Let's have a vote: Should the West intervene in Syria?

[Winner]

Meanwhile, given the delay in the US intervention (should there ever be one), Syria now has plenty of time to surround all its military installations with civilians (or move the equipment into centres of population), and make the most capital it can out of the civilian casualties that will inevitably follow any strikes.

What fun this all is!

Exactly. I wonder if Obama is looking for an excuse not to do anything, maybe to get out of the awkward situation into which he's put himself by drawing the red line with regard to the use of chemical weapons. Now he seems weak, so he's forced to do *something*, but at the same time he doesn't really *want* to.

At the very least, he want the Republicans to share the responsibility either for approving the military action (so that they can't later blame him if it ends up being a blunder), or refusing it (so that they can't later call him a 'weak leader', coward, or whatever).

 

[red_elk]

Good thing Syria is not a relevant or significant producer of oil. Good thing countries like Sudan are being addressed by the UN.

Yes, it merely occupies strategically important location in the Middle East. Otherwise nobody in the West would give a damn the civil war there would be "addressed by the UN" too.

 

[Winner]

I understand that "the West" cares very much about human rights wherever major trade routes or oil fields are nearby. Countries like Sudan are different story, people there can kill each other by millions as much as they want. All interventions (if any) must be humanitarian and approved by UN.

Just out of interest, would you then support the enlargement of the Security Council's permanent membership and the removal of their veto powers? (Perhaps with the provision that an armed intervention would only be possible if 2/3 of the permanent member states as well as a majority of other states agreed with it?)

Because saying that the UN approval is a must when all it takes is one permanent member state following its narrow national self-interest to block any resolution is rather disingenuous.

 

[Borachio]

It's strange. I thought Sudan had significant oil reserves.

At least, more than Syria.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

It's strange. I thought Sudan had significant oil reserves.

At least, more than Syria.

South Sudan does, but (North) Sudan has the oil refineries.

For whatever reason, even on websites and maps printed today, it's not often that South Sudan is shown. It's only two years old, but still, how long does it take to update a map on the internet?

 

[JoeM]

I'm for intervention.

I'm interested in the 'how' because its crucial to the justification - what is feasible, and what is the desired outcome?

As a message to deter further use of chemical weapons strikes on the weapons factories seems the most obvious - but is it feasible? Are they in civilian areas, are the chemicals destroyed by the strike or would it create a toxic cloud?

Another approach would be to attack the leadership; destroy symbols of power. But this could galvanise Assad rather than deter.

Limited strikes against military installations? Again I'm not sure what the fall out would be.

Invasion? Divide the country up between Turkey, Jordan, Georgia and Iraq, extend Israel's border and forget Palastine ever existed. Okay - that's not happening, but bear in mind Russia still occupies parts of Georgia.

 

[galdre]

I don't see how bombing selected locations in Syria will help anything. If anything, I'm sure it will make matters worse.

Syria needs to be cut off from all arms shipments.

 

[Borachio]

I'm not sure if a blockade is implementable or even if it would be effective. The stockpiles are likely to be immense. And armaments don't tend to deteriorate rapidly.

 

[Gucumatz]

Was there a poll here prior to intervention in Libya by the way? I am curious. The poll #s are around what I would expect - if anyone remembers a poll, I would like to dredge that back up for a comparison

 

[strijder20]

I think chemical weapons were really used, but find it very unlikely that Assad used them, for the reasons many have already stated. Those reasons being that Assad is winning the war, he has nothing to gain from using chemical weapons and that his enemies have plenty to gain from doing so themselves.

This whole 'But Assad has no reason' thing gives Assad a pretty good reason: people will blame it on the rebels because Assad 'has no reason'.

I'd only look at the actual evidence if I were you (leaving in the middle who did it).

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I'm not sure if a blockade is implementable or even if it would be effective. The stockpiles are likely to be immense. And armaments don't tend to deteriorate rapidly.

Pretty much Borachio.
No one is going to stop Russia from shipping arms into Syria. It's not going to happen - as much as everyone complains about how terribad the American Eternal Worldwide Police State Empire of Freedom and Drone Bomber of Children is, they don't seem to care much about Russia fueling the war and wholesale slaughter of civilians themselves.

 

[Gucumatz]

It may not be seemingly logical for Assad - but logic can go a thousand directions on why Assad used them:

- Belief that the US would not act and that the damage on the rebels psyche/civilians would be decisive in areas
- Russia to block
- A general risk analysis that using them would outweigh any theoretical intervention by a skittish West (which is possible as you see, with the UK and increasingly likely as well US backing out)
etc.

 

[red_elk]

Just out of interest, would you then support the enlargement of the Security Council's permanent membership and the removal of their veto powers? (Perhaps with the provision that an armed intervention would only be possible if 2/3 of the permanent member states as well as a majority of other states agreed with it?)

In general, yes. I would support the UN becoming something more functional than it is now. And I would like to see it having authority not only to sanction military intervention, but also to block it.

 

[Kyriakos]

Good to see there are less chicken-hawks at cfc than i thought (poll results look reasonable)

 

[Formaldehyde]

Pretty much Borachio.
No one is going to stop Russia from shipping arms into Syria. It's not going to happen - as much as everyone complains about how terribad the American Eternal Worldwide Police State Empire of Freedom and Drone Bomber of Children is, they don't seem to care much about Russia fueling the war and wholesale slaughter of civilians themselves.

You "don't seem to care much" about the apparent facts:

Moscow has not supplied Syria with new weapons since 2011 unless those envisaged by contracts signed before, state arms export agency Rosoboronexport said on Friday.

"Currently Russia executes the contracts signed prior to 2011. They are 100 per cent defensive, like anti-aircraft and coastal defence systems," RIA Novosti news agency quoted deputy head of Rosoboronexport Victor Komardin as saying.

The Kremlin also denied that Russia delivered new weapons to Syria.

"I did not see any material about advanced payments for some of our supplies. The supplies have been conducted in line with the existing deals," Kremlin's aide Yuri Ushakov said.

He noted that military-technical cooperation between Syria and Russia does not violate any international norms.

Perhaps you can explain how surface-to-air missile systems and coastal defenses are "fueling the war and wholesale slaughter of civilians themselves". How arming the rebels isn't doing so.

 

[DemonicAppleGuY]

How arming the rebels isn't doing so.

I don't think he said it wasn't.

 

[red_elk]

Perhaps you can explain how surface-to-air missile systems and coastal defenses are "fueling the war and wholesale slaughter of civilians themselves". How arming the rebels isn't doing so.

Because sending anti-aircraft and coastal defense systems can make setting up a no fly zone (nice euphemism of what essentially is bombing crap out of the country) more troublesome. Sending AK-47 and RPG to islamists is completely different story.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Russia totally hasn't been sending small arms and attempting to ship attack helicopters to Assad.

Totally.

But even if they were, someone has to stop the Evil American Empire from drone bombing more children. Those kids are earmarked for gassing next week!

 

[JollyRoger]

Good to see there are less chicken-hawks at cfc than i thought (poll results look reasonable)

You kind of need a former male cheerleader to inspire many of them into backing military action.

 

[Chiteng]

It is a poor question. I dont give a damn what the 'West' does.

The United States can ONLY lose if they get involved. There is NO win here.
No matter what happens, the USA will lose.