Syria again - your solutions?

[Tahuti]

The Unam Sanctum aspect of the civil war is most troubling, and it's partly Western spinelessness that's allowed the Saudis to take control. Anyway, Turkey's in the game too; maybe Erdogan has something up his sleeve.

Well, the Syrian revolution indeed has a religious element pretty much all the other Arab spring protests lack (except the one in Bahrain that is). Now, most of the Arab spring's "victims" were secular dictators like Ben-Ali and Mubarak, but the protests in Bahrain and Syria are unique that these are about sectarianism, i.e. the Shi'a elites of Syria vs. the Sunni common folk (and vice versa in Bahrain).

The Arab spring isn't just about democracy, but it is about Islam as well. I'm not saying the Arab spring is a force against democracy, but rather, the advancement of democracy to advance (ones favored sect within) Islam.

 

[Winner]

I'm not sure if the Saudi's are acting in revenge or its just a counter attack.

If Syria descends into civil war, an enemy of the Saudi’s will be neutralised.
The Saudi’s could also use Iraqi Sunni's in Syria to attack Iraq, but would be able to say it is nothing to do with us.
(...)
Also if Syria is in chaos then its influence over Lebanon would be reduced possibly allowing greater influence for Saudi Arabia. If the Sunnis win in Syria they could actively help the Saudi’s gain influence in the Lebanon.

In short, if there's a country in the Middle East that is really overdue for some good bombing, it's Saudi Arabia.

 

[Tee Kay]

Why? It is much more humane decision than to throw such big country to religious and revolutionary turmoil.

It's already in religious and revolutionary turmoil.

In short, if there's a country in the Middle East that is really overdue for some good bombing, it's Saudi Arabia.

That'd save them the effort of destroying all their mosques themselves.

 

[Leoreth]

In short, if there's a country in the Middle East that is really overdue for some good bombing, it's Saudi Arabia.

Don't bomb Syria! It would destabilize the region! Bomb Saudi Arabia instead!

 

[Tee Kay]

Stability is so overrated sometimes. For instance, stable kleptocracy is usually bad news.

 

[Leoreth]

If you want to use the stability argument you should be consistent about it, is all I'm saying.

 

[Tahuti]

Stability is so overrated sometimes. For instance, stable kleptocracy is usually bad news.

A stable kleptocracy is a contradictio in terminis, since the very character of kleptocracies means it is impossible to have consistent power and leadership structures and hence are by definition unstable.

 

[Tee Kay]

Hmmm, I don't know... Teodoro Obiang's been running the show in Malabo since 1979. And Suharto, Marcos, Mobutu, etc were pretty long-lasting.

 

[aelf]

A stable kleptocracy is a contradictio in terminis, since the very character of kleptocracies means it is impossible to have consistent power and leadership structures and hence are by definition unstable.

It's not like democratic governments are necessarily stable. Stability seems to be a trait tied to specific socio-political contexts than to broad categories of political systems.

 

[Cutlass]

A stable kleptocracy is a contradictio in terminis, since the very character of kleptocracies means it is impossible to have consistent power and leadership structures and hence are by definition unstable.

Not true. The Iron law of oligarchy states that not only do oligarchies persist, but when overthrown the new regime tends to be as bad or worse than the old regime. Even with changes in leadership, the overall nature of the kleptocracy is persistent. The whole purpose of the kleptocratic government is to prevent change. See various blog posts HERE for examples of persistent kleptocricies and discussions of why they tend to persist.

 

[Defiant47]

In short, if there's a country in the Middle East that is really overdue for some good bombing, it's Saudi Arabia.

You only resort to bombing when the other side resists and responds with force.

 

[Silurian]

In short, if there's a country in the Middle East that is really overdue for some good bombing, it's Saudi Arabia.

NO

Saudi Arabia is our dealer.
So we would be bombing ourselves.

It also has lots of money and willing people.
Fifteen of the 11th September hijackers were Saudi.

Whilst most Saudi's are not potential terrorists, if Saudi Arabia was bombed it would destabilise the country possibly producing another failed state.

We should remember in our dealings with the Saudi’s that their first aim is to defend the house of Saud and the second aim is to spread Wahhabism.

 

[Tahuti]

It's not like democratic governments are necessarily stable. Stability seems to be a trait tied to specific socio-political contexts than to broad categories of political systems.

A democracy with lots of govermental changes usually isn't considered unstable. Instability actually means the possibility of destruction of a political system and not just a particular government. Unless you would like to argue that Siad Barre's Somalia is more stable than Belgium because the former had officially less government changes than the latter.

