy.

Is risking the better term then?

Yeah, foreign policy costs money.

Sure does, especially when you feel the need to police the world. Clumsily.

I still don't understand your preoccupation with the Arab League, especially in light of dismissing the UN as an invalid means of resolving grievances. But that aside, you're also acting like we didn't have a material interest in Libya, and that it was all because of those dirty French; which is absolutely not the case.

I never said the UN was invalid. I just wish it's de facto military force wasn't the US. Look when the UN has problems in Canada, or south America, give us a call. Otherwise let someone closer to the problem (in every sense) handle it.

We have material interest in Libya, but in that case Gaddafy was keeping the oil flowing so I didn't really see any reason to go after him. If someone felt like going after him for humanitarian reasons that's fine, the French and English were very vocal about it, so they could have done it. The Arab league was annoyed with it, so they could have done it. I still don't understand why every time there is a problem people expect the US to send money and soldiers. Except that we always have, but its time for other people to start pitching in.

Of course not, which is why we probably won't intervene.

Can I quote you on that?

I am arguing. The point I'm illustrating is that arguing that option X is cheaper than option Y is meaningless if option X is not feasible.

The only thing that makes the Arab league stepping in unfeasible is that they always count on us doing it for them. Now if the arab league needs some technical support and advisers, then I'm fine with that. I just don't want to see US troops or equipment there in large numbers. Operationally Libya was a step in the right direction, but I'd like to see even less US involvement.

You said there were issues that can make nation building more or less expensive, I argued that nation building is intrinsically expensive.

Of course but there are levels. You seam to have a problem understanding this concept. It's expensive to nation build, its really exponentially expensive when you have to constantly fight while you are nation building because the people whose nation you are building are taking shots at you the whole time and blowing up the nation you just built.

The hatred that these people have for the US is manifested in how easy it is to find bodies and weapons to throw against us.

I'm going to add that you're not likely to be rebuilding a nation that doesn't have significant reason to dislike you; you are likely to be rebuilding a nation you just fought a war with.

The people of Germany and Japan did not hate the US. In fact it would be very hard to see where we have ever met this kind of resistance, distrust and hatred among a population. It may be that no population has been as messed with by the US as the people of the "AREA". There are plenty of reasons for this, we are constantly meddling in the region, we exploit it for it's resources, we prop up brutal leaders, these leaders preach anti western rhetoric, because western values are what will cause their people to rise against them.

I'm as interested in oil and other resources as anyone else, I just think there are better ways to get it. I'm not ignoring that we need the oil to flow, or that we need it to flow cheaply.

And yes I'm going to be annoying and use the "AREA" because you object to everything else and have not given me a better term to use.

Andrew1975 wrote:






I' don't think the US should be spending money and lives like they are nothing.

.

Andrew1975 wrote:
1 billion here, one billion there, billions and billions on Iraq and trillions into the military beast just so we can go on these missions.

Andrew1975 wrote:
Syria will not be another Libya. The Syrian military is an all together different beast.

.

By GDP

US defence spending is only like, what, 5% of GDP and is around that for most Western nations

NO. No matter what metric you use the United states spends vastly more that our western partners. By GDP the most any off our Western counter parts spent was the UK and that was 2.6% we spent almost twice as much.

Germany spent only 1.3% France. 2.4%

I still think the US has the firepower to destroy both of those countries conventional armed forces but not unless a set of conditions exist and with considerable support from its Arab and Turkish partners.

What is interesting about spending by GDP is you see a huge amount of money being spent in the middle east. These countries are building large militaries, I say let them use them, now if they need some C&C help to coordinate the Arab League forces, well fine, I can be down. If they do get a UN resolution I would love to see the UN dictate that the coalition must be at least 75% Arab League military. I'm sick of these pissers providing token forces or sitting on the sideline all together.

they are diplomatic and political. Is the opposition strong enough to take over Syria to prevent a lengthy US occupation? Will Turkey and Iraq support having US troops invade from their countries and start a war with their neighbour? Would an Arab coalition stand if Israel entered the War? Syria has, unlike Sadam in 91, a direct border by the Golan heights and could start hostilities simply by rolling its tanks across the border. Even if the attack were (in all likelihood) annialated it could tear any potential coalition apart. Will Iran widen the conflict by directly assisting its ally in the region? etc etc.

These are all important concerns, I just don't see why they are US or specifically or exclusively US concerns. If they should be raising red flags and getting militaries mobilized I would think it would be in their own back yard and neighbors, not 10 thousand miles away.

If the Arab league uses it's military guess who they want to buy weapons from to replace loses? The US. When we show that we can coordinate their C&C using our technology $$$$$$$$. We need to stop putting ourselves in positions of weakness and loss and put ourselves in positions of strength and gain. If they need to occupy Syria for 10 years, we could use our experience in Iraq to sell them vast amounts of tech and weapons. Hell let them hire blackwater mercs if they want.

Andrew1975 wrote:
But I'm not exclusively talking just about people in the middle east though. Pakistan is not the middle east nor is Libya technically.

Do you believe the average Libyan hates the US?

Andrew1975 wrote:
I don't agree with this. The countries we are discussing are dictatorships that more and more are on the edge of rebellion.

Turkey isn't a dictatorship, and Saudi Arabia isn't on the edge of rebellion. Nor is the UAE, or Oman, or Qatar, or even Bahrain, Kuwait, or Jordan. Protests do not mean "on the edge of rebellion". If they did, the US and many other Western countries would also be "on the edge of rebellion".

Andrew1975 wrote:
We may make political inroads with a ruler here and there, but we are doing little to improve our image with the people that are eventually going to replace them.

I'll say it yet again: the people matter far less than the government. They matter more in democracies than they do in dictatorships, but even in democracies they don't matter all that much. There are dozens of ways to control people, and there is always the option of simply not telling people what you're doing.

Andrew1975 wrote:
How many times have we seen leaders we have propped up in the middle east fail, only to be replaced by new governments that are anti west.

Once. Iran.

Andrew1975 wrote:
Is risking the better term then?

Given the nature of the Libyan operation, no.

