Today, the Senate voted on the Continuing Resolution that passed the House yesterday, with the funding authorization for Obama’s plan to arm the “moderate” Syrian rebels.
Last week, the New York Times had an excellent article on how defining clear-cut “moderates” in Syria is a near impossible feat, one asking for trouble:
“You are not going to find this neat, clean, secular rebel group that respects human rights and that is waiting and ready because they don’t exist,” said Aron Lund, a Syria analyst who edits the Syria in Crisis blog for the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “It is a very dirty war and you have to deal with what is on offer.”….
The Syrian rebels are a scattered archipelago of mostly local forces with ideologies that range from nationalist to jihadist. Their rank-and-file fighters are largely from the rural underclass, with few having clear political visions beyond a general interest in greater rights or the dream of an Islamic state.
Most have no effective links to the exile Syrian National Coalition, meaning they have no political body to represent their cause. And the coalition’s Supreme Military Council, which was intended to unite the moderate rebel forces, has all but collapsed.
The C.R. passed the Senate 78-22. Both Elizabeth Warren and Ed Markey were among the 22 NO votes.
They were joined by only 8 other members of the Democratic caucus:
Mark Begich (D-AK)
Tammy Baldwin (D-WI)
Sherrod Brown (D-OH)
Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)
Pat Leahy (D-VT)
Joe Manchin (D-WV)
Chris Murphy (D-CT)
Bernie Sanders (I-VT)
Here is the statement Elizabeth Warren issued on her vote:
I am deeply concerned by the rise of ISIS, and I support a strong, coordinated response, but I am not convinced that the current proposal to train and equip Syrian forces adequately advances our interests. After detailed briefings, I remain concerned that our weapons, our funding, and our support may end up in the hands of people who threaten the United States — and even if we could guarantee that our support goes to the right people, I remain unconvinced that training and equipping these forces will be effective in pushing back ISIS. I do not want America to be dragged into another ground war in the Middle East, and it is time for those nations in the region that are most immediately affected by the rise of ISIS to step up and play a leading role in this fight. Therefore, at this time, I cannot support funding for this specific action.
If we look at the two votes (McKeon amendment and Continuing Resolution) from the House last night as well, then we can say that if you live in MA-02 (McGovern), MA-03 (Tsongas), MA-04 (Kennedy), MA-05 (Clark), MA-06 (Tierney), or MA-07 (Capuano), then your full congressional representation voted against this latest misguided move to deepen US military involvement in the Middle East.
This was a good vote. It’s a shame more of them weren’t cast.
The moderate rebel is vaporware.
So we spent all sorts of money training the Iraqi military to defend itself against terrorists, but, when faced with ISIS whose military is less than a quarter the size of the well-trained Iraqi Army, the well-trained Iraqi Army collapsed. Training in Afghanistan has been going on for how long now? And with what success? Have the Taliban been demolished by the well-trained Afghan Army? Not at all. In fact, there are still discussions of power sharing. Since a decade of training didn’t accomplish much, what will a Syrian intervention take? Two decades of training? Three?
Should we be moving West Point to Aleppo?
And now the President, bless his well-meaning soul, is going to have us scout around for moderates for a decade of training. As the OP and Ryan point out, moderates are in very short supply. Potentially these are members of the Free Syrian Army. According to Wikipedia, which is not unrepresentative here, their allies are:
1. The Al-Nusra Front, which owns the al Qaeda franchise in Syria
2. The Syrian Revolutionaries Front, an Islamist group
3. The Islamic Front, which consists of Salafi Islamists, i.e. very not moderate.
4. People’s Protection Units, a Kurdish organization, which might just be moderate.
This is kind of like finding expecting to find liberal Unitarians in a group allied to the Westboro Baptist Church. Good luck with that.
Afghanistan is an even more perilous example than you make it out to be – the number of ‘moderate’ Afghan ‘trainees’ we’ve spent billions on who’ve turned their guns on their American trainers and soldiers is staggering and unprecedented.
We should be very, very careful about sending troops in to train rebels we don’t really (and can’t possibly) know, not when many of them may very well be in ISIS targeting their guns at our growing ranks of soldiers back in Iraq.
