Syria

[NorthSideSox72]

If money were no object, I would be in favor of tactical strikes against Syrian military targets, and then the imposition of a no-fly zone. That gives the rebels a fighting chance, and therefore in the long run is likely to substantially reduce human casualties.

 

However, sad as it is, money is a very important object. That is not to say I am equating human life with money - it is that the US has far too many of its own financial problems to spend money and energy on this. If the US had no deficits, higher employment, and a generally healthy fiscal position, that would be different.

 

This argument applies SOLELY to wars of choice. This is a war of choice.

 

[StrangeSox]

Another study posted on the Monkey Cage

 

Do Military Interventions Hasten the End of Civil Wars?

 

Recent research has begun to focus on the role of outside interventions in the duration of civil conflicts. Assuming that interventions are a form of conflict management, ex ante expectations would be that they would reduce a conflict’s expected duration. Hypotheses relating the type and timing of outside interventions to the duration of civil conflicts are tested. The data incorporate 150 conflicts during the period from 1945 to 1999, 101 of which had outside interventions. Using a hazard analysis, the results suggest that third-party interventions tend to extend expected durations rather than shorten them.

 

 

[StrangeSox]

And some more, When Do Interventions Work?

 

Jon Western is right to point out that there are certainly cases of intervention success. Indeed, those arguing in favor of intervention in Syria will surely draw on cases like Bosnia and Kosovo to make their case for intervention in Syria.

 

Setting aside the possibility that cases like Bosnia and Kosovo are not great examples of intervention success, there is certainly some persuasive evidence that military interventions can work. The cumulative research from people like Page Fortna, Barb Walter, and Michael Doyle & Nicholas Sambanis suggests there are some important qualifications to this.

 

All of these conditions being present, there have been some peacekeeping successes (e.g. East Timor, El Salvador, etc.). Any of these being absent, the results are more mixed. All of them being absent, the outcomes of international intervention are much less favorable in both strategic and humanitarian terms. See several of my previous posts (here, here, and here) for more on this.

 

There's a whole bunch of links in the original if you want to dig into a bunch of examination of past conflicts and interventions.

[StrangeSox]

More Political Scientists on Intervention

 

Josh Busby gives a good timeline of the political science blogosphere’s Syria conversation so far. The thesis: we are all conflicted. Prior studies should generally make us pessimistic, but not all cases are the same.

 

For some more optimistic takes on the potential effectiveness of intervention:

 

In the July 2013 issue of the American Journal of Political Science, Andrew Kydd and Scott Straus argue that interventions can have modest benefits (in terms of further atrocity prevention) “if the third party is relatively neutral and if alternative costs are imposed on decision makers.” Their paper is here (gated).

 

In a forthcoming article in the Journal of Conflict Resolution, Jacqueline Demerrit finds that international intervention in support of rebel groups can limit the escalation of killings, whereas intervention in support of the government can prevent the onset of mass killings. Her paper is here (ungated).

[StrangeSox]

How Much Does History Help Us Predict the Success of a Syrian Intervention?

 

My main point is that I cannot think of many or even any comparable cases to Syria: where the intervention is a limited bombing campaign that takes place after the mass killing has long been under way. Kosovo could be an example or maybe Libya, but that would not have been in the datasets researchers have used given usual time lags. Most cases in the data on which the findings on the negative or limited impact of interventions were based were very different types of interventions in very different types of conflicts.

 

Could we still generalize from these findings to the Syria case? People may differ on this but I am skeptical. The literature on peacekeeping in civil wars has important implications for peacekeeping in civil wars but I am not so sure it can be generalized beyond that. This is clearly not a case of peacekeeping or even peacemaking or peace-enforcing. This does not at all mean that I am optimistic about the effects of an intervention. All I am saying is that history does not provide us with very reliable guidance on the matter.

[StrangeSox]

BTW, ss2k5, where are you seeing that Rwanda was excluded from that first study? I've looked (which is how I've come across these other articles) but I can't seem to find it.

