|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On May 07 2016 04:04 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2016 04:01 Plansix wrote:
Without the support of a larger nation like Russia, I doubt Assad can every provide "stability" for that region. This all stated with his own people trying to overthrow him and there is no reason to think they won't try again. I don't disagree. He's much better than either anarchy or an Islamist leader though. We're dealing with a situation of shithole vs bigger shithole. There's no "good" option here. Show nested quote +On May 07 2016 03:57 Nyxisto wrote:
I'd not consider that "well chosen" either, when they polled refugees in Germany late last year the overwhelming majority stated that they're running from the regime, not Isis, which isn't surprising given the death toll. The Assad family isn't a source of stability Refugees (and "refugees" who just want citizenship) lie and say exactly what they know their host nation would want them to say. I know this from experience.
I will never fault people for having a good plan. At the end of the day, Syria is not a safe place for them.
And I don't think Assad is a solution at all. He only provides short term stability and doesn't do much to help the US/EU in the rest of the region. And when further violence breaks out, and it will, we are left with the same options are before.
|
On May 07 2016 04:13 oneofthem wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2016 04:03 Gorsameth wrote:On May 07 2016 03:55 oneofthem wrote:
it's not like intervention caused the instability. euros were going to go in without the u.s. anyway.
problem was not intervening strongly enough and with more of a post plan.
it was either syria or iraq in terms of outcomes. What is a viable post plan tho? There is no one to take over, that is the problem with freeing dictatorships. Everyone who could form a viable interim government has been removed by the state. Same problem as Egypt, Iraq ect. If you want to fix it your forced to do it from the ground up yourself and no one is willing to nation build with a security force in place to protect the fragile democracy for multiple decades. gaddafi was pretty toast before intervention anyway. there were no costless options/outcomes at that point. it's basically the chickens of despotic regimes coming home to roost. failing states failed.
I don't deny that the place was going to shit with or without us and as civilized people we don't like seeing atrocities committed (unless its Africa, then it seems we don't give a shit).
But people here, and Obama in an interview talk about having a better post intervention plan and I wonder what such a plan would look like.
There is nothing usable in such states, the courts are all corrupt, the politicians are corrupt. Those who were not have been killed by the regime. How do you manage such a situation without it falling into complete failure like Iraq without rebuilding the system ourselves, a process that will take decades. A process that needs to be carefully protected, both from without (ISIS) and within.
We cant find the support to put boots on the ground to fight ISIS. Where are we going to find a force to 'occupy' Libya for 30 years?
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On May 07 2016 04:17 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2016 04:04 LegalLord wrote:On May 07 2016 04:01 Plansix wrote:
Without the support of a larger nation like Russia, I doubt Assad can every provide "stability" for that region. This all stated with his own people trying to overthrow him and there is no reason to think they won't try again. I don't disagree. He's much better than either anarchy or an Islamist leader though. We're dealing with a situation of shithole vs bigger shithole. There's no "good" option here. On May 07 2016 03:57 Nyxisto wrote:
I'd not consider that "well chosen" either, when they polled refugees in Germany late last year the overwhelming majority stated that they're running from the regime, not Isis, which isn't surprising given the death toll. The Assad family isn't a source of stability Refugees (and "refugees" who just want citizenship) lie and say exactly what they know their host nation would want them to say. I know this from experience. I will never fault people for having a good plan. At the end of the day, Syria is not a safe place for them. And I don't think Assad is a solution at all. He only provides short term stability and doesn't do much to help the US/EU in the rest of the region. And when further violence breaks out, and it will, we are left with the same options are before.
If there is a better option then Assad, I'd like to hear it. So would the rest of the world. Given that no one has been able to suggest one yet, he's probably the best for now.
Far as I know the US is as clueless about "the day after" in Syria as they were in Libya. A shitty secular dictator is better than anarchy, and short-term stability is better than short-term instability. Again, there is no "good" option here that anyone is aware of.
People are free to leave Syria, and I think it's smart to do so. Do expect that they will lie and do anything they have to to survive though, because that's the only way you can survive.
