nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Syria: What should the US do/not do?

Be like Nutella · 2013-05-05T12:41:44+00:00

Issues:* The possible use of chemical weapons. * The extremist groups within the anti-Assad side. * Whether to arm or not arm? * Can a No Fly Zone (NFZ) be instigated easily and maintained easily? * Should there be boots on the ground under any circumstances? * What would be the ultimate goal in getting further involved? *…

Be like Nutella

Issues:

The possible use of chemical weapons.
The extremist groups within the anti-Assad side.
Whether to arm or not arm?
Can a No Fly Zone (NFZ) be instigated easily and maintained easily?
Should there be boots on the ground under any circumstances?
What would be the ultimate goal in getting further involved?
If the US gets militarily involved is Syria just destined to become another drawn out Iraq? (where between 150,000-300,000 are deemed to have died since Saddam left power)

For my part I think the primary concern should be a global concern with the atrocities which have happened in the last 2 years and some kind of combined effort should be made by the international community to stop the bloodshed, get Assad and his guys out of power (by force) and get the Syrians to a table to build a new Syria. It may be 'pie in the sky' thinking to a large degree but that's what I think nonetheless.

The US should lead this effort and the primary goal should be a humanitarian one above everything else. Humanitarian first, then nation building contributions, democracy building over many years after that.

Build a coalition. Call him a war criminal. Give him an ultimatum to step aside, offer him and his people a safe haven if they leave without further bloodshed. Get the main anti-Assad parties together and do your best to convince them that none of them will have a majority and killing each other for decades isn't going to be any better than Syria under Assad. That's all you can do really.

But just watching these people massacre each other and risking a wider regional destabilization (which is already an issue) is no longer the smartest move. Doing nothing is now more dangerous.

This needs pro-action. Whatever action is chosen needs to be viewed as regionally popular (ignoring Iran which doesn't count as an opinion in this particular case). We need a US/European/Gulf partnership - they need to come together and put the cards on the table and choose a path forward - The primary goal needs to be a Humanitarian one - to stop Assad becoming more and more desperate killing more and more people with chemical and heavy weapons. There obviously needs to be a plan in place about how to deal with Al Qaeda who are present there already and will take years to root out.

There is no peace process potential in this between the lions (Assad) and the lambs. We're beyond that point. Assad and his Alawites are petrified they'll be killed, jailed, rounded up, dominated etc etc and they are right to be scared so whatever international coalition comes together needs to take care of these Alawites. There are 2.5 million of them in Syria - they have been the minority elite leadership for 40 years since Assad's father ruled and their time is over. They're out. Finding a way to assure their protection once Assad is gone is the key to this process.

I'm more than aware that atrocities have been carried out by both Assad's forces AND groups within the rising. But Assad has killed the vast majority of people and the vast majority of those people killed have been innocent civilians on which he has used the states military. He mowed down people protesting which started this whole thing.

70-80,000 have been killed so far in the 2 years since this kicked off. Obama is currently trying to make some space to make a decision about this thing by debating the accusations of Assad's use of chemical weapons on his own people i.e. moving his 'Red Line'. He'll be forced to make a decision soon enough because his credibility is coming under pressure what with the Iran thing and North Korea thing putting the global media spotlight on Obama's 'Balls'.

What's the thoughts? No point in abusing each other here or making sweeping statements about how evil the US is or is not, I just want to know what people think the US (with/without partners) could, should, should not do to help this thing?

Could be one of those Damned if ya do-Damned if ya don't kinda things but I just think the US has a leading role whether they like it or not and they'll be judged very harshly if they bottle it here. But I'm not necessarily saying that the US should send in its guys either. Clinton chose not to intervene in Rwanda in 94 and in 3 months more than half a million people were hacked to death by Machetes.

The US can do something here - it's just a matter of what to do?

Any opinions with Military insight would be appreciated also. i.e. the reality of instigating a NFZ, how many pieces involved in Assad's air force, air defenses and Radar, what weapons would be required, how long would such a campaign take to complete etc etc

Find more posts tagged with

obama

syria

assad

rising

nfz

Quick Links

Comments

cyberhog

Former White House national-security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski believes a wider war in Syria could be a "disaster" for the United States, but he says the average American can't grasp this perspective because he says the US is a country with "an extremely simplistic understanding of world affairs."

