Andrew C. McCarthy on Syria and intervention
There really are no good guys in Syria, says Andrew C. McCarthy:
To repeat, in Syria, there has never been a vacuum – i.e., a void created by the failure to cultivate a viable opposition. Yes, there are some moderates in Syria, but the backbone of Assad’s opposition has always been Islamist: the Muslim Brotherhood and the even more extreme jihadists with whom they seamlessly make common cause. They are not moderates; they want to overthrow Iran’s despicable cat’s paw, Assad, in order to do to Syria what the Brotherhood tried to do to Egypt – and what Islamists have done to Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, etc.
It is not true that Obama failed to back the Syrian “rebels.” In fact, after the mutual Obama-Beltway GOP strategy of siding with Islamists against Qaddafi blew up on us in Libya, a reprise was attempted in Syria. Alas, the “rebels” we backed kept aligning with the jihadists (just as they did in Libya); the weapons we gave them kept ending up in jihadist hands. That was not just because the “rebels” were insufficiently “vetted”; it was because there was no way to overthrow Assad without the Islamists’ playing a major role ”” and, probably, a leading role.
This contributed to the ascendancy of ISIS, but was not the cause of that ascendancy. The cause is the dominant regional culture – Islamic supremacism.
Sad, but I think true, particularly in Syria.
Then we did a reversal:
Then, to make matters worse, Washington forgot that it had gotten enmeshed in Syria in order to oust Assad. Obama desperately wanted his deal with Iran, which wanted Assad left alone. So the Syria misadventure turned on a dime from targeting Assad on behalf of Sunni Islamists and jihadists to targeting Sunni jihadists – ISIS – to the benefit of Assad. Does anyone wonder why the U.S. has no credibility in the region?
So, what should we do in a situation in which all the alternatives seem very very bad? Not that Obama will do it, of course; but it’s still good to try to think it through, even if it’s just a mental exercise:
Our interests in the region are to defeat both Russia/Iran/Assad and ISIS/al-Qaeda/Muslim Brotherhood. It is not either-or, and it does not serve our interests to elevate one side at the expense of the other. After all, the players change sides – Iran, for example, helps al-Qaeda and Hamas, which is the Muslim Brotherhood. The only thing you can really bank on is that they all hate the United States.
Our vital interest in Syria (and Iraq and elsewhere, for that matter) is to prevent its being used as a platform for the launching of attacks against the United States, our allies, and our interests. Moreover, this, it is crucial to remember, is an American problem. It is not one we could responsibly delegate to another country’s “moderate rebels” even if they were numerous enough to need something bigger than a phone booth for their meetings.
That means it is going to take a large commitment of American forces on the ground as well as in the air to achieve our vital interests. But there is no political support for that in our country at the moment. That, no doubt, is why a candidate like Marco Rubio, who is smart enough to see the writing on the wall, seems reluctant to come out and say it. Even if there were political support for using American force, it would be a losing cause to take up unless and until we finally start seeing Iran the way Iran sees us: as the enemy.
There are not good guys and bad guys in this equation. There are bad guys and other bad guys. And quelling the threat these bad guys collectively pose to the United States is our responsibility…
McCarthy goes on to add that, until we can get it right, we should stay out of Syria.
That’s a tough prescription, because although I can’t disagree with his logic, it leaves the result to chance. Two years ago (June 2013), when I was first writing about the Syrian unrest, I noticed the problem McCarthy is describing:
Who are the rebels?
My strong suspicion is that there are few good guys here. It was the same question I asked about Egypt and Libya. In both places there were some “good guy” elements mixed among the Islamicist fanatics, although I suspected the latter would be the ones to end up with the power, just as they had long ago in Iran. And that seems to be the way it’s trending, although news from both countries has died down for the moment.
In Syria I also have grave doubts about the makeup of the “rebels” – a word I have come to hate and distrust. And, as in Iraq, if we aren’t committed to overseeing the aftermath of a rebellion (which we most assuredly are not), we should be careful of the forces we unleash.
However, in Syria there is a huge difference from Egypt, and that is that the current regime in Syria may be almost as bad and as unfriendly to us as anything that could replace it. In Egypt the situation was markedly different; although Mubarak was a tyrant, he was by no means high on the scale of tyranny in the region, and he was a fairly valuable ally. And yet Obama threw him under – yes, the bus. Qaddafi occupied a position in between Mubarak and Assad, in terms of both extent of his tyranny and his alliance with the US (in recent years, anyway, when Qaddafi had demonstrated a slight mellowing compared to the olden days).
