Should America/NATO support Syrian resistance the way it did in Libya?

David H wrote:A year later, the Japanese did the same thing by launching a sneak attack on a navy they weren't at war with in Pearl Harbor.  An old neighbor of ours when I was growing up had been a sailor there, and had survived by swimming under the burning oil.  Churchill's comment on hearing of Pear Harbor was, "We have won the War!"  We had successfully been drawn into the conflict, and a half a million American deaths later Churchill would be proved right.

That's true. I appreciate the sacrifice as I believe a lot more would have died worldwide if not for that sacrifice. If you had not come into the war, I think people in defeated Allied countries would have hated Americans for a long long time. Maybe you'd have been maligned just like the Vichy Government is maligned. I also think the world would be a far worse place than it is now if it was a German Empire of the Nazi variety. Also, a German Empire of the Nazi variety would - in my opinion - have not tolerated an American Democracy over the water. I'm trying to remember something Tolkien said about the world coming to your door whether you like it or not... but my mind is failing me about that just now.

(Germany may have tolerated a servile America as a Trading Partner, I guess, but for how long?)

I'm also wondeing now if the number of deaths worldwide would have been less if America had declared war at the same time Brittain did? Or earlier still, like Churchill wanted.

That is the wonderful thing about hindsight Orwell! I imagine there are hundreds of decisions that were made that fundementally changed the course of the war. Some are obvious, some probably not so much.

What if Hitler had postponed his assault on Russia long enough to secure the western front?

What if Japan had launched a full scale invasion of the U.S shortly after Pearl Harbour?

What if Hitler had been successfully assassinated?

The French having a fully secure border?

The allies enforcing their promises of the industrial development of the Ruhr valley and growth if the German military?

Sure I could go in there but the thing that probably links them all together is political will the same ad Afghanistan and the same as the recent decision here that the UK will not participate in military action against Syria... proof of chemical weapons or not.

There is little will within the general population because we are tired of seeing our troops come back in body bags or missing legs. People seem to have forgotten about the right thing to do and are probably skeptical because of the mess that is Iraq.

But when we have the gift of hindsight, will we wish we had intervened? Maybe when a canister of Sarin supplied to terrorists by Syria goes off on yhe london underground? Or they start shelling Tel Aviv with mustard gas with the full backing of Russia since we didnt see it as an issue the last time so we must all be racist zionists.

Hindsight is great!

We're in total agreement, Lance.

I only hope you did not mistake my observations for criticisms?

The Americans and other countries invaded Afghanistan in reaction to the Taliban harbouring those forces that murdered all those people in the Twin Towers and elsewhere in America. - Orwell

They did!  But all the terrorists involved in 9/11 were a) Saudi Arabian and B) dead.
As always energy plays a factor. When Clinton was President he negotiated with the Taliban a much needed pipe line through to the Caspian Sea for US interests - but by the time of Bush jnr things had gone poorly in releations and the Taliban cut the US out the deal and were looking to Russia and China to finance it.
In response US Ambassadors threatened the Taliban government  with the warning 'we can shower you in gifts or we can shower you in bombs'.

At about the same time all this had been going on Rumsfield and Co were finishing of their manifesto for the New Age with America firmly at the head of things, particular importance in this world view was payed to securing future energy sources, with the current (at the time) situation of unfriendly countries controlling so much of it highlighted as a problem.
The memo included a piece saying that the problem was the US public, who would not stomach the sort of action deemed necessary without a new 'Peal Harbour' to shake them into action.

Then 9/11 happened and Bin Laden was declared the international head of SPECTRE- sorry Al Qaeda  and we were told, but it was never proved, he was hiding somewhere in a cave in Afghanistan.
So the US demanded the Taliban turn him over.
The Taliban as the (at the time) officially recognised legitimate government of Afghanistan understandably said they would not hand over any citizen without seeing proof of his guilt first.
The US refused to provide any evidence citing National Security Issues as the excuse.
The Taliban refused so war was next.

"Initially, it was an occupying force made up of several nations which began as early as possible to work with a significant number of Afghani's to install a democratic-style Government."- Orwell


I think to call the current Afghan government a government in the usual sense is misleading.
It has little control outside the immediate geographical area around the capital- its not so much a government as the biggest, best funded, best armed tribe.
Afghanistan has a tribal structure, we never altered that, or impacted on it, or even tried to, we elevated a tribe to rulers and gave them the money and means to do so- and we elevated a tribe we best felt would serve western interests, not necessarily the interests of the people- had we been primarily concerned with ordinary Afghans we would have created a much broader coalition of Aghans and sought to bring the warring tribes together to rebuild.
Instead we backed one faction over the others and bred resentment among the others.
If you think Afghanistan is just about revenge for 9/11, or that the West was driven by some moral impetus to bring emancipation to women there then I think you are being pretty naive.
We payed some lip service to those things- its good PR and it plays well at home- but we never really put in the resources or effort to honestly make it a reality.
That poor girl was shot in the head because we convinced her of a lie- that we supported and would defend the equality of women there- the sad truth is we never really did, we never really made the necessary efforts to secure it, and we offered no protection worth a damn to those who tried to take us at our word.

