how come we're not attacking syria?

[ATB]

Seems their crackdown is as bad if not worse than libya's?

[Purge]

Does Syria have large oil reserves or girls who can't read?

[CeeKay]

Does Syria have large oil reserves or girls who can't read?

Syriasly?

[corruptrelic]

Because it's none of our business? America can't keep being the world's police force. Whether you want to interfere in other countries internal affairs when it poses no threat to the United States or prefer to stay out of other people's business, however you look at it we simply can't afford all these invasions of other countries.

Obama has changed quite a bit from when he was still a senator.

President Barack Obama, as an Illinois state senator in 2002, said that using military force to topple a murderous dictator amounted to a “dumb war” and should be opposed.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-2002-toppling-brutal-dictator-dumb

Now he's just as bad as Bush, wasting millions of tax dollars when our country is drowning in debt trying to topple yet another regime that posed no threat to U.S. security interests.

In Libya, the government was putting down an armed rebellion. They are getting bombed daily for it.

In Syria, they are killing unarmed protestor daily. They are getting a free pass.

Maybe Syria will take "Days, not weeks" if we have to go in..

[hepcat]

Does Syria have large oil reserves or girls who can't read?

Syriasly?

[ATB]

Yep. Obama is one indecisive inconsistent son of a gun.

[CeeKay]

son of a gun.

Does he have a birth certificate to prove it?

[ydejin]

Couple reasons.  

We had both a UN resolution and Arab League support for Libya.  Turns out Gaddafi is pretty widely disliked even by the Arabs.  (The few exceptions are the League of African Nations where Gaddafi has thrown around a lot of money in the past and Hugo Chavez.)

China and Russia aren't very happy with what the West did with the UN resolution they agreed to support on Libya and so are much less willing to support any resolution on Syria that might be used as a justification for Western military action.

Some of our Western European allies were willing to carry out the bulk of operations in Libya, making intervention in Libya a relatively light burden on our already stretched military resources.  That doesn't seem to be the case in Syria.  This is not much of a surprise given that the Western European's aren't that heavily militarized and Libya's already stretching them quite bit.  For example, France's one-and-only Aircraft Carrier, Charles de Gaulle, which has been supporting operations in Libya is returning to base for repairs.  Our European allies have also been running out of precision bombs.

Syria has a much stronger military.  In Libya there were rebels on the ground who had actual control of territory that could act as proxy ground troops.  AFAICT there are virtually no armed Syrian rebels and Syrian protesters control no territory.  Someone would have to go in with ground forces.  Given our current involvement in two ground wars, and the fact that many of our NATO allies have been fighting in Afghanistan for quite some time, no one really wants to get involved in a yet another ground war.

Bottom line: We could intervene in Libya for relatively little expense and intervention had strong diplomatic support from many nations.  Intervening in Syria would be very expensive and we are already stretched too thin in Iraq and Afghanistan, diplomatic support for Syrian intervention is not available, so this would be much more a unilateral action.

[Scraper]

Couple reasons. 

We had both a UN resolution and Arab League support for Libya.  Turns out Gaddafi is pretty widely disliked even by the Arabs.  (The few exceptions are the League of African Nations where Gaddafi has thrown around a lot of money in the past and Hugo Chavez.)

China and Russia aren't very happy with what the West did with the UN resolution they agreed to support on Libya and so are much less willing to support anything that might be used as a justification for Western military action.

Some of our Western European allies were willing to carry out the bulk of operations in Libya, making intervention in Libya a relatively light burden on our already stretched military resources.  That doesn't seem to be the case in Syria.  Which is not much of a surprise given that the Western European's aren't that heavily militarized and Libya's already stretching them a bit.  For example, the French Aircraft Carrier, Charles de Gaulle, which has been supporting operations in Libya is returning to base for repairs.

