Well I don't know what his reasoning was for pulling back from the conflict, but in hindsight it looks to have been a good call.

As to whether the U.S. caused the war and the destruction of Syria. I think they are certainly culpable, but the causes go back to the first gulf war and before. A legacy of foreign policy decisions in regard of the Middle East going back decades, perhaps even to the late 1940's.

Well I don't know what his reasoning was for pulling back from the conflict, but in hindsight it looks to have been a good call. — Punshhh

Why do you say that?

A legacy of foreign policy decisions in regard of the Middle East going back decades, perhaps even to the late 1940's. — Punshhh

What decision made in the 40's influenced the present situation? It's interesting that you bring up the post-WW2 world-scene. To me, this question is really about what we owe one another on a global scale... and what we don't.

I blame the Welsh. Radicalisation began during WW1...

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/world-war-one/lawrence-of-arabia/

Thanks for the Frontline clip, have to watch it!

Even without looking at the Frontline report (which usually are very good), something important happened in Syria. And that was that the US in it's interventionist foreign policy reached a limit. Because Obama was thinking about going after Assad, doing something similar than in Libya. And then... no allies showed up, not even the trusty ol' UK. And then Obama and the US blinked. Yeah, lets forget about any red lines we talked about. And thus the US created one of the most FUBAR farses in the history of covert operations in Syria. The Bay of Pigs was a professional effort compared to the US covert operations there.

Well, perhaps Israel is happy. The last enemy it had, which was few years ago developing it's own nuclear arsenal to deter Israel's arsenal is a basically failed state.

(Turists watching the fighting across the border in Syria from the Israel side. Nicer times than earlier. And extremely surreal photo, actually)


To the OP:
In the end I think Americans focus far too much on themselves and think that everything evolves around them and what they do. In the end Syria and Libya and perhaps the whole Middle East made itself a mess with the US being just one outside agent that has an effect on the outcome. The Syrian civil war happened because of the situation in Syria, not because of the US. Heck, the US was in no way involved with the extremely bloody civil war in Algeria, yet that bloody civil war happened. The civil war in Syria is something actually similar.

Assad's father (came to power in the early 70s) wasn't exactly the prince of peace. In an effort to suppress the Moslem Brotherhood (perhaps or perhaps not a worthwhile goal, I don't know) he killed about 40,000 Syrians in Hama. As I recollect reading at the time, it was a pretty savage suppression. That doesn't account for the current civil war, but points towards 45 years of conflict, and family precedents for extremely brutal policy.

Intervention in other countries' sordid affairs would be a great idea if their various sordid situations weren't so damned messy.

Thanks for the Frontline clip, have to watch it! — ssu

I couldn't find the whole episode on youtube. If you can access the PBS website, it's on there (this episode is about a year old, btw):

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/obama-at-war/

But you're right. It explains that both Obama and Kerry made public statements (in off-the-cuff answers to questions from reporters) that seemed to draw lines and assure US support. It's the sort of thing that arises from ambivalence... no clear policy in the first place.

In the present US presidential election, that ambivalence is present. Obama and Clinton believe the US should be some sort of global leader. The opposing view is isolationist (as if that's even an option at this point.)

Intervention in other countries' sordid affairs would be a great idea if their various sordid situations weren't so damned messy. — Bitter Crank

Apparently, the Obama administration was assured by various parties (including Turkish) that the Assad regime would crumble easily in the face of revolutionaries taking to the streets.

A few doses of sarin gas later....

Well, in my view the US Middle East policy has been a slow moving train wreck that went off the rails totally years ago when the younger Bush had this brainfart of invading the country his father had wisely stayed clear of (and listened to the wise Saudis, perhaps). The fiasco has just been so slow that people cannot fathom how bad it has gone off the rails.

Think about it. First there was CENTO. A similar defence treaty like NATO with Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Pakistan (the UK and finally the US) on the same side. Then that ended with A time of Kermit Roosevelt when militaries of the nations asked first the CIA if it was OK for them to do a coup. And Operation Ajax seemed to have handled Iran and the US could have it "Twin Pillars"-policy (of a strong Imperial Iran and the Saudi Kingdom). Then in 1958 Iraq had it's very popular revolution so CENTO didn't work anymore. Then happened the Iranian revolution. Then after Desert Storm the US had "Dual Containment". And then the invasion of Iraq.