On May 07 2016 04:15 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2016 04:04 LegalLord wrote:
Refugees (and "refugees" who just want citizenship) lie and say exactly what they know their host nation would want them to say. I know this from experience. I don't really understand why you would lie about the question "are you more afraid of Assad or Isis" in an opinion poll. It's not like either answer gets you anything
It wouldn't take a genius to figure out that as of now, the West cares more about removing Assad than containing ISIS. Which option do you think is more likely to convince the host nation to grant you asylum?
|
On May 07 2016 04:15 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2016 04:04 LegalLord wrote:
Refugees (and "refugees" who just want citizenship) lie and say exactly what they know their host nation would want them to say. I know this from experience. I don't really understand why you would lie about the question "are you more afraid of Assad or Isis" in an opinion poll. It's not like either answer gets you anything
I fled from ISIS. "Well ISIS has been pushed back past X, the back half of Syria is safe from them go back home"
I fled from Assad. "well guess your staying until Assad is gone and the nation has been stabilized. God knows how long that stays, enjoy your stay."
|
Look at the reasons why they were trying to overthrown him in the first place, like 10 year drought and refugee's population on Syria at the time being the cause he couldn't feed that amount of population. Yes, he acted like a dictator when challenged, who would had guessed. The problem of the middle east was Iraq's intervention, anything else, is just the natural evolution of a fucked up place with several spheres of influence colliding.´
From how people are telling it, it seems like people suddenly uprise looking for freedom and democracy, instead of just you know, having something to eat, which was something that we already knew that was happening due to the several fuck ups, but the media didn't cover it for reasons. We could had intervened with food years earlier instead of weapons later on for example. But overthrowing Assad was more important for us, than the people.
|
On May 07 2016 03:46 LegalLord wrote:If you intervene without a good plan for replacing a crumbling government, then from a purely humanitarian perspective I'd say it's better not to get involved. Given that preventing atrocities is merely a pretext and that all of these interventions are in fact political in nature, I'd also say that it's a moot point. Show nested quote +On May 07 2016 03:13 Naracs_Duc wrote:On May 06 2016 14:11 LegalLord wrote:Sure, it was in a bad state before the intervention. Perhaps you're trying to say that that justifies making the whole situation worse? Intervention without a good plan for "the day after" is just adding fuel to the fire. That, at the very least, should be self evident. On May 06 2016 14:06 Sermokala wrote:
I really hate to bring this up but isn't that the same thing everyone says about iraq? that we never had a strategy for what to do after we disposed the dictator and tried democracy building? Somewhat different in that rather than doing very little to replace the old government, in Iraq the US just executed the transition poorly. Libya was in pretty bad shape without US involvement. The US involvement that did happen was very minimal. The reason this strategy was done was because of the lessons from Iraq. The moral of the story is that you're either there for longterm occupation/imperialism OR you be okay letting atrocities happen in the world. There is no middle ground option. I don't think anyone has figured out an effective long-term solution. I think the most effective one I've seen in general is the Soviet/Russian one: install a well-chosen secular dictator, through brutal force if necessary, who will suppress local ethnic conflicts and bring about at least temporary stability. Perhaps there's a better solution but I've yet to see one (democracy building has been a disaster and leaving a power vacuum is worse).
The issue with democracy building is that it's a process of decades. Just look at how long it took western European countries to become proper democracies. Yet whenever we intervene we expect to be done there in a couple of years.
The Russian solution is a band aid fix at best. You're only supressing the conflicts and making them worse when they do eventually blow up. In fact a lot of the instability which erupted after the interventions are because of long supressed conflicts by the dictators which are finally let loose.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On May 07 2016 04:22 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2016 04:13 oneofthem wrote:On May 07 2016 04:03 Gorsameth wrote:On May 07 2016 03:55 oneofthem wrote:
it's not like intervention caused the instability. euros were going to go in without the u.s. anyway.
problem was not intervening strongly enough and with more of a post plan.
it was either syria or iraq in terms of outcomes. What is a viable post plan tho? There is no one to take over, that is the problem with freeing dictatorships. Everyone who could form a viable interim government has been removed by the state. Same problem as Egypt, Iraq ect. If you want to fix it your forced to do it from the ground up yourself and no one is willing to nation build with a security force in place to protect the fragile democracy for multiple decades. gaddafi was pretty toast before intervention anyway. there were no costless options/outcomes at that point. it's basically the chickens of despotic regimes coming home to roost. failing states failed. I don't deny that the place was going to shit with or without us and as civilized people we don't like seeing atrocities committed (unless its Africa, then it seems we don't give a shit). But people here, and Obama in an interview talk about having a better post intervention plan and I wonder what such a plan would look like. There is nothing usable in such states, the courts are all corrupt, the politicians are corrupt. Those who were not have been killed by the regime. How do you manage such a situation without it falling into complete failure like Iraq without rebuilding the system ourselves, a process that will take decades. A process that needs to be carefully protected, both from without (ISIS) and within. We cant find the support to put boots on the ground to fight ISIS. Where are we going to find a force to 'occupy' Libya for 30 years?
a solution depends on the goal. stability is fairly easy to get since the rebel force was made of a large part of the army and if they won with western support they would have a government. this govt would be superior to the fractured situation with isis group involved currently there.
