Syria again - your solutions?

[Winner]

I keep hearing that "something must be done" from left and right (and everywhere else).

So, let's say you're a leader of one of the principal democratic countries of today's Western world, what would you do? I want concrete and realistic plans of how to deal with the situation that wouldn't actually be counter-productive to Western interests. I trust that you're aware of basic geopolitical realities and the current situation as pertains to the matter at hand. If you're not, please do not post in this thread.

I've got a lot of pretty nasty accusations here for saying "let Assad sort things out - he's still the lesser evil." A lot of people here disagree with me, so I want to hear from them (especially them, you know who you are) what they would do differently if they could.

(No one-line responses, please, this is the Chamber, after all...)

 

[christos200]

So, let's say you're a leader of one of the principal democratic countries of today's Western world, what would you do? I want concrete and realistic plans of how to deal with the situation that wouldn't actually be counter-productive to Western interests. I trust that you're aware of basic geopolitical realities and the current situation as pertains to the matter at hand. If you're not, please do not post in this thread.

If i was leader of France or Italy or America, i would send the air force to bomb the hell out of Syria, force Assad to resign and put in power an France/Italy/America puppet government.

 

[Chiteng]

We should stay out. Nothing we do will be rewarded. The people hate us.

 

[Winner]

We should stay out. Nothing we do will be rewarded. The people hate us.

That is my position. Well, not entirely, because I believe that anything the West could realistically do would ultimately only make things worse for Syrians.

If i was leader of France or Italy or America, i would send the air force to bomb the hell out of Syria, force Assad to resign and put in power an France/Italy/America puppet government.

How? Syria is far harder nut to crack than Libya, nobody but America (and Israel) could actually wage a successful, massive enough air campaign against its military to make a difference, and even then there is absolutely no guarantee it would actually lead to the collapse of the regime. Not to mention, how is bombing Syria actually going to help the Syrians, I must have missed the explanation. Of course, even if Assad's regime fell, there is no way how to put a "puppet government" in place without actual occupation of Syria with boots on the ground.

Thus, you've failed in more than one thing that I specified in the opening post. What you propose is not realistically possible, it wouldn't help Syrians, it wouldn't help the West, and it's clear you don't understand the consequences of your "proposal". Unless it was meant as a joke and your real proposition is yet to be specified.

 

[christos200]

How? Syria is far harder nut to crack than Libya, nobody but America (and Israel) could actually wage a successful, massive enough air campaign against its military to make a difference, and even then there is absolutely no guarantee it would actually lead to the collapse of the regime. Not to mention, how is bombing Syria actually going to help the Syrians, I must have missed the explanation. Of course, even if Assad's regime fell, there is no way how to put a "puppet government" in place without actual occupation of Syria with boots on the ground.

Thus, you've failed in more than one thing that I specified in the opening post. What you propose is not realistically possible, it wouldn't help Syrians, it wouldn't help the West, and it's clear you don't understand the consequences of your "proposal". Unless it was meant as a joke and your real proposition is yet to be specified.

If the bombing fails, there are always land troops. ( Example: Iraq)

 

[warpus]

I want concrete and realistic plans of how to deal with the situation that wouldn't actually be counter-productive to Western interests.

Forget western interests - we should be thinking about the interests of the Syrian people here.

I would be looking to overthrow the government or at least deposing the president and his loyal members of government - it's possible that such a move would be impossible without a lot of loss of life, so I'd move on the diplomatic front at the same time - would attempt to rub Russia's back somehow to get them on my side during negotiations with the Syrians.

 

[Ajidica]

Besides working on peace plans and stuff like that, I feel western nations should stay out unless explicitly asked to intervene by an involved party or as Peacekeeping forces if it looks like Syria will turn into Yugoslavia v2.

 

[christos200]

Ba, thats boring.

The western powers should send their land troops to kick some ass.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

I'd go for reformation in cooperation with Assad. So basically what happens right now. But I would openly support and arm the Rebels at the same time, while trying to have them under enough influence to be able to tell them to stop. So that in effect I could threaten Assad without getting engaged directly and offer him a reliable way out at the same time.
Right now, the support of the Rebels seems to be covert and half-assed, without any meaningful influence on their doing. Which delivers Assad the opportunity to try to quietly choke the rebellion while the West can only ask Assad to be a nice dog and roll aside.

 

[Lone Wolf]

I've got a lot of pretty nasty accusations here for saying "let Assad sort things out - he's still the lesser evil."

I agree. "Western" intervention may have an occasional good thing or two, but ultimately, it will be self-serving and guided by geopolitical powermongering, not by any genuine interest to help the Syrian people. If Assad is overthrown, let him be overthrown by Syrians themselves, not by the kind people in Washington, Paris etc.