As for the Syrian rebels, well, it’s a mixed bag, and I can only hope we can tell the players without a score card and are encouraging the ones who at least aren’t obviously affiliated with al Qaeda or executing teenagers for blasphemy (read the link and you’ll see what I’m referring to).
That area of the world is, quite frankly, a mess no matter how you look at it. I suppose it’s within the realm of remote possibility that any “rebels” who might defeat Assad and take over the country will be better their predecessor, but I really wouldn’t bet a dime on it.
That was it in a nutshell then. That is it in a nutshell now, although Obama’s weakness and Putin’s aggressiveness have made the situation even worse.
When the choice is between very bad and even worse, it can be incredibly difficult to discover which is which and to act at all. Action is bad. Inaction is bad. And half-assed, wavering, ever-changing action isn’t so great either.
Because the Maximum Leader hates America and its role in the world, and has worked hard to destroy both there is no solution to any of these international problems. The Max won’t do any of them and Republicans/Congress can’t make him.
The rest of us are left to watch a very predictable catastrophe unfold. It’ like waiting for hurricane Sandy to hit. Ya knew it was coming and you knew people would die and property would be destroyed.
Iran having a nuclear ICBM is the most dangerous part of this whole mess. If perchance a Republican is elected they need to immediately launch a kinetic attack against the Iranian nuclear facilities, even using low yield nukes if required.
But that won’t happen either. Very dispiriting.
I keep coming back to “what if”: What if we kept a strong US presence in Iraq, using the German/Japan model after WWII? It would involve a decades long commitment until that country stabilized. But having a strong US military presence in Iraq would surely have made a difference now in terms of the dynamics in the region. By completely puling out, Obama set all of this in motion, including Russian intervention.
“Our interests in the region are to defeat both Russia/Iran/Assad and ISIS/al-Qaeda/Muslim Brotherhood.”
As Andrew C. McCarthy and everyone else with an IQ north of room temperature knows it will take the full on incineration of an American city to muster the will to defeat this group. When this happens all will be burned in an afternoon and the environmentalists will have their irradiated panties in a bunch.
I don’t think even the incineration of an American city will get our “leaders” to muster the will to even attempt the defeat of anyone except perhaps non-moslem, religious, pro-life gun owners.
Democrats wouldn’t respond in kind because warfare is icky. Plus, dead people still can vote.
Republicans wouldn’t respond in kind; what would the NY and LA Times say? How about the Washington Post?).
Maybe our “leaders” would write a strong diplomatic note. While they’re figuring out ways to skim off the top of any aid we send to help the survivors.
Barry is a cross between Hamlet and King Lear.
He dithers.
He gives away his power.
He has a steep ignorance curve — as he’s getting befuddled at an ever increasing tempo.
He also has the perfidy of MacBeth. Just ask Palmer.
All the White House is a stage — and a horror show spans it.
“Our vital interest in Syria (and Iraq and elsewhere, for that matter) is to prevent its being used as a platform for the launching of attacks against the United States, our allies, and our interests.”
We have no vital interests anywhere in that part of the world, indeed in most parts of the world. How, essentially, are our interests there ‘vital’? To what degree are they essential to the continuance of the United States? We have more and greater vital interests in our very own country and that doesn’t allude to just the Muslims we have welcomed. It includes the Mexican invasion and the revanchist movements that have sprung up within them. It includes the Leftist President and his acolytes. It includes not being broke but saddling future generations with an ever growing debt.
“Does anyone wonder why the U.S. has no credibility in the region?”
Does anyone wonder why the government has no credibility among conservatives and the apolitical, America’s great middle? American credibility is folklore — remembrances of things past that are no more. Clean house and hood before gallivanting about the world slaying windmills and leaving a wake of ‘worse than before’. There are worse monsters in the world than the Husseins and Assads and they are here. There is greater thuggery in the world than in Russia and Germany and it’s here. No one likes policemen, they like them even less when they’re Lieutenant Schrank and Officer Krupke.