Syria has a much stronger military.  In Libya there were rebels on the ground who had actual control of territory that could act as proxy ground troops.  AFAICT their are close to no armed Syrian rebels and Syrian protesters control no territory.  Someone would have to go in with ground forces.  Given our current involvement in two ground wars, and the fact that many of our NATO allies have been fighting in Afghanistan, no one really wants to get involved in a yet another ground war.

Bottom line: We could intervene in Libya for relatively little expense and intervention had strong diplomatic support from many nations.  Intervening in Syria would be very expensive and we are already stretched too thin in Iraq and Afghanistan, diplomatic support is not available, so this would be much more a unilateral action.

Stop making sense and keep to the talking points damn it!

[corruptrelic]

The funny thing is if McCain had been elected and he took us to war against Libya, he wouldn't hear the end of it.
Say what you will about Bush and his two wars, but at least he got congressional approval for both of them before going in. Obama went into Libya without congressional approval (despite him saying a few years back that a president couldn't unilaterally authorize military action without Congressional consent) and the War Powers Act has since expired. (Not to mention the War Powers act is when our security is at risk.)

We are spending millions of tax dollars every day we attack Libya, and there's still no end in sight. The rebels are useless. If everyone over there hated Gadaffi so much, they'd have over thrown themselves. (Or with 5 months of daily NATO bombing of government troops!) They still can't take Tripoli.
According to Robert Gates, the U.S. is paying up to 75% of the NATO operation in Libya. Hardly a "light burden". Norway also just pulled out of the operation.
The Arab League has already critisized the bombings but since they supported the UN resolution (which IMO, NATO has gone far beyond it's mandate to protect civilians) they should fork over the bill, not the american tax payer paying for something we have no business in.

So sure Obama got UN approval.. he just didn't get U.S. approval.

If we insist on getting involved in another countries internal affairs when it poses no threat to us  (but costs billions of tax dollars) then we should be looking at the bigger picture. If the Libyan rebels want our help, we should have signed a deal with them to get oil at $30 a barrel over the next 10 years. Much needed relief for Americans who are struggling here at home as gas prices continue to rise. On one end we are helping to install a new government in an oil rich country, and this time, we're actually getting paid for our "liberation" of their country, rather than the American tax payers being forced to pay for yet another war we had no business in.

Inconsistent indeed.. you say one thing before you become president, and then do a 180 after you win the election.

[ydejin]

You are not giving the rebels near as much credit as they deserve.  They most certainly are not "useless."  Frankly your calling them that is rather offensive.  They are people who are putting their life on the line to fight against an oppressive dictator.  Regardless of how you feel about American involvement IMO the rebel soldiers deserve our respect.

Keep in mind that the rebels are for the most part are civilians.  They are badly armed and badly supplied and are taking on real military units.  Their heavy weapons are very limited.  They are doing quite well given what they started with.

The rebels have made considerable progress since the bombing campaign started.  The siege of Misrata has been lifted.  They've made tremendous advances in the West.  They now control parts of the border and are able to bring supply in from Tunisia.  The rebels are within 80km of Tripoli from the West.

The longer this conflict goes on, the stronger the rebels get and the weaker Gaddafi gets.  The rebels are getting better trained and rather slowly better armed.  Gaddafi's forces on the other hand are slowly getting ground down, he's running out of money and supplies.  Anyone who thought this would be a simple 3-6 month operation was being foolish.  But if the West keeps their nerve, Gaddafi will almost certainly go down. 

My bigger concern is what happens when Gaddafi gets kicked out.  That's the point where things can really go badly.

[corruptrelic]

Of course the longer we waste money bombing Libya the weaker Gaddaffi gets, his troops are being hammered daily by NATO bombs so it's only a matter of time.. but my point was, we have no business being over there in the first place. Whether you agree or not, the simple fact is it's costing us billions of dollars at a time when we are already drowning in debt.
I agree anyone who thought this would be a 3-6 month campaign is a fool. What about those who thought it'd be "days, not weeks"?

Dug this up from an Obama speech in 2007:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8VlXfs1K04g

Amazing how much our president flip flops on his own positions after he got elected.

