Should Obama kill Bashar Assad?

Today

"That is why I believe the Security Council simply cannot continue to say: 'We are in disagreement, therefore let's wait for better times.' I think they have to grapple with this problem now."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-21255536

That's UN-Arab League envoy Lakhdar Brahimi himself basically saying: I give up there's fuk all we can do simply talking to these guys - let's just get together those willing to do something and do something before all infrastructure and institutions and any semblance of a state is destroyed in genocidal carnage.... forget China and Russia's sitting on the fence.


Personally at this point I would jump in with massive arms support and a no fly zone and secure the chem weapons and form an alliance of those willing to act and get it done even it meant limited boots on ground because there is already an extremist islamic issue going to continue with various groups and AQ in this area for the next few years at least anyway - whether people jump in now or not. The innocent non-combatant population of Syria deserve international help. There's already 700,000 having left Syria - they may never return unless there's movement even towards a conclusion to this thing soon.

It's only complicated if you believe that nothing should be done. At the end of the day the Assad Alawite leadership needs to fall and the country needs a new government... what happens after that is better than what is happening and unfolding right now... this can jump up at least two more levels in magnitude before there's an end in sight - it's not too late to have a determining impact on this situation... and it is quickly becoming an international moral imperative from which Russia and the US and France and the UK will NEVER recover from in the history books, ever... just like Rwanda.

International order - the whole project towards order and grouping for good reason and post world war internationalism is dependent on certain moral imperatives and the prime example is World War 2 itself. It has to be. There has to be an overarching 'unwritten rule of humanity' amongst the worlds nations that when something this blatantly horrific unfolds that between the world greatest nations there will be help - through power - or else power is worthless and that these nations represent nothing but empty promise and lies and that everything else they say about freedom and development has no basis - no value when not supported by action in the real world. A measure of how far we've come as humanity. Hitler took a global effort to beat down and defeat and it was in everyone's interest. This Syria thing could ignite so much chaos in such a wide region and may take so little material help (in comparison to things like Desert Storm) and offer so much opportunity - it's a no brainer in a lot of ways. Waiting for the next jump in severity of horror is immoral and does not serve the US's best interests. It is becoming a binary choice.

"...The United States can’t afford to stay on the sidelines. A failed state in Syria is likely to spill over into Iraq and Lebanon and spur debilitating refugee flows to Turkey and other neighbors. It will intensify a proxy war between Saudi Arabia, its Gulf allies and Iran. A Syrian collapse would create a fundamentalist threat to Israel’s sense of security and heighten the danger of miscalculation or conflict...."

"...The administration must play a more active role in coordinating arms deliveries from third countries to ensure they reach secular elements of the opposition who will not turn on us after they win. The United States should also provide its own arms, training and intelligence, helping to ensure that we become a sought-after partner, with commensurate influence...."


http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-07-13/opinions/35487304_1_syrian-opposition-syrian-army-assad-regime


"...First, American intervention would diminish Iran’s influence in the Arab world. Iran has showered aid on Syria and even sent advisers from its Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps to assist Mr. Assad. Iran knows that if his regime fell, it would lose its most important base in the Arab world and a supply line to pro-Iranian Hezbollah militants in Lebanon. ..."

"...a more muscular American policy could keep the conflict from spreading. Syria’s civil war has already exacerbated sectarian strife in Lebanon and Iraq — and the Turkish government has accused Mr. Assad of supporting Kurdish militants in order to inflame tensions between the Kurds and Turkey. ..."

"...American leadership on Syria could improve relations with key allies like Turkey and Qatar. Both the Turkish prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and his Qatari counterpart have criticized the United States for offering only nonlethal support to the rebellion. Both favor establishing a no-fly zone and “safe zones” for civilians in Syrian territory. ..."

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/27/opinion/5-reasons-to-intervene-in-syria-now.html?_r=0

OBAMA

"...Preventing mass atrocities and genocide is a core national security interest and a core moral responsibility of the United States. Our security is affected when masses of civilians are slaughtered, refugees flow across borders, and murderers wreak havoc on regional stability and livelihoods. America's reputation suffers, and our ability to bring about change is constrained, when we are perceived as idle in the face of mass atrocities and genocide. Unfortunately, history has taught us that our pursuit of a world where states do not systematically slaughter civilians will not come to fruition without concerted and coordinated effort...."

WELL THEN - DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!!!

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/04/23/fact-sheet-comprehensive-strategy-and-new-tools-prevent-and-respond-atro

I don't care who does it ... a drone, a Syrian... an Eskimo... this guy has to be stopped sooner rather than later.

I'm not against drones 'entirely'. I'm just against the immoral use of weapons and the ignorant 'rushing into' a whole new paradigm in warfare which changes everything ... as drones clearly do... and will do into the future, without the proper internationally enforceable legal structure to regulate their use. If a drone was used to find a lost child or map out forest fires or find and kill Joseph Kony or something as simple and moral as that then I'd have no complaints. Like I said this thread was more to start a reasonable debate about what to do about Syria and not merely to prescribe assassins to take out Assad.. (which is only one large part of the equation).. although if I'm being honest I'd take the shot myself at this stage if I thought it would avert 100,000 more dead innocent Syrian civilians by causing massive defections and greatly empowering the rising towards a short or medium term path to victory. The case for killing Assad, NOT for what he has done... I don't believe in the DEATH penalty, but to prevent him from personally causing FURTHER massive scale bloodshed, is open and shut in my view. He is responsible for 30,000-50,000 dead Syrians and he will not stop killing. He is a smart logical thinker and he will play the international community off each other while he restricts his killing to a level just 'beneath' forcing Obama's hand... and he will continue that ploy for as long he believes it will take, no mater how many Syrian civilians have to die. That is the equation ... simple as that. Answer: Kill him, arm the rebels massively, incite massive defections, bring this thing to an end as quick as possible using all creative avenues if possible barring boots on the ground... and work out what to do with the aftermath. Primary goal: Stop Assad killing thousands of civilians. I don't care who does it I just know realistically that the US is the only one that can execute this thing properly in that region in terms of resources and hardware and technical know-how, experience, personnel, aircraft, supplies, carrier groups etc etc etc etc.... remember the US military budget is larger than the next 25 countries combined ! It is NOT a question of who else can do this? It is a fact that the US CAN do this... and can do this quite quickly and effectively compared to any other force or combination of forces you choose - NATO IS AMERICA! The International community IS America, the WEST IS America - militarily speaking.

hahaha yeah I suppose it does seem I'm being schizo a bit .. but you know what I mean.. stepping in for the Syrian people and doing the moral thing with the power you got is a lot different then removing one dictator to put another one in power which gives you access to oil (i.e. Iran). And yes the IRA showed the entire middle east how to make IED's on the cheap... not one our proudest legacies... but that was the actions of a terrorist organization at that point... one with which most Irish people would not have supported in their violence at that time. There's a big difference between what I am asking the US to do in Syria then what Dick Cheney cheated you into doing in Iraq. I know most American's want the US to retract it's testicles and focus on the domestic situation i.e. nation building at home as Obama said in his speech but IMO you can't pick and choose with these things - you either have the power to do something or you don't and if you do then it is incumbent on you to do the right thing... and in this case the right thing to do is to prevent hundreds of thousands of Syrian civilians from being massacred by Assad... which will take the US (in conjunction with partners) to impose a no fly zone, give the rebels serious weaponry and urge Assad to step aside and use creative channels to cause defections and secure the chemical stockpiles... it's all obvious.