OldFert Says:
October 5th, 2015 at 2:46 pm
I don’t think even the incineration of an American city will get our “leaders” to muster the will to even attempt the defeat of anyone except perhaps non-moslem, religious, pro-life gun owners.
%%%
An interesting thesis.
HOWEVER… Islamist fanatics hate blue state America — the MOST.
You don’t get any bluer than Washington DC and New York state.
Seattle and San Francisco and Los Angeles were originally on bin Laden’s hit list. That’s three blues in a row.
Any first strike by Muslims is certain to be a counter-value target. ( DoD speak for major cities )
9-11 was a counter-value attack. Bin Laden actually expected the World Trade Center towers to domino over and take out 100,000 souls and start a fire storm.
He was as surprised as anyone when they pancaked straight down flat.
Plan A was to hit the towers when they were fully occupied — 60,000+ souls.
What a ghoul.
The AQ intent was to replicate the fatalities of an atomic attack… and do so with box cutters. (!)
Russia/Iran/Assad and ISIS/al-Qaeda/Muslim Brotherhood
only one is a superpower that funds, trains and supplies the rest without any issues… not to mention no one is going to track the collateral damage that russia is making using dumb bombs a la WWII…[while showing off their state of the art smart bombs] and the world is looking at them like they are strong and mean it, meaning no one will oppose them now for fear of that response. (and you can be sure that their people are not going to quibble over torture… a staple of their goverment with assasinations for more than a few hundred years)
they are moving fast and hard and are going to scare everyone around the medeteranian.. which is the point
why not take a look at the strategic things that they have siezed without any issue but a “your so naughty, stop it”…
one thing that is not at the top of the news is updating americans view that russia is backwards and not up to the modern era and pther myths that are very wrong.
For the most part, the game is over the minute their troops touched soil.. they are willing to have a WWIV fight, we are not.. their equipment can still operate, ours cant… their society can handle it, being backwards (as can china) ours will crumble like a dry cookie.
the question now is what other countries will be even closer and protected thereby negating anything the US will do for the next 40 years?
physicsguy Says: I keep coming back to “what if”: What if we kept a strong US presence in Iraq, using the German/Japan model after WWII?
i would be like the past where russia would not risk conflict with US troops in a one on one open fight. this they have avoided since WWII… they avoided this in the six day war, korea, vietnam, and so on and so on. (Which is why hillary and fiorina idea is insanity of women pretending to act like men they dont understand but were told they do)
Possession is 9/10ths of the law…
they possess this country, and without a full scale conflict with all the trappings, nothing will remove them… and with that occupation comes a lot more weapons, a lot more training, and a lot more of those organizations teaming up with russia to do their dirty work rather than be swept off the game board.
It was always perfectly obvious to me that the US going into Iraq AND STAYING in Iraq was a major geopolitical stroke, a slash at the Mideast Gordian knot, if you will.
Staying in force, and using that force against the Muslim adversaries, would have likely prevented the present mess.
The bottom line of the present mess is that Russia has finally achieved its goal in the region: a durable presence, with a naval base and an airbase in Syria.
The Russia-Iran duo is a formidable obstacle to our enfeebled and remote military. This situation is almost certainly permanent. Europe will be conquered by non-military invasion of the “Syrians.”
Jordan will gradually collapse. The Sauds are outgunned, outmanned and will likely become submissive stewards of Mecca and Medina.
That leaves Israel.
Good luck.
McCarthy, stops short of getting to the heart of the matter, when he asserts that the cause of the ascendancy of ISIS is due to its being “the dominant regional culture – Islamic supremacism”.
The ascendancy of ISIS is the direct result of the West’s failure to confront the central truth of the Middle East’s “dominant regional culture”, which is Islam’s inherent nature. No policy or strategy that fails to face reality can succeed based upon its own merit.
Strategically, Iran is a greater threat than ISIS. Since America will not confront Iran, nuclear proliferation will spread through the region. Sooner or later, ISIS or a future ISIS will get its hands on nukes. They will use them.
However we respond, it is a psychological certainty that a “fortress America” mind-set will result that will justify nationwide martial law. That is the greatest potential danger and, in this case will be the long term result of facing another example of having “to choose between war and dishonor”.
Obama and those in Congress who support or refuse to fight him have chosen dishonor.
America will trade liberty for security and will lose both.