I imagine the troops dying in Helmand would beg to differ.

Helmand only proves the point we were unwilling to do what what was needed-far to small a garrison, poorly protected, equipped and defended, surrounded by hostility- what they did there was damn near a military miracle, and the army deserve all the recognition for that going- but it doesn't cast our strategy in a good light, it casts it in a poor light and highlights just how uncommitted the West really was, how vague our strategic aims there were, and how we had no end game.
When the British left effective control was handed to the Afghan government, day to day protection and control was put in the hands of the Afghan National Police.

Lets see what those sacrifices have been worth. Here's a couple reports on Helmand today-

'In February 2013, BBC reported that corruption occurs in Afghan National Police bases, with some bases arming children, using them as servants and sexually abusing them; in early March 2013, the New York Times reported that government corruption is rampant with routine accusations against the police of shaking down and sexually abusing civilians causing loyalty to the government to be weaker.'
The border is also one of the most dangerous in the world with smuggling, militant activity, police corruption all playing a significant part.

Was it worth it for that?

The point I was trying to make (clearly not well) was that there has been more of a will to do something in the wider country. The problem is that there had never been a consensus on what the right thing is and the public back home dont like their troops dying.

How many generals have been in charge there since the invasion? I wonder how many plans would have succeeded in the long term if real committment was made and everything seen through rather than firing and hiring when the a senator or MP starts making some noise.

Politics is what always gets in the way. Not will.

As has already been pointed out Churchill had the will- but he had to get bloody too. He knowingly let innocent die to manipulate public opinion in the US. He ordered the blanket bombing of civilians in towns and cities.
The Western public wont stomach that sort of thing these days, not with so many news sources and information available. Look at the outcry when one missile hits a civilian area by accident- can you imagine a modern western leader ordering the blanket bombing of civilians to weaken their moral? Its almost inconceivable now. The outcry against it would be massive.
The will among the people is no longer there. So when we do go to war we go with a hand tied behind our back- we try to go in clearly as the 'good guys' and we try t leave still the good guys.
But you cant fight a war like that. If you are going to do it you have to be committed- neither Parliament or the public have shown the stomach for that sort of commitment over Iraq or Afghanistan, or now Syria.

Churchill could not persecute WW2 now. He would be on trial for War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity.
And had history gone differently and Germany had won then there would still have been an equivalent to the Nuremberg Trials- only men like Churchill would have swung from the rope for the mass deaths of thousands of German civilians- and the thing is, he would have been just as guilty as many of the German Leaders who really did swing for their part in the war. Funny old thing history. And who gets to write it.

Thinking of history, Helmand is like the Charge of the Light Brigade- you cant do anything but admire and be amazed by the bravery, courage and discipline of the soldiers, but you can only have shame for the men and women who sent them there ill prepared and without proper aims and goals.

'Russian President Vladimir Putin has challenged the US to present to the UN evidence that Syria was responsible for chemical weapons attacks.
Mr Putin urged Mr Obama - as a Nobel Peace Prize laureate - to think about future victims in Syria before using force.
He said it was ridiculous to suggest the Syrian government was to blame for the 21 August attack.
"Syrian government troops are on the offensive and have surrounded the opposition in several regions," he said.
"In these conditions, to give a trump card to those who are calling for a military intervention is utter nonsense."

Mr Putin also expressed surprise at a vote in the British parliament on Thursday ruling out participation in military action.
"I will be honest: this was completely unexpected for me," he said.
"This shows that in Great Britain, even if it is the USA's main geopolitical ally in the world... there are people who are guided by national interests and common sense, and value their sovereignty."- BBC

Not sure about that last bit, 'and value their sovereignty' is there a double meaning in there? And is one of those meanings a threat? You can never be bloody sure with Putin.

Orwell wrote:
That's true. I appreciate the sacrifice as I believe a lot more would have died worldwide if not for that sacrifice. If you had not come into the war, I think people in defeated Allied countries would have hated Americans for a long long time. Maybe you'd have been maligned just like the Vichy Government is maligned. I also think the world would be a far worse place than it is now if it was a German Empire of the Nazi variety. Also, a German Empire of the Nazi variety would - in my opinion - have not tolerated an American Democracy over the water. I'm trying to remember something Tolkien said about the world coming to your door whether you like it or not... but my mind is failing me about that just now.

