War with DAESH/ISIS?

Are these the times when even the NYT promotes war? Yesterday, 12/7/15, in ‘Obama Says of Terrorist Threat: 'We Will Overcome It,’ the NYT reported on Obama’s oval office speech.

You’d think the “paper of record” would cover significant points put forward in the President’s address, but you’d be wrong. There was much about what Obama had done and was doing about Daesh*, aka Islamic State/ISIS/ISIL militarily, but no mention of his major, multilateral initiative with Russia, Iran, China, France and Saudi Arabia (number 4 of his points), in which tentative agreements have already been reached on a process to establish a cease-fire between ‘moderate’ opposition forces and the Syrian Government, with the further tentative agreement that the initial result would be an interim government. Without an agreement, no progress against Daesh is possible. Why? Arab Sunnis rebelling against both Iraqi and Syrian Shiite/Alawite dominated governments are not going to fight against Daesh, which is also Sunni Arab, though extremist thugs, until the conflict between the rest of the (Sunni) opposition is at least tentatively resolved.

Russia’s initial solution—backing Assad—won’t bring Sunnis to its side; it can drive them into the arms of Daesh.

American Republicans call for war with Daesh, inching towards US troops on the ground, but that’s precisely what Daesh wants. It would empower it to portray itself as Islam attacked by Infidels, which would make its current successful worldwide recruiting look pale by comparison.

Yes, it would lose on the battlefield, but we’ve been down that road too many times: The US lost no battles in Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan, but it effectively lost all three wars. Attacking Daesh directly would have the same result, but it could be global; the West, even Russia and China, could be under constant attack of the kind demonstrated in San Bernardino. We might call it Terror by Example, or Inspirational Terror, instead of a Terror Network.

Further, to demonize and alienate Muslims, as Trump and his ditto-heads advocate, would be counter-productive: it would prime Muslims all over the world, including those in the US (relatively well integrated and prosperous up until now) to be even more receptive to Daesh than its small thuggish fringe has been already.

*Daesh is the Arabic acronym for Islamic State in Syria and the Levant, but it sounds like the Arabic words for one who crushes something underfoot, or one who sows discord, hence it is intensely disliked by Daesh adherents. IS is not appropriate, since it is not a true state, only a conquest gang or a global mafia.

Is Syria Like Kossovo?

The Obama Administration is discussing whether Clinton's air war over Kossovo could be a model for the kind of intervention the US might make against the Syrian government, if it got NATO approval--the chance for UN approval is nil. Intervention may now be considered necessary, because Obama was dumb enough to state, months ago, that Syrian use of chemical weapons would be "crossing a red line," and he would be forced to act accordingly.

It may be true that the Syrian government started a larger scale gas attack in part because evidence of an earlier, smaller attack had so far only resulted in words: our promise of supplying weapons and ammunition to the opposition still hasn't happened.

So, of course we have to "act," right? We're the USA and we're the good guys. Actually, public opinion, while malleable in crisis, is in no mood for another foreign adventure.

Before Obama considers an air war, or any kind of Syrian intervention, he should consider what kind of conflict he'd be trying to "fix." The Assad regime is horrid: autocratic, brutal, discriminatory, and perfectly willing to massacre large numbers of its citizens, especially Sunnis.

But the opposition is fragmented. About all they have in common is their determination to get rid of Assad and minority Alawite dominance. While there are secular democrats in the opposition, the large majority is divided: some are moderate Sunnis, driven by war to support ethnic cleansing of Alawites and Christians. Then there are the Islamic militants: al Nusra Front the best known, is highly effective militarily, probably equipped by Qatar, affiliated with al Qaeda and is made up of nihilist religious zealots. There are others, and some are Iraqis, the same al Qaeda zealots who tried to murder the Shia in the Sunni parts of Iraq.

So, whom, exactly would our air war promote? If it's the militant side of the opposition, then Syria could become an al Qaeda haven, even the foundation for the new Islamic Caliphate. Or, it could become a Sunni authoritarian "democracy," in which non-Sunni flee for their lives, or hole up in enclaves, balkanizing the country. Or it could end up as a civil war between moderate and extremist Sunnis, if our bombing polishes off the Assad regime.

Better if the US and Europe refrain from any intervention: Muslims have to handle this themselves, anyway. The best: simply walk away. If Arabs want to sell oil, we can buy it, or go solar, without causing death and destruction from the air.

But our Roman Senators might lose billions! The US would save hundreds of billions, maybe trillions. Does the empire belong to corporate overlords, or does our country belong to us? Are we a democracy, or a military/corporate dictatorship?

When the Roman Empire faced a similar decision, it bankrupted itself attempting to maintain control, like this, of conflicts beyond its power. Are we going to go there?

F**k 'Em All!

So saith my soulmate, upon hearing that we might intervene militarily, again, on one side of an ancient Muslim sectarian dispute.

The Syrian civil war is increasingly a war between Shia, including Alawites, and the Sunni majority. The Sunni powers, the Saudis and the Emirates, are supporting the rebels, including al Qaeda affiliates; the Shiite powers, Iran and Hezbollah, and behind them, Russia, are supporting Assad's Alawite-dominated government.

So, since Russia is heavily arming Syria and Hezbollah, shouldn't the US jump in to support the rebels, along with its long-time 'democratic friends,' the Sunni-dominated monarchies of Saudi Arabia and the Persian Gulf? Shiite-controlled Iraq, on which the US squandered almost a trillion dollars, is permitting passage of Russian and Iranian weaponry to Assad and Hezbollah.

So, the US should do it again, in Syria, not just offer small arms? It should go in with massive equipment and training for the rebels, or more, even though prominent numbers of the rebels claim sympathy with, or allegiance to, al Qaeda?

The US helped create al Qaeda, back when Americans were seeking allies to drive the Soviets out of Afghanistan. The US supported and trained Osama bin Laden. Don't Americans ever learn? The US's second adventure in Afghanistan turned out so well that a majority of the US House of Representatives (including conservative Republicans) just demanded the US leave Afghanistan by the end of 2013!

Not only has hot-head McCain insisted America intervene in Syria, on the rebel side, but he was publicly seconded by Bill Clinton, who warned Obama would be a "wuss," if he didn't act forcefully on Syria.

It's true the Syrian rebellion started out as a peaceful, secular protest demanding democracy, and the Assad regime attempted violent suppression. Assad had no compunction attacking Syrian civilians with his military: in 1982, his father, Hafez, murdered at least 10,000 Syrians in Hama, alone. But this time, Sunnis rallied and the protest turned into a rebellion, fueled by money and arms from the Sunni Persian Gulf oil monarchies. Hence, Syrians now fight both civil war and sectarian war.

The US will support the Sunni side, along with al Qaeda, why?

Sunni and Shia have been battling since 661 CE (1,352 years), over who should succeed the Prophet. Why should the US have anything to do with either? Especially, why, since it has already failed twice in its Mideast interventions--Iraq and Afghanistan--and the outcome of its third, Libya, is still uncertain.

The US loses, if it intervenes. As horrendous as the carnage in Syria, the US would make it worse. But Empire is so seductive, especially to the Defense industry. Americans could be bankrupted as the Romans were, but unlike Huns, or Germanic barbarians, US 'enemies' do not threaten America's existence, only each others'.

Let them kill each other until they're exhausted--they will anyway. Or see reason. Let the UN pick up the pieces.