Andrew1975 wrote:
Sure does, especially when you feel the need to police the world. Clumsily.

We're actually pretty damn good at it, we've had practice.

Andrew1975 wrote:
I never said the UN was invalid. I just wish it's de facto military force wasn't the US.

Its not. Look at the makeup of UN peacekeepers. They're disproportionately from third and second world nations. When the US uses military force "on behalf of the UN" its really using military force on behalf of itself, being on the Security Council basically makes the UN a forum by which to establish legitimacy.

Andrew1975 wrote:
We have material interest in Libya, but in that case Gaddafy was keeping the oil flowing so I didn't really see any reason to go after him.

Other than the fact that he was personally and politically unstable.

Andrew1975 wrote:
The only thing that makes the Arab league stepping in unfeasible is that they always count on us doing it for them.

That's utter nonsense. What makes the Arab League unfeasible is their total lack of force projection, and lack of complete concurrence with US interests.

Andrew1975 wrote:
Of course but there are levels. You seam to have a problem understanding this concept. It's expensive to nation build, its really exponentially expensive when you have to constantly fight while you are nation building because the people whose nation you are building are taking shots at you the whole time and blowing up the nation you just built.

Not really. The primary cost is in the deployment of military and civilian assets to do the work, and maintain relative stability. This cost is further determined by the actual size of the nation. Insurgent violence is a minor cost at best, and isn't even necessarily reflective of how long the process will take as "not shooting at Americans" isn't the priority.

No offense, but your argument is basically a collection of all the ignorant cliches that people throw around about the Middle East, foreign policy, and military intervention. You sound like someone who is incredibly frustrated by a series of concepts he simply doesn't understand.

Andrew1975 wrote:
The people of Germany and Japan did not hate the US.

Yeah, sure, that island nation that made a habit of suicide bombing US warships held no hatred for it; certainly not after we fire and nuclear bombed several of their cities.

The Germans are a different matter, but to claim no hatred was held for a nation, series of nations really, that just engaged in a devastating war against you which effectively ruined your country is just ridiculous.

Andrew1975 wrote:
....these leaders preach anti western rhetoric, because western values are what will cause their people to rise against them.

Very few of the leaders we prop up in the ME preach anti-Western rhetoric, or preach at all. Most of them work on the rentier model.

No matter what metric you use the United states spends vastly more that our western partners.

Well we are more paranoid and militaristic than most of the other Western countries so it isn't a surprise. Looking at the groups that do outspend us in terms of GDP % puts us in interesting company.

Yes, but only 4% of your economy is still only 4% of your economy. I asumed by your previous comment that you were implying the military is a collossal drain on the states resources when in fact. For all Western countries. It is actually not a vast burden at all in relation to public welfare or the cost of government. Even Israel, a state threatened with annialation only has 8%.

Admittedly, having defence spending nearly as great as the combined top list or spenders is pretty ridiculous. Its like the British in the 19th century insisiting that we had to have a fleet twice the size of our nearest rival.

Ahtman wrote: Looking at the groups that do outspend us in terms of GDP % puts us in interesting company.

It makes me smile every time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Totalwar1402 wrote:Yes, but only 4% of your economy is still only 4% of your economy. I asumed by your previous comment that you were implying the military is a collossal drain on the states resources when in fact. For all Western countries. It is actually not a vast burden at all in relation to public welfare or the cost of government. Even Israel, a state threatened with annialation only has 8%.

Truthfully, while percentage of GDP is a useful metric, budget share and total deficit are better ways to assess true cost to the state (there are mitigating factors as well). The US military budget could be reduced without necessarily significantly reducing overall effectiveness (and we've actually been making some headway on the R&D/procurement side), but even then the largest issue is systemic cost, not the cost of using what is on hand.

Do you believe the average Libyan hates the US?

I believe that they have a negative view and in general take an anti west stance yes.

Turkey isn't a dictatorship, and Saudi Arabia isn't on the edge of rebellion. Nor is the UAE, or Oman, or Qatar, or even Bahrain, Kuwait, or Jordan. Protests do not mean "on the edge of rebellion". If they did, the US and many other Western countries would also be "on the edge of rebellion".

Tell that to Egypt, Libya, Syria,Tunisia, Bahrain and Yemen

I'll say it yet again: the people matter far less than the government. They matter more in democracies than they do in dictatorships, but even in democracies they don't matter all that much. There are dozens of ways to control people, and there is always the option of simply not telling people what you're doing.

Yes, but take for instance Egypt and Iran, the leaders we supported are gone, so all the money and resources we put in are gone too, if not just turned against us as in Iran's case. There is a growing concern that after all the resources we put into Iraq we will lose control of the country.

Once. Iran.

And now the ones who are not pro west?

We're actually pretty damn good at it, we've had practice.

I think we are good in some places, but not the "Area".

When the US uses military force "on behalf of the UN" its really using military force on behalf of itself, being on the Security Council basically makes the UN a forum by which to establish legitimacy.

I accept this as fact, but I still don't understand the necessity for it. The European members of NATO along with the Arab League could have handled Libya without the US.

Other than the fact that he was personally and politically unstable.

He had been playing along for quite some time and the oil was flowing. Who cares. If anything going to war with him endangered and disrupted the flow of oil, which is all that really should matter to us.

That's utter nonsense. What makes the Arab League unfeasible is their total lack of force projection, and lack of complete concurrence with US interests.

I'm not asking the Arab league to send troops to Europe, it's Syria, it's their neighbor. As for US interests, it's Syria, hardly a keystone in American foreign policy.

Not really. The primary cost is in the deployment of military and civilian assets to do the work, and maintain relative stability. This cost is further determined by the actual size of the nation. Insurgent violence is a minor cost at best, and isn't even necessarily reflective of how long the process will take as "not shooting at Americans" isn't the priority.

Yeah because that was not the reason Iraq took so long and cost so much. "The primary cost.....and maintain relative stability" "Insurgent violence is a minor cost at best". How do you maintain relative stability if you are not limiting insurgent violence?

Yeah, sure, that island nation that made a habit of suicide bombing US warships held no hatred for it; certainly not after we fire and nuclear bombed several of their cities.