Read more: http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/brzezinski-the-syria-crisis-8636?page=1

clairefontaine

cyberhog wrote: »

Former White House national-security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski believes a wider war in Syria could be a "disaster" for the United States, but he says the average American can't grasp this perspective because he says the US is a country with "an extremely simplistic understanding of world affairs."

Read more: http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/brzezinski-the-syria-crisis-8636?page=1

I can understand why he says that.

On the other hand there have and continue to be some good public debates from subtle thinkers in many fields who are conjecturing on many possible outcomes.

The main problem is a strategy. They know how to bomb, they can target the sources of the weapons, but they can't to what's next, stabilise Syria.

So if the US goes in and loses, it will be a disaster.

Obama was an idiot with his red line comment and now he's going to double up on the stupidity.

Jonny7

clairefontaine wrote: »

So if the US goes in and loses, it will be a disaster.

Obama was an idiot with his red line comment and now he's going to double up on the stupidity.

It will be 2 or 3 days of tomahawk strikes - no one "goes in".

If one of those missiles hits a school or kills a bunch of people - then it will be seized upon and deemed a failure - it has that risk

smurfjed

The USA needs to pack up and go home...... they will never be accepted regardless of their good intentions. They can escape by calling for a Senate vote followed by an UN vote... then they just quietly go home. My heart bleeds for the Syrians caught up in this, i have friends who are unable to contact their families nor are they able to go home.

If a force is required to go in to Syria, make sure that its from the Islamic world.

Be like Nutella

unfortunately there is no force you could put together from the Islamic world with enough war time or power or numbers or sophistication which could enter Syria, beat Assad into submission, retain institutional integrity, build a democracy and protect the various minorities from massacre afterwards. The US could do it better than anyone else...but even then it would be messy obviously.

smurfjed

unfortunately there is no force you could put together from the Islamic world with enough war time or power or numbers or sophistication which could enter Syria, beat Assad into submission, retain institutional integrity, build a democracy and protect the various minorities from massacre afterwards.

Then let them lose. The US is not wanted in the Middle East and their own economy cannot support another war, so its time for them to walk away and let someone else fight for the Syrians.

Mr.Micro

smurfjed wrote: »

Then let them lose. The US is not wanted in the Middle East and their own economy cannot support another war, so its time for them to walk away and let someone else fight for the Syrians.

I do believe that 90% of Americans are opposed to intervention, heard it on some programme the other day. Obama clearly not worried about public image, as he is not for election again. May be more going on here than we know about. Assad should just **** off and do one decent thing in his life. It might spare any more suffering and death of Syrians.

smurfjed

Assad should just **** off and do one decent thing in his life. It might spare any more suffering and death of Syrians.

Do you really think that this is the solution?

I live close to Syria, have lots of female Syrian friends, they wouldnt agree with you idea. They have a hard time dealing with "cultural concepts" and have no desire to introduce "religious concepts".

Unfortunately Shia Sunny power struggles hurt everybody, not to mention the other religions in the country.

smurfjed

When we used to land in Damascus, the airport was filled with buried military tanks, you could only see the moveable turrets as they followed you. It will be a nasty war.

Be like Nutella

Syria accepts proposal to give up chemical weapons

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/middle-east/syria-accepts-proposal-to-give-up-chemical-weapons-1.1522399?page=2

ok fine do this... but the result of all this as we know now is that Assad's war efforts has now been justified and the international community has officially washed its hands of stepping in on behalf of the 50,000+ Syrian civilians who have died so far under any circumstances.
Russia will look like the peacemaker and the US will look weak. Whatever I don't care about that.
At least the chem weapons will be off the table. That is important but Assad will not have been punished materially which means he's won. He wasn't going to win his war using chem weapons. That was never the plan. He doesn't need them to massacre another 100-200,000 more rebels/civilians.