And in the end it's a total mess. Iranian backed Shiite militias with American Abrams tanks. I think the picture below describes so well what many words cannot. When you have after a long war started by the US itself, a "terrorist organization" backed by an "axis-of-evil" state being your ally, there simply is no logic in your foreign policy.

What decision made in the 40's influenced the present situation? — Mongrel

Heard of a country called Israel at all?

Well, in my view the US Middle East policy has been a slow moving train wreck that went off the rails totally years ago when the younger Bush had this brainfart of invading the country his father had wisely stayed clear of ( — ssu

The invasion of Iraq contributed for the same reasons we've already pointed out: lack of long-term commitment on the part of the US.

Heard of a country called Israel at all? — Barry Etheridge

Yes. How is Israel a factor in the disintegration of Syria?

Recall the so-called 'Arab Spring'. That was when Tunisia and Egypt had popular revolutions and a wave of unrest flowed through the Middle East. It was in that atmosphere that the rebellion against Asad started. The regime's reaction has always been one of utmost brutality and total indifference to human suffering, which remains the case until today. Asad's Russian and Iranian backers have their own aims and agendas and I think it's highly likely that Putin has used the displacement of civilian populations as a destabilising tool against the EU. As was said of the Balkans, there are no innocent sides, only innocent victims. But I think it is quite mistaken to blame the origin of the conflict on the USA, that is straight out of the Putin playbook.

The regime's reaction has always been one of utmost brutality and total indifference to human suffering, which remains the case until today. — Wayfarer

True. But do you believe the rebels could have created a democratic government (prior to the chaos)?

How is it not? The entire Arab world had to be rearranged ad hoc to establish Israel.in 1948 in what was already an area destabilised by previous attempts mostly by Britain to carve it into states with little or no regard for tribal and ethnic histories. Syria's reaction was to immediately invade Palestine on a crusade to eliminate Zionism. None of the upheavals and coups and wars that have followed has ever been free of the issue of how to respond to Israel's continued existence whatever the headline excuse may be.

None of the upheavals and coups and wars that have followed has ever been free of the issue of how to respond to Israel's continued existence whatever the headline excuse may be. — Barry Etheridge

Sure. Israel's existence is a source of stress to the region. That insight doesn't seem to warrant a sarcastic "Have you heard of Israel?"

Pfft.

The questions I'm left with are:

1. Was a lesson learned? Will future US presidents and Sec's of State more clearly communicate to potential revolutionaries in the world that the US won't involve itself?

2. Will westerners cease interpreting rebellion in other parts of the world as the appearance of democracy?

I think the rebellion was a dreadful idea, although that's another thing that's easier to say in hindsight. But, again, remember that when the rebellion started, Muburak had just fallen, Tunisia had overthrown the government, it was talk of the 'Arab spring' and there were many people urging them on from the sidelines. In the early days it was widely perceived as a righteous rebellion against a brutal dictator. Now I think the US ought never to have gotten involved, but remember the Republicans and even some Democrats were saying the US was duty bound to help the rebels.

Look at Libya - and actually Clinton has a direct role in both Syria and Libya, she was strongly interventionist. But Libya is plainly a failed state and a hotbed of terrorism and major people-smuggling hub. Gadaffi was an awful man, but sometimes awful men are better than the alternative!

It's all an enormous mess, but whilst the US has some culpability, I think the headline on this thread is Russian propaganda, pure and simple (and yes, they're the same people standing up in press conferences this morning saying hand-on-heart that they had nothing to do with the shooting down of MH17.)

talk of the 'Arab spring' — Wayfarer

The big mistake in our response to revolutionary change in the mIddle East was referencing Prague Spring to describe the winds of change that were blowing through Tunisia and Egypt. Prague Spring was great, but it came to a crashing end 8 months after it started when Warsaw Pact troops marched into Prague to break up the party.

The Arab Spring ended in the same sad spring-ending way.

