The Syrian crisis - what should be done?

[the_kaz]

In recent days, I’ve been finding that the mainstream news has been pushing the “humanitarian intervention” argument for military intervention in Syria very hard. The newspapers have gone from being cautious about pinning the blame of the chemical attacks on either the side of the government or on the opposition, to almost unanimously blaming the government. When Syria’s second closest ally, Vladimir Putin, asked why Bashar al-Assad would use chemical weapons on his own people while the UN inspectors were around, knowing full well that he’d be “crossing a red line” if he did so, the mainstream media seemed to portray his quite reasonable question as some kind of petty delusion. What’s less well known is that recently leaked Stratfor emails, revealed by Wikileaks, show that US, British and French military officials have been waiting since 2011 to attack Syria, and that they have been looking for "some humanitarian outrage to hook it all on to, and we have seen that… For sure [the humanitarian outrage] has now been taken advantage of. These countries never really gave a damn about Syrians before" (Julian Assange’s words, from his recent interview with Ron Paul: http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2013/08/30/ron-paul-julian-assange-syria ). The US and its allies have been insisting that intervention in Syria would involve “tactical strikes”, that it won’t be prolonged, “boots won’t touch the ground”, and that they’re not looking for regime change (exactly the same things they said about Libya, and look what happened there), but are these realistic promises? And what happens after the al-Assad government inevitably falls, and various factions and competing ideologies (including al-Queda and other jihadi groups) compete to fill the void?

I’m a British-born Syrian with a lot of family in Syria, and I have family in favour of both arguments regarding military intervention, reflective of the divided mentality of Syrians in general during this crisis. I have no family or Syrian friends who are naïve enough to believe that the US and its allies wish to intervene for purely ethical and humanitarian reasons, but who nonetheless believe that military intervention is the only way to stop al-Assad from killing his own people. On the other hand, I have family and friends who, like myself, aren’t convinced that Assad used the weapons in the first place, and are extremely worried about the potential of Saudi funded Islamists flooding the Syrian political landscape post-Assad, prolonging the civil war and making Syria’s future seem even bleaker.

I’m curious what other people think, especially people who aren’t as emotionally tied into these events as I am and can analyse the situation from the outside. On the one hand, the idea of “tactical strikes” against chemical weapons factories seems like a good idea, regardless of the US and its allies true motives (whatever they may be), but historical precedence shows us that the US can’t deliver this in the Middle East. On the other hand, strikes against Syria could be (and probably are) playing into the hands of extremist elements within the opposition, and those funding them, who have been salivating over the thought of US-led intervention since the beginning of this crisis. Then you factor in the further instability military strikes could create in the region, with regards to Iran and Israel, and the further regional powers who could be dragged in, like Russia and possibly China, and it seems like this is the ultimate disaster in the making.

 

[Oh my god. it's Robby!]

nice poll and post Kaz, I am an American vet who fought in the "1st Gulf War" when Syria was actually on our side
I was against the 2003 invasion of Iraq and believe it to be one of the great tragedies of the 21st century
however, helping to overthrow Assad just feels like the right thing to do, cannot really explain why
maybe its just because I trust Obama more to do the right thing than I ever would Bush II...

 

[realitybites]

In recent days, I’ve been finding that the mainstream news has been pushing the “humanitarian intervention” argument for military intervention in Syria very hard. The newspapers have gone from being cautious about pinning the blame of the chemical attacks on either the side of the government or on the opposition, to almost unanimously blaming the government. When Syria’s second closest ally, Vladimir Putin, asked why Bashar al-Assad would use chemical weapons on his own people while the UN inspectors were around, knowing full well that he’d be “crossing a red line” if he did so, the mainstream media seemed to portray his quite reasonable question as some kind of petty delusion. What’s less well known is that recently leaked Stratfor emails, revealed by Wikileaks, show that US, British and French military officials have been waiting since 2011 to attack Syria, and that they have been looking for "some humanitarian outrage to hook it all on to, and we have seen that… For sure [the humanitarian outrage] has now been taken advantage of. These countries never really gave a damn about Syrians before" (Julian Assange’s words, from his recent interview with Ron Paul: http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/washington-whispers/2013/08/30/ron-paul-julian-assange-syria ). The US and its allies have been insisting that intervention in Syria would involve “tactical strikes”, that it won’t be prolonged, “boots won’t touch the ground”, and that they’re not looking for regime change (exactly the same things they said about Libya, and look what happened there), but are these realistic promises? And what happens after the al-Assad government inevitably falls, and various factions and competing ideologies (including al-Queda and other jihadi groups) compete to fill the void?