Hmmm, I don't know... Teodoro Obiang's been running the show in Malabo since 1979. And Suharto, Marcos, Mobutu, etc were pretty long-lasting.

The longevity of a régime doesn't say anything: It may just as well be sheer luck. What is more telling of a regime's stability is the likelihood of régime overthrowal.

 

[BasketCase]

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?

Assad is trying to capitalize on the developed world's fear of more wars. It's no coincidence that all attempts at diplomacy are failing; Assad simply refuses all diplomatic attempts, leading to a situation where putting boots on the ground is the only way to get rid of him. Assad is banking on the fact that we don't want to invade.

The tactic of bluffing in poker only works if you don't risk money in order to call the bluff. The bluffer is banking on you playing it safe--and the only way to beat a bluff is to play dangerous and call it. The only way to beat Assad is to call his bluff.

We need to prove to the world that we're not afraid of war--or dictators elsewhere will attempt to play this bluff again.

 

[Flying Pig]

It's not like democratic governments are necessarily stable. Stability seems to be a trait tied to specific socio-political contexts than to broad categories of political systems.

Well, they're inherently more stable than other governments, because there's (in theory) nobody who feels totally alienated by the system - in a monarchy or anything else, fringe interest groups will inevitably feel that they have no voice at all, while in a democracy they still have the hope of changing things through legitimate means. That assumes of course that the democracy is a functioning one, and most of the ones subject to revolutions (case in point: America, 1861) aren't.

 

[kramerfan86]

Assad is trying to capitalize on the developed world's fear of more wars. It's no coincidence that all attempts at diplomacy are failing; Assad simply refuses all diplomatic attempts, leading to a situation where putting boots on the ground is the only way to get rid of him. Assad is banking on the fact that we don't want to invade.

The tactic of bluffing in poker only works if you don't risk money in order to call the bluff. The bluffer is banking on you playing it safe--and the only way to beat a bluff is to play dangerous and call it. The only way to beat Assad is to call his bluff.

We need to prove to the world that we're not afraid of war--or dictators elsewhere will attempt to play this bluff again.

Yea spending a few hundred billion more on nation building sounds like a wise investment in the current economic climate, especially since our current nation building project in Afghanistan is going so well.

And clearly what we did to the taliban, Saddam, and Gaddafi really scared dictators like Assad, Im sure if we do it ONE more time the lesson will finally be taught.

 

[innonimatu]

What nation building? All those, except Afghanistan, were about preemptively destroying nations. And Afghanistan was a political accident turned into a pipe-dream project of controlling Central Asia.

 

[Flying Pig]

turned into a pipe-dream project of controlling Central Asia.

More like turned into an exercise in holding a wolf by the ears - the only thing worse than sticking it out is the shame of leaving it half-done.

 

[innonimatu]

More like turned into an exercise in holding a wolf by the ears - the only thing worse than sticking it out is the shame of leaving it half-done.

Not so shameful, it's not as if any foreign power succeeded in holding the area for any reasonable time in the modern era. It's a border region right between large nations with high stakes there. Why the americans were stupid enough to try to control a territory - military bases and all - right in the backyard of Russia, China, Iran and Pakistan is still something I can't fully understand. One would think they'd try to conquer or at least destroy Pakistan or Iran first...

 

[aelf]

A democracy with lots of govermental changes usually isn't considered unstable. Instability actually means the possibility of destruction of a political system and not just a particular government. Unless you would like to argue that Siad Barre's Somalia is more stable than Belgium because the former had officially less government changes than the latter.

Well, it's easy to prove a point when you're cherry-picking your examples. Plenty of democracies in history have gone the way that Syria is going. I'm not sure pointing to surviving Western democracies proves anything in and of itself.

The longevity of a régime doesn't say anything: It may just as well be sheer luck. What is more telling of a regime's stability is the likelihood of régime overthrowal

So a non-democratic regime with governmental changes is not stable? I thought you're talking about the "destruction of a political system and not just a particular government"?

Well, they're inherently more stable than other governments, because there's (in theory) nobody who feels totally alienated by the system - in a monarchy or anything else, fringe interest groups will inevitably feel that they have no voice at all, while in a democracy they still have the hope of changing things through legitimate means. That assumes of course that the democracy is a functioning one, and most of the ones subject to revolutions (case in point: America, 1861) aren't.

What's a functioning democracy? Is the USA today a functioning democracy? Do all groups really have "the hope of changing things through legitimate means"? I'm not sure that is the case.