Syria

Oh, Syria!

I've been restrained in my comments on Syria for a very good reason: I have no ideas for how the Syrian civil war can be resolved.  We see the dreadful video, the death and suffering, and we want something to be done.  Anything we do, though, is likely to make matters worse.

Syria's is a civil war with too many sides and too many outside interests, all with too many divergent objectives.  As long as Russia, the United States, Iran, the Gulf States and Turkey, each pursuing different objectives, continue to arm and support their favored factions, the war won't end for lack of cash and munitions -- and since it's really not especially expensive to continue financing the carnage, there's no great pressure to stop.

The bombing runs by Assad and the Russians have been especially devastating.  Hillary Clinton has suggested creating a no-fly zone, but it's too late.  We can't have American planes shooting down Russian planes.  The only thing I can think of to reduce the bombing of civilian areas and food distribution centers and hospitals is a further escalation: providing shoulder-mounted surface-to-air missiles to selected rebel forces, to stop the helicopters dropping barrel bombs, at least, and to inhibit air strikes by plane.

A big problem with that is that the most dependable US allies are the Kurds, who would use their new weapons defensively against our NATO allies, the Turks.  Anyway, escalation rarely serves to reduce hostilities.  Our only available moral response is to accept and shelter far greater numbers of noncombatant refugees, with special emphasis on families with children.  That won't happen, though — too many paranoid xenophobes out there, and too many pandering politicians kissing their asses.

I wouldn't want to be Hillary Clinton come January.  She'll be expected to do something — and there's nothing to do.

Share the Blame

Our President appears to have decided that it in his best interest to get Congressional approval for military action against the Assad regime in Syria.  If it turns out to be a total screw-up, which appears to be increasingly likely if he goes ahead with it, it won't be only his fault.  If Congress turns him down, as Parliament turned down David Cameron, he can breathe a sigh of relief and back down.  The cowards in Congress will be responsible for their failure to avenge those dead children.  Politically, it's the smartest thing he could have done.

The Syrian civil war, essentially, is the most recent outbreak of a regional conflict between Shi'a and Sunni Muslims that began back in the seventh century.  We can't solve it, and the smartest thing to do is not try.  It comes down to Iran (where the US is "the Great Satan") v. Saudi Arabia (the home of Al Qaeda.)

Furthermore, no multinational corporations seem very involved in Syria, so why should the Army of the Multinationals (ours) get involved?  Let's wait for a real threat to the bankers, the arms merchants, the commodities traders, et al.

I'm kind of glad August is over.