Syria

http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/halting-syrian-chaos-robert-d-kaplan-and-kamran-bokhari

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/08/world/meast/syria-unrest/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

First thought: Ain’t our problem.

Ok, we ought to stand with people seeking a voice in their government, which – it should be rather obvious – in most Arab, Muslim, Middle Eastern countries has been far from the state of affairs.

And I think, for the most part, the US tries … I am not so sanguine as to contends it succeeds but I give us credit for at least trying.

Now, there are two ways of trying. One is called using soft power and the other is by using its complement, hard power. Soft power usually means with words; hard power usually means with means other than words, up to and including military force. In other words, with hard power you try to coerce the party to whom you wish to change their behavior using forceful pressures, from sanctions to military action; while, with soft power, you try to convince the party to change their ways by talking to them and reasoning with them that it is in their own best interest to change course.

Sometimes, soft power – often called “diplomacy – actually works. However, in the real world – regretfully, because we all have differing points of reference, much less views, usually it takes some form of hard power – pain – to make governments and regimes to change their mindset.

In Syria, well, I hate to say this but the US is not about to be listened to by the Assad government. Sorry, but that option really is not viable.

Secondly, I am pretty certain that the American people – having grown tired of wars in the region and Southwest Asia – are not really all that gung ho to get involved in yet another conflict that basically is intramural one, where if we have any role, it should be holding coats … and possibly passing ammunition.

The problem is – as in with any domestic-violence situation, a police officer will tell you – that no matter what the US does, it is going to piss off some people. People, neighbors, others involved in similar situations are all going to look at the situation and wonder, “Could/Would that happen to us?”

In my estimation, that is what they (the other folks) should and will do, and unfortunately for those who think the US OUGHT to do something (anything, please), is resent the US playing – yet again – global constable-on-patrol (Cop, those who don’t recognize the acronym).

Ok, the US was never elected to be the global cop. We kinda inherited the role from the Brits after World War II. They pretty much played the global cop role for a century and half and for the last 65 years, it is has fallen by default to the global power with the strength and capability to do it. The old Soviet Union (and now the Russians) and to a lesser extent, the Chinese, wanted to, or would like to see themselves in that role, but unfortunately, they really don’t have the ability. Alfred Thayer Mahan, more than a century ago, had a really good explanation of why, but I will leave that for you all to look up and find out about.

Now, if the US is not going to play global cop in Syria, well … who is going to be the cop on the beat. It looks like the job has basically fallen to Turkey, according to the above analysis, which probably is valid. Of course, one can imagine the Turks would like to play a much greater role on the world stage than they have for the last century, since the fall of the Ottoman Empire (which for centuries DID dominate the world scene in many ways).

Now, the question is:

A: Are the Turks up to the challenge? Heck, I don’t know.

B: Are the Iranians (the Turks rivals going back millennia) going to let them do it? I don’t know that either, but given the bent of the current regime in Tehran, I would find that doubtful.

Which brings me to another point: Why the heck should the US care or be involved? It shouldn’t. Sorry, but this is a domestic squabble and, for one, I think the Syrians should duke it out. Of course, I am not above having the US pass ammunition to side we would like to win, but it really isn’t our fight … at the moment.

So, should Ms. Rodham-Clinton be running around saying that the days of the Assad regime are numbered? Probably not, but then, I am not in the government and that decision is not mine. Thank God.

But anyway, so much for that random thought.

Random Thoughts 13

I see where the House Democrats have a new plan to end the war in Iraq. The Democrats are advancing a resolution that would accuse the nation of Turkey of genocide when 1.5 million Armenians died at the hands of the Ottoman Empire, that preceded the current Turkish state, back in World War I.

I think the Democrats have finally hit on a way to force George Bush to withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq. They have been unsuccessful at cutting off funding for the war, so now they are going to piss off the Turks so much that the Turks will cut the supply line into Iraq, forcing a reduction of troop strengths becase a vast majority of the supplies (like 70 percent) are routed through facilities in Turkey.

In addition, the resolution will further complicate U.S. efforts when the Turks, who are currently be held at bay by the good offices of the U.S., will no longer feel restrained from attacking the Kurdish separatists who have taken refuge in Iraqi Kurdistan and strike accross the border in terroristic raids.

I think Nancy Pelosi is absolutely brilliant and this is a wonderful strategy to force the defeat in Iraq to a conclusion and make sure that any efforts of the Bush Administration to salvage the mess in Iraq fail for lack of supplies, without the Democrats being accused of failing to support the troops.

Now, it will be a simple matter of pointing to the incompetence of the Bush Administration in handling the "Turkish situation."

I do so love American politics ... it is so educational