if the goal is long term stability/democracy as it was advertised by the administration, far more work and i agree sognificant chance of a replay of egypt.
the cultivation of liberal reform force in these parts is necessary before regime change. it was not ready
|
On May 07 2016 04:25 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2016 04:15 Nyxisto wrote:On May 07 2016 04:04 LegalLord wrote:
Refugees (and "refugees" who just want citizenship) lie and say exactly what they know their host nation would want them to say. I know this from experience. I don't really understand why you would lie about the question "are you more afraid of Assad or Isis" in an opinion poll. It's not like either answer gets you anything I fled from ISIS. "Well ISIS has been pushed back past X, the back half of Syria is safe from them go back home" I fled from Assad. "well guess your staying until Assad is gone and the nation has been stabilized. God knows how long that stays, enjoy your stay."
Asylum isn't granted based on what your personal perceived threat is. They're not putting you in a psychoanalysis program. If you're from Syria you'll be granted asylum
|
On May 07 2016 04:22 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2016 04:17 Plansix wrote:On May 07 2016 04:04 LegalLord wrote:On May 07 2016 04:01 Plansix wrote:
Without the support of a larger nation like Russia, I doubt Assad can every provide "stability" for that region. This all stated with his own people trying to overthrow him and there is no reason to think they won't try again. I don't disagree. He's much better than either anarchy or an Islamist leader though. We're dealing with a situation of shithole vs bigger shithole. There's no "good" option here. On May 07 2016 03:57 Nyxisto wrote:
I'd not consider that "well chosen" either, when they polled refugees in Germany late last year the overwhelming majority stated that they're running from the regime, not Isis, which isn't surprising given the death toll. The Assad family isn't a source of stability Refugees (and "refugees" who just want citizenship) lie and say exactly what they know their host nation would want them to say. I know this from experience. I will never fault people for having a good plan. At the end of the day, Syria is not a safe place for them. And I don't think Assad is a solution at all. He only provides short term stability and doesn't do much to help the US/EU in the rest of the region. And when further violence breaks out, and it will, we are left with the same options are before. If there is a better option then Assad, I'd like to hear it. So would the rest of the world. Given that no one has been able to suggest one yet, he's probably the best for now.
You have come to the root of the problem, there are no apparent solutions that people have to political will for. The one apparent solution people cite, Assad, is just as likely to lead to further violence as any other option. The reason people look to it is some false hope we could have the region to back to the relative stability it had before. That won’t happen.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On May 07 2016 04:30 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2016 04:25 Gorsameth wrote:On May 07 2016 04:15 Nyxisto wrote:On May 07 2016 04:04 LegalLord wrote:
Refugees (and "refugees" who just want citizenship) lie and say exactly what they know their host nation would want them to say. I know this from experience. I don't really understand why you would lie about the question "are you more afraid of Assad or Isis" in an opinion poll. It's not like either answer gets you anything I fled from ISIS. "Well ISIS has been pushed back past X, the back half of Syria is safe from them go back home" I fled from Assad. "well guess your staying until Assad is gone and the nation has been stabilized. God knows how long that stays, enjoy your stay." Asylum isn't granted based on what your personal perceived threat is. They're not putting you in a psychoanalysis program. If you're from Syria you'll be granted asylum
Yeah, that's exactly how it works. I guarantee it.
On May 07 2016 04:30 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2016 03:46 LegalLord wrote:If you intervene without a good plan for replacing a crumbling government, then from a purely humanitarian perspective I'd say it's better not to get involved. Given that preventing atrocities is merely a pretext and that all of these interventions are in fact political in nature, I'd also say that it's a moot point. On May 07 2016 03:13 Naracs_Duc wrote:On May 06 2016 14:11 LegalLord wrote:Sure, it was in a bad state before the intervention. Perhaps you're trying to say that that justifies making the whole situation worse? Intervention without a good plan for "the day after" is just adding fuel to the fire. That, at the very least, should be self evident. On May 06 2016 14:06 Sermokala wrote:
I really hate to bring this up but isn't that the same thing everyone says about iraq? that we never had a strategy for what to do after we disposed the dictator and tried democracy building? Somewhat different in that rather than doing very little to replace the old government, in Iraq the US just executed the transition poorly. Libya was in pretty bad shape without US involvement. The US involvement that did happen was very minimal. The reason this strategy was done was because of the lessons from Iraq. The moral of the story is that you're either there for longterm occupation/imperialism OR you be okay letting atrocities happen in the world. There is no middle ground option. I don't think anyone has figured out an effective long-term solution. I think the most effective one I've seen in general is the Soviet/Russian one: install a well-chosen secular dictator, through brutal force if necessary, who will suppress local ethnic conflicts and bring about at least temporary stability. Perhaps there's a better solution but I've yet to see one (democracy building has been a disaster and leaving a power vacuum is worse). The issue with democracy building is that it's a process of decades. Just look at how long it took western European countries to become proper democracies. Yet whenever we intervene we expect to be done there in a couple of years. The Russian solution is a band aid fix at best. You're only supressing the conflicts and making them worse when they do eventually blow up. In fact a lot of the instability which erupted after the interventions are because of long supressed conflicts by the dictators which are finally let loose.