Russia has given Obama a way to not do the strikes and to protect the convention against chem weapons. But there is still the matter of punishment. Assad's forces committed a chem weapon massacre, a massive war crime and need to be punished in real terms. Obama will still demand this.

His punishment if not in the form of strikes now - will take the shape of increasing aid either from nonlethal to lethal or just by using some cleverspeak for 'we're now going to really give the rebels some serious kit' .

He can't really do the strikes now with this on the table. Assad and the Russians have pulled a clever one. Nobody predicted this as a viable option .... not one of the think tanks even thought this could happen, I've been following them closely. It's an interesting one. Wonder if it has legs. You'd have to think that Moscow came up with this move and got Assad on side. It's all very China/North Korea.

clairefontaine

Jonny7 wrote: »

It will be 2 or 3 days of tomahawk strikes - no one "goes in".

If one of those missiles hits a school or kills a bunch of people - then it will be seized upon and deemed a failure - it has that risk

They were talking about building safety zones for Syrians to go to. That means boots on the ground. Boots on the ground are unavoidable.

Jonny7

clairefontaine wrote: »

They were talking about building safety zones for Syrians to go to. That means boots on the ground. Boots on the ground are unavoidable.

They were talking about punitive strikes on Assad as punishment for the chemical weapon attack that took place (missile only strikes on military targets only - likely period 2/3 days)

The UK took a vote on it and it lost by 13 votes

France supported - but with reservations.

Congress and Senate were due to vote, but in the meantime Russia proposed an agreement with Syria to secure/remove Assad's chemical weapons - the US and EU have turned around and said they will back that plan

Therefore the proposed punitive strikes are on the back-boiler now, pending the outcome of the Russia plan (being implemented through the UN)

Some critics say Russia is just pulling a bluff stalling plan and were not expecting EU/US to actually call them on it - so now they are in a bit of a quandary - actually put the plan into effect OR stall/etc

No "boots on the ground" plan has been official put forward. Something like that is a long way off.

Jonny7

smurfjed wrote: »

Do you really think that this is the solution?

I live close to Syria, have lots of female Syrian friends, they wouldnt agree with you idea. They have a hard time dealing with "cultural concepts" and have no desire to introduce "religious concepts".

Unfortunately Shia Sunny power struggles hurt everybody, not to mention the other religions in the country.

Syria is run by an autocratic family with no desire for change, no tolerance for opposition and utterly no intentions of real elections.

Their only goal is self preservation at the cost of everyone else's

Assad was relatively popular, however he decided that instead of using water-cannons to sort protests - he would use real cannons.

Therein lies the problem, and the current nightmare we see has escalated from those decisions.

He could have stepped aside, appointed a deputy, adopted any number of peace plans or heaven ****ing forbid had a free and fair election

But since any of those options including his family stepping out of power - nope, civil war it was and all the horrors that come with such a conflict, including an influx of jihadist psychopaths, bandits, the ire of the intl. community, and the fracturing of Syrian society - he would rather rule a broken shattered wasteland than stand aside.

Welcome to a very long neverending lesson in history.. democracy for all it's flaws has been a system custom designed to stop the above repeating itself ad nausem.

Be like Nutella

Jonny7 wrote: »

democracy for all it's flaws has been a system custom designed to stop the above repeating itself ad nausem.

here here and to that end Democracy seems to work...

but its 2 apparent flaws are

1) The ability to lobby politicians with huge sums of cash absolutely guarantees that the interests of a few powerful groups like Big Oil or Big Pharma and the interests of very rich private individuals like the Koch brothers are put before the interests of the many and nothing will ever change that nor can it.

2) Political Dynasties and Career politicians that rot the spirit of what is supposed to be a democratic republic. They say the problem lies more with voters than candidates - the well-connected person stands a better chance of winning elected office than the better-suited person but I disagree in the way I blame the banks for the crisis - the game is rigged in their favor - 'they' understand how to game the system- how to get the votes they need - more than we (on average) understand how they do it!

These are the two problems democracy produces which pollutes the entire process forever. You're never gona beat the corporation and you're never going to entice enough young people into politics. I was in a class of 92 students, one of them had a small go at politics.