Did you see major terrorist activity on the same level as Iraq after the Japanese surrender?I'm sure you will blame this on a cultural distinction between the Japanese and the insurgents. Either way it didn't happen there or in Germany, Italy, France, Panama, Grenada, etc.

The Germans are a different matter, but to claim no hatred was held for a nation, series of nations really, that just engaged in a devastating war against you which effectively ruined your country is just ridiculous.

Sure there was hate but not on the scale they we see in the "Area". Citizens in countries we haven't even touched can be seen burning flags and protesting against the US on a regular basis.

"In Arab countries and among Muslim populations, anti-Americanism is not only the monopoly of intellectuals but also a widespread disposition of the masses. In these areas, traditional religion, radical politics, and economic backwardness combine to make anti-Americanism an exceptionally widespread, virulent, and reflexive response to a wide range of collective and personal frustrations and grievances-and a welcome alternative to any collective or individual self-examination or stock-taking. More generally, it is the rise of alternatives, ushered in by modernization, that threatens traditional societies and generates anti-American reaction. The stability of traditional society (like that of modern totalitarian systems) rests on the lack of alternatives, on the lack of choice. Choice is deeply subversive-culturally, politically, psychologically. The recent outburst of murderous anti-Americanism has added a new dimension to the phenomenon, or at any rate, throws into relief the intense hatred it may encapsulate. The violence of September 11 shows that when anti-Americanism is nurtured by the kind of indignation and resentment that in [turn] is stimulated and sanctioned by religious convictions, it can become spectacularly destructive."

Can you seriously say that this anit-western attitude is good for US operations in the region? When you can't even deliver aid to these areas without being attacked how can you deny that this makes any action much more dangerous and costly?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Yes, but only 4% of your economy is still only 4% of your economy. I asumed by your previous comment that you were implying the military is a collossal drain on the states resources when in fact. For all Western countries. It is actually not a vast burden at all in relation to public welfare or the cost of government. Even Israel, a state threatened with annialation only has 8%.

Exactly a country surrounded by enemies and constantly threatened with annihilation spends 8%.

I think we get a pretty good deal for what we spend actually. But the cost is still to much, the US needs to find better ways to do business. Let regional players take a more active role. When we have so many infrastructure issues it's irresponsible to spend the budget like we do. I agree we need a strong military and their are issues worth intervening in, I just think we have picked many of our recent battle poorly.

Why the hell would anyone in the US want to go to Syria?

Andrew1975 wrote:
I believe that they have a negative view and in general take an anti west stance yes.

I've not seen much evidence of either. Certainly they don't like Italy, but America and the entire Western world don't seem to be discussed en masse. Of course, the absence of evidence does not mean a thing is not true, it means there is no evidence to support it.

That being said, there is significant anti-American sentiment certainly exists among Libyans (whether or not among most Libyans is a different question) if some sources are to be believe

Andrew1975 wrote:
Tell that to Egypt, Libya, Syria,Tunisia, Bahrain and Yemen

We didn't support Libya, Syria, or Yemen. Bahrain isn't in danger of a successful revolution.

Andrew1975 wrote:
Yes, but take for instance Egypt and Iran, the leaders we supported are gone, so all the money and resources we put in are gone too, if not just turned against us as in Iran's case. There is a growing concern that after all the resources we put into Iraq we will lose control of the country.

Sure, sometimes things backfire, don't work, or end, that's true of life, but especially political life. However, in both losing something doesn't mean that it wasn't a worthwhile venture.

Andrew1975 wrote:
And now the ones who are not pro west?

We don't know how the Arab Spring is going to shake out yet.

Andrew1975 wrote:
I accept this as fact, but I still don't understand the necessity for it. The European members of NATO along with the Arab League could have handled Libya without the US.

Still this obsession with the Arab League, and the assumption that it will (or can) do what you want. Its been ridiculous for a while now, and I'm starting to think its just because the word "Arab" is in the name.

And yeah, NATO probably could have handled Libya without the US, but the US had a material interest and so acted. This isn't a difficult concept.

Andrew1975 wrote:
He had been playing along for quite some time and the oil was flowing. Who cares. If anything going to war with him endangered and disrupted the flow of oil, which is all that really should matter to us.

Well, neither of those things is true. The oil producing region of Libya is the Eastern, otherwise known as the revolutionary, side of it. Its also the part of the country that holds the most anti-US sentiment. It looked like they were going to, if not win, deny that half to the sitting government; so we moved to curry favor because they would control the oil which was already disrupted by the conflict (meaning a swift end is good).

Further, there are obvious reasons to consider the interests of trading partners, like France, Britain(Who got a lot of oil from Libya, and want more.), and the rest of NATO.

Andrew1975 wrote:
I'm not asking the Arab league to send troops to Europe, it's Syria, it's their neighbor.

Whose neighbor? Sudan's?

Andrew1975 wrote:
As for US interests, it's Syria, hardly a keystone in American foreign policy.

Us foreign policy includes "keep Israel happy."

Andrew1975 wrote:
Yeah because that was not the reason Iraq took so long and cost so much. "The primary cost.....and maintain relative stability" "Insurgent violence is a minor cost at best". How do you maintain relative stability if you are not limiting insurgent violence?

We did, and as nation building goes, Iraq was pretty short; and only dubiously successful. Its expensive, and takes a long time. The most successful incidences of nation building (state building is probably more accurate) were the British colonies in the Caribbean, and they took decades.

Andrew1975 wrote:
Did you see major terrorist activity on the same level as Iraq after the Japanese surrender?I'm sure you will blame this on a cultural distinction between the Japanese and the insurgents. Either way it didn't happen there or in Germany, Italy, France, Panama, Grenada, etc.

We weren't at war with France, so that's irrelevant to my claim, and further damaging to yours as the French were pretty damn hostile with respect to America during the Cold War.

Panama wasn't state building, we basically just dropped in and took Noriega, and in Grenada we overthrew the state and left so that wasn't state building either.

Italy wasn't an incidence of state building either, it basically just went back to pre-fascist Italy.

And yeah, as regards Japan it is a cultural difference.

