Syria again - your solutions?

[Flying Pig]

Ideally rebels should be crushed

Bloody hell... it's a long time since I studied this business, but I always thought that the first rule of an intervention in someone else's problem was to prevent escalation?

 

[Snorrius]

Bloody hell... it's a long time since I studied this business, but I always thought that the first rule of an intervention in someone else's problem was to prevent escalation?

Well and how this contradicts to what I've wrote? If you crush rebels they will not be able to escalate anymore.

 

[Flying Pig]

The actual 'crushing' phase, ie full-scale warfare, death on a massive scale, and by any definition becoming a failed state, is definitely escalation! I'm not entirely sure you're being serious to be honest.

 

[Glassfan]

...If you crush rebels they will not be able to escalate anymore.

The actual 'crushing' phase, ie full-scale warfare, death on a massive scale, and by any definition becoming a failed state, is definitely escalation! I'm not entirely sure you're being serious to be honest.

He's a Russian, and thinks of Syria and President Assad differently than we do in the West. Assad is probably Russia's last close ally in the Middle East, Tartus their last friendly port.

 

[Winner]

Best case scenario: negotiated solution, perhaps under international mediation, perhaps forced by the threat of international intervention, based on these five points.

Meaning that what you wrote below is a non-starter. Why should the regime give up? Would you give up power as a leader of a regime which has traditionally been based on a support of a minority ethno-religious group, knowing well that any kind of "democracy" will inherently give power to people who want you and your people punished (=killed in some horrible way, preferably)? Would you do that, after seeing what happened to the Sunnis in Iraq and Gaddafi and his people in Libya?

I wouldn't. I would stall, delay, appeal to Russia and Iran, and fight to the very end with fire and sword if necessary. Assad will too, because he's not being given any other option.

1. Assad must go. Perhaps a year ago he could have remained in power, but not after everything that's happened. He could be exiled and granted immunity from persecution, like Saleh.
2. Round table talks between different rebel groups, religious leaders, and mid-level officials from the current government.
3. All armed forces, rebels and governments, to be disarmed and general amnesty granted to all fighters on both the government and rebel sides, with the exception of those implicated in known massacres of civilians outside of combat zone.
4. Transition in three stages: first stage under Assad's immediate successor, second stage under a national unity government, the formation of which should be the first priority of the round table talks, the third stage under a partially-elected government under a provisional constitution.
5. Negotiation to be conducted on the basis of a united, federal and democratic Syria.

The actual 'crushing' phase, ie full-scale warfare, death on a massive scale, and by any definition becoming a failed state, is definitely escalation! I'm not entirely sure you're being serious to be honest.

Well, crushing the rebels certainly is a solution that has worked well in Syria in the past.

 

[Snorrius]

The actual 'crushing' phase, ie full-scale warfare, death on a massive scale, and by any definition becoming a failed state, is definitely escalation! I'm not entirely sure you're being serious to be honest.

There is some sarcasm in my words indeed which is pointed to people who do not really understand what is difference between a Western bunny-state which they live in and Middle East one which exists in a much more harsh environment.

But at most part I am serious. Current rebels can not be negotiated with, and recipes which are suggested by West (current government will go away after which the country will go to religious turmoil for years with a lot of blood and little human rights West like to talk about with a strong prospect to turn into poor islamic state) are unviable at least for archieving goals West declares (but not necessary really means). In this situation the most logical solution is to support Assad dynasty as their rule is secular at least and oriented not to restoring yet another Caliphate but to building a modern state (within economic, social and other constraint Syria have to exist).

 

[Flying Pig]

Current rebels can not be negotiated with

There's no such thing as rebels who can't be negotiated with - they have somethign they want to get, that's why they're rebelling. If they're offered what they want, plus/minus a certain amount influenced by other pressures, they'll take the deal. It's not as if the Syrian Opposition is being run by Heath Ledger's Joker, I mean.

 

[Snorrius]

There's no such thing as rebels who can't be negotiated

There are if f.e.:

1) They are amorphous mass of too much groups with different interests and are not represented by someone who can actually govern over them and take responsibility
2) They want too much and are not ready to make more realistic claims
3) They are subject of someone else.

 

[Flying Pig]

1) They are amorphous mass of too much groups with different interests and are not represented by someone who can actually govern over them and take responsibility

That just makes it difficult (you have to, you know, talk to more than one person), but not impossible

2) They want too much and are not ready to make more realistic claims

That's generally why we have armed struggles of that sort in the first place - the attrition of that struggle will wear down both sides until either the rebels moderate their demands, the Government decides to give them some leeway, or a combination of the two. It took forty years in Ulster for that to happen, mind.