Those of us old enough to remember the Viet Nam era know this drill all too well. It’s a three-step dance, dressed up in whatever fancy costumes are needed to match the era.
Here’s how it goes:
1. America “trains” the military of some nation where we have a strong usually self-serving interest. This is especially important in situations like Viet Nam and Iraq where our interest is in direct opposition to the desire of the population. This step gives the US media plenty of time to fill the papers and airwaves with propaganda about how AWFUL and EVIL the “enemy” is, and how noble, pure, and righteous are the stalwart defenders of freedom who MUST prevail (although, of course, there is NO risk of direct US involvement).
2. America supplements the “training” with a large number of “advisors” who accompany the client nation’s military on “training missions”. Shockingly, these advisors become the target of attacks from hostile “insurgents” who for some reason oppose the government that the US is attempting to impose on them. It is therefore necessary to send MORE troops, aircraft, ships, and so on in order to “protect” our advisors. The media FILLS public discourse with the “shocking” accounts of the unprecedented brutality of the evil enemy. SOMETHING must be DONE!
3. The US installations that are “protecting” the US “advisors” come under nearly constant attack from “insurgents” and “enemy combatants”. In spite of our frequently-repeated expressions of our heartfelt desire for “peace”, we have no choice but to begin combat operations in order to “protect the freedom” of the client nation.
By the time we reach step 3, America is at war again. Oh, I nearly forgot to add a crucial move in the dance. Somewhere between step 2 and step 3, it is vitally important to manufacture a crisis that absolutely demands resolute and immediate presidential action. The president, of course, has NO desire to actually BEGIN combat, but in order to cover all eventualities requests permission from Congress “just in case” (cf “Tonkin Gulf” resolution).
I am saddened by willingness of both parties to allow this bloody dance to be performed once again. I am saddened by the receptiveness of the American public to the propaganda that always accompanies such rubbish. I am deeply saddened by the cowardice of Barack Obama, who seems to have entirely jettisoned whatever moral fiber he appealed to while campaigning and instead seems to be channeling some nauseating mix of Lyndon Johnson, JFK, and Richard Nixon (all of whom eagerly lied to the US while steadfastly and intentionally leading us to certain war).
The right thing for Barack Obama to do is to LEAD us towards RESTRAINT. Instead, he is repeating his disgusting and futile attempt to again appease a rightwing GOP that wants only to hang him from the nearest tree.
This is yet another tragic move for America.
I remember when people ran around saying that the Iraq invasion was “nothing like Vietnam.” It was pitiful, the extent to which people let themselves be deluded. It still is.
AT this point, it’s irrelevant whether Obama is attempting to appease the neocons. He’s achieving their objectives.
The domino effect was largely disproven and we actually enjoy great relations with the country today which is a leading trading partner, key ally against Chinese expansion, and is even begging us to rebuild our old naval bases and wants American ships stationed at them. This is exactly the kind of relationship we should have with states, one of shared interest and mutual benefit.
And it’s the kind of relationship we can have with Iran if we give up trying to change its government, impose our values, and work out a deal whereby we get access to their untapped markets and oil and they give up causing trouble in the neighborhood.
Combating ISIL in a coordinated effort is a great first step to this effect. We also need to give up trying to oust Assad. We can choose to fight ISIL or fight Assad-we can’t continue to do both. And once ISIL is contained, it is important we take a step back and stop short sighted humanitarian interventions that destabilize regions and unleash pent up ethnic resentments. The genie can only be put back in the bottle if we commit ourselves to an active disengagement military coupled with more proactive diplomatic and soft power engagement. Lead by the power of example, rather than the example of our power. Particularly when the latter is constrained by domestic needs at home and overexertion abroad.
Who’s going to remove ISIL from the territory they’ve gained in Iraq? Not the Iraqis. You won’t see Turkey or Saudi Arabia put any boots on the ground, either.
There is no regional or even local leadership — and damned if we should fight for anyone who won’t fight for themselves.
Contain the monster. Strengthen allies. Maybe the monster will starve over time. Maybe diplomacy will work over time — and the monster will become less monstrous.