(Germany may have tolerated a servile America as a Trading Partner, I guess, but for how long?)  

I'm also wondeing now if the number of deaths worldwide would have been less if America had declared war at the same time Brittain did? Or earlier still, like Churchill wanted.

If I were inclined to backward palantir gazing, I'd see something different. The Nazi party had never owned the hearts of the German people, or even of their own military. This became more and more apparent as the war dragged on. In the short term they were able to govern by flagwaving and gunpointing, at least as long as war was sustainable, but ultimately any government needs the implicit consent of the people or they implode from internal problems. Nazi Europe would have folded the way Soviet Eastern Europe did in the 80's and 90's, only several decades earlier. And that's without even factoring the possibility of a military coup, which was very likely.

Add to this the fact that there is no defensible boarder in Asia, and I believe Nazi Germany was doomed from the beginning.

If the threat of America entering the war in such overwhelming numbers hadn't been there though, I believe Germany would have continued to refine conventional weapons and not put the effort into developing nuclear weapons, which nobody wanted at the time. America certainly wouldn't have! And I doubt that Stalin would have pursued the research without his captured German physicists, especially if nobody else was. That research was so expensive and so dangerously unknown that it only could have happened in the middle of a World War.

So was Europe better for being carpet bombed into submission, and the deaths of what Wikipedia says were 60 to 85 million people? Certainly the ones who lived were more politically free, at least until the Nazi yoke was shaken off.

Would the world be better if nuclear weapons had never been invented? I believe we would be. Would we have gone to the Moon? Probably not. The questions go on and on.....

I guess to sum up these ramblings, I'd say there's no doubt we changed the world in the 1940's, but I question whether we really saved it.

Not sure about the last bit re nuclear weapons... I imagine we would have had a third world war by now if the major players werent always worried that winning a ground war would never be enough.

Although I still think that reason will never be enough with the growing population and depleting resources. Unless something drastic changes I think a third world war is a matter of time.

I forgot to ask fellow Brits, what has Miliband done to Cameron, I missed what happened, they are saying he betrayed him, whats it all about?

Not entirely sure, but there seems to be a lot being made of two things. First that Miliband has been putting up a united front in condemning events in Syria, but then led the No vote. Secondly that the Tories had a free vote, but Labour didn't.

There is a feeling in some quarters that Ed has opportunistically used the situation for his own political gain. Strange thing to accuse a politician of...

In regard to Syria, when I get time I'm going to have to look into recent history and find out more about Assad and all the opposition groups. At the moment, relying on the Media for most of my information, I'm just confused. I really am in a doubting frame of mind about the factuality of everything currently coming out of Syria. I know people are taking sides and accusing one party or another of incredible atrocities, but I can't make head nor tail of what's really happening at the moment.

Putin may be a moron and dragging Russia in to the 1980's again, but he made a good point when he said why would the Assad regime risk turning the West against him when his forces were winning....?

The question in my mind, what would be worse, Assad winning or one - or more - of the opposition groups? Are there any even-handed articles or books out about the Assad regime anyone here has read?

What complicates the issue for the US is that, from the perspective of Iran, the use of chemical weapons by Syria is a prefect test case to test American resolve regarding nuclear weapons.  

Both lines were painted with the same brush, and if the USA let's Syria cross the "use of chemical weapons" line with only a verbal protest they could reasonably assume that there'd be no serious consequences for Iran crossing the "nuclear arsenal" line either.

Not the message that anybody wants us to send, I think....

thanks Kafria

observing them from a distance, I cant see much difference between Cameron and Miliband, they both seem pleasant faced family men and they both seem bland soft spoken wishy washy politically correct flim flammers. For all her faults, her aggression and the way she cruelly treated the vulnerable, Thatcher at least didnt hide behind sound bites, when she shafted people she did it to their face without any soft soap. She was 100% sure what she wanted and went after it ruthlessly. She saw the path she wanted for Britain and scythed through the field without stopping to consider the cost, Cameron seems to waver and back track, he is very much a modern British leader, I dont trust him or Miliband. Morally Thatcher was reprehensible and wrong, I hated what she stood for, but she was a tough leader who one could at least admire for their cojones.

Cameron has made an arse of this- they are trying to pin the blame on Labour to make some political hay out of it- but what they are really trying to cover up is that they lost the vote because Tory backbenchers voted against their leader.