3) They are subject of someone else.

In which case the negotiation takes the form of convincing them to change sides - which might even be easier; it's harder to negotiate with zealots than people being employed by someone else to cause mischief.

 

[Snorrius]

That's generally why we have armed struggles of that sort in the first place - the attrition of that struggle will wear down both sides until either the rebels moderate their demands, the Government decides to give them some leeway, or a combination of the two. It took forty years in Ulster for that to happen, mind.

Well in this case I suggest to continue crushing them until they moderate their demands. If a such beacon of democracy like UK did not flinch to do this for forty years Syria surely can follow the lead.

 

[Flying Pig]

We hardly went in for 'crushing' - when a few of my brothers decided to try tactics as Assad might understand them, it went rather badly

 

[Silurian]

Meaning that what you wrote below is a non-starter. Why should the regime give up? Would you give up power as a leader of a regime which has traditionally been based on a support of a minority ethno-religious group, knowing well that any kind of "democracy" will inherently give power to people who want you and your people punished (=killed in some horrible way, preferably)? Would you do that, after seeing what happened to the Sunnis in Iraq and Gaddafi and his people in Libya?

I wouldn't. I would stall, delay, appeal to Russia and Iran, and fight to the very end with fire and sword if necessary. Assad will too, because he's not being given any other option.

Well, crushing the rebels certainly is a solution that has worked well in Syria in the past.

I agree

If the religious rebels, that are being funded by the Saudi's and other gulf States, win the proxy war with Iran what will happen to the 3m Alawite's, Assad’s group; which the Saudis regard as heretics. Turkey could cope with a million refugees but Lebanon would be destabilised and is likely to fall back into civil war.


From BBC

Considered by some Muslims a heretic sect, this small Levantine minority have survived persecution and the Crusades to rise to the top and take over the Syrian establishment.

Alawite practices, which are said to include celebrating Christmas and the Zoroastrian new year, are little known even to most Muslims.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-18084964

 

[Snorrius]

Well, "crushing" may be a strong word here. Assad should continue law enforcement operations to ensure order in Syria as well as continue to contribute to a World War on Terrorism by finding and stopping activity of terroristic groups on Syrian's territory.

 

[Winner]

Well, "crushing" may be a strong word here. Assad should continue law enforcement operations to ensure order in Syria as well as continue to contribute to a World War on Terrorism by finding and stopping activity of terroristic groups on Syrian's territory.

It's pretty funny all the things that can be called "terrorism"

That is, I agree with you in the sense I don't trust these rebels one bit. Even if this thing started peacefully, I am afraid it has been hijacked by armed bands of murderers at this point, so neither side has any claim for moral superiority. In such a situation, my instinct is to go with the devil you know (Assad), rather than with the thousands of devils you know nothing about.

As silurian pointed out, this seems very much like a Saudi-sponsored proxy war with Iran, probably in revenge for Iran's own meddling in Bahrain. Funny thing is that the West is awfully silent about that little affair - I mean, Bahrain's oppressive government calls in our good buddies the Saudis to crush their pro-democracy movement, and that's why there are so many righteous Western politicians calling for the deposition of Bahraini/Saudi kings-- oh, wait

 

[Tee Kay]

Assad must stay. He is at least secular dictator and mild secular dictatorship is a way more progressive government for the countries of this region.

"Mild" is not a word that comes to mind when describing the Assad regime, but YMMV.

another failed religiously-intolerant Muslim state

Please suggest one I'm supposed to look at because I don't see one in existance. As morally-abhorrent the Iranian or Saudi regimes may be, they're not failed states. I guess you could make a case for the Iraqi and Afghan regimes, but they're a kind of special cases.

Meaning that what you wrote below is a non-starter. Why should the regime give up?

I did say the regime could be forced by international intervention if needed be. A starting condition for any negotiation would be need to be the unity and respect for rights of all Syrians regardless of political or religious affiliation, secured by a federal or confessional system of government if needed be. Another option is the facilitated emigration of all those who want to leave Syria.

What you'll end up with in the end is a Bosnia- or Lebanon-like state, which I know you won't like, but IMHO still a lesser evil than civil war and/or continued Baathist dictatorship.

I would stall, delay, appeal to Russia and Iran, and fight to the very end with fire and sword if necessary. Assad will too, because he's not being given any other option.

This is probably the most likely scenario.