Andrew1975 wrote:
Sure there was hate but not on the scale they we see in the "Area". Citizens in countries we haven't even touched can be seen burning flags and protesting against the US on a regular basis.

Yeah, because military intervention isn't the cause of the hatred, which is what I've been arguing for pages.

Andrew1975 wrote:
Can you seriously say that this anit-western attitude is good for US operations in the region?

No, but it isn't necessarily bad, or avoidable.

Still this obsession with the Arab League, and the assumption that it will (or can) do what you want. Its been ridiculous for a while now, and I'm starting to think its just because the word "Arab" is in the name.

And yeah, NATO probably could have handled Libya without the US, but the US had a material interest and so acted. This isn't a difficult concept.

The Arab league should be the major player in the region, it should be a NATO like organization, I know it's not there yet, but there is no real reason it could not be. The have vast militaries.

I don't agree with those material interests. Without support for the rebels Libya could have been able to deal with the rebellion, thus allowing the flow of oil to return back to normal. Gadaffi had been maintaining a low profile for quite sometime. It goes back to the devil you know. Gadaffi for the last 10 years had not been a thorn in the side of the west, largely complying with the Wests suggestions. I think the jury is still out at to whether ousting him was really the best call. We had Gadaffi pretty well under control, can the same be guaranteed about Libya's new stewards?

Further, there are obvious reasons to consider the interests of trading partners, like France, Britain(Who got a lot of oil from Libya, and want more.), and the rest of NATO.

Of course there are, but there are obvious reasons for us to be more concerned with our own interests.

Whose neighbor? Sudan's?

Syria is surrounded by members of the Arab League and is in close proximity to many of them. Logistically it would be much easier for the Arab league to mobilize their forces than for the US to send them.

Us foreign policy includes "keep Israel happy."

And how does going into Syria change this. If anything the US going into Syria has the potential to put Israel in more danger.

We did, and as nation building goes, Iraq was pretty short; and only dubiously successful. Its expensive, and takes a long time. The most successful incidences of nation building (state building is probably more accurate) were the British colonies in the Caribbean, and they took decades.

10 years, thousands of lives and trillions of dollars (that's just US costs mind you) is pretty short and relatively cheap to you? You are going to have to legitimize that in some way. Not to mention what was actually gained by the action and was it successful, and my favorite will it last. By all accounts this was a complete waste. I still do not see the benefit to making an enemy of Saddam, yes he was a jerk, but what was the benefit to the US? The protection of Saudi Arabia aspect of Desert shield I understood, but probably would have been unnecessary had we not stood up for Kuwait.

We weren't at war with France

We were with part of it.

Panama wasn't state building, we basically just dropped in and took Noriega, and in Grenada we overthrew the state and left so that wasn't state building either.

Italy wasn't an incidence of state building either, it basically just went back to pre-fascist Italy.

Even so you did not see civilian resistance on the level we see in the middle east. You could say that the whole reason we had to go through such a massive nation building exercise in Iraq was because the population was so hostile towards a US sponsored rebuild. Would they have had this issue if it was done by Muslims from the Arab League? Would it have been more successful?

Yeah, because military intervention isn't the cause of the hatred, which is what I've been arguing for pages.

No it not just because of military intervention, it;s because of intervention of all forms. But US military intervention is a major part of the general anti-US sentiment throughout the entire "AREA"

No, but it isn't necessarily bad, or avoidable.

Sure it is, it makes all operations and actions much more, dangerous, costly, and dicey. And while it's not completely avoidable as there is always going to be culture clash between the two players it can certainly be manged much much better. Part of that is letting the region self govern and regulate, or at least appear to self govern and regulate itself more, by allowing or making the Arab league become a NATO like force in the region. I know things will not go swimmingly even if Arab League troops are used, but at least then anger will be pointed at the arab league and not the US.

In regards to the original topic, I think it wouldn't be out of the question that Qatar might smuggle weapons into the country. They've already done so for the insurgents in Libya, and Sheikh Hamar is currently campaigning for an Arab military force to intervene in Syria, so he would seem to be firmly on the rebels' side.

Andrew1975 wrote:Any UN force sent anywhere is going to be predominantly West or more specific US.

Actually, peacekeeper forces are predominantly African troops. In the UN, you can choose whether you want to participate with money or men, so unsurprisingly the poorer nations tend to "rent" out their soldiers whilst the rich ones tend to lean back and pay for them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_peacekeeping#Participation

Of course there's also national military forces acting on behalf of the UN, for example the conflict in Libya. If you want that to stop, however, don't look towards the Arabs or the UN, for the resolution was spearheaded by France and the US, backed by Lebanon - the Security Council merely voted on sanctioning what these three nations have proposed. You need to understand that politics are heavily influenced by backdoor deals and powerful lobbies, and whilst war may cost a nation greatly in money and lives, corporations do have a lot to gain. Halliburton and its ties to certain politicians were already mentioned earlier.

For what it's worth, I tend to agree that the UN needs to become more proactive regarding military intervention, and that national endeavours need to be banned to preserve control. Given that I firmly believe in global thinking and cooperation as well as a commitment to make a stand against injustice and atrocities, I appreciate NATO often stepping up to do what the UN seems unwilling to do, but in the end it should fall to the UN to play "world police", as only the UN has a chance of acting under the aegis of being a multinational alliance pursueing an ideal rather than economic interests put forth by industrial lobbies.
Unfortunately, the undemocratic and anachronistic veto power is deadlocking the UN's true potential, and the only way I can see this changing would be another reform like the transformation of the League of Nations into the United Nations.

Andrew1975 wrote:
The Arab league should be the major player in the region, it should be a NATO like organization, I know it's not there yet, but there is no real reason it could not be. The have vast militaries.

Why should it be like NATO? It isn't NATO, or the EU, or the AU, or even ASEAN.

The member nations also don't have "vast militaries". The largest military in the AL is Saudi Arabia's, and its gross cost is ~66% of France's, and France has limited force projection capacity, and a very different military doctrine.

Andrew1975 wrote:
I don't agree with those material interests. Without support for the rebels Libya could have been able to deal with the rebellion, thus allowing the flow of oil to return back to normal.