Democracy doesn't work a lot of the time but its the best idea we've got.

esteve

Be like Nutella wrote: »

Democracy doesn't work a lot of the time but its the best idea we've got.

Thats only if you really believe we live in a democratic society. If you were to study Political Theory at university, they would tell you in fact our system is a lot more plutocratic than democratic. I think democracy sounds great, but we are very far from it.

I have a problem though, when people say this system is the best we have got, because this is completely subjective. For me, i think this system is great, i can sit here on the internet, debate these type of things, i have been educated, i have travelled, experienced so many cultures. However, for the vast majority of the people on this planet, if you ask them what they think of the current system, i think it is obvious what the response will be. If you were to have a global poll on the current system, its impossible to say, but i think its pretty obvious most people would say there has to be something better, and this cannot be the best we have got.

Be like Nutella

esteve wrote: »

our system is a lot more plutocratic than democratic

The Irish experience of democracy and the American experience is totally different as is the French and the Russian. Yes Ireland's system is less corrupt, much smaller and more transparent and we would have some nerve to gripe about our level of social freedom compared to a billion who live in Africa's emerging democracies or the vastly corrupt states in South America.

Democracy is an ideal, a goal... it's clear that humanity doesn't allow it to reach its potential because we are flawed. Many slaves wish not to be free, but to become the slave owner. But our good parts outweigh our bad sides hence evil is rare but it exists. Most people don't want to fuk everybody else over to get rich or attain power but some do and will. That is part of humanity and will never change.
Democracy gives us the freedom to be as good or bad as we are, as stupid or selfish or benevolent as we want.

The problem is that the playing field is not even - between selfish and good or power crazed and benevolent politics. Dynasties form, corporations become bigger than states, lobbying allows you to rig the game... and unfortunately there will always be those who are clever and driven towards wealth and power so much they will invent new ways to corrupt the system no matter what we do. We are Ying and Yang and we will always fight against our lesser nature and democracy or attempts at it and use law and structure and voting in some kind of effort to at least give us some pitiful chance in the fight.

History shows us that when push comes to shove humanity will stand up and die in millions to prevent totalitarianism. This is our last barrier. Those who would do evil for power and wealth and legacy are not usually willing to go that far hence the Hitlers and Kim Jun Ils of this world are very rare. The rest of the bad fukers out there are somewhere in between. They use lawyers, tax evasion, lobbying, media manipulation, connections and cut-throat business practice to get what they want and those willing to do that usually get it in the end because free market capitalism is an unspoken-about trade off involving money and power in society. With a lot of money you can have a lot of power in society, with some money you can have a middle class life and all that comes with that... and the trade off is - you get less power in the game. Most people just get a vote now and then. Some people can pick up a phone and change society with their power and money.

Order - is the key. Democracy in its very structure, the way it at least makes us 'feel' we have a part in the system and its ability to at least on some level distribute wealth, in some countries better than others, maintains order by and large, keeping enough people happy enough of the time not to hit the streets and start wreckin sh1t. It's a see-saw of wealth distribution, freedom of opportunity and the attempt to apply law to everyone equally which of course is a complete farce in so many cases.

The whole thing is an 'effort'... a last option... in a world of 7 billion and a global wish to never see the days of all out war again. We try and fix it all the time and some people will constantly wreck it all the time. I don't know do the poor get poorer but the rich get richer that's for damn sure. The wealth of the top 1000 richest people on earth, men who could fit in one large conference room, could feed every starving human on earth. 1000 feed 2 Billion. But a lot of those men would rather buy a 64th Ferrari right? Does that make them evil? not really, just rich a$$holes and just part of humanity and we'll always be like that. Democracy allows it as it should. We hold out hope that more of these rich a$$holes will go Bill Gates and Warren Buffets way and try and turn things around a bit. Democracy as an anti-thesis to totalitarianism allows groups to form to battle against inequalities and evils in society in the world and as hilariously mismatched as they are - at least there is a fight.

It is not a great idea in reality it's a fuk up in so much of the world outside of Ireland yeah damn straight.

