For the most part, the world's response to the crisis in Syria was to make it worse. — frank

The situation in Syria has been getting worse for a long time, and will most likely continue to get worse for quite some time. What you call "the world's response", is probably not very relevant to this disintegration.

The wreck of Syria was a direct result of Obama's poor judgment. He encouraged rebellion and implied that the US would provide support.

The world's response was irrelevant. The OP is about whether it could have been otherwise.

Not to absolve Obama for anything, but your emphasis on Obama is misplaced. How about the Assads--Hafez and his son Bashar? Between 1946 and 71 there was a coup in Syria at the rate of about 1 a year. What does that tell us about the stability of Syria's "political culture"? Hafez and his son Bashar have both been brutal dictators. Presidents from Nixon to Trump have tried to negotiate with the Assads, either Sr. or Jr., and none of them has been able to ever arrive at an agreement with them.

I don't know whether the disintegration of Syria is/was inevitable, but it has always been difficult to intervene in another country's affairs and achieve what one wishes to achieve. It's very, very difficult unless one is willing to march in and take over the country and run it the way one wants it to run, and even then things don't always work out well.

But hasn't the US been calling for uprisings in the region since GW Bush? Would the region be more stable right now without that interference?

For the most part, the world's response to the crisis in Syria was to make it worse. I continue to wonder what it means that we weren't able to come together as a species and create the healthiest outcome.

I'd like to try out arguing that these things are inevitable and we'll never have the wisdom to avoid tragedies like the Syrian disintegration. Anybody want to argue that we actually can take that creative power?

Promulgation of enlightenment ideals is a relatively recent phenomenon. Establishment of mass communication highways that enable dissemination of ideas, western values and alternative living styles is completely new and alien to our previous 50000+ years of small community, ethnocentric thinking. I don't think we can really predict how this sort of massive cultural exposure (with its western-ideal conformity-demanding bend) and the merging/syncing of economic markets will impact our evolution.

What I'm saying is our present day situation is quite different than what it has been, and we are sort of still in transition to a more globally integrated, value integrated world stage. So past folly and short sighted thinking may not be a good predictor of future trends. I guess we'll see

What I'm saying is our present day situation is quite different than what it has been, and we are sort of still in transition to a more globally integrated, value integrated world stage. So past folly and short sighted thinking may not be a good predictor of future trends. I guess we'll see — aporiap

Ah ha! An optimist! Or almost-optimist?

There was an American interest in stability post 9-11. Did that change?

Didn't have to infer it. Wolfowitz explained it publicly after the invasion of Iraq.

Terrorism targeting the US was seen as a result of corrupt monarchy, which the US had supported for the sake of oil extraction.

The plan was to democratize the middle east so that terrorists would exhaust their energy in transforming their own countries and leave the US alone. This was the point of the state of the union address which referenced the axis of evil.

Ah ha! An optimist! Or almost-optimist?

I'm sorry it looks like many people were focusing their posts specifically on the syrian crisis and consequences of interventionist policy more broadly.

I was responding to this aspect of your post:

For the most part, the world's response to the crisis in Syria was to make it worse. I continue to wonder what it means that we weren't able to come together as a species and create the healthiest outcome.

I'd like to try out arguing that these things are inevitable and we'll never have the wisdom to avoid tragedies like the Syrian disintegration. Anybody want to argue that we actually can take that creative power?

'These things' being crises, human problems more generally - humanitarian tragedy, health crises, extreme socioeconomic inequality, sectarian or ethnic violence, rights violation etc.

I definitely don't consider myself an optimist, I just feel like it's too early to tell how things will swing and in what domain, for what isses those swings will happen. I think it's inevitable there will be instability and strife in one form or another but I think it can be minimized to some degree and it definitely helps that certain civil-liberty demanding, political power disseminating, corruption and groupthink stigmatizing values are being made available via online platforms. It's certainly not itself a cause but it allows a diffusion of ideas from more influential, economically and culturally powerful centers (aka US, UK in anglophone world; France in francophone world) to other parts of the world where they can be picked up and hopefully resonate with local internet using reformists and catalyze rapid change in the socio-political sphere. I think from there and coupled with internal, domestic leftist (or at least non-right wing) populist movements within western world, we can start to see more tangible move toward a strengthened global, cosmopolitan identity and an accompanying change in progress on human-general problems and inefficiencies - maybe a more strengthened UN judicial system? An actually functioning international criminal court and sanctioning system? Idk this could also just be my wet dream fantasy..

For the most part, the world's response to the crisis in Syria was to make it worse. I continue to wonder what it means that we weren't able to come together as a species and create the healthiest outcome.

I'd like to try out arguing that these things are inevitable and we'll never have the wisdom to avoid tragedies like the Syrian disintegration. Anybody want to argue that we actually can take that creative power?

Everything about Syrian conflict is super complicated. I don't know how helpful an example Syria is if you're trying to start a broader discussion about [humanity-good] vs [humanity-evil]. It's definitely not like there was some moment where humanity had a choice : good vs bad, and then they just opted for bad.

Not sure what you're looking for tho. If you want to make a broader point about how evil arises out of [ complex situation where no one moral agent is responsbile, but collectively, [bad thing] happens] then maybe, but you didn't seem to be doing this?

An actually functioning international criminal court and sanctioning system? Idk — aporiap

All you have to do is say that this is possible, and you're an optimist.

Optimism vs pessimism regarding global government was what I was looking for. Syria is a good vehicle for exploring the issue (from my point of view).