Sure, they cold have, and with aerial support Libya still could have been able to do the same. There are no guarantees in IR.

Andrew1975 wrote:
We had Gadaffi pretty well under control, can the same be guaranteed about Libya's new stewards?

No, but neither could we guarantee that Gaddafi's regime would have stayed under control.

Andrew1975 wrote:
Of course there are, but there are obvious reasons for us to be more concerned with our own interests.

There's not much of a difference between the two. Our interests are often reflected in the interests of others.

Andrew1975 wrote:
Syria is surrounded by members of the Arab League and is in close proximity to many of them. Logistically it would be much easier for the Arab league to mobilize their forces than for the US to send them.

That's debatable, shorter distances doesn't mean easier logistical problems, it can, but not always. Just as an analogy, its easier (and cheaper) for me to get from Chicago to New York than it is for me to get from Chicago to, say, Green Bay.

Then there's the whole argument from differentiating organization types I made above.

Andrew1975 wrote:
And how does going into Syria change this. If anything the US going into Syria has the potential to put Israel in more danger.

You only asked why Syria was a concern.

Andrew1975 wrote:
10 years, thousands of lives and trillions of dollars (that's just US costs mind you) is pretty short and relatively cheap to you?

Compared to the cost and time put into Antigua/Barbuda, Jamaica, Dominica, etc.? Absolutely.

Andrew1975 wrote:
Even so you did not see civilian resistance on the level we see in the middle east.

Is it really that hard to understand that waging active war on a population, and then trying to manipulate their government is different from only doing one of those things, or neither?

Andrew1975 wrote:
But US military intervention is a major part of the general anti-US sentiment throughout the entire "AREA"

What major US military interventions occurred prior to the Iraq War?

Desert Storm, and launching missiles at terrorist camps.

Andrew1975 wrote:
Sure it is, it makes all operations and actions much more, dangerous, costly, and dicey.

It really doesn't. It makes military intervention harder (though not state building), or more likely, but that's simply a catch 22.

dogma wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:
And how does going into Syria change this. If anything the US going into Syria has the potential to put Israel in more danger.

You only asked why Syria was a concern.

And for what it's worth, if these evidence are to be believed, Syria is actively supporting Israel's enemies.

Beyond no-man's land, in the east of the village, was evidence of Syrian-supplied hardware. In a garden next to a junction used as an outpost by Hizbollah lay eight Kornet anti-tank rockets, described by Brig Mickey Edelstein, the commander of the Nahal troops who took Ghandouriyeh, as "some of the best in the world".
Written underneath a contract number on each casing were the words: "Customer: Ministry of Defence of Syria. Supplier: KBP, Tula, Russia."
- http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1526407/Israel-humbled-by-arms-from-Iran.html

Aye, the Arab league seems to be moving toward recognising the opposition and might even include covert supply of weaponry. They even had opposition members attend a meeting of the league recently.

I also remember a Russia Today (massively biased, beware) report that claimed the Libyan government. Or at least members within the militia were interested in the prospect of exporting revolution to Syria. Hey, I just thought of a great way to disarm the militia! Lets just give the guns to the Syrians!

Why should it be like NATO? It isn't NATO, or the EU, or the AU, or even ASEAN.

The member nations also don't have "vast militaries". The largest military in the AL is Saudi Arabia's, and its gross cost is ~66% of France's, and France has limited force projection capacity, and a very different military doctrine.

I think the better question is why shouldn't it be like NATO. If the Arab Leagues only real function is to run to the UN any time there is a problem, it's pretty limited. I understand that it's primarily a venue for inter Arab relations and networking, but there is no reason it's role could not expand.

"Combined together the Arab League military makes it one of the powers in the World today with 130 million manpower availability, putting it third after India and before the US's 67 Million Manpower."

Egypt's army is larger than the Saudi's. Limited force projection is all they need Syria is surrounded but Iraq, Turkey and Jordan. Forces could easily be launched from those boarders. It's looking more and more like they will actually, as the Arab league is currently looking at a joint military option with a strong presence.

Sure, they cold have, and with aerial support Libya still could have been able to do the same. There are no guarantees in IR.

So again the only thing that really mattered was the flow of oil and having a government to work with. I think the safer bet would have been to just let Libya sort itself out. In the end, I don't think oil production was effected, sure it slowed for a bit, but that was going to happen no matter which side ended up on top. At least we knew where we stood with Gadaffy. We have no idea what the new leadership of Libya is going to do.

No, but neither could we guarantee that Gaddafi's regime would have stayed under control.

We could have guaranteed it the same way we basically guaranteed the rebels won. But I wouldn't have advocated for that either. Gadaffy's army was making pretty good progress at cleaning up the rebellion. I think either way oil production would have returned at about the same time.

There's not much of a difference between the two. Our interests are often reflected in the interests of others.

And often they aren't.

That's debatable, shorter distances doesn't mean easier logistical problems, it can, but not always. Just as an analogy, its easier (and cheaper) for me to get from Chicago to New York than it is for me to get from Chicago to, say, Green Bay.

Then there's the whole argument from differentiating organization types I made above.

Yes but you are a flying individual. I wouldn't use that as an example. It would be quite easy for them to mobilize their forces, lets not act like they have never been mobilized before shall we. These same basic countries had no problem mobilizing for the 6 day war back in 1967.

You only asked why Syria was a concern.

In the context of caring about the rebellion or intervention in the current rebellion. Your answer was to keep Israel happy, but making Syria a concern as far as military action goes may endanger Israel.

Compared to the cost and time put into Antigua/Barbuda, Jamaica, Dominica, etc.? Absolutely.

I don't agree. I don't see how those cost the US anything compared to what Iraq has cost.

Is it really that hard to understand that waging active war on a population, and then trying to manipulate their government is different from only doing one of those things, or neither?

But we have done both at the same time in the past without facing the resistance we did in Iraq.

What major US military interventions occurred prior to the Iraq War?

Desert Storm, and launching missiles at terrorist camps.