Things only change when they hit a wall, like biological evolution - what is the reason to change? The Rabbit hears the fox because most of his distant ancestors were killed when they could not... his hearing is great now - change in the right direction. But the fox is smarter and uses strategy because he has higher thinking abilities the rabbit does not. Most of society wish the democratic system to protect their interests and their rights and freedoms but the rich powerful selfish power hungry foxes use their higher-wealth to outfox the system and so power and money remain intertwined.

The limits to democracy's ability to retain relative order in society will only be reached when the rich become so greedy and the poor so angry that we all stop sharing, stop adhering to the system, stop obeying laws and stop paying tax and start rioting and corruption explodes. Cue dystopian imagery.
The only thing which keeps us from the edge of this theoretical abyss which risks throwing away the very nature of civilization itself is our 'belief' that the world can continue to support us and that we can always invent our way out of problems, fresh water supply, power generation, transport, maintaining order in global commerce, adjusting to weather etc..
Democracy is a flawed belief in the better side of humanity. But it IS the best idea we've come up with.
Humanity doesn't allow for Utopia, Humanity doesn't allow for Totalitarianism, Humanity WILL GAME any attempts at democracy anywhere to a degree but as long as we stay the course and let the selfish rich fuk us over then we maintain the game, the system, the order because the alternative is ... well.... hitting the reset button. The irony in hitting the reset button is that we would kill each other for resources (some argue we are already) and we'd end up back at this point again at some point in the future.. maybe with some lessons learned.

Order out of Chaos, Ying and Yang, Light and Dark.... Humanity will always be both.

realitykeeper

I think the notion of the good guys vs the bad guys is unhelpful. There is good and evil on both sides of any argument. So the trick in diplomacy is not to pick a side but to choose good over evil and stick to that resolve. I think Obama should try talking peace to both the Assad regime and the rebels instead of threatening one side in the conflict. It is very possible that Assad did use chemical weapons and killed those children as a response to the escalating situation in Syria, so with hindsight it was a mistake not to try winning the peace through non partisan dialogue. Dialogue need not be confined to the rulers of a country or a rebel group - it can be directed at an entire population. Trying to influence another country`s population is however a delicate matter. The focus should be on things like our common humanity and winning genuine friendship. It should not simply be about undermining a tyrant because that strategy can backfire.
If time were rewound to 1939, with hindsight, could ww2 have been avoided at that late stage with the belligerent Hitler at the height of his power and poised to start his war? The answer I think lies in recognizing the genuine grievances that the Germans had about the treaty of Versailles and the subsequent effect it had on their country. Sometimes it is necessary to undercut a belligerent leader by winning the hearts and minds of those who support him (and those who oppose him.)

Norwesterner

Mr.Micro wrote: »

I do believe that 90% of Americans are opposed to intervention, heard it on some programme the other day. Obama clearly not worried about public image, as he is not for election again. May be more going on here than we know about. Assad should just **** off and do one decent thing in his life. It might spare any more suffering and death of Syrians.

The Syrian people elected Assad (9 million votes)
He said he will leave the stage when the Syrian people decide so. Who do you have in mind to replace him.....providing the Syrian people agree with you of course.
The West recognised one guy as the "Prime Minister" of Syria. He got 35 votes in a secret ballot in Turkey, was an I.T technician from Texas, and didn't even have a Syrian passport.

Who are you to decide who should rule Syria? That is for the Syrian people.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/mar/19/syrian-opposition-hitto-prime-minister
And they have chosen Assad.

Norwesterner

Jonny7 wrote: »

Syria is run by an autocratic family with no desire for change, no tolerance for opposition and utterly no intentions of real elections.

Their only goal is self preservation at the cost of everyone else's

Assad was relatively popular, however he decided that instead of using water-cannons to sort protests - he would use real cannons.

Therein lies the problem, and the current nightmare we see has escalated from those decisions.

He could have stepped aside, appointed a deputy, adopted any number of peace plans or heaven ****ing forbid had a free and fair election

But since any of those options including his family stepping out of power - nope, civil war it was and all the horrors that come with such a conflict, including an influx of jihadist psychopaths, bandits, the ire of the intl. community, and the fracturing of Syrian society - he would rather rule a broken shattered wasteland than stand aside.