[Soxbadger]

All of these studies are opinion. Ive already answered the question, its not really that difficult. Most people who understand history and politics agree "not all cases are the same". Thus arguing about "limited success" of intervention on other cases is meaningless, the same as arguing that intervention will prolong or shorten a war. Its meaningless, its why I left political science, because you can write a paper arguing that the US declaring war on Germany resulted in more deaths of Jews. Its supported by fact, there is direct historical evidence. And then some parrot on a website can start quoting my "study" as if it means something.

 

It doesnt, its just a stupid opinion, like we all have. Just because you read a bunch of books and write a lot of words doesnt mean you understand, it doesnt make you some sort of honest person. People do research and write papers on things they care about. I did a lot of research and writing on Nazi propaganda. Do you think any of my research ever came to a different conclusion than what I started with? No, because when its political science you can spin anything you want.

 

Lets use Syria.

 

Example A

 

No one intervenes and the war goes on for 10 years.

 

I can argue if only we intervened it would have been shorter, write a monday morning qb article about all the bad things that happened, and then its self serving.

 

Example B

 

No one intervenes and war goes 1 more day.

 

I can still argue that if we had intervened early thousands of lives could have been saved.

 

Example C

 

Intervention war goes on 10 years.

 

Once again can argue but for intervention war would have gone 20 years.

 

Example D

 

Intervention war ends tomorrow.

 

Look intervention worked.

 

In every plausible scenario I can argue my position. This isnt a science experiment where I can remove variables and actually come to an answer. This is opinion.

 

So if in YOUR opinion you think that humanitarian aid is good enough if a govt is using chemical weapons, then you are entitled to that.

 

But in MY opinion if it can be proven that a govt is using chemical weapons against its people, you need to do more to immediately stop it.

 

I just dont pretend that I have a crystal ball.

[Balta1701]

But in MY opinion if it can be proven that a govt is using chemical weapons against its people, you need to do more to immediately stop it.

So what do we do about the high likelihood that both sides in the civil war have used chemical weapons and the rebels might well have done so first?

[EvilMonkey]

Shooting a bunch of tomahawk missiles won't cause any American deaths, but I care about Syrian deaths, too. They're not worth anything less than you because of where they live in the world.

They are worth less to me because they are not me, my family, my friends, my tribe (country). That whole area over there is messed up. There will need to be a lot more deaths before anything is even near being normal. Let them kill themselves and stay out of it. I just don't care enough to want to do anything. Somebody else can do it. Somebody closer. Somebody with the same religion or skin tone or ideals. Just not us.

[Balta1701]

They are worth less to me because they are not me, my family, my friends, my tribe (country). That whole area over there is messed up. There will need to be a lot more deaths before anything is even near being normal. Let them kill themselves and stay out of it. I just don't care enough to want to do anything. Somebody else can do it. Somebody closer. Somebody with the same religion or skin tone or ideals. Just not us.

Did you have to make this sound so racist that it makes me want to agree with SB?

[StrangeSox]

Valuing your friends and family more is one thing, obviously, but then you go on to add nationalism, racism and religious bigotry to your list of reasons why they are worth less as human beings to you.

[StrangeSox]

Anyway, leaving that disgusting bit of racism aside, Kerry's speech a short while ago was pretty forceful.

 

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/0...ech-about-syria

 

"The meaning of this attack goes beyond the conflict in Syria itself, and that conflict has already brought so much terrible suffering. This is about the large-scale, indiscriminate use of weapons that the civilized world long ago decided must never be used at all – a conviction shared even by countries that agree on little else. There is a clear reason that the world has banned entirely the use of chemical weapons. There is a reason the international community has set a clear standard and why many countries have taken major steps to eradicate these weapons. There is a reason why President Obama has made it such a priority to stop the proliferation of these weapons and lock them down where they do exist. There is a reason why President Obama has made clear to the Assad regime that this international norm cannot be violated without consequences. And there is a reason why no matter what you believe about Syria, all peoples and all nations who believe in the cause of our common humanity must stand up to assure that there is accountability for the use of chemical weapons so that it never happens again.

