The Politics Thread 4

[Moggy]

Military intervention didn't bring peace and stability to Afghanistan. It didn't work in Iraq. It didn't work in Libya.

Just picking out examples of where it didn’t work isn’t very helpful. Interventions worked for Kosovo, East Timor and Sierra Leone for instance.

I wasn't deliberately picking out examples of failed military intervention, my experience and knowledge of them is just skewed towards the more modern examples. I was only born in the 90s.

Certainly all are relevant to assessing the likelihood of military intervention being effective, but I don't think it's unfair to say the major examples from the last decade were all failures.

East Timor - 1999
Kosovo – 1999
Sierra Leone - 2000
Afghanistan – 2001
Iraq – 2003
Libya - 2011

If you are having Iraq and Afghanistan as more modern examples of disastrous military interventions, then you can’t really count East Timor, Kosovo and Sierra Leone as ancient history. All of those conflicts were within a 4 year period.

Libya was successful in that it got rid of Gaddafi, but turned to shite afterwards. I am not sure that one case in the last decade is a decent example of why military intervention is always bad, as with Iraq and Afghanistan it is more of an example of why it is bad not properly follow through with the post conflict reconstruction of a country.

[OrangeRKN]

I think it's a little disingenuous to only date the interventions on the year they began, considering that the UK withdrew from Iraq in 2009 and the US in 2011, and the UK officially ended combat operations in Afghanistan in 2015.

I am not sure that one case in the last decade is a decent example of why military intervention is always bad

This wasn't exactly the argument I was making.

[Preezy]

Ummmmmm guys Iraq definitely wasn't a failure. Proof:

[Hexx]

No one predicted we'd ever look back on Bush so fondly

[Moggy]

I think it's a little disingenuous to only date the interventions on the year they began,

It’s also a little disingenuous to only count military interventions that ended in the last 10 years.

There are countless examples of military interventions that resulted in an improvement for the country involved and/or the world. Germany, Japan, South Korea in the more distant past. East Timor, Kosovo and Sierra Leone in the more recent past.

It’s not that military intervention over the last 10 years have all been failures. The military intervention parts have been a massive success. The failure is in the post military phase, the peacekeeping, the rebuilding, the winning of the “hearts and minds” and the governments that took over after the conflicts.

I am not sure that the failures in Iraq and Afghanistan should mean we should never intervene ever again. Doing nothing when a dictator is murdering his people usually leads to genocide (see the collapse of Yugoslavia).

[Moggy]

No one predicted we'd ever look back on Bush so fondly

I’ve always liked a bit of bush, I just don’t get why it all has to be shaved off.

Wait….sorry…wrong thread…

[OrangeRKN]

The failure is in the post military phase, the peacekeeping, the rebuilding, the winning of the “hearts and minds” and the governments that took over after the conflicts.

Then I don't think we're in disagreement.

We have no clear long term plan or commitment to military involvement. Launching a military campaign without that seems folly.

[Lex-Man]

I think the political situation is more similar to Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya than east Timor, et Al. The best we can hope for is simular outcomes to the other Middle Eastern countries we've intervened in, which isn't a great outcome.

[Errkal]

I think the political situation is more similar to Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya than east Timor, et Al. The best we can hope for is simular outcomes to the other Middle Eastern countries we've intervened in, which isn't a great outcome.

We should invade, take it over and build the New British Empire.

[Lex-Man]

I think the political situation is more similar to Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya than east Timor, et Al. The best we can hope for is simular outcomes to the other Middle Eastern countries we've intervened in, which isn't a great outcome.

We should invade, take it over and build the New British Empire.

It'd help add to the image we've been fostering since Brexit. So yeah, let's do it.

[Preezy]

I think the political situation is more similar to Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya than east Timor, et Al. The best we can hope for is simular outcomes to the other Middle Eastern countries we've intervened in, which isn't a great outcome.

Difference here is that the country we'd be invading and attacking is a close ally of a nuclear superpower that has its own military on the ground.

It's a powder keg, a tinder box, a bag of charcoal and other such combustible euphemisms.

[Moggy]

I think the political situation is more similar to Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya than east Timor, et Al. The best we can hope for is simular outcomes to the other Middle Eastern countries we've intervened in, which isn't a great outcome.

Syria might be closer to Iraq politically than the other examples, but it is nowhere near the same as Afghanistan. Iraq and Afghanistan get lumped together, but they were in very different places at the time of invasion.

Afghanistan was run by warlords, the most powerful gang of warlords were running an oppressive regime based around fundamentalist Islam. Iraq was being run by a dictator that although a Muslim, was far more of a secular leader, but who was murdering his own people.

Iraq is the only Middle Eastern country that we have meddled in in the last few decades. The outcome there wasn’t good, but that doesn’t mean we should sit back and watch tens/hundreds of thousands of people die.