Welcome to a very long neverending lesson in history.. democracy for all it's flaws has been a system custom designed to stop the above repeating itself ad nausem.

You know nothing of "lessons in history".
The Islamic fundamentalists have been setting off car-bombs and massacring Syrian soldiers since the Mid-70's when Bashar was a child.
It has nothing to do with removing Bashar. If so why attack Kurdish villages, Christian towns, Lebanese citizens....where is the link?
This is a conflict with fundamentalists who see secularism and democracy as Un-Islamic.
The people voted time after time that they didn't want to be ruled by the Muslim Brotherhood or Salafists.
There is another election next year.
The Salafists can out their man forward and we'll all have a laugh at their pathetic support base. Assad would beat any one of their candidates.
Syrians want to live in peace with their neighbours irregardless of creed, culture or ethnicity.
If you support regime change in Syria, then support the same in Mali, Yemen, Iraq, Pakistan, or Somalia.

cyberhog

A new report has found that almost half of all rebels in Syria are jihadists and hardline Islamists.

The new study by IHS Jane's, a defence consultancy, estimates there are around 10,000 jihadists - who would include foreign fighters - fighting for powerful factions linked to al-Qaeda..

Another 30,000 to 35,000 are hardline Islamists who share much of the outlook of the jihadists, but are focused purely on the Syrian war rather than a wider international struggle.

There are also at least a further 30,000 moderates belonging to groups that have an Islamic character, meaning only a small minority of the rebels are linked to secular or purely nationalist groups.

The stark assessment, to be published later this week, accords with the view of Western diplomats estimate that less than one third of the opposition forces are "palatable" to Britain, while American envoys put the figure even lower.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10311007/Syria-nearly-half-rebel-fighters-are-jihadists-or-hardline-Islamists-says-IHS-Janes-report.html

CS Hasuki

Reality check: The USA are now the bad guys.

LOL at the outrage @ chemical weapon use.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXlFDDAIlyU&feature=c4-overview&list=UUpwvZwUam-URkxB7g4USKpg

InTheTrees

Norwesterner wrote: »

Syrians want to live in peace with their neighbours irregardless of creed, culture or ethnicity.

...except for Israel right? Or when Lebanon steps out of line...

CS Hasuki

InTheTrees wrote: »

...except for Israel right? Or when Lebanon steps out of line...

Last time I checked, Israel were bombing Syria and Hezbollah is helping Assad fight CIA backed Alqaeda.

Jonny7

Norwesterner wrote: »

If you support regime change in Syria, then support the same in Mali, Yemen, Iraq, Pakistan, or Somalia.

Yes I do.

I don't simply "support" things because I am cynical of a particular country. Nor do I deliberate distort international events to suit such a political agenda.

Assad without any foreign interference spent months violently suppressing protests - which has lead to the current situation.

Jonny7

CS Hasuki wrote: »

Last time I checked, Israel were bombing Syria and Hezbollah is helping Assad fight CIA backed Alqaeda.

lol

dublinbhoy88

Jonny7 wrote: »

lol

the terrorist state of Israel is no laughing matter

Jonny7

dublinbhoy88 wrote: »

the terrorist state of Israel is no laughing matter

Inventing tenuous links to endlessly malign country A and B is.

dublinbhoy88

Jonny7 wrote: »

Inventing tenuous links to endlessly malign country A and B is.

If you want the USA to attack Syria because of the crimes of its leader them I take it you would like the USA to attack Israel on the same grounds?

nagilum2

dublinbhoy88 wrote: »

If you want the USA to attack Syria because of the crimes of its leader them I take it you would like the USA to attack Israel on the same grounds?

what grounds are similar??

(note: I do NOT think the US should get involved in Syria)

Jonny7

dublinbhoy88 wrote: »

If you want the USA to attack Syria because of the crimes of its leader them I take it you would like the USA to attack Israel on the same grounds?

Don't presume my position and secondly you are grossly over simplifying a situation based on your own views and beliefs.