Just as it was in 1979, we are weak because of a weak President who has gutted our military. At this time, we are in no position to oppose, militarily, Russia’s adventures in Ukraine and Syria. Just as we were in no position to do much about the USSR’s occupation of Afghanistan back in 1979.
If a Republican is elected in 2016, his/her most pressing agenda will be to rebuild our military and to unleash the economy so that we will be in a position to stand up to Russia/Iran/Syria.
Up until the fracking revolution and new monster discoveries of oil reserves in the West, our primary vital interest in the ME was to keep the USSR from exerting influence over the oil rich countries and to keep the oil flowing. The OPEC embargoes in the early 70s had wreaked economic havoc on the West and demonstrated how much it was in the interest of the entire Western world to keep the oil flowing at prices that were affordable. We had succeeded in doing that thanks to kowtowing to the Saudis, UAE, Qatar, and Kuwait while refusing to be doormats for Iran, Iraq, and Libya.
The shoe is on the other foot now. If the Feds would open up leasing and drilling on Federal land and build the Keystone XL, we have the capability of supplying our own needs and other countries in the Americas. Such ability decreases OPEC’s power and hurts Russia’s because they need high priced oil to pay their bills.
All this takes time. In the meantime, the Russians can spend blood and treasure on their adventure in Syria and Ukraine much as they did in Afghanistan years ago. History is looking uncannily similar. Of course, the key to the future is electing a GOP President who is a tough as Reagan. That is what I’m looking for.
J.J.:
I beg to differ modestly with you.
Carter was simply in process of pupating in 1979 into the leftist liar that he then became. He was weak then because of his ongoing metamorphosis.
Obama, however, is not weak. He means us and Western civilization profound harm. He is rather obviously succeeding.
Frog,
If Obama intends to bring the U.S. down, where will he live after the fall? You and I see that he’s doing great harm to the country. He does not see it. What he is doing is what he believes to be the moral, proper path. He is stuck in an ideological box. Inside the box are leftist truisms that are near and dear to his heart. They include:
“Imagine a world with no boundaries. Give peace a chance. War is not the answer. Dialogue is always better than war. All conflicts have a political solution. Cowboy diplomacy never works. Suppose we gave a war and no one came? Think outside the bomb. War is lack of imagination. War is so last century.”
There are more, but you get the drift. To us that is madness. To him it as true as the Ten Commandments are for Christians. When you look at it from that point of view, you begin, IMO, to see where he comes from.
Of course, I could be wrong. It is all about trying to read some murky tea leaves. But where and how is such a clueless metro-sexual going to live if the U.S. collapses or even becomes Venezuela?
physicsguy,
Our Iraq mission was the key, which the Obama administration understood.
President Obama, May 2011:
State Department, November 2011:
George Pal,
It’s not either/or. The domestic and global contests can be prosecuted simultaneously. Meanwhile, America’s competitors like Russia cultivate your either/or position within our domestic politics in order to acquire competitive advantage for their pursuit of hegemony in the global arena.
Frog,
At the same time, before leaving office, he set the Carter Doctrine, which has been (was?) the baseline for subsequent US Middle East policy.
President Carter, 1980 State of the Union Address:
This is an important point:
“After all, the players change sides – Iran, for example, helps al-Qaeda and Hamas, which is the Muslim Brotherhood.”
Part of the false narrative promoted by anti-US propagandists is that ‘secular’ ME tyrants like Saddam, and Assad for that matter, counter terrorists. The opposite is true.
In fact, casus belli for Operation Iraqi Freedom included Saddam’s material breach of the terrorism mandate in the Gulf War ceasefire “governing standard of Iraqi compliance” (UNSCR 1441) per UNSCR 687.
Saddam’s terrorism rivaled bin Laden’s terrorism. Assad, too, is an offender whose current troubles are in large part chickens coming home to roost.
While the ‘secular’ ME tyrants didn’t intend the blowback onto their own regimes, they have been breeders and vectors for Islamic terrorism and other terrorism.
* Iran is not secular, of course, but the point that “players change sides” holds. They play more than 1 side at the same time in different parts of the game.
Eric,
The domestic and global contests can be prosecuted simultaneously.
