Syria again - your solutions?

[Winner]

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.

I disagree with that what I understand of your post, and shrug at the rest (no offence). Depose the government? How? Through military force? And what should we replace it with? Because the things are looking now that if the government is deposed, there will be a lot of blood due to sectarian violence. Do we want another Iraq, with a little Lebanese flavour? No, we don't.

Even if we convinced the Russians and the Chinese, what would we do then? Nobody is rushing into any forcible action, and diplomacy doesn't really work in such situations - we have the Assad government on one side which we can apply pressure at. On the other hand, the so-called opposition is an amorphous bunch of militias, peaceful protesters, terrorists, and army deserters which likely doesn't have any organized leadership with actual control over its people. It's far worse than Yugoslavia ever was, and we all know how well diplomacy worked there.

So, in the end, the matter boils down to two options: use military force to physically remove Assad from power, or do nothing. I freely admit that doing nothing seems far more sensible to me.

I'd go for reformation in cooperation with Assad.

Yes. I think that's what the regime was basically doing, until it came under attack and it responded its usual, time-proved methods.

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.

Arm them? Oh gods, no - the Middle East is overflowing with weapons already, and what do we know about these rebels? To me they seem more interested in settling their sectarian/ethnic accounts than actually reforming Syria into something better. I wouldn't trust them with a spoon.

I wouldn't oppose strictly humanitarian relief efforts, but nothing above that.

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.

Plus, the West doesn't really have that much interest in Syria. I am sure that even the Israelis would prefer Assad to stay in power - he's someone they can work it. If Syria becomes another failed state, what's stopping the terrorists from using it as a base of operations against Israel, like Hezbollah in Lebanon?

 

[Tahuti]

I am sure that even the Israelis would prefer Assad to stay in power - he's someone they can work it. If Syria becomes another failed state, what's stopping the terrorists from using it as a base of operations against Israel, like Hezbollah in Lebanon?

I don't think warring factions in a hypothetically failed Syria would even have time or the interest to strike on Israel, figuring they would be too busy fighting eachother (as Syria is a lot bigger than Lebanon). Which is probably even more in Israel's interests than Assad staying in power.

I think it may be completely plausible for Syria to become a failed state of the type that is honourably mentioned on mises.org alongside Somalia. Of course better than Assad's rule, though it still leaves a lot to be desired.

 

[Arwon]

Unlike Libya, I'm not sure there's any opportunity for decisive involvement by western powers. Keep an eye out for opportunities, though. Syria's sort of approaching the point of no return where even ostensible backers don't want to get involved any more.

 

[Bootstoots]

Keep up and attempt to expand political and economic isolation of the regime. Also, try to convince Russia to negotiate a Yemen-style transfer of power. Failing that, not much can be done. I don't think anyone would want another Libya even if it is possible - although I hope for the best, no evidence exists that the NTC+random armed people is better than Gaddafi in any meaningful way, especially given the fall of Mali's 20-year-old democratic government as unanticipated blowback.

 

[Masada]

We could begin by restoring the County of Edessa and the Principality of Antioch.

 

[Kraznaya]

We could begin by restoring the County of Edessa and the Principality of Antioch.

surely you mean the eyalet of aleppo and the eyalet of damascus

 

[Neomega]

Stay out of it. And yes, that is a solution.

 

[Masada]

surely you mean the eyalet of aleppo and the eyalet of damascus

yes that also works.

 

[r16]

force the Saudis and the Gulf Arabs to fight on their own , without the White Man , so that once they get a proper taste of war , they will give up inciting things all over the place . Not that Damascus has ever been responsive to human rights and stuff , but yes Saudis first .

 

[Masada]

Arabs are white. Slavs and Turks are not.

 

[Winner]

I don't think warring factions in a hypothetically failed Syria would even have time or the interest to strike on Israel, figuring they would be too busy fighting eachother (as Syria is a lot bigger than Lebanon). Which is probably even more in Israel's interests than Assad staying in power.

Not at all. Chaos allows potentially dangerous groups to set up their bases of operations right next to Israel. This is what happened in Lebanon - the power vacuum left by civil war and Israeli withdrawal led to Hezbollah establishing its little fiefdom in southern Lebanon from which it keeps attacking Israel.

Israel doesn't want the same in Syria on a grander scale. Assad is no friend of Israel, but his regime can be reasoned with. Hezbollah-like fanatics are impossible to reason with.

I think it may be completely plausible for Syria to become a failed state of the type that is honourably mentioned on mises.org alongside Somalia. Of course better than Assad's rule, though it still leaves a lot to be desired.

I fear more a Sunni-version of Iraq - incessant sectarian violence, bombs exploding on daily basis, refugees flooding neighbouring countries, terrorists enjoying free reign, that sort of thing.

We could begin by restoring the County of Edessa and the Principality of Antioch.

Arabs are white. Slavs and Turks are not.

Go troll somewhere else.

 

[r16]

Arabs are white. Slavs and Turks are not.

in the current strategic outlook , you are indeed correct .

 

[Masada]

Go troll somewhere else.

I was suggesting we ought to restore Good Christian/Western Rule in an area stripped of it by the Muslim Hordes. Tis a sad fact that Europe will soon follow the Eastern Roman Empire into the Muslim Hordes foul grasps. Damn demographics

in the current strategic outlook , you are indeed correct .

Quite.

 

[gozpel]

Someone made a joke about this area of the planet in 1970, bomb the areas and make a huge carpark of it all. (Including the Arabian countries)

It's not funny today, people getting killed to the left and right and kids are shot a blank point range.