[Ironrod]

the simple fact is it's costing us billions of dollars

Cite? It's my impression that US involvement is minor and indirect (and cheap as war goes), but you could change my mind with numbers.

[corruptrelic]

Looks like my numbers were a bit off, but considering the U.S. is picking up the majority of NATO's tab, it's hardly "minor".

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/libya-us-intervention-fly-zone-gadhafi-cost-taxpayers/story?id=13242136

[Ironrod]

The linked story concerns the beginning of the operation, when the US was undoubtedly in the lead. It's my understanding that we have gradually backed away into mostly support roles. If that is so, then the costs shouldn't be very much higher than the everyday price of our permanent wartime footing.

I don't have anything solid to back that up, though, and could still be convinced otherwise by more recent numbers. I'm mildly against our low-level intervention in Libya but I don't feel strongly about it.

On topic, Syria is obviously a much harder nut to crack than Libya, and a very different political calculation. ydegin explained that pretty well. Additionally, this is a good explanation of why Assad's dictatorship is preferable to anarchy:

the fall of President Bashar Assad would unleash a cataclysm of chaos, sectarian strife, and extremism that spreads far beyond its borders, threatening not only the entrenched rulers already battling to hold at bay a clamor for democratic change but also the entire balance of power in the volatile region, analysts say.

With Syria’s minority Shi’ite Alawite government overseeing a majority Sunni population, its strategic location and its web of alliances including the radical Hamas and Hezbollah movements, regime change could look a lot more like it did in Iraq than in Egypt — and the ramifications could prove even more profound.

“If the regime collapses you will have civil war and it will spread throughout the region,’’ engulfing Lebanon, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and beyond, said Hilal Khashan, professor of political science at the American University of Beirut. “A collapse of the Syrian regime is a doomsday scenario for the entire Middle East.’’

If that analysis is accurate, you can see why we wouldn't want to contribute to Assad's downfall even if it were militarily realistic to try.

[ydejin]

The linked story concerns the beginning of the operation, when the US was undoubtedly in the lead. It's my understanding that we have gradually backed away into mostly support roles.

That's my understanding.  We were heavily involved in the initial attacks on Libya, but very shortly thereafter switched to a support role.  AIUI, for quite some time our role has been limited to providing drones and logistical support.

I'm sure the initial bombardment was expensive.  The current day-to-day costs are probably a pittance compared to what we're spending on Iraq and Afghanistan.  

[ydejin]

I ran into this summary of paper from MIT's Political Science department on NATO intervention in Syria and thought of this thread:

[A]s this analysis shows, an intervention to establish only three safe havens, in Homs, Hama, and Idlib, linked to each other and to the Turkish border via a humanitarian corridor, would be a substantial military undertaking. Given Syria’s air defense capabilities, the ubiquity of its tanks, artillery, rockets, and mortars, and tens of thousands of al-Assad-regime allies willing to carry out acts of repression, it does not require any heroic assumptions to suggest that such an intervention would require greater resources, face greater risks, and have a lower probability of success, than any of NATO’s previous air campaigns in response to humanitarian crises in Bosnia, Kosovo, or Libya.

It'll be interesting to see how things play out here.  I don't see how Assad can hang on forever, and today's bombing certainly seems like it should accelerate things.  I'm still very nervous about what's going to replace Assad, on the other hand Assad clearly does not have his people's best interest in mind and really needs to go.

[CeeKay]

Syria declares it has WMD's and will use them against foreign intervention:

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/07/23/12901215-syria-acknowledges-it-has-chemical-weapons-will-use-them-if-attacked

The Syrian government threatened Monday to use its chemical and biological weapons in the event the country faced foreign intervention, marking the first time Bashar Assad’s regime has acknowledged it possesses weapons of mass destruction.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Jihad Makdissi stressed, however, that Damascus would not use its unconventional arms against its own citizens. The announcement comes as Syria faces international isolation, a tenacious rebellion that has left at least 19,000 people dead and threats by Israel to attack to prevent such weapons from falling into rebel hands.