No they can’t. The last time that happened was when America was a superpower, when it simultaneously fought a world war with naval armadas across two oceans, and, simultaneously, land wars in two theaters — bloody island invasions through the Pacific, and the greatest invasion force in the history of the world — Normandy. And, simultaneously, at home, out-produced both the Japanese and the German military by margins unthinkable. While the Germans built a thousand formidable Tigers, the Americans built 10,000 mediocre Shermans. And America had started with near nothing in the way of war materiel and ended supplying England and the Soviet.
The U S is now but a paper tiger empire without resolve to greatness, with nothing more than delusions of grandeur. Every foreign adventure diminishes us further. Every concession to keeping afloat a paper empire delivers us nearer its expiry. Rome, as it exited the world stage was not so weak, or corrupt as we are.
I hope I’m not excommunicated for saying this, but I don’t see what is so bad about Assad. He wasn’t a MADMAN before the Islamists started attacking.
He’s no friend of Israel, but he’s not invaded them. I think of him as the devil we know. ISIS is much, much worse than Assad.
Why can’t McCarthy admit: the anti-Assad opposition is marching under al Qaeda’s flag — ALL OF THEM.
The total blarney of the FSA [ Fake Syrian Army ] is too much to bear.
Not once did ANY anti-Assad element use anything other than Islamic lingo in their self-anointing titles.
ISIS and al Nusrah are buddy armies. BOTH are branches of al Qaeda.
The FSA is an 0bama propaganda front so as to permit the flow of advanced weapons to the Islamist opposition.
The TOW missile changed the Syrian battlefield — just as the Blowpipe (UK) and the Stinger (US) changed Afghanistan.
ALL of the recent Assad reverses are due to TOW missiles recently delivered — by Barry — to the fictive FSA — which is nothing more than the logistics front for al Nusrah — ie al Qaeda.
To repeat, the President is arming al Qaeda with advanced weapons that would be brutally lethal if they made it back stateside.
The heart of ISIS was trained by the UK, US, and Jordan — in the desert — just a few years ago.
Yet the MSM white washes this entire sequence — while everybody in the Middle East is aware of it.
The Russians are raising bloody screams about it.
Barry is a terrorist enabler.
Geller has discovered that ISIS’ claim to have ‘launched’ Mercer is looking ever more valid.
The Russians are putting it out that they spotted Mercer — via phone taps — trying to get into Syria from Turkey.
Yes, English is easily recognized by digital signal analysis — as is Russian. So it’s entirely credible that Putin has tapped all of the phone lines — Clancy style — and Mercer’s convo would have been immediately flagged for human attention.
I can’t overlook the fact that ISIS took credit for Mercer SO QUICKLY. On the record to date, ISIS is far, far, far, more credible than the White House or the Pentagon.
The latter couldn’t even come to terms with its epic failure with its secular Arab freedom fighters. The Pentagon is now brain dead.
Eric Says:
October 5th, 2015 at 9:04 pm
Preach it brother.
Oh, how quickly ‘they’ forget.
Lebanon — anybody ?
And who, pray tell, was enabling the endless attacks against the US Army in Iraq ?
Assad, that’s who.
Who was building an atomic facility that needed the IDF’s immediate attention ?
Assad, that’s who.
Who was enabling Hezbollah, Hamas ?
Assad, that’s who.
Who had his chemical and biological warfare plant destroyed by the IDF ?
Assad, that’s who.
Who has been a pain in Turkey’s side — going back just about forever ?
Assad, that’s who.
Who has been a Soviet client — going back just about forever ?
Assad, that’s who.
Such a charming fellow.
J.J. Says:
October 5th, 2015 at 8:19 pm
Frog,
If Obama intends to bring the U.S. down, where will he live after the fall?
0bama is going to move in with Matt Damon. The kid is astoundingly resourceful. Barry can live in Matt’s bubble.
Who has been a pain in Turkey’s side – going back just about forever ?
Turkey has been a pain in the US’ side since 2001 at least.
But having a strong US military presence in Iraq would surely have made a difference now in terms of the dynamics in the region. By completely puling out, Obama set all of this in motion, including Russian intervention.
It would have made about as much difference as it does in Afghanistan now, under Hussein.
Certainly Hussein set things in motion, but he wouldn’t have been stopped by having a few more human shields in the Middle East obeying his orders. The reason why Leftists wanted their opponents to join the Iraq War in 2004-06 is because when you’re in the military, and then ordered to die in a battle that is poorly planned, you don’t have much choice about it other than deserting or going AWOL. The Left was already planning on “getting rid” of patriotic dissenters as early as back then, if not before.
