• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Russia sending warships to Syria.

ArlingtonDeac said:
Iran has been entirely rational in the geo-strategic actions, but that's another debate.

Russia will not unilaterally bomb Syria. Libya is distinguishable, as the US first gained international and Arab consent, and got the action NATO approved. Russia is not trifling, but they don't have the kind of juice. They won't spend so much political capital for Syria.

They sent a warship, and it's not just for the hell of it. But it won't fire a round either. It's the ultimate token show of disapproval, physically expressing that Russia wants a say in whatever happens in Syria. And they'll get it. But no one is going to fight over it.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that they will or will not engage in the use of military force. More than likely they will not, as an overthrow of Assad is exceedingly unlikely. The case of Libya is distinguishable only in that the bombing campaign was in support of the dissidents rather than the incumbent. International support is irrelevant. More likely than not, Russian actions in Syria would garner support from Iran, China, North Korea, several of the Islamic-Turkish republics, and a handful of African nations. Even though China and Russia represent two of the world's foremost powers, and Iran and North Korea are highly influential regional actors, that wouldn't be seen as "international consent", because we don't like those nations.

Don't kid yourself by saying Russia "doesn't have the juice". They do. Could they win an all-out conventional war with the United States? No. But that isn't the question here. They do have the political capital and military capability to prevent U.S. meddling in what they perceive to be an area of vital interest. Sending warships is a demonstration that they care more about keeping Assad in power than the United States does in deposing him. And that's all that matters.
 
Russia can unilaterally dictate in their immediate sphere, but that doesn't include the Middle East. And their current government would never survive a superpower conflict.
 
Warships? I'm surprised that they have more than one to send.
 
ArlingtonDeac said:
Russia can unilaterally dictate in their immediate sphere, but that doesn't include the Middle East. And their current government would never survive a superpower conflict.
Click to expand...

Thankfully for Putin, Syria isn't a superpower. And he probably realizes that the current government of the United States couldn't survive a superpower conflict over Syria either. As for whether or not Russia can unilaterally dictate outside it's immediate sphere, what do you define as "immediate sphere"? And what do you think is preventing the United States from pursuing regime change in Syria right now?
 
Former USSR territory.

The US isn't going to push for yet another regime change with anything more than rhetoric. Not out of fear of Russia, but out of common sense. We're over-extended, and things have been developing in the region at a pace we should be comfortable with. And Syria is largely irrelevant to the US anyway.
 
ArlingtonDeac said:
Former USSR territory.

The US isn't going to push for yet another regime change with anything more than rhetoric. Not out of fear of Russia, but out of common sense. We're over-extended, and things have been developing in the region at a pace we should be comfortable with. And Syria is largely irrelevant to the US anyway.
Click to expand...

Only Syria isn't irrelevant, and it is certainly more relevant than Libya was. Please, explain how the intervention in Libya didn't overextend our forces, but a similar one in Syria would?
 
ImTheCaptain said:
there's less oil in syria
Click to expand...

Please. The role of oil in determining our foreign policy is so overstated. If that were the only determinant, we'd have moved to militarily send the Iranian regime packing by now. Can't really figure out why we haven't. We certainly don't fear Iran's military capability. Their conventional forces would be no match for a U.S. - Israeli coalition (not to mention the Saudis), and they don't have nuclear capability. It certainly isn't fear of Russian intervention, because apparently we don't fear them either. I'm confused.
 
TR1982 said:
Only Syria isn't irrelevant, and it is certainly more relevant than Libya was. Please, explain how the intervention in Libya didn't overextend our forces, but a similar one in Syria would?
Click to expand...

They both overextended us. We just got away with it in Libya, and, importantly, there we had solid international backing and NATO support. We should have no interest in trying again in Syria. I hope Syria achieves a measure of democracy, but I don't really care enough such that I'd commit physical US resources. Don't let Russia crush a popular revolt, but otherwise, let them have primacy, build a mini-Kremlin, open boutique vodka stores, whatever. Syria is pretty meaningless to our geopolitical power structure, unless you for some reason still see Russia as a boogeyman enemy of the US rather than another capitalist actor in the Middle East region, looking after its own self-interest. Or unless you see Israel and the US as a single nation, which I don't.
 
TR1982 said:
Please. The role of oil in determining our foreign policy is so overstated. If that were the only determinant, we'd have moved to militarily send the Iranian regime packing by now. Can't really figure out why we haven't. We certainly don't fear Iran's military capability. Their conventional forces would be no match for a U.S. - Israeli coalition (not to mention the Saudis), and they don't have nuclear capability. It certainly isn't fear of Russian intervention, because apparently we don't fear them either. I'm confused.
Click to expand...