Again, it there's a better option I think we'd all like to hear it. So far there's three realistic outcomes for how things could turn out:
1. Leave the country alone and it will rip itself apart into 20 faction nation-states (sustained by foreign donations and jihadists interested in the region).
2. Try to install a long-term stability and you're going to be there for at least three generations. Could also end badly like the European colonial projects.
3. Install a temporary dictatorship that will maintain stability, and suppress the conflict for 5-20 years before it blows up again, possibly bigger than before.
I think it would be fair to say that (3) is arguably the best of those options. As of now I know of no fourth option that is better than all three of those.
On May 07 2016 04:42 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2016 04:22 LegalLord wrote:On May 07 2016 04:17 Plansix wrote:On May 07 2016 04:04 LegalLord wrote:On May 07 2016 04:01 Plansix wrote:
Without the support of a larger nation like Russia, I doubt Assad can every provide "stability" for that region. This all stated with his own people trying to overthrow him and there is no reason to think they won't try again. I don't disagree. He's much better than either anarchy or an Islamist leader though. We're dealing with a situation of shithole vs bigger shithole. There's no "good" option here. On May 07 2016 03:57 Nyxisto wrote:
I'd not consider that "well chosen" either, when they polled refugees in Germany late last year the overwhelming majority stated that they're running from the regime, not Isis, which isn't surprising given the death toll. The Assad family isn't a source of stability Refugees (and "refugees" who just want citizenship) lie and say exactly what they know their host nation would want them to say. I know this from experience. I will never fault people for having a good plan. At the end of the day, Syria is not a safe place for them. And I don't think Assad is a solution at all. He only provides short term stability and doesn't do much to help the US/EU in the rest of the region. And when further violence breaks out, and it will, we are left with the same options are before. If there is a better option then Assad, I'd like to hear it. So would the rest of the world. Given that no one has been able to suggest one yet, he's probably the best for now. You have come to the root of the problem, there are no apparent solutions that people have to political will for. The one apparent solution people cite, Assad, is just as likely to lead to further violence as any other option. The reason people look to it is some false hope we could have the region to back to the relative stability it had before. That won’t happen.
Assad is temporary stability and pretty much guaranteed to lead to violence in the future. All other options are either not viable (decades of occupation, maybe the US should stay there for 100 years like John Rambo McCain suggests) or worse (anarchy now, and of the Islamist rather than secular variety). Pick your poison.
Admittedly I don't know what a long-term solution would look like. I think if we had one then we would have implemented it by now. I don't know if there even is one.
|
Sarkozy and Cameron were the ones who pushed for Libyan intervention the most. Obama used it as a chance to push some European nations to do more of the heavy lifting for once in an intervention.
On May 07 2016 01:56 farvacola wrote:
Out of curiosity, what does "closer to the center economically" actually look like?
Late response. By that, I mean I'm skeptical of a large welfare state but believe that government has a part in the economy. I'm in favor of private businesses competing in a more regulated playing field. I'm skeptical of both $15 minimum wage and tax cuts for the rich. I'm skeptical of unions (especially public employee unions) and wall street (the finance industry in general). I'm in favor of public healthcare and environmental regulations. I believe government should subsidize new technologies when appropriate.
Basically, I think my beliefs are all over the map.
|
On May 07 2016 04:47 andrewlt wrote:Sarkozy and Cameron were the ones who pushed for Libyan intervention the most. Obama used it as a chance to push some European nations to do more of the heavy lifting for once in an intervention.
Show nested quote +On May 07 2016 01:56 farvacola wrote:
Out of curiosity, what does "closer to the center economically" actually look like? Late response. By that, I mean I'm skeptical of a large welfare state but believe that government has a part in the economy. I'm in favor of private businesses competing in a more regulated playing field. I'm skeptical of both $15 minimum wage and tax cuts for the rich. I'm skeptical of unions (especially public employee unions) and wall street (the finance industry in general). I'm in favor of public healthcare and environmental regulations. I believe government should subsidize new technologies when appropriate. Basically, I think my beliefs are all over the map.