I didn't say major, don't try to steer my conversation.
TURKEY 1922
IRAN 1953 CIA overthrows democracy, installs Shah (this is a big one)
IRAQ 1963 CIA organizes coup that killed president, brings Ba'ath Party to power, and Saddam Hussein back from exile to be head of the secret service.
LIBYA 1981 Two Libyan jets shot down in maneuvers.
AFGANIATAN 1981 CIA arms freedom fighters
LEBANON 1982-1984
IRAN 1984 Two Iranian jets shot down over Persian Gulf.
LIBYA 1986 Bombing, naval Air strikes to topple nationalist gov't.
IRAN 1987-88 Naval, bombing US intervenes on side of Iraq in war.
LIBYA 1989 Two Libyan jets shot down.
IRAQ 1990-91 Bombing, troops, naval Blockade of Iraqi and Jordanian ports, air strikes; 200,000+ killed in invasion of Iraq and Kuwait; large-scale destruction of Iraqi military.
IRAQ 1991-2003 Bombing, naval No-fly zone over Kurdish north, Shiite south; constant air strikes and naval-enforced economic sanctions
SOMALIA 1992-94 Troops, naval, bombing U.S.-led United Nations occupation during civil war; raids against one Mogadishu faction.
SUDAN 1998 Missiles Attack on pharmaceutical plant alleged to be "terrorist" nerve gas plant.
IRAQ 1998 Bombing, Missiles Four days of intensive air strikes after weapons inspectors allege Iraqi obstructions.
AFGHANISTAN 1998 Missiles Attack on former CIA training camps used by Islamic fundamentalist groups alleged to have attacked embassies.

It really doesn't. It makes military intervention harder (though not state building), or more likely, but that's simply a catch 22.

It makes state building much harder also, look how hard it was to get the different anti western (or at least distrustful of the east) groups to have meetings of the minds as far as nation building, well when elections were not being blown up, or possible officials being assassinated.

Don't forget, the CIA didn't directly arm The Mujahadeen in Afghanistan in 1981, it was done through the Pakistani Intelligence service via proxy. The Mujahadeen had no direct contact with the CIA.

Andrew1975 wrote:
I think the better question is why shouldn't it be like NATO.

Not really, as you first need to establish why it should be like NATO. You can't just assume that NATO is good, and that all multinational organizations should be like it.

Andrew1975 wrote:
If the Arab Leagues only real function is to run to the UN any time there is a problem, it's pretty limited. I understand that it's primarily a venue for inter Arab relations and networking, but there is no reason it's role could not expand.

There are many, mostly political, reasons.

Andrew1975 wrote:
"Combined together the Arab League military makes it one of the powers in the World today with 130 million manpower availability, putting it third after India and before the US's 67 Million Manpower."

Egypt's army is larger than the Saudi's. Limited force projection is all they need Syria is surrounded but Iraq, Turkey and Jordan. Forces could easily be launched from those boarders.

Yes, they could be, if those countries would allow the forces of other AL members to traverse their territory in order to do something that the US, and the West, wants done.

And comparing the combined militaries of all members of an international organization to the militaries of individual nations is beyond problematic. The AL isn't a single state, and doesn't have direct control over any military, let alone 22 of them (21 less Syria, now, I suppose).

Andrew1975 wrote:
It's looking more and more like they will actually, as the Arab league is currently looking at a joint military option with a strong presence.

Sure, if they get Western support.

Andrew1975 wrote:
So again the only thing that really mattered was the flow of oil and having a government to work with. I think the safer bet would have been to just let Libya sort itself out. In the end, I don't think oil production was effected, sure it slowed for a bit, but that was going to happen no matter which side ended up on top. At least we knew where we stood with Gadaffy. We have no idea what the new leadership of Libya is going to do.

Yes, the notoriously mercurial dictator was a person we knew where stood with.

Andrew1975 wrote:
And often they aren't.

And, of course, the guy who owns a bar is the one qualified to judge when that is. I'm not one to harp on qualifications, but your likely access to experience and information is very low.

Andrew1975 wrote:
It would be quite easy for them to mobilize their forces, lets not act like they have never been mobilized before shall we. These same basic countries had no problem mobilizing for the 6 day war back in 1967.

The only non-adjacent state that managed to put soldiers into combat was Iraq, and their numbers were trivial. There was a massive amount of trouble in mobilizing support in that conflict. The War of Independence is a better example, but still not a good one given the vastly different political situation.

Andrew1975 wrote:
I don't agree. I don't see how those cost the US anything compared to what Iraq has cost.

They didn't cost the US anything, but they cost the UK a lot. The gross comparison isn't 1:1, obviously, but gross comparisons are irrelevant to actual cost; which is based on adjusted cost.

Andrew1975 wrote:
I didn't say major, don't try to steer my conversation.

No, you didn't say "major", but major events are the only events that would have the effect you seem to be describing. Shooting down a few military aircraft is as close to irrelevant as anything can be, even in terms of popular opinion. They're symptomatic of conflict with certain nations, not sources of conflict with a region.

Andrew1975 wrote:
It makes state building much harder also, look how hard it was to get the different anti western (or at least distrustful of the east) groups to have meetings of the minds as far as nation building, well when elections were not being blown up, or possible officials being assassinated.

It was difficult to get them to come to the table because they hated each other, not because they hated the West.

Not really, as you first need to establish why it should be like NATO. You can't just assume that NATO is good, and that all multinational organizations should be like it.

Do I really need to list why collected defense and mutual assistance, especially during revolutionary times might be a good idea.

There are many, mostly political, reasons.

There were people that thought the EU or NATO would never happen.

Yes, they could be, if those countries would allow the forces of other AL members to traverse their territory in order to do something that the US, and the West, wants done.

In many ways I think that they may be more comfortable with their own Arab bothers in their territories than the west. Especially with current amount of Civil unrest in the middle east, the populations of these countries could be very upset about having US military presence in their land, this could be the straw that breaks the camels back in some places.

And comparing the combined militaries of all members of an international organization to the militaries of individual nations is beyond problematic. The AL isn't a single state, and doesn't have direct control over any military, let alone 22 of them (21 less Syria, now, I suppose).