Because invading the most powerful Islamic nation would be incredibly stupid, more doomed to fail than even our ludicrous invasion of Iraq, and have no material value anyway. We don't do it because, frankly, we can't expect any form of success other than staying awhile, expending all our resources, losing bodies, and then leaving with nothing gained (outside of the war industries, of course). We'd win the conventional war and then get swallowed by the occupation. The Iranian people's resistance would make Iraq look like a garden party. Not to mention that a US-Israeli coalition invading Iran would pretty much decimate our ability to operate anywhere in the ME. It'd be the purest form of holy war. And for what? Nothing.

Why do people continually think that warmongering in the ME will have a positive outcome on any level for the US?
 
Last edited:
ArlingtonDeac said:
Because invading the most powerful Islamic nation would be incredibly stupid, more doomed to fail than even our ludicrous invasion of Iraq, and have no material value anyway. We don't do it because, frankly, we can't expect any form of success other than staying awhile, expending all our resources, losing bodies, and then leaving with nothing gained (outside of the war industries, of course). We'd win the conventional war and then get swallowed by the occupation. The Iranian people's resistance would make Iraq look like a garden party. Not to mention that a US-Israeli coalition invading Iran would pretty much decimate our ability to operate anywhere in the ME. It'd be the purest form of holy war. And for what? Nothing.

Why do people continually think that warmongering in the ME will have a positive outcome on any level for the US?
Click to expand...

So, yeah. You just made my point for me.
 
ArlingtonDeac said:
They both overextended us. We just got away with it in Libya, and, importantly, there we had solid international backing and NATO support. We should have no interest in trying again in Syria. I hope Syria achieves a measure of democracy, but I don't really care enough such that I'd commit physical US resources. Don't let Russia crush a popular revolt, but otherwise, let them have primacy, build a mini-Kremlin, open boutique vodka stores, whatever. Syria is pretty meaningless to our geopolitical power structure, unless you for some reason still see Russia as a boogeyman enemy of the US rather than another capitalist actor in the Middle East region, looking after its own self-interest. Or unless you see Israel and the US as a single nation, which I don't.
Click to expand...

Really? Sending a carrier group and flying sorties over Tripoli for a few months overextended us? Committing ground forces is what overextends a military. You have to build up logistical support, gather intelligence, send in the boots, treat the wounded, etc. Our operation in Libya overextended our military to the same extent that sending a carrier group from Pearl to San Diego would, minus the cost of ordnance.

Anyways, I'm just trying to figure out how Libya is relevant to our geopolitical "power structure". Can we be real for a second? Geopolitics does not drive the Obama administration's foreign policy. Plain and simple, Obama is a neoconservative on foreign policy. Everyone in the past 100 years sans Nixon has been as well.
 
The role is of oil in foreign policy is massive, and certainly our primary concern in the ME, but it doesn't provide carte blanche. We didn't invade Iran first because it would have been much, much harder than Iraq, politically and militarily, but it was likely next on the Bush agenda had Iraq gone as they thought it would. They just never got there, because invading Iraq was so costly, bungled, and stupid.

We didn't invade Iran over oil because we invaded Iraq over it instead.
 
TR1982 said:
Really? Sending a carrier group and flying sorties over Tripoli for a few months overextended us? Committing ground forces is what overextends a military. You have to build up logistical support, gather intelligence, send in the boots, treat the wounded, etc. Our operation in Libya overextended our military to the same extent that sending a carrier group from Pearl to San Diego would, minus the cost of ordnance.

Anyways, I'm just trying to figure out how Libya is relevant to our geopolitical "power structure". Can we be real for a second? Geopolitics does not drive the Obama administration's foreign policy. Plain and simple, Obama is a neoconservative on foreign policy. Everyone in the past 100 years sans Nixon has been as well.
Click to expand...

Over-extension is more than just military hardware, it's political capital, economic blowback, and our engagement footprint as well. Libya was easier in all respects than Syria would be. The only reason to do Libya was because it was incredibly easy, utterly unopposed by any power of consequence or ability, didn't require active intervention, and might lead to a bag of goodies. But engaging in the active military interdiction of three foreign countries in the Arab world, in unrelated conflicts, at the same time, is an extraordinary overextension of US geopolitical will.

Libya is largely irrelevant to our geopolitical power structure, and I never said otherwise. I'm not sure who your arguing with on the point of Libya. It fell into our lap, was easy to do, was unopposed in any real sense, and resulted in the removal of a known enemy of the US.

Geopolitics drives all foreign policy. You seem to think that economics and geopolitics are separable, or that conflict to preserve energy hegemony is separable. I disagree completely. We fight to maintain global hegemony for economic purposes, and usually that is really just window-dressing for sustaining energy hegemony. Libya was a gift basket. Syria isn't worth the trouble.
 
We could always drill our own effin' oil... but that would make sense.
 
ArlingtonDeac said:
For maybe six hours. Plus we'd just sell it abroad anyway.
Click to expand...

The oil companies and the GOP refuse to put a codocil in any drilling laws that guarantees the oil they are allowe to develop be sold in the US.

Why should we allow tem to foul our lands and seas without getting anything from them?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top