Meanwhile the American military is being steadily degraded. Some of the people commenting here have given examples on recent Belmont Club posts.
What are responsible people going to do about it? Do we have no people anywhere in power who can stop the deathly collapse of the United States?
Since there are no good guys, Carly and Hillary’s no-fly zone is a bad idea. I hope Ms Fiorina has been alerted to this. Who among the contenders is most aware of the bottom line in the Middle East? I’m guessing Carson and Cruz.
Todays wall street journal posts that the administration has just realized that the attacks on their people (rebels and CIA, and and and), are being purposefully bombed by Russia…
now what we gonna do about it now that the lack of action has not prevented action and we have sunk deeper in the century old deadly goo of Russia (as i predicted would happen given that the long telegram from long ago points out how they behave and they have yet to change, reset or not)
Russia is going to keep pushing till it has a conflict, as it has not much to lose… when a something has everything to gain and nothing to lose is when that something is in one of several dangerous conditions (for others).
[edited for length by n-n]
May i point out that Iran is the north korea of the soviet union… that for the same reason we dont get rid of north korea, we cant just get rid of Iran.
if someone checks back, way back to what i said that the Turkey, Iraq, afghanistan, pakistan, india would constitute a buffer zone (That putin said was being built too, like the soviets had their satelite states for protection), was the attempt to destroy the game being played in the middle east by blocking russia. but as with vietnam, the left prevented the completion of that, and i said if they succeeded in that, the russians would act to insure that no one ever gets into position of such a deft stroke again, not without WWIV…
well, that moment has arrived, and its going to be very interesting watching everyone, uncluding the armchair pundits and commentators try to explain whats happening. of course their advantage is that we have not paid attention as a peoples to the chess board moves, so we are not going to understand how we got from there, to a near checkmate (if not a checkmate).
the least obvious things are actually the most important. like a lynch pin that holds the whole edifice together.
Frog,
If Obama intends to bring the U.S. down, where will he live after the fall?
either the kremlin or be king of the USA which would become part of the international, and call itself a soverign democracy… (however, given the way history goes, he wont live, he will be removed after his usefulness is used up)
blert Says: Yes, English is easily recognized by digital signal analysis – as is Russian. So it’s entirely credible that Putin has tapped all of the phone lines – Clancy style – and Mercer’s convo would have been immediately flagged for human attention.
nope… no need to tap after the cables were cut and the business moved to the russian satelites and stayed there (just as i said way back when)
April 14th, 2008
They don’t call him “Dhimmi Carter” for nothing, but perhaps they should call him Neville
Jimmy Carter is planning a dialogue with Hamas.
Artfldgr Says:
April 15th, 2008 at 7:18 pm
and
now we are going to let in 200,000 “syrian” males… that will go well with crips, bloods, mara sevruga 13 (military trained), white supremecists, muslm brotherhood, and a lot more..
blert Says: Assad, that’s who.
and who is the controller for assad? Soviet russia, or do you think a KGB man changes?
i should have picked a few to answer, not answer so many.. sorry… ok neo, cut them down… sorry
blert, “0bama is going to move in with Matt Damon. The kid is astoundingly resourceful. Barry can live in Matt’s bubble.”
I haven’t seen the movie yet, but get the reference. Mars, the ultimate escape destination.
Hawaii should be good.
Three words – protect the Kurds.
These are our natural allies, who love us. They have an area that is a natural base for operations, as needs be. It puts “skin” into the game for the longer term. And ti allows the US to be a broker of alliances adn to tip the game’ as opportuniticially needs be.
Plus, it’s close to Iraq – giving the US opportunities to salvage a brighter future for those where we’ve invested the most treasure and sacrificed the most blood.
Finally, this position gives a pos-Obama surrender deal to get spoiled in the Mad Mullah quest for regional supremacy, and helps protect our allies in Israel as well as to repair ties to our badly abandoned Sunni friends.
US needs forces with the Kurds.
The only thing the US is cut out to do is to backstab the Kurds with a new regime, just as the US backstabbed the Sunnis in AL Anbar and also in Vietnam and also Bay of Pigs, as well as American citizens in Waco 1 and 2, plus Ruby Ridge. The list goes on for some time.