Assad's forces have launched fierce counter-offensives, reflecting his determination to hold on to power even at great cost and he has dismissed an Arab offer to grant him a safe exit in return for a swift step down.

"Any chemical or bacterial weapons will never be used ... during the crisis in Syria regardless of the developments," Makdissi, speaking in English, said.

"These weapons are stored and secured by Syrian military forces and under its direct supervision and will never be used unless Syria faces external aggression,” he added.

they aren't breaking any treaty though, they never signed one.

[ydejin]

Syria declares it has WMD's and will use them against foreign intervention:

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/07/23/12901215-syria-acknowledges-it-has-chemical-weapons-will-use-them-if-attacked

The Syrian government threatened Monday to use its chemical and biological weapons in the event the country faced foreign intervention, marking the first time Bashar Assad’s regime has acknowledged it possesses weapons of mass destruction.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Jihad Makdissi stressed, however, that Damascus would not use its unconventional arms against its own citizens. The announcement comes as Syria faces international isolation, a tenacious rebellion that has left at least 19,000 people dead and threats by Israel to attack to prevent such weapons from falling into rebel hands.

Assad's forces have launched fierce counter-offensives, reflecting his determination to hold on to power even at great cost and he has dismissed an Arab offer to grant him a safe exit in return for a swift step down.

"Any chemical or bacterial weapons will never be used ... during the crisis in Syria regardless of the developments," Makdissi, speaking in English, said.

"These weapons are stored and secured by Syrian military forces and under its direct supervision and will never be used unless Syria faces external aggression,” he added.

they aren't breaking any treaty though, they never signed one.

I think one of the more troubling issues is what's going to happen to those Chemical Weapons if the country descends into complete chaos (which is looking very likely IMHO).

[Ironrod]

Syria declares it has WMD's and will use them against foreign intervention:

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/07/23/12901215-syria-acknowledges-it-has-chemical-weapons-will-use-them-if-attacked

The Syrian government threatened Monday to use its chemical and biological weapons in the event the country faced foreign intervention, marking the first time Bashar Assad’s regime has acknowledged it possesses weapons of mass destruction.

Foreign Ministry spokesman Jihad Makdissi stressed, however, that Damascus would not use its unconventional arms against its own citizens. The announcement comes as Syria faces international isolation, a tenacious rebellion that has left at least 19,000 people dead and threats by Israel to attack to prevent such weapons from falling into rebel hands.

Assad's forces have launched fierce counter-offensives, reflecting his determination to hold on to power even at great cost and he has dismissed an Arab offer to grant him a safe exit in return for a swift step down.

"Any chemical or bacterial weapons will never be used ... during the crisis in Syria regardless of the developments," Makdissi, speaking in English, said.

"These weapons are stored and secured by Syrian military forces and under its direct supervision and will never be used unless Syria faces external aggression,” he added.

they aren't breaking any treaty though, they never signed one.

I think one of the more troubling issues is what's going to happen to those Chemical Weapons if the country descends into complete chaos (which is looking very likely IMHO).

Israel has already stated that they will destroy Syria's WMD depots if they see any evidence that such weapons are making their way into Lebanon. It did not sound like an empty threat.

[CeeKay]

Obama authorizes secret US support for Syrian rebels:

President Barack Obama has signed a so-called "intelligence finding" authorizing covert aid to the Syrian rebels seeking to depose Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and his government , NBC News has confirmed.

White House and intelligence officials declined to comment on a Reuters report about the aid.

A U.S. official also said that while Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has said the U.S., is providing non-lethal aid and communications to the rebels, the presidential finding provides more intelligence resources than had been previously known.

The administration has been under constant criticism for months from Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and others who say the administration should be arming the rebels.

Obama's order, approved earlier this year, broadly permits the CIA and other U.S. agencies to provide support that could help the rebels oust Assad, Reuters reported.