 

"Last night after speaking with foreign ministers from around the world about the gravity of this situation, I went back and I watched the videos, the videos that anybody can watch in the social media, and I watched them one more gut-wrenching time. It is really hard to express in words the human suffering that they lay out before us. As a father, I can't get the image out of my head of a man who held up his dead child, wailing while chaos swirled around him; the images of entire families dead in their beds without a drop of blood or even a visible wound; bodies contorting in spasms; human suffering that we can never ignore or forget. Anyone who can claim that an attack of this staggering scale could be contrived or fabricated needs to check their conscience and their own moral compass.

 

"What is before us today is real, and it is compelling. So I also want to underscore that while investigators are gathering additional evidence on the ground, our understanding of what has already happened in Syria is grounded in facts informed by conscience and guided by common sense. The reported number of victims, the reported symptoms of those who were killed or injured, the firsthand accounts from humanitarian organizations on the ground like Doctors Without Borders and the Syria Human Rights Commission – these all strongly indicate that everything these images are already screaming at us is real, that chemical weapons were used in Syria."

 

"What is before us today is real, and it is compelling. So I also want to underscore that while investigators are gathering additional evidence on the ground, our understanding of what has already happened in Syria is grounded in facts informed by conscience and guided by common sense. The reported number of victims, the reported symptoms of those who were killed or injured, the firsthand accounts from humanitarian organizations on the ground like Doctors Without Borders and the Syria Human Rights Commission – these all strongly indicate that everything these images are already screaming at us is real, that chemical weapons were used in Syria.

 

"Moreover, we know that the Syrian regime maintains custody of these chemical weapons. We know that the Syrian regime has the capacity to do this with rockets. We know that the regime has been determined to clear the opposition from those very places where the attacks took place. And with our own eyes, we have all of us become witnesses.

"We have additional information about this attack, and that information is being compiled and reviewed together with our partners, and we will provide that information in the days ahead."

[EvilMonkey]

Did you have to make this sound so racist that it makes me want to agree with SB?

Figured i would save you all the mental gymnastic to make whatever I said appear that way. Bottom line is I don't give a crap about anyone over there. I have zero desire to help them. If they need help they need to get it from someone 'like' them, otherwise whatever our motives actually are, they will be described as less than honorable since we are NOT like them. You know, white devil, American scum, all that. No thanks.

[EvilMonkey]

Valuing your friends and family more is one thing, obviously, but then you go on to add nationalism, racism and religious bigotry to your list of reasons why they are worth less as human beings to you.

Not everyone in this world is worth the same to me, or to most sane people. If it was between saving your mom or some random stranger, would you just coin flip it?

[StrangeSox]

Good job 'trolling' us with disgusting racism and terrible, dehumanizing views of humanity I guess?

[Balta1701]

Not everyone in this world is worth the same to me, or to most sane people. If it was between saving your mom or some random stranger, would you just coin flip it?

Since you said it I assume it would matter a lot if the pigmentation of your mom's skin was different from yours?

[StrangeSox]

Not everyone in this world is worth the same to me, or to most sane people. If it was between saving your mom or some random stranger, would you just coin flip it?

 

Well I don't know why I would ever have responded to such a simple question like that by accusing you of racism...

 

They are worth less to me because they are not [...] my tribe (country). There will need to be a lot more deaths before anything is even near being normal.[...] . Somebody with the same religion or skin tone or ideals. Just not us.

 

Oh, right, it wasn't about "my mom or random stranger," it was about you explicitly not caring about another human being because they're from a different country, a different ethnicity and a different religion.

 

This wasn't some hypothetical Sophie's choice. I even said valuing your friends and family more is completely normal and expected. You added the rest of your incredibly racist view of the world, that other human beings are worth less as human beings because of skin tone, religion and geographical location, all on your own.

[EvilMonkey]

Well I don't know why I would ever have responded to such a simple question like that by accusing you of racism...

 

 

 

Oh, right, it wasn't about "my mom or random stranger," it was about you explicitly not caring about another human being because they're from a different country, a different ethnicity and a different religion.