[Lex-Man]

I mean the people who would get involved would be the same as in the post invasion would be the same. Isis had already taken over parts Syria, although they've been forced out now.

Here's a map of who's currently in control of what.

https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/inter ... 29467.html

[Vermilion]

Unfortunately, short of a political solution involving a permanent cease fire and armistice, the best way to end the war in Syria is to just let Assad (with Russian help) win it.

The most important thing is to end the fighting and if Assad winning is the quickest way of achieving that then so be it. Should that happen however, the country would then need proper outside intervention to ensure it doesn't end up like Iraq/Libya.

Therefore, once Assad had won and the country was finally at peace, there are a number of things which would need to be done. Assad himself would need to answer for his crimes and as such, should be arrested and sent to the ICC in The Hague (along with any surviving rebel leaders as all sides are guilty of atrocities in the country). His ministers and deputies however, would remain at least temporarily in order to keep things running during a rebuild/transition phase overseen by both Russia and the west.

I'm probably just blathering on a bit now as i've been known to waffle when it comes to this sort of stuff, but it just seems to me that sending in bombers now is kinda pointless as it will do nothing to shorten the conflict, in fact, it has the potential just to make things worse.

[Moggy]

Unfortunately, short of a political solution involving a permanent cease fire and armistice, the best way to end the war in Syria is to just let Assad (with Russian help) win it.

The most important thing is to end the fighting and if Assad winning is the quickest way of achieving that then so be it. Should that happen however, the country would then need proper outside intervention to ensure it doesn't end up like Iraq/Libya.

Therefore, once Assad had won and the country was finally at peace, there are a number of things which would need to be done. Assad himself would need to answer for his crimes and as such, should be arrested and sent to the ICC in The Hague (along with any surviving rebel leaders as all sides are guilty of atrocities in the country). His ministers and deputies however, would remain at least temporarily in order to keep things running during a rebuild/transition phase overseen by both Russia and the west.

I'm probably just blathering on a bit now as i've been known to waffle when it comes to political stuff, but it just seems to me that sending in bombers now is kinda pointless as it will do nothing to shorten the conflict, in fact, it has the potential just to make things worse.

If Assad wins, how is he then getting arrested and sent to The Hague?

[<]:^D]

he'll turn himself in of course Moggy, keep up

[Vermilion]

Unfortunately, short of a political solution involving a permanent cease fire and armistice, the best way to end the war in Syria is to just let Assad (with Russian help) win it.

The most important thing is to end the fighting and if Assad winning is the quickest way of achieving that then so be it. Should that happen however, the country would then need proper outside intervention to ensure it doesn't end up like Iraq/Libya.

Therefore, once Assad had won and the country was finally at peace, there are a number of things which would need to be done. Assad himself would need to answer for his crimes and as such, should be arrested and sent to the ICC in The Hague (along with any surviving rebel leaders as all sides are guilty of atrocities in the country). His ministers and deputies however, would remain at least temporarily in order to keep things running during a rebuild/transition phase overseen by both Russia and the west.

I'm probably just blathering on a bit now as i've been known to waffle when it comes to political stuff, but it just seems to me that sending in bombers now is kinda pointless as it will do nothing to shorten the conflict, in fact, it has the potential just to make things worse.

If Assad wins, how is he then getting arrested and sent to The Hague?

The international community would be able to arrange something surely, especially if Russia was brought on board. There's probably something Putin would want so would throwing him a bone or two in exchange for Assad really be off the table?

Besides, the most important priority is to end the fighting, so even if that was all which was achieved and Assad stayed, would that not be a good thing?

[Moggy]

The international community would be able to arrange something surely, especially if Russia was brought on board. There's probably something Putin would want so would throwing him a bone or two in exchange for Assad really be off the table?

The international community have not been able to do anything over the last 7 years. Why would they suddenly be able to do something once everything has settled down and Assad was back in full control?

Besides, the most important priority is to end the fighting, so even if that was all which was achieved and Assad stayed, would that not be a good thing?

That all sounds great, but how do you go about achieving that? Turn a blind eye while Assad and/or Russia kills tens of thousands of people to achieve peace? Help them out with killing all of the rebels?

It is not as simple as saying “just let Russia sort it and then we have peace” because that peace will have only been achieved via the deaths of tens of thousands of people.

[Drumstick]

What Putin has wanted is for Russia to be seen as a major player, crucial to any negotiation on any matter. He has used the Syrian war as a vehicle to achieve this, putting blockers on any actions tabled to try and bring peace. He wants to extend the war to gain further power, to consolidate Russia's standing in world politics and has committed to Assad. Putin would want significant concessions to change his position, ones which the other parties at the table probably won't accede to.

[Cheeky Devlin]

twitter.com/AP_Politics/status/984807392918605824

Well this is a bit concerning.