I’m a British-born Syrian with a lot of family in Syria, and I have family in favour of both arguments regarding military intervention, reflective of the divided mentality of Syrians in general during this crisis. I have no family or Syrian friends who are naïve enough to believe that the US and its allies wish to intervene for purely ethical and humanitarian reasons, but who nonetheless believe that military intervention is the only way to stop al-Assad from killing his own people. On the other hand, I have family and friends who, like myself, aren’t convinced that Assad used the weapons in the first place, and are extremely worried about the potential of Saudi funded Islamists flooding the Syrian political landscape post-Assad, prolonging the civil war and making Syria’s future seem even bleaker.

I’m curious what other people think, especially people who aren’t as emotionally tied into these events as I am and can analyse the situation from the outside. On the one hand, the idea of “tactical strikes” against chemical weapons factories seems like a good idea, regardless of the US and its allies true motives (whatever they may be), but historical precedence shows us that the US can’t deliver this in the Middle East. On the other hand, strikes against Syria could be (and probably are) playing into the hands of extremist elements within the opposition, and those funding them, who have been salivating over the thought of US-led intervention since the beginning of this crisis. Then you factor in the further instability military strikes could create in the region, with regards to Iran and Israel, and the further regional powers who could be dragged in, like Russia and possibly China, and it seems like this is the ultimate disaster in the making.

I think the US feels it must send a message... that is what the strikes would be about. It would be more symbolic than anything. Let Assasd--and more importantly the world--know that we will not tolerate the use of chemical weapons. Does the US really think taking out the weapons facilities will do anything practical in the long run? No. There are more weapons somewhere, I am sure. Or they could easily be manufactured again. It's not like nukes where you need rare materials and time to build an arsenal.

The US has failed to act in the past. Nazi Germany... at the beginning... when millions were being slaughtered. And then Bosnia... look what that did to Clinton's reputation. Obama doesn't want to be the president who failed to act when he could have. Though it seems a little late now. Later is better than never?

I am concerned about how a strike will effect Israel. Iran is in bed with Syria. I am sitting on the edge of my seat, biting my nails. If Iran does nothing after we strike Syria, will they then be seen as the boy who cried wolf? Empty threats. It seems to be a game of following through on threats. And not much more.

Apparently two million people have left Syria. Is you family making any efforts to leave?

I didn't vote, btw.

 

[Johnny Barleycorn]

A view from the UK...

I was pleasantly surprised by the decision of Parliament to not participate in military action, and impressed by Cameron's "Well, that's that." However, I'm sure the British government are having meetings day and night to see how they can bend the rules and get involved.

What is happening there is a tragedy, but it's part of a wider Sunni versus Shia struggle for power across the region. Both sides loathe us equally, so I find myself wondering what Churchill might have done if our enemies were killing each other. He'd have let them, and deal with what's left. It does appear that the moment the tyrant's boot is removed from these peoples' necks chaos ensues. It proves that the decision by the great powers to tacitly support or leave in place those assorted psychopaths was in fact correct.

Anyone who visits Live Leak will know that there are no good guys and bad guys in this. There is bad and worse, and frankly it's the FSA who are the latter.

I'm bound to mention, by the way, that the British are doubtful about this escapade for a very, very good reason. The last time we listened to facts from the CIA and the Pentagon they turned out to be somewhat incorrect. My instinct is that the FSA know more about this attack than they are letting on, and I note the mood music from certain quarters in Washington already appears to suggest a degree of mission creep.

We are, and should continue to send humanitarian aid to those who need it, but as for direct action, no.

 

[billybu69]

Another view from the UK

We're a small insignificant island just to the west of europe, and i'm sick of the powers that be getting involved in the rest of the worlds bitchings, why is it always the American and British are considering getting involved in some half wit nations pissing contest? No other Country anywhere are threatening to get involved, because as has been stated in previous posts Shia v Sunni? devil or deep blue sea, they all hate everyone who isn't of there particular creed, until it i suits we're loosing and we don't like it.Help us out its terrible they're shooting at us. Particularly true of this particular Fracass beat down the government have it replaced by religeous entities who have no right involving themselves in politics any way, and open the door to fundamentalist regimes who 10 years down the line harbour the lunatic fringe bombing planes and embassys, because the people who work there eat bacon butties.

Sorry but no not this time had enough.

 

[Kewpie]

I cannot remember the exact words, but during his tour in Japan last year Morrissey mentioned about Syrian crisis.

The audience didn't know how to respond it.