 

[Cutlass]

We aren't going to get a UN mandate because of Russia and China. And we aren't going to get a NATO mandate because the NATO nations are preoccupied, and feel they've done enough for now with Libya. There is no real rebel leadership to work with. So we can't really feed them arms. So all that's left is sanctions by those governments willing to do so. Unilateral direct military action is something politics just isn't going to support in the US in an election year.

 

[Ajidica]

Is it too much to hope that the Arab League might do something in Syria?

 

[say1988]

We aren't going to get a UN mandate because of Russia and China. And we aren't going to get a NATO mandate because the NATO nations are preoccupied, and feel they've done enough for now with Libya. There is no real rebel leadership to work with. So we can't really feed them arms. So all that's left is sanctions by those governments willing to do so. Unilateral direct military action is something politics just isn't going to support in the US in an election year.

That is basically my opinion, with the bolded part being key.

In Lybia there was the NTC. Sure there were issues with it, but it provided an avenue to provide support through, a government to recognize and illegitimize Ghaddafi, and a governing body to request foreign intervention. Unless such a strong opposition government forms in Syria, I can't really support foreign intervention.

From what I have seen there is also a lot more popular support for Assad than there was for Ghaddafi, which is another issue with regards to foreign intervention.

 

[Quackers]

From what I've read about Syria, military action is unfeasible. The best we can hope for is a no fly zone but I don't think that will achieve anything significant. Anyway we do not know enough about the rebel leadership to get behind them, for all we know they might want an ethnic bloodbath if they come to power and Assad may be the best option to prevent that. Therefore there is no clear moral path of action to take.

The best form of action is placing diplomatic and economic restraints on the regime.

 

[red_elk]

Rare case where I more or less agree with Winner. Good decision would probably be to stick with current UN cease fire plan - the one which was recently violated by the rebels. And stop giving support to any side of the conflict.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

If it is true that the rebels are so loosely organized than you effectively can not work with them, than my suggestion is of course infeasible.
But I am not convinced that is really the case. Didn't they form a more or less official army? Sure, that can only be a slogan, yet maybe it also hints to some influential groups one can work with.
My problem is that I don't have the impression that Assad can be trusted to not hijack any official reform unless he feels to have no other choice. And for that to happen he needs a threatening force in his face. And that can only be the Rebels, if one does not want to fight Assad directly.

@red_elk
I hear a lot about the Assad-faction breaking peace-keeping-deals, too. But I can imagine that Russian media likes to focus on the Rebels.

 

[LordRahl]

We're well aware that most of the rebels are a bunch of terrorists (allah snackbar can be heard on almost every single video). The aftermath of "Arab Spring" is precisely why we're staying the hell out of this one.

We should have learned after Iraq, that killing the zoo-keeper and turning the animals loose, doesn't help the animals, the zoo, or the neighborhood the zoo is in. It took another go-round in Libya to finally figure it out.

 

[strijder20]

most of the rebels are a bunch of terrorists

Terrorism is the systematic use of terror, especially as a means of coercion.

Assad is doing that too, if I recall correctly...

I suggest stopping all supplies but food, water and medicine (and other necessary things) to Syria .

 

[red_elk]

@red_elk
I hear a lot about the Assad-faction breaking peace-keeping-deals, too.

It was declaration of Syrian opposition, that they no longer respect Annan's truce plan.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/04/us-syria-crisis-idUSBRE84S0P020120604

But I can imagine that Russian media likes to focus on the Rebels.

I can imagine that too, but I don't watch it last few years.

 

[Ayn Rand]

We're well aware that most of the rebels are a bunch of terrorists (allah snackbar can be heard on almost every single video). The aftermath of "Arab Spring" is precisely why we're staying the hell out of this one.

We should have learned after Iraq, that killing the zoo-keeper and turning the animals loose, doesn't help the animals, the zoo, or the neighborhood the zoo is in. It took another go-round in Libya to finally figure it out.

Yes, but they are "our" terrorists so by the logic of Imperialism that makes them freedom fighters. Many of the atrocities being blamed on Assad have probably been carried out by our Al-Qaida pets, but I don't think that will stop Assad's days from being numbered. That said, the Russian and Chinese rearmament buildup is continuing so they will probably continue to stand firm over Syria so long as they can manage their own internal security.

I think then it will either be a stalemate or a win for the West. I doubt Al-Qaida will be allowed to consolidate any win in Syria, they will either be liquidated or moved on to the next project [Iran] if they win.