This hate is not about religion, it's pure evil!

 

[Glassfan]

The polls here in the States, like yesterday's CNN poll, show majorities against American intervention. Certainly the Obama Administration is not going to take military action during an election campaign. It seems obvious that "Never Again" means "When Convenient".

Taking this to the UN (Useless kNuckleheads) and allowing the Russians and Chinese to delay and draw out an Assad victory is a clear indication of Obama's disregard. "Demands for Sanctions" is another.

Russia's suggestion that Iran should get involved is hysterical - Iran has been supplying Assad's Regime with weapons since the beginning - remember the 18th Fleet and it's supply ship? Russian supply ships have also made regular port in Tartus.

News of yet another massacre by Syrian forces and their surrogates has created yet another round of hand-wringing and displays of impotence by the United Nations. Mediator Kofi Annon and SecGen Ban Ki-moon are making anguished speeches that nobody's listening to.

Is there any disagreement as to who's behind the massacres? Syrian forces preventing UN observers and journalists from approaching the site would seem to make it clear.

Winner and others make a persuasive case that letting the Assad Regime fall might not benefit the West politically. That the outcome would be unpredictable. "Bad guys" might end up in control. But how much does our commitment to freedom and self-determination weigh in the balance against unpredictable outcomes?

 

[red_elk]

Is there any disagreement as to who's behind the massacres?

Yes, there is.

 

[Leoreth]

But how much does our commitment to freedom and self-determination weigh in the balance against unpredictable outcomes?

The commitment to what now?

 

[Winner]

Winner and others make a persuasive case that letting the Assad Regime fall might not benefit the West politically. That the outcome would be unpredictable. "Bad guys" might end up in control. But how much does our commitment to freedom and self-determination weigh in the balance against unpredictable outcomes?

And here I was thinking self-determination meant letting these people decide their own fate. How is self-determination supposed to work if it's brought by Western bombs?

In an ideal, better world, people would sit down, decide to hold a real, free and fair elections, and the new government would respects the rights of everyone. Sunshine and bunnies.

In this world, if we get rid of Assad, we'll end up with a hornet nest of a country. Some will hate the West for bombing them, others will hate the West for meddling into their affairs, and all will hate the West for acting too late. They'll of course kill each other en masse because of their long-held hatreds. The Sunnis will want to take revenge on the Shias and take power, the Shias will defend themselves, and collectively they'll massacre the Christians and Druze. Therefore, an intervention is a lose-lose proposition at this point.

We shouldn't just slam the door and shun Assad until we are absolutely sure that he's personally responsible for ordering the massacres and that he's completely uninterested in any reform of the regime. Until then, we should use the tried and proven carrot and stick tactics. If we just use the stick, Assad will become even more hardline and pro-Iranian/pro-Russian. How that will serve Western interests or the interests of Syrian people is unknown to me.

 

[Glassfan]

And here I was thinking self-determination meant letting these people decide their own fate. How is self-determination supposed to work if it's brought by Western bombs?. etc., etc...

If there was an intervention - and I'm not saying I'm in favor of it - self-determination would involve creating the conditions where the people would have the ability to do so. That would have to involve ending the killing - possibly by a large scale occupation by forces under a coalition mandate. And obviously there is no international will for that now - Libya has used it up.

In the absence of "Western Bombs", determined Russian and Iranian support for the Assad Regime will ultimately prevail.

As for "hating us"; can these people hate us more than they already do? Some will hate us no matter what we do, so why should their hatred be a factor in our considerations? Cops don't stand aside while a crime is being committed because the criminals might end up not liking them.

Exactly how can we be "absolutely sure" that President (for life) Assad is personally responsible for ordering the massacres? How can that be proven to your satisfaction? Obviously it cannot, so by definition it's another dodge, like sanctions. One can only make an informed opinion. Journalists, Western leaders and the UN Mediators believe his regime is responsible. Assad and the Russians deny it. Therefor it's probably true. This might end up at the International Criminal Tribunal at the Hague, but only after further massacres.

So in the end, we do nothing - except talk.

 

[aronnax]

Taking this to the UN (Useless kNuckleheads) and allowing the Russians and Chinese to delay and draw out an Assad victory is a clear indication of Obama's disregard. "Demands for Sanctions" is another.

What do you mean the UN is 'allowing' the Russians and Chinese to draw out Assadist victory? The UN is not a league of superfriends, here to fight evil. It is an international diplomatic forum that nations use as a neutral platform in diplomatic negotiations. Russia and China vetoing any Syrian bill is not the UN letting them do as they wish. It is merely Russia and China exploiting their positions within the Security Council. And if you think the UN is useless then you are clearly dismissing the good it has brought to the greater human race.

-------------

What I feel should be done is to lend as much support as possible to the rebels. As much as possible, Syria must be closed off internationally. Blockades against all trade aside from essential goods such as medicine, food and fuel. Given the increasing blood shed of the conflict, China will fall suit with Russia and realise that they can no longer give the same support to Syria as before and at the very least, remain neutral on the surface.
Countries, like Turkey did, should open camps and send aid for refugees and defectors and also, arm the Free Syrian Army.
I disagree with direct conflict but believe that cooperation between the UN and Arab League can create the same conditions that led to the final push against Gaddafi. For the rebellion to succeed, Damascus and Aleppo must join the rebellion and this can only happen when the stability provided by the Assad is no longer beneficial to them. All efforts must be given to convince as many Syrians as possible to defect.