The invasion of Iraq contributed for the same reasons we've already pointed out: lack of long-term commitment on the part of the US. — Mongrel

To invade Iraq itself was the incredible mistake. Not lack of long term commitment. Before in the case of Korea and Vietnam, at least there had been a country that had wanted US intervention. Now the US went on the invasion business, last seen was it during the Spanish-American war?

What really differed from the situation immediately after Desert Storm? No Arab allies of the US (which then included also Syria among Egypt and the Saudi's and the Gulf Cooperation Council) were willing to continue into Iraq and the Saudis then warned that occupying Iraq would lead to a civil war between the Sunnis and Shias and collapse of the Iraqi state. What changed? Perhaps that it was an easy picking and would give a huge profits to Dick Cheneys former employer. And that you had the neocon whackos running the show in Washington.

We know now from hindsight that Operation Desert Fox actually was far more successfull than even the US at the time thought and basically Saddam posed no threat to it's neighbours and there was utterly no WMD program. Now likely with "Arab Spring" Saddam's Iraq would have been in trouble, but then again the "Operation Iraqi Freedom" was such a destabilizing event that who knows what the Middle East would have looked like. The invasion of Iraq is what really succeeded in creating the franchised Al-Qaeda movements and then IS. Not actually the invasion of Afghanistan so much, because the Taliban is more of a Pakistani military lead thing with few foreign fighters.

I think it's not about long term commitment. You have quite a lot of long term commitment for example in the US-Saudi relationship (which is very strained now, as the Congress overrid Obama's veto on JASTA). If you are thinking that the "lack of long term commitment" was the retreat from Iraq, yes, that did bring back otherwise beaten Al Qaeda (now morphed into IS), but do notice that was because of the non-working Iraqi government and especially it's dictatorial Iraqi Prime minister who immediately kicked out and imprisoned any high ranking Sunni in the goverment once the US withdrew.

And just to make an emphasis on the utter failure of US political leadership, the "Surge" did actually work because of the Sunni Awakening, which basically was a thing the US military did itself on the ground, not by the White House or Capitol Hill deciding that let's friend some Sunni insurgents (who have American blood in their hands) to fight the foreigner controlled Al Qaeda.

(Former sunni insurgent shaking hands with an American soldier during the "Sunni Awakening". Something that didn't last long in Iraq after the US left and the sectarian conflict has since continued to this day...)

I think it's not about long term commitment. — ssu

We're talking about the impact on Syria. Maybe the invasion itself had some psychological impact (encouraging revolt, for instance), but the material contribution was that the US mangled Iraq and then left, allowing ISIS to form.

I think the headline on this thread is Russian propaganda, — Wayfarer

Interesting view.. I'll look into it.

I didn't mean that literally, but it is the kind of line that is typical of Russian disinformation

I didn't mean that literally, but it is the kind of line that is typical of Russian disinformation — Wayfarer

Actually Russian propaganda is extremely successfull and is not allways disinformation, but often biased information or picked information/facts that simply serve their objectives... and isn't fabricated. Russia is extremely good at this.

The real breakthrough what Russia under Putin has done in information warfare is a small, simple yet hugely successfull change since the Soviet times. Then it was about "the evil capitalistic America". Now it's about the "evil capitalistic elite of America". And that small change has had a tremendous impact as now the Russian propaganda can say good things about American people, but then counterweight that with the evil corrupt elite running the show. In the European scene it's mainly about being against the EU. Support of the anti-establishment parties has been really a successfull operation for Russia.

And coming back to the subject, in Syria Russia simply has been far more successfull than the West. That it has basically fought a disguised Proxy war against the West-backed insurgents, yet has claimed to be fighting IS, hence it has performed far better than the US and the West. And needless to say, the real jackpot has been Donald "I love Putin" Trump. If there's one player that has been able to play it's card well in Syria, it has to be Russia

We're talking about the impact on Syria. Maybe the invasion itself had some psychological impact (encouraging revolt, for instance), but the material contribution was that the US mangled Iraq and then left, allowing ISIS to form. — Mongrel

Well, when the Caliph of the IS was first detained by the US forces in 2004, imprisoned and then sent free, then was the head of ISI (Islamic State in Iraq), which basically was Al Qaeda in Iraq, I think the events in Iraq do play here a major role.