But this was a mess of Cameron's own making- he recalled parliament from its holiday period 4 days early to a rushed vote, he called for the vote before the UN inspectors had even finished their job (echoing what Blair did in the Iraq vote- and stirring up bad memories of that), he never made use of the Party Whips or even sounded out his own backbenchers to see what their mood was. And he began  from a stand point of publicly saying Assad was responsible, and had to make a climb down on that to a position of it being 'highly likely'- which made the government argument look weak and uncertain.
Make no mistake, Cameron expected to win this vote, it never entered his head he would lose- no PM in modern history has gone to the Commons asking permission for military action and been refused.
This is a humiliating embarrassment for Cameron. Very close to fatal for a party leader.

An interesting take on this from FOX News of all places-

'To see this no vote as just about Syria does not fully explain the mentality in the UK. Instead, we must look at the state of the Anglo-American alliance. For most interventions do not directly serve British interests, but American. Britain therefore goes into battle because America is Britain’s strongest ally, and a strong America means a strong Great Britain.
For instance, although Britain recognized that Al-Qaeda posed a serious threat to the UK, we intervened in Afghanistan because, as Tony Blair succinctly stated at the time, an attack on America was seen as an attack on Britain, such was the strength of the Special Relationship.
The answer lies in that Special Relationship. First re-established by President Reagan and Margaret Thatcher in the 1980’s after neglect during the Carter years, it has gone from strength to strength through multiple Prime Ministers and Presidents for decades. Then President Obama took the White House.
When President Obama took office, one of his first moves was to remove a bust of Churchill that Bush had been given by Tony Blair in the wake of 9/11. It was a symbol that Britain stood by America, and Obama’s disposal of it spoke volumes.
Other swipes, such as Obama’s false reference to BP as “British Petroleum,” his declaration that America had “no stronger ally” than France, the senior State Dept. official who said about Britain, “You’re just the same as the other 190 countries in the world. You shouldn’t expect special treatment” and the fact that not a single senior member of the Obama administration attended the funeral of Margaret Thatcher, all give indications about how Britain is seen in Obama’s America.
Yet the most galling snub to Britain comes in the form of the Falkland Islands dispute. Although British territory for centuries, and in the face of a population that consistently votes over 98% in favor of remaining British, Argentina have attempted to claim the Islands as their own.
he Obama administration, speaking through then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, sided against their best ally, and with Kirchner’s Argentina, demanding Britain sit down with Argentina and negotiate sovereignty of the British territory under the pretense of neutrality.
If that is the case, then why should Britain stick its neck out, and put British lives on the line in a conflict that does not directly serve British interests? The argument that Britain has a duty to support its ally is simply not compelling enough in the Obama era.

Long ago President Obama decided that America didn’t need Britain anymore. As a consequence, Britain has now discovered that it doesn’t need America either. Mr. Obama is now paying for his poor judgment, and America is significantly weakened as a consequence.'- Fox news


Now granted its Fox and they use every opportunity to lay into Obama naturally, but there are some valid points in this- there was a lot of disquiet when Obama got rid of the Churchill gift, and when he kept saying British Petroleum as if it was somehow connected to our country, and especially the US position on the Falklands.
Friendship does go two ways after all.

The voting on the Commons vote is telling-

In total there were 272 for and 286 against.

But 30 Conservatives voted against and a further 33 were absent.

Not a single Labour member voted for- indicating a Party Whip- and 11 lib dems voted against the government too.

So its clear the problem here was Camerons- he couldnt convince his own party, and didnt marshal them properly through the Whips for the vote- and he lost.
It doesn't say much for his leadership of the Party let alone the country.

To put Camerons defeat in some historic perspective-


'A government has never been defeated in a Commons vote on a military intervention in modern times.
Professor Philip Cowley, of Nottingham University, says: "No government has lost a vote over matters of defence or military involvement since at least the mid-19th century. The fact that the only comparable votes involve Lord Palmerston, Lord Aberdeen and even Lord North is a sign of how far back in time you have to search."- BBC

I am glad Cameron failed, its just a matter of time before the French waver and change their minds as well, I suspect Hollande is brown trousering it, and will go to parliament for the final vote. Obama needs a get out of gail card, he needs to save face without looking weak, I reckon the only way is to say to Assad, ok we will let you off this time but if you try it just once more we will bomb you without asking Congress or anyone.

He failed- but he shouldn't have done- he had the numbers and history on his side and he still lost.

are you sure in the past the PMs have gone to parliament for a vote before going to war, I had the idea they just decided with the government, ie the cabinet. I was under the impression going to parliament was a new thing. could be wrong.

Although I think we are wrong on the decision, I think it is good that we haven't made the decision based on our ties to the U.S. It should be made because it is the right thing to do.

David H.... throw backs to the League of Nations. Lots of rules but nothing to back it up. Slippery slope if it is proven the Assad regime is responsible and we do nothing.