But I don’t see how there’s much else to do. Much as we would like to fix everything, sometimes when America breaks something — like GWB did in Iraq — there is no fixing it and we have the live with the consequences.
By that standard if America broke Iraq, then we are the first ones responsible for fixing it.
I honestly don’t know what to do now, but arming rebels doesn’t seem like a good long term plan. If only we had a foreign policy that looked beyond the next news cycle….
n/t
It’s called not fucking up a second time! We have an opportunity in the present to avoid repeating a mistake we have repeated recently and throughout our post-WWII history over and over again.
Remember when we armed the mujahadeen to take on the Russkies? Remember when that became Al Qaeda? Too ancient for you, remember when we armed Saddam to take out Iran? Remember when we trained the founders of ISIL to take out Al Sadr and the Shia? Remember when we armed ISIL to take out Assad?
There is no time machine, but we can start listening to the folks who got it right, start banning the folks who got it wrong from the Sunday shows and cable networks, and urge our elected officials to start voting like we actually care about the long term consequences of our foreign policy.
Again, I support *doing something* against ISIL, but does that *something* always have to be military force? We have a grand opportunity to strike a grand bargain with Iran like Nixon did with China and we are sitting on our hands.
That is a pretty freaking bad idea when it comes to invading and main building.
A much better and more appropriate lesson: Don’t put good money after bad.
Just because GWB really, really, really screwed up Iraq, doesn’t mean Obama should double down after he already got us out.
Only the Middle East can fix the Middle East. The West has only ever made things worse.
Not “main building.” Stupid auto correct.
When you break a vase, it’s very clear what to do to clean up the mess. If possible, you glue it back together; if not, you sweep it away.
Saddam Hussein was executed. So there’s no gluing it back together as it were. I don’t understand what steps “fixing it” requires or even what the end result would be. For example, Iraq is not blessed with Shiite leaders or groups light on sectarianism.
The British already gave them a king once and that didn’t last.
…you should go back in and restablize it. If you topple its government you help put another one in place, though you should make sure it is a government of their choosing and not yours. We did this for both Germany and Japan after WWII and they are now among our closest allies and trading partners. I really don’t believe that we have forgotten how to do this right.
The path to restabilizing Germany and Japan was fairly clear. In Germany, at least, there had been some native tradition of parliamentary democracy to which Germany could return.
Iraq completely lacks that — and, in fact, as a British invention, Iraq has little national cohesion on which to rely. Kurds and Shiite and Sunni Arabs don’t have much of a common, heart-stirring Iraqi identity with some great but benign Iraqi leader in the past. All they have was their invention by British after their agreement with the French, a short period of monarchy, and a long period of Baathist dictatorship.
So restabilizing it means what? Recreating the Ottoman Empire so they can be “restabilized” as province or three? Finding yet another relative of the king of Jordan to plop onto the throne so they can be “restabilized” as a monarchy? Instigating a Baathist revival so they can be “restabilized” as a dictatorship? Calling for something as abstract as “restabilization” — especially with the charming prefix — is akin to a request for magic. There is no prior stability to which return is both possible and desirable.
Really vases are so much simpler.
The shards ultimately fit back together and you get a vase back.
…but if they decide on their own to break into separate states there are ways to support a peaceful transition in to that as well.
The sectarian break-up of Iraq has made that impossible.
There is nothing to glue together here in a country that has only existed as a minority subjugating a majority (the Baaths) or a majority subjugating a minority (present day Iraq).
When the ISIL trucks come rolling, the Shiites and the Kurds aren’t fighting to protect the the Sunni minority — they may be lucky just to protect their own turf.
You have a hopefully naive view of Iraq, which is nothing like Germany or Japan after WW2.
only make sense for countries that happen to want them.
Afghanistan’s “free and fair” elections have accomplished what precisely? At best they’ve replaced one corrupt mess with another without really resolving the ethnic or political problems.
This is a bit akin to the neo-conservative fantasy that everyone is a Jeffersonian deep down under. We’re not all cut from the same cookie cutter.
When Governor Christie won the New Jersey governorship, Democrats did not rise up in insurrection. When Paul Ryan campaigned for Vice President, the response of local Democratic Committees was not to hire assassins. In other words, our political differences are such that we are willing, quite willing to adjudicate them at the ballot box.