What the US in it's last years with the large footprint of soldiers basically kicked Al Qaeda into Syria. There it came back. Without Iraq likely there wouldn't be an Islamic State, but other Syrian islamist movements. And the existence of IS in Syria is one big game changer to the conflict. Hence Iraq is crucial in the present situation because otherwise the whole war might be contained inside Syria itself. It could be something similar to the civil war in Algeria, which didn't have an effect on the security situation of it's neighbours.

The problem in Syria doesn't just affect Syria, but the region as a whole. It isn't fair to look at Syria in some sort of microcosm, as if the current situation exists all by itself.

Admittedly, the US has definitely made mistakes with regard to the civil war, but our poor foreign policy the last few years didn't just magically create the longstanding Assad regime out of thin air, nor even IS. As much as some people would very much love to lay all of the Middle-east's problems in the past 1,500 years at the feet of the US, the reality will never align itself with that kind of scapegoating. The idea that the Middle-east would somehow be "better off" if the US had never involved itself in the region would be to ignore what the environment looked like before.

Admittedly, the US has definitely made mistakes with regard to the civil war, but our poor foreign policy the last few years didn't just magically create the longstanding Assad regime out of thin air, — Heister Eggcart

I agree. I don't think the uprising would have taken shape in the way it did if it hadn't been for repeated encouragement from the US. That's how the US helped screw Syria.

I think that encouragement proceeded from good intentions. The US thought the uprising would result in a stable democratic state. The fact that it instead resulted in the ruins of a country is food for thought.

Did it have to turn out that way? What did the US government fail to see?

What do you think, Meister Heister?

The US thought the uprising would result in a stable democratic state. — Mongrel

...that is the democratic process ought to give power to a Pro-US, secular administration that has similar ideas about democracy and liberal freedoms as the West does. The US isn't so excited when islamists win free and democratic elections, you know.

In Syria the university students and the lot likely did want that kind of democracy we think democracy and a justice state being, but just as with the Occupy Wall Street crowd compares to the average American, their ideas seldom portray the feelings of the poor and less educated people. This is far too evident in the other countries of the region. And well, basically true in the West too (after all, you have Trump).

And with Syria one should remember that at first new Western educated son of the dictator tried cautiously reform Syria, but that "spring" didn't last long... because it was well understood that if the Assad family would truly start reforms and seek a democracy, they would be thrown out of power and likely face the wrath of the majority. Minority rule is allways difficult, especially when the minority has ruled using widespread violence and a police state.

Story in today's media about why Russian and Syrian forces are destroying Aleppo

http://www.smh.com.au/world/the-brutal-strategy-behind-russias-massacres-in-syria-20160929-grruk2.html

The basic drift is, they can't win an outright victory there, so by a grinding war of attrition, they will ensure that nobody else can win, either.

I agree. I don't think the uprising would have taken shape in the way it did if it hadn't been for repeated encouragement from the US.

What kind of encouragement are you referring to? Do you think Syria didn't already have a pretty large segment of its population vehemently against Assad and his family's government? That they weren't already of the disposition to rise up when the opportunity arose?

That's how the US helped screw Syria.

Well, considering the thread title, I don't think I want to allow you to soften your original position to the US just being one factor and not the factor, which the OP/title suggests.

I think that the United States is no more directly culpable for the current Syrian civil war than they were for World War II erupting in the late 1930's.

Why do you say that?

Well can't say what would have happened, but the U.S. would probably have got stuck in Syria and would have been accused of waging war on a legitimate sovereign nation, not to mention supporting rebel groups which could be labelled militants. It would all have been very unpopular back home. An unholy mess and that's not to mention getting in a mess with Russia.

What decision made in the 40's influenced the present situation? It's interesting that you bring up the post-WW2 world-scene. To me, this question is really about what we owe one another on a global scale... and what we don't.

Well take your pick, the alienation caused by U.S. involvement in the Middle East has been building bit by bit since the paranoia over the creep of communism after WW2, led to a cat and mouse game between the U.S. and Russia all around the world.

I can't say if the Arab spring would have happened otherwise, but I doubt it would have been so incendiary.