 

This wasn't some hypothetical Sophie's choice. I even said valuing your friends and family more is completely normal and expected. You added the rest of your incredibly racist view of the world, that other human beings are worth less as human beings because of skin tone, religion and geographical location, all on your own.

The skin tone thing is because since America is NOT of the same as them, whatever we do will be looked at with disdain and be demonized. I want to stay out because I value just about any American life more than any life in Syria. Tired of spending blood and treasure in the middle east. So they need someone that looks like them to go help to avoid the racism issue. If I could 'save them' by simply wishing it so, sure, why not. But at the expense of American lives? No thanks.

[EvilMonkey]

Since you said it I assume it would matter a lot if the pigmentation of your mom's skin was different from yours?

Not with SS, all beings are equally loved.

[greg775]

Figured i would save you all the mental gymnastic to make whatever I said appear that way. Bottom line is I don't give a crap about anyone over there. I have zero desire to help them. If they need help they need to get it from someone 'like' them, otherwise whatever our motives actually are, they will be described as less than honorable since we are NOT like them. You know, white devil, American scum, all that. No thanks.

 

Did you read Kerry's comments? Pretty compelling. The use of chemicals weapons truly is horrible. Heaven forbid if this is the world's future. How the hell are we going to prevent the use of those weapons in big stadiums, etc? I don't even want to think about it.

[Balta1701]

Did you read Kerry's comments? Pretty compelling. The use of chemicals weapons truly is horrible. Heaven forbid if this is the world's future. How the hell are we going to prevent the use of those weapons in big stadiums, etc? I don't even want to think about it.

So what do we do about the fact that the rebels almost certainly used them too?

[greg775]

So what do we do about the fact that the rebels almost certainly used them too?

 

I don't know. Did Kerry just ignore that conveniently?

[Balta1701]

I don't know. Did Kerry just ignore that conveniently?

This latest attack clearly was another scale beyond anything seen in this particular conflict before, but both sides have been accused of chemical weapons use before. The intelligence assessment released by Secretary Kerry clearly states they believe the Syrian government has used chemical weapons before this event.

 

The U.S. has been content to allow use of chemical weapons in Syria as long as it was on a small enough scale that it didn't flood the Youtubes. The only difference here is the scale of the attack.

[Jenksismyhero]

Valuing your friends and family more is one thing, obviously, but then you go on to add nationalism, racism and religious bigotry to your list of reasons why they are worth less as human beings to you.

 

OMG! Someone prefers their country over another. The horror!

 

Zomg! Someone wants Middle Eastern people to deal with Middle Eastern problems! How awful!

 

 

Jesus Christ SS this holier-than-thou crap from you is so over the top sometimes.

 

 

edit: apologies in advance for invoking a religious figure. Don't accuse me of being a religious bigot please!!!!

 

edit 2: oh s***, Jesus was a male. Please don't call me sexist either!

 

edit 3: but Jesus was most likely brown, so that's probably racist against white people, but eh, who the f*** cares, amiright?

Edited August 30, 2013 by Jenksismybitch

[Balta1701]

OMG! Someone prefers their country over another. The horror!

 

Zomg! Someone wants Middle Eastern people to deal with Middle Eastern problems! How awful!

 

 

Jesus Christ SS this holier-than-thou crap from you is so over the top sometimes.

 

 

edit: apologies in advance for invoking a religious figure. Don't accuse me of being a religious bigot please!!!!

 

edit 2: oh s***, Jesus was a male. Please don't call me sexist either!

 

edit 3: but Jesus was most likely brown, so that's probably racist against white people, but eh, who the f*** cares, amiright?

It's impressive how you could write all of this and completely ignore the fact that we jumped on him for justifying staying out because of the color of people's skin.

 

Both SS and I seem to have little interest in joining this conflict, seemingly in agreement with you, but both of us were disgusted by the person who justified staying out by noting the differences in skin color.

 

Apparently you couldn't defend that either so you didn't pay any attention to it. Because yeah, it was that disgusting.