3 ms·
US intervention turned Syria from a relatively quick civil war (to be won by Assad and his Russian pals) to a conflict of interminable duration. Elements of the
by bamfly 3y ago
US intervention turned Syria from a relatively quick civil war (to be won by Assad and his Russian pals) to a conflict of interminable duration. Elements of the fight against Assad were connected to groups arising from the chaos in Iraq, in the wake of the US invasion (remember ISIS?) complicating matters and surely leading to even more suffering for non-combatants. IIRC the bulk of the refugee waves came after the initial clashes, when US aid and air cover let the resistance dig in for the long-term rather than getting quickly crushed by government forces and their allies. Somewhat later, the ISIS mess made it all even worse.
Whether all this was in some sense worth it for mysterious realpolitik greater-good reasons—I dunno. Looks pretty bad on its own, anyway. Not enough help to win—but just enough to keep the fight going forever. Doesn't make much sense to me unless the point was to accomplish exactly that (to disrupt Russian and/or Iranian interests in the area without pushing too hard? To keep Syria too distracted to mess with Israel? Destabilize Syria so it can't interfere with Iraq's fledgeling state? I have no idea what the real motivation is or was, but it sure as hell doesn't seem to have been "help the Syrian people"—if it was, we've screwed that up pretty badly)
- misja111 3y agoUS didn't want to be involved in the Syrian conflict at all in the beginning. It were its European allies, in particular France, that were pushing to intervene and fight the Assad regime. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/why-the-united-states-hasnt-intervened-in-syria/ https://www.brookings.edu/articles/why-the-united-states-has... https://www.reuters.com/article/us-syria-crisis-un-idUKBRE87T17M20120830 https://www.reuters.com/article/us-syria-crisis-un-idUKBRE87...
- bamfly 3y agoInteresting, thanks for the context. [EDIT] Worth noting that (and, yes, I checked Wikipedia because I don't trust my mental timeline on this) US aid dates back to 2011, before even that 2012 article about Euro allies agitating for intervention, but overt direct action (air strikes) by the US didn't start until 2014. Probably one of those things that only the youngest of us will ever get anything resembling a full, clear story on, given some of the early intervention ('12 and '13) beyond non-lethal aid was evidently by the CIA (unsurprisingly) and carried a price tag (I gather over ~4-5 years, to be fair) of perhaps a billion dollars. Maybe in my twilight years I'll get to read an account of this whole thing that makes any amount of sense. I'm really hoping it's not just one of those "yeah, we fucked up and couldn't admit it so we kept fucking up for quite a while longer, on the taxpayer dime and at the cost of immense human suffering" things we do sometimes. But at least it looks like, if it was a mistake, the UK and France were making the mistake with us. Which is... something, I suppose. [EDIT EDIT] Looks like Jordan and Israel played a key role in tipping the scales for getting Obama to agree to that early CIA op, and the Saudis were also participants once it got going. Sigh. The usual players, for US intervention in that region, I suppose. Israel and the Saudis make sense, but I'm not well-read on Jordanian foreign relations. I'd suppose they're just broadly Saudi-aligned, and I know they're relatively friendly with the Israelis.