Sure, coalitions are rarely perfect or easy. We learned that a long time ago, but it's not impossible, the "Coalition of the willing" worked out pretty well. This also gives the US a chance to sell some equipment.

Sure, if they get Western support.

If the west does not support them, I can see Hungry or Saudi Arabia putting something together. That is if anything is to be done.

Yes, the notoriously mercurial dictator was a person we knew where stood with.

For the last ten years, yeah probably.

And, of course, the guy who owns a bar is the one qualified to judge when that is. I'm not one to harp on qualifications, but your likely access to experience and information is very low.

That's a bar, a nightclub and a web design company. Don't pretend to know what my qualifications are.

The only non-adjacent state that managed to put soldiers into combat was Iraq, and their numbers were trivial. There was a massive amount of trouble in mobilizing support in that conflict. The War of Independence is a better example, but still not a good one given the vastly different political situation.

That had more to do with an effective Israeli defense than anything having to do with a general inability to mobilize.

They didn't cost the US anything, but they cost the UK a lot. The gross comparison isn't 1:1, obviously, but gross comparisons are irrelevant to actual cost; which is based on adjusted cost.

Right, so my statement still stands. The didn't cost the US anything compared to Iraq. You are not the only one who can have fun with his answers and questions. What we need to look at though was it really good policy for them to spend so much on nation building. I don't think the "Empire" is doing so well anymore.

The comparison is actually pretty bad as the UK was building those nations to make tons of cash through trade. Not really the same thing that the US was doing in Iraq.

No, you didn't say "major", but major events are the only events that would have the effect you seem to be describing. Shooting down a few military aircraft is as close to irrelevant as anything can be, even in terms of popular opinion. They're symptomatic of conflict with certain nations, not sources of conflict with a region.

Shooting down a couple of planes is completely irrelevant on it's own. However when you add that to everything else including a few the coup d'états, you can see a pattern emerging here.

It was difficult to get them to come to the table because they hated each other, not because they hated the West.

Yes they did, but they also hated anyone that sided with the US. Do you think all the insurgents just showed up for the hell of it? You seam to be under the opinion that the insurgents really didn't cause any problems, or make life any more difficult.

Don't forget, the CIA didn't directly arm The Mujahadeen in Afghanistan in 1981, it was done through the Pakistani Intelligence service via proxy. The Mujahadeen had no direct contact with the CIA.

And that fooled who exactly?

Belgium

Syria is a massively armed country, and they're only armed with small arms and some heavy weapons. They're mostly capturing them or getting them from defecting units. There's no great conspiracy. When they start firing Javelin Missiles instead of RPG's call me.

Andrew1975 wrote:
Do I really need to list why collected defense and mutual assistance, especially during revolutionary times might be a good idea.

A lot of people think NATO is a bad idea explicitly because of the collective defense provision, and the NATO countries are far closer in terms of state relations than the Arab League countries.

You can say that it would be a good idea all you want, but that's not going to change the reality of the political situation. Of course, it also doesn't help that it would be a terrible idea given the military capabilities of the members of the AL, and the political state of many of its members.

Andrew1975 wrote:
There were people that thought the EU or NATO would never happen.

Sure, but they were wrong.

Andrew1975 wrote:
In many ways I think that they may be more comfortable with their own Arab bothers in their territories than the west. Especially with current amount of Civil unrest in the middle east, the populations of these countries could be very upset about having US military presence in their land, this could be the straw that breaks the camels back in some places.

They probably would be, but the population doesn't matter, and the state is more likely to accept unilateral US aid than the unilateral aid of, say, Saudi Arabia.

Andrew1975 wrote:
Sure, coalitions are rarely perfect or easy. We learned that a long time ago, but it's not impossible, the "Coalition of the willing" worked out pretty well.

No it didn't. The "coalition of the willing" was the US and the UK, plus some token contributions from other countries. There are no AL countries that can carry, on their own, the invasion of another AL country.

Andrew1975 wrote:
If the west does not support them, I can see Hungry or Saudi Arabia putting something together. That is if anything is to be done.

I'm sure you can, but you like to see things that aren't real, so I'm not sure that matters.

Also, Hungary is in Europe, and part of the West.

Andrew1975 wrote:
That's a bar, a nightclub and a web design company. Don't pretend to know what my qualifications are.

Fair enough, but I know what they aren't.

Andrew1975 wrote:
That had more to do with an effective Israeli defense than anything having to do with a general inability to mobilize.

Which one, the War of Independence? That's the only one you could make the case for, and even then its weak.

Andrew1975 wrote:
Right, so my statement still stands. The didn't cost the US anything compared to Iraq. You are not the only one who can have fun with his answers and questions. What we need to look at though was it really good policy for them to spend so much on nation building. I don't think the "Empire" is doing so well anymore.

Shockingly, empires eventually fall apart, and truthfully the British were masterful (especially Churchill) when it came to managing that process.

Anyway, you made the point that the process of nation building in the Caribbean cost the US nothing. That's nice, but I brought it up as a notation about the intrinsic cost of nation building.

I'm not the only one that can play games with arguments, but I also happen to be good at it.

Andrew1975 wrote:
Shooting down a couple of planes is completely irrelevant on it's own. However when you add that to everything else including a few the coup d'états, you can see a pattern emerging here.

That might be relevant if you see the Middle East as one, monolithic, nation.

Andrew1975 wrote:
Yes they did, but they also hated anyone that sided with the US. Do you think all the insurgents just showed up for the hell of it? You seam to be under the opinion that the insurgents really didn't cause any problems, or make life any more difficult.

They "showed up" because there were political factions in Iraq that wanted power. If they merely hated the US the policy of paying off groups of them wouldn't have worked.

And yes, they made the process difficult, but the process of nation building is always difficult. They didn't make it significantly more difficult than nation building is of its own accord.

So the person with a burned neck and with a dislike for foreigners cares not for syrian children being tortured?

Warrior Squirrel wrote:So the racist redneck cares nothing for the syrian children that are being tortured?