If the religious rebels, that are being funded by the Saudi's and other gulf States, win the proxy war with Iran what will happen to the 3m Alawite's, Assad’s group; which the Saudis regard as heretics. Turkey could cope with a million refugees but Lebanon would be destabilised and is likely to fall back into civil war.

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.

 

[Defiant47]

As with all things, some ground work needs to be laid first.

• Start pushing with heavily influence within the U.N. to support a military intervention
• Approach the Arab league and use whatever influence my country has to sway them towards military intervention (i.e. let's use my oil buying power)
• Collaborate with the NATO and other like-minded nation on a unified plan of intervention, and sway all of them towards intervention
• Give the diplomatic bodies (UN) a silent deadline to sanction the plan, after which their decrees will be circumvented and the agreeing nations proceed

Depending on how much influence my country has, this might be very doable. If it's a small, powerless country, then there isn't much I can do in the world anyways.

Invade full-scale with military assets donated from all the agreeing countries. Install a puppet regime that pretends to have been democratically elected by the people. The reason for this being that these people obviously don't know how to rule themselves and shouldn't have the right - they might elect another murderer. Use modern propaganda techniques to develop support for the government, and utilize the full control we have over the government for it to make massive reforms and investments that help the local population thrive and prosper.

I know some of the above is somewhat vague in terms of what it entails or how it could be achieved, but this is what I've got. Any questions?

 

[Winner]

I did say the regime could be forced by international intervention if needed be.

Yes, see the non-starter part. How do you propose to make such a threat credible? The West is obviously not willing to get its hands dirty again without a clear, fresh snow-clean mandate from the UN, which is just another way of washing its hands over it because the Russians and the Chinese will never let that happen. They won't even allow a less harsh resolution to pass lest the West interprets it as a blank cheque.

Who else can intervene? Turkey, possibly, but that would mean risking losing its whole Middle East policy to Arab wrath should things go awry. Israel could, but won't. Nobody else has the power to threaten Assad's regime militarily.

We could of course sanction Syria to oblivion like we did with Iraq in the nineties, and then listen to annual reports of how many children died because of malnutrition and medicines shortages. I find that option unappealing. We could try to support the rebels through clandestine means, but that would be like pouring aviation fuel into the flames and in the end we'd probably see armed rebels all over the Middle East shooting at our soldiers with the weapons we gave them, alá Afghanistan.

So again, how do you propose to actually force Assad into concessions?

A starting condition for any negotiation would be need to be the unity and respect for rights of all Syrians regardless of political or religious affiliation, secured by a federal or confessional system of government if needed be. Another option is the facilitated emigration of all those who want to leave Syria.

You remind me that I need to write "realistic" in bold next time.

What you'll end up with in the end is a Bosnia- or Lebanon-like state, which I know you won't like, but IMHO still a lesser evil than civil war and/or continued Baathist dictatorship.

Well, Lebanon had collapsed into civil war many times because of its rigid and sectarian-based constitutional system (created by the French for the purpose of making their presence indispensable). Bosnia would too (again), if it wasn't basically a protectorate under NATO/EU oversight. Both are pretty small countries, mind you, so where are you going to get the troops to keep the peace in a country as large as Syria?

 

[Tee Kay]

I said it would be the best-case scenario. I didn't say it was easy.

Forcing Assad to concede would require at least the withdrawal of Russian support for Assad. Or maybe he needs to be shot with RPG like Saleh. Neither is easy to achieve; then again, I don't expect them to be easy to achieve. It would require the West to grow a spine, among other things.

The easiest and most realistic option is of course to just let Assad II win, but personally I find it unappealing.

 

[Silurian]

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.

The Daily Star :: Lebanon News :: http://www.dailystar.com.lb

RIYADH: Saudi newspapers on Tuesday waged a scathing campaign against Iraq's Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki over his implicit criticism of the kingdom and Qatar for their calls to arm Syrian rebels.

"Gulf (states) should boycott Maliki and his government," wrote Tariq al-Homayed, the editor of Asharq al-Awsat, calling for the "punishment of all who stand with the tyrant of Damascus, first and foremost Maliki's government."

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Mi...-iraq-pm-over-syria-stance.ashx#ixzz1xIx27IUq
(The Daily Star :: Lebanon News :: http://www.dailystar.com.lb)


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.

 

[Snorrius]

The easiest and most realistic option is of course to just let Assad II win, but personally I find it unappealing.

Why? It is much more humane decision than to throw such big country to religious and revolutionary turmoil. We have seen what happen to Lybia and Iraq why we should support to humiliate and destroy another country?