In places like Greece the opposite worked quite well. — Πετροκότσυφας

S`ay more about that...```

Optimism vs pessimism regarding global government was what I was looking for. Syria is a good vehicle for exploring the issue (from my point of view).

hmmm, but what do you mean by 'global government'? Are you talking about stuff like the UN? I think one of the biggest things to take away from the syrian conflict - as with so many middle eastern conflicts - is that the local texture of the conflict determines a lot. There's no easy external solution that can be draped over.

(a better historian than me could thread a strong narrative linking the conditions of the existence of a thing like the UN to the destabilization of the whole middle east region. )

I wonder then, what they were thinking when they were originally writing the Defense Planning Guidance. — Πετροκότσυφας

In 1992? 9/11 was on 9/11/2001. It was after 2001 that the dream of forcing peace on the middle-east was born. It was obviously too ambitious, and set the US on a path to quasi-imperial overstretch.

hmmm, but what do you mean by 'global government'? Are you talking about stuff like the UN? I think one of the biggest things to take away from the syrian conflict - as with so many middle eastern conflicts - is that the local texture of the conflict determines a lot. There's no easy external solution that can be draped over. — csalisbury

The UN isn't a global government. I've pondered for a while regarding Syria: why did the world stand by and watch it happen? The pessimistic answer is that the world couldn't have helped. The optimist would say that we could have helped if we'd had X, and we can have X, it's just a matter of Y.

I think it's inevitable there will be instability and strife in one form or another but I think it can be minimized to some degree and it definitely helps that certain civil-liberty demanding, political power disseminating, corruption and groupthink stigmatizing values are being made available via online platforms. — aporiap

Like what online platform?

All you have to do is say that this is possible, and you're an optimist.

By your definition I could be, it depends on how you define 'these things'. I wasn't saying 'disintegrations' are never inevitable. It's just they can be made less frequent in a more equitable world.

Like what online platform?

Like this one, like reddit, like youtube, like facebook, like online news outlets where regular people can come into contact with and converse others that hold those values and operate under them

So you're saying there was no change in American foreign policy post 9/11. You're just wrong. And I have no idea what you think predated the DPG other than Cold War strategy.

You're missing a critical ingredient for understanding what's been happening for the last 17 years. But the OP is looking for an optimistic viewpoint to test. Do you have one?

That Wolfowitz wanted a repeat of SE Asian democratization in the ME, but it didn't work out.

War as creative destruction is a blessing from the point of view of capitalism. — Πετροκότσυφας

I guess if a market is left in the wake of war. Do you see that in Syria's future?

The fact that the ultimate objective is regional control and that the form of local government more or less is a matter of contingency, accidental. — Πετροκότσυφας

Post Cold War , the only interest the US had in the ME was oil. Corrupt monarchy was seen as the best way to assure the flow prior to 9/11.

I already told you what you need to know to understand post 9/11 events. If you don't believe me, it doesn't matter much. Its all fast becoming water under the bridge.

The point of creative destruction is the destruction of existing wealth and markets so that new ones may be created. — Πετροκότσυφας

Obviously. So you do see a long range profit for westerners in Syria's demise. Really?

The fact that the ultimate objective is regional control and that the form of local government more or less is a matter of contingency, accidental. That's why the USA was never consistent to the forms of regimes it supported. — Πετροκότσυφας

You are right about regional control being the ultimate objective. The post WWII position of the US is that control over Middle-Eastern oil is of prime importance. It isn't just that we want all the oil, we want to have control over who else does, or does not buy oil there.

It seems like that policy worked reasonably well up to the invasion of Iraq, shock and awe, and all that. We badly mismanaged our occupation of Iraq, which has had bad consequences for Iraqis and Syrians. Wrecking the old regime's control over Iraq was a mistake. We weren't prepared to really take over, and so a vacuum existed... and then followed much disorder. Messy, inconvenient, expensive -- but at least nobody else is charge there. Yet, anyway.

The point of creative destruction is the destruction of existing wealth and markets so that new ones may be created. — Πετροκότσυφας

Hmmm, I don't think creative destruction is what was going on. The term "creative destruction" applies more to things like dropping vinyl 33rpm technology and switching to CDs. Switching from CDs to mp3s and streaming was a further refinement.

True, a war does destroy a lot of the "installed base" of life support, and when or if the fucked over economy recovers, then a lot of stuff can be sold to them. Or they can become a low wage factory zone, or maybe just a burnt-over disaster zone. Whatever, just as long as they stay out of our way.

You did told me indeed. And I did told you too. Strange that out of all monarchies USA picked out Iraq and not say... KSA, but whatever. As you said, it doesn't matter much. — Πετροκότσυφας

Saddam Hussein was a better place to start the job of undermining monarchy. Democracy had become rooted in domino-like way in SE Asia. Wolfowitz thought the same thing would happen in the ME. I'm not actually sure why you're so attached to your uninformed viewpoint. The facts are easily available and the true story is quite a bit more abysmal than the fiction you've embraced. Step up to the real pessimism, my friend.

For "westerners"? In general? No, of course not. For war-mongers and some capitalists yes, of course. That's why I wrote "from the point of view of capitalism" and "from the viewpoint of warlords". My comment was general though, as I understood your question about an optimistic view to be more broad, not constrained by the example of Syria. — Πετροκότσυφας

Eh. You were just trying to out-do me in the pessimism Olympics. What would it take for the world to join together and avoid events like the demolition of Syria?

I dont think there was a better place to start. Nobody else was defying the demand for UN inspections.

Ugh. You have no optimism at all, do you? That's sad.