But if there was oil, that would be a differnt story

Andrew1975 wrote:[I
TURKEY 1922
IRAN 1953 CIA overthrows democracy, installs Shah (this is a big one)
IRAQ 1963 CIA organizes coup that killed president, brings Ba'ath Party to power, and Saddam Hussein back from exile to be head of the secret service.
LIBYA 1981 Two Libyan jets shot down in maneuvers.
AFGANIATAN 1981 CIA arms freedom fighters
LEBANON 1982-1984
IRAN 1984 Two Iranian jets shot down over Persian Gulf.
LIBYA 1986 Bombing, naval Air strikes to topple nationalist gov't.
IRAN 1987-88 Naval, bombing US intervenes on side of Iraq in war.
LIBYA 1989 Two Libyan jets shot down.
IRAQ 1990-91 Bombing, troops, naval Blockade of Iraqi and Jordanian ports, air strikes; 200,000+ killed in invasion of Iraq and Kuwait; large-scale destruction of Iraqi military.
IRAQ 1991-2003 Bombing, naval No-fly zone over Kurdish north, Shiite south; constant air strikes and naval-enforced economic sanctions
SOMALIA 1992-94 Troops, naval, bombing U.S.-led United Nations occupation during civil war; raids against one Mogadishu faction.
SUDAN 1998 Missiles Attack on pharmaceutical plant alleged to be "terrorist" nerve gas plant.
IRAQ 1998 Bombing, Missiles Four days of intensive air strikes after weapons inspectors allege Iraqi obstructions.
AFGHANISTAN 1998 Missiles Attack on former CIA training camps used by Islamic fundamentalist groups alleged to have attacked embassies.

You forgot the two big ones

Korea 1951 to assist the South Korean government against the communist north
Vietnam 1965? to assist the South Vietnamese government against the communist north and Vietcong guerillas

Neither ending well in Americas favour but both of them were given massive support by the USSR and China (direct in the Korean case) with relatively modern weaponry, financial backing, trained personel and equipment. Not sure if the Russians would be able to/willing to commit to similar support since Syria doesn't share a border with either country like these two examples. I know that the Russians are selling them arms but just not at the same scale.

Warrior Squirrel wrote:So the racist redneck cares nothing for the syrian children that are being tortured?

Talk is cheap. How come you're on the computer and not crossing the Turkish border into Syria as we speak?

You forgot the two big ones
Korea 1951 to assist the South Korean government against the communist north
Vietnam 1965? to assist the South Vietnamese government against the communist north and Vietcong guerillas

I didn't forget anything, we were talking about the middle east. When were North Korea or South Vietnam ever part of the middle east.

Also Russia sells arms to the Syrian government. I doubt they are selling them to the rebels as well as Russia supports the Syrian government and sells them billions of dollars worth of weapons. They could be double dipping, but I really don't see it.

Ribon Fox wrote:

Warrior Squirrel wrote:So the racist redneck cares nothing for the syrian children that are being tortured?

But if there was oil, that would be a differnt story

Syria actually does have oil.

There is always some place people are being slaughtered. The question is does it benefit the US to step in every time or even some of the time when the costs far out way out gains given current financial state of the US?

How was I being racist?

A lot of people think NATO is a bad idea explicitly because of the collective defense provision, and the NATO countries are far closer in terms of state relations than the Arab League countries.

True, but that relationship did not happen overnight. NATO is not even the first European mutual assistance pact. Think back to the 1800's and the dangerous time of revolution.

You can say that it would be a good idea all you want, but that's not going to change the reality of the political situation. Of course, it also doesn't help that it would be a terrible idea given the military capabilities of the members of the AL, and the political state of many of its members.

So one second they have great capabilities, and another they don't? I said it may not be in the best interests of the US for the Arab League to unite, but it may be a very good idea for the Arab League. For the US this could be dangerous, but if played right it could be advantageous. It depends on the US ability of influence.

Sure, but they were wrong.

A lot of people with great credentials thought it was near impossible, or at least improbable. Without outside pressure and threat I'm sure it would never have happened, but it's interesting what counties will do when they share even a few common goals.

They probably would be, but the population doesn't matter, and the state is more likely to accept unilateral US aid than the unilateral aid of, say, Saudi Arabia.

Again people do matter as we have seen with Arab spring, or is that a governmental construct too? Who says aid would have to be unilateral.

No it didn't. The "coalition of the willing" was the US and the UK, plus some token contributions from other countries.
Really. In the begining of desert shield the Saudi armored divisions did pretty well defending Saudi Arabia.

There are no AL countries that can carry, on their own, the invasion of another AL country.

I'm not saying the do it on their own I'm saying they do it as an alliance. As an alliance they could take Syria.

I'm sure you can, but you like to see things that aren't real, so I'm not sure that matters.

You do know that the option is already being discussed right?

Also, Hungary is in Europe, and part of the West.

Hungary is an in between state bordering Syria, that just recently got EU certification.

Fair enough, but I know what they aren't.

Whatevs. Yawn. The old faithful "Can't win the argument so I'll attack his credentials" game. It has been shown that a change to control the area will be more effective and efficient with the use of "Soft Power", rather than the old ideas of "Hard Power". I happen to agree with that. But go ahead and continue, I just love when you seem to suggest my ideas come completely from left field.

Which one, the War of Independence? That's the only one you could make the case for, and even then its weak.

Again both the 6 day war and the War of Indepenence both show that Arab League militaries can be coordinated to work jointly. There success against or lack there of vs Israel, isn't the issue as Syria is not Israel.

Shockingly, empires eventually fall apart, and truthfully the British were masterful (especially Churchill) when it came to managing that process.

No doubt, but there comes a time when such actions are just untenable.

Anyway, you made the point that the process of nation building in the Caribbean cost the US nothing. That's nice, but I brought it up as a notation about the intrinsic cost of nation building.

Yes and the comparison of those situations to what the US is/was facing are fascicle at best.

That might be relevant if you see the Middle East as one, monolithic, nation.

It's obviously not one nation, but the nations combine share many features and ideas.

And yes, they made the process difficult, but the process of nation building is always difficult. They didn't make it significantly more difficult than nation building is of its own accord.

I disagree. It took quite some time and huge amounts of resources just to deal with the insurgents before the real work of nation building could even begin.