The differences in the Levant are frequently not as “friendly” as the differences here between liberal Democrat and conservative Republican. And thus, it is very difficult to imagine how a political campaign could be carried out under conditions where opponents don’t seek one another’s defeat so much as one another’s death. There isn’t even the framework of mutual respect (“United We Stand”) that characterizes the American nation. No Democrat is going to be popular, even among Democrats, that wants to execute the entire political leadership of South Carolina. Again not so much the case in Syrian and Iraq.
Beside, the negative campaign ads would be just terrible.
We support free and fair elections then make it abundantly clear that the resulting government is the only one we recognize even if we don’t agree with them on every particular. Since the nations are artificial in that part of the world maybe dividing Iraq into three for example is the best way, though preferably peacefully a la Czechoslovakia, though that has to be decided internally rather than imposed. We must also keep pressure on the governments that are elected to provide to all the equal protections of the law. There is no inherently Western gene that promotes democracy that other civilizations lack. The final thing that standing for free and fair elections means zero tolerance to those who would violently overturn such results, and of course resisting the temptation to engage in that ourselves as we have unfortunately done from time to time. That latter step would make us much more credible in the eyes of the world and thus ultimately be in our interests as well.
Way back when, Joe Biden proposed partitioning Iraq into three. It’s a little late now, though.
It appears to me that the likely failure of democracy in the current ME has little to with genetics and everything to do with generations of tyranny that the colonial powers (including the US) have imposed on them until now. We have, collectively, ensured that a long list of despots and monarchy have kept the people firmly under control. Those imposed governments have been heavily armed by us, specifically including the US. The reason we knew about Saddam Hussein’s chemical warfare capability was that we gave/sold it to him.
It is disingenuous to oppress a population at gunpoint for generations and then express surprise and dismay when they aim weapons at their oppressors at the first available moment.
..thinking it was a good idea when Biden proposed it while he was still a presidential candidate himself in 2008.
You think that who the U.S. decides to “recognize” is going to somehow override ISIL’s conviction that Shiites are death-deserving heretics?
Christopher, that’s absurd!
…by getting the rest of the UN on board and assisting the democratically elected regime. It may not turn convictions, but if all goes as planned they will get lonely awfully quickly.
A representative democracy could exist provided international agencies imposed curfews round the clock so that no one was armed and no insurrections replaced democratic activity.
However, to hope for his sort of “restabilization” is to hope for something that has existed no where, that no existing international body is capable or willing to enforce, and that would be felt as illegitimate by large blocks of the citizens subjected to this sort of ruthless imposition of “stability” and “democracy”.
But then, maybe they have the appropriate genes to like that sort of thing.
is that the American people don’t seem to be nearly as receptive as they’ve been in the past.
Politicians know it, too. Hence why there wasn’t any bill on Iraqi advisors or airstrikes or anything of the like.
I will say that I bet at least one or two of the Presidents who have said all they want to do is send in advisers actually meant it at the time and were as hoodwinked by the generals who ‘advise’ him as the public was. I think President Obama is one of them — one of his few signature moves that he’ll be remembered positively for is getting us out of Iraq. He’s not a popular President and won’t want to be remembered for being the person who put us back in Iraq.
Lawrence O’Donnell cited a poll recently showing that a majority of Americans favor action against ISIS, yet the same poll also found that a majority (or maybe that one was plurality) also believe it will increase threats of terrorism if we do so.
anything resembling boots on the ground and, historically speaking, the existing support for dropping bombs and the like is rather muted. Just compare it to the support that existed for Desert Storm or GWB’s invasion of Iraq before those events — it was considerably higher, even with troops on the ground.
We’re tired of war as a country. Maybe not tired enough to drop bombs, but watch what will happen if any of our planes get knocked out of the sky. The support for that will drop below a majority too.
…it would be even more encouraging if you took a similarly bold stance to oppose the US government’s typical knee-jerk support of Israeli foreign policy.
http://prospect.org/article/elizabeth-warren-just-ordinary-politician
According to the New Yorker. Coordinate against ISIL, find a peaceful solution to Syria, and leave Iran and Iraq alone.