Which could be pointed out that has led to even more isolationist belief as the US had to go from being a member of a multinational campaign to having to take over for most of the burden and having to pay for it as well. Italian Jets couldn't take off which required US personnel to be flown to Italy to fix them and even in some cases replace entire systems, to ammunition and bomb shortages among Dutch and Norwegian aircraft, even fuel shortages for some ships which were already in the Mediterranean and could have possibly been dead in the water had they not been refueled.
|
On May 07 2016 04:15 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2016 04:04 LegalLord wrote:
Refugees (and "refugees" who just want citizenship) lie and say exactly what they know their host nation would want them to say. I know this from experience. I don't really understand why you would lie about the question "are you more afraid of Assad or Isis" in an opinion poll. It's not like either answer gets you anything
well, many of them come from very corrupt places, where you can't trust an opinion poll to not be used by the government. e.g. if you got an opinion poll in Soviet Russia, you'd be mighty careful how you answer.
On Libya, I agree we need more research and planning on how to handle post-war situations.
One major challenge is the need for legitimacy by having locals involved in teh government, but the locals that are left are mostly corrupt.
Otherwise one could have a prepared set of people from many countries (i.e. have a portable governance group with judges, mayors, and some mid/high bureaucrats and administrators who could run things for awhile and teach/mentor the locals for a decade or two or maybe just a few years, while things are set up).
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On May 07 2016 05:01 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2016 04:15 Nyxisto wrote:On May 07 2016 04:04 LegalLord wrote:
Refugees (and "refugees" who just want citizenship) lie and say exactly what they know their host nation would want them to say. I know this from experience. I don't really understand why you would lie about the question "are you more afraid of Assad or Isis" in an opinion poll. It's not like either answer gets you anything well, many of them come from very corrupt places, where you can't trust an opinion poll to not be used by the government. e.g. if you got an opinion poll in Soviet Russia, you'd be mighty careful how you answer. On Libya, I agree we need more research and planning on how to handle post-war situations. One major challenge is the need for legitimacy by having locals involved in teh government, but the locals that are left are mostly corrupt. Otherwise one could have a prepared set of people from many countries (i.e. have a portable governance group with judges, mayors, and some mid/high bureaucrats and administrators who could run things for awhile and teach/mentor the locals for a decade or two or maybe just a few years, while things are set up).
You can't trust opinion polls ANYWHERE as a refugee seeking asylum. US is guilty of abusing such polls for determining refugee eligibility, and I am quite certain that Europe is as well.
Your plan has been implemented in the past, and it's better known as "colonialism." I'll leave it to you to judge how well that worked out.
|
On May 07 2016 04:03 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On May 07 2016 03:55 oneofthem wrote:
it's not like intervention caused the instability. euros were going to go in without the u.s. anyway.
problem was not intervening strongly enough and with more of a post plan.
it was either syria or iraq in terms of outcomes. What is a viable post plan tho? There is no one to take over, that is the problem with freeing dictatorships. Everyone who could form a viable interim government has been removed by the state. Same problem as Egypt, Iraq ect. If you want to fix it your forced to do it from the ground up yourself and no one is willing to nation build with a security force in place to protect the fragile democracy for multiple decades.
The only viable post intervention plan is imperialism and national expansion and keep it stable for 2-4 generations until the previous problem populations are no longer problems and you now have a "western" population that is better able and willing to practice and support western ideals and hence be able to get western support.
Anything less than that will leave a power vacuum and lead to more bloodshed.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
um the very exploitative and despotic nature of these regimes was due in no small part to the prioritizing of stability/security in the dealings with the region. it is hardly going to get better with the ecological and demographic trends
|
Anyone else think Trump would win if Oprah agreed to be his VP?
|
On May 07 2016 05:18 Mohdoo wrote:
Anyone else think Trump would win if Oprah agreed to be his VP?
Not gonna lie, I'd vote for Oprah.
|
Pottery Barn Rule: If you break it, you bought it.
If we depose Assad, we own whatever comes after, rightly or wrongly. Our cruise missiles didn't do that much against Libya, but because we broke something, we now own what came after Quadaffi. When we toppled Saddam, we owned what came after, even though Syrian/Iranian infiltrators were meddling.
Obama has wisely refused to topple Assad because he knows that the USA will then own what comes after. We don't own what is happening there. Non-intervention doesn't carry the same blameworthiness as intervention.
|
Blameworthiness is pretty irrelevant compared to consequences. It's not like the decision to to nothing rather than something means that the situation doesn't get worse
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