[corruptrelic]

I ran into this summary of paper from MIT's Political Science department on NATO intervention in Syria and thought of this thread:

[A]s this analysis shows, an intervention to establish only three safe havens, in Homs, Hama, and Idlib, linked to each other and to the Turkish border via a humanitarian corridor, would be a substantial military undertaking. Given Syria’s air defense capabilities, the ubiquity of its tanks, artillery, rockets, and mortars, and tens of thousands of al-Assad-regime allies willing to carry out acts of repression, it does not require any heroic assumptions to suggest that such an intervention would require greater resources, face greater risks, and have a lower probability of success, than any of NATO’s previous air campaigns in response to humanitarian crises in Bosnia, Kosovo, or Libya.

It'll be interesting to see how things play out here.  I don't see how Assad can hang on forever, and today's bombing certainly seems like it should accelerate things.  I'm still very nervous about what's going to replace Assad, on the other hand Assad clearly does not have his people's best interest in mind and really needs to go.

Late to the game but I say let it play out and let Syrians determine the future of Syria. If Assad can't put down a rebellion after 16 months then   I agree with you he's not going to be holding on much longer.

[CeeKay]

Koffi says 'screw you guys, I'm goin' home!':

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/08/02/13087795-kofi-annan-quits-role-as-uns-syria-envoy?lite

Kofi Annan blamed "finger pointing and name calling" within the U.N. Security Council among the reasons for his decision on Thursday to quit as the U.N.-Arab League Joint Special Envoy for Syria.

"The world is full of crazy people like me. So don't be surprised if Secretary General Ban Ki-moon can find someone who can do a better job than me," Annan said when asked if he thought someone else would be named to succeed him.

"There may be other plans, other approaches that may work quite effectively," he said, adding that at this stage the focus should still be on a political transition which means "President (Bashar) al-Assad will have to leave sooner or later."

Annan's resignation is effective Aug. 31.

[CeeKay]

Syrian prime minister defects:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/06/us-syria-crisis-idUSBRE8610SH20120806

Syrian forces pressed on with their offensive against rebels in the largest city Aleppo after the prime minister fled the country, denouncing the "terrorist regime" of Bashar al-Assad.

The defection of Riyad Hijab - who like most of the opposition hails from the Sunni Muslim majority - was a further sign of the isolation of Assad's government around an inner core of powerful members of his minority Alawite sect.

Opposition figures, buoyant despite setbacks in recent weeks of fighting around Damascus and Aleppo, spoke of an extensive and long-planned operation to spirit Hijab and his large extended family across the border to Jordan.

"I announce today my defection from the killing and terrorist regime and I announce that I have joined the ranks of the freedom and dignity revolution," Hijab said in a statement read by a spokesman on Al Jazeera television on Monday. He declared himself "a soldier in this blessed revolution".

[CeeKay]

Syria mortar fire kills 5 Turkish civilians, and Turkey strikes back:

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/03/14200329-turkey-strikes-targets-in-syria-after-mortar-attack-kills-5?lite&ocid=msnhp

Turkey's military struck targets inside Syria on Wednesday in response to a mortar bomb fired from Syrian territory that killed five Turkish civilians, Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan's office said in a statement.

"Our armed forces at the border region responded to this atrocious attack with artillery fire on points in Syria that were detected with radar, in line with the rules of engagement," the Turkish statement said.

"Turkey, acting within the rules of engagement and international laws, will never leave unreciprocated such provocations by the Syrian regime against our national security," it said.

Turkey's NTV television said Turkish radar pinpointed the positions from where the shells were fired on the southeastern Turkish town of Akcakale, and that those positions were hit.

"Turkey is a sovereign country. There was an attack on its territory. There must certainly be a response in international law. ... I hope this is Syria's last craziness. Syria will be called into account," said Turkish Deputy Prime Minister Bulent Arinc.

The mortar bomb fired from Syria landed in a residential district of Akcakale on Wednesday, killing a woman and four children from the same family and wounding at least eight other people.

I suppose the real question is which side did it.Syrian troops being stupid or rebels trying to pull Turkey into the fight.