Although I really feel sorry for the innocent civilians, but it's rather tricky to take military intervention.

 

[Johnny Barleycorn]

John McCain plays poker while attending a Senate hearing on action in Syria. And some say Americans don't do irony.

 

[CrystalGeezer]

http://www.latimes.com/world/worldn...ilitary-strike-syria-20130904,0,7238618.story

It's happening.

 

[DAVIE]

Myself, I think Britain should stay away. It's up to other countries if they want to go in and cause havoc, but Britain shouldn't have to follow certain countries like some weepy sidekick.

 

[Qvist]

I do not think anyone has a basis for a firm opinion one way or the other, to be quite honest. The chemical weapons issue is fundamentally uncertain as far as I can judge, and will likely remain so. No one can judge with any certainty what the result will be of intervening militarily in Syria, nor what the result will be of letting things coninue to run their course without intervention. There is I think a strong case to justify intervention on a humanitarian basis (for all those who have figured out that that does not in fact mean that all concerned act purely out of altruistic motives). I do not think anyone is looking for an excuse to attack Syria - something from which there is nothing to gain other than bringing the current mess to some sort of end. But the question is if such an intervention will make things better, or worse. That is nearly always an imponderable, and this one has so many unknowns and so many potential and unpredictable repercussions that it is much worse than usual.

 

[the_kaz]

My thoughts are quite similar to Qvist's on this. I think the argument for humanitarian intervention is legitimate, and the idea of tactical strikes against specific installations and an "in/out" policy certainly makes sense in theory. But the reality is that there is an extremely delicate situation in Syria, far more complicated than that of Libya, where any kind of foreign military intervention could inflame the civil war and runs a genuine risk of embroiling other countries in the region, such as Israel and Lebanon. Furthermore, we're all basing our assumptions on the shaky argument that President Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons against his own people in the first place. For him to have done that, the Assad regime would either have to be suicidal, or extremely calculating in gambling that the US wouldn't respond, and the history of this uprising has shown that they are not. Considering that al-Assad has been doing a fine job of killing his own people without crossing that "red line" he was warned repeatedly not to tread, it seems like he had nothing whatsoever to gain from this action, and everything to loose. The opposition, on the other hand, had everything to gain, while the growing extremist elements within that movement have proven themselves time and time again to be so vile and inhumane that wouldn't hesitate to do it given the chance. I'm not saying that this is definitely what happened, and I wouldn't entirely put it past a tyrant like Assad, but the fact is that we don't know what really happened, and we probably never will.

Apparently two million people have left Syria. Is you family making any efforts to leave?

Leaving is a lot easier said than done. You need money and health to do that, and then the best that you can hope for after risking your life is to end up in a refugee camp somewhere. That said though, I think most of the young and able people I've spoken to in Syria would prefer that to what they're enduring now, but I only have one cousin so far who's taken that plunge.

I cannot remember the exact words, but during his tour in Japan last year Morrissey mentioned about Syrian crisis.

I'd like to know what Morrissey's thoughts on this are, if a link exists to it online.

 

[realitybites]

Leaving is a lot easier said than done. You need money and health to do that, and then the best that you can hope for after risking your life is to end up in a refugee camp somewhere. That said though, I think most of the young and able people I've spoken to in Syria would prefer that to what they're enduring now, but I only have one cousin so far who's taken that plunge.

Yes, it cannot be an easy decision. Or even possible for so many. I hope your family remains safe.

 

[Johnny Barleycorn]

I'd like to know what Morrissey's thoughts on this are, if a link exists to it online.

Dunno what he said on stage in Japan but speaking to Juice magazine in Singapore last June he said...

“Like many people I’m currently preoccupied with Syria, and at the uselessness of the United Nations. who don’t appear to unite any nations. But whether it’s Assad in Syria, or the British so-called royals, all world leaders are dictatorships, and from what we’ve seen in the middle east, they will all not hesitate to turn the tanks onto their own people should anyone question their morality.”

Essentially another excuse to attack Britain, really. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

Apparently his mannequins have also been made to wear "Assad Is Shit" shirts.

 

[Qvist]

Dunno what he said on stage in Japan but speaking to Juice magazine in Singapore last June he said...

“Like many people I’m currently preoccupied with Syria, and at the uselessness of the United Nations. who don’t appear to unite any nations. But whether it’s Assad in Syria, or the British so-called royals, all world leaders are dictatorships, and from what we’ve seen in the middle east, they will all not hesitate to turn the tanks onto their own people should anyone question their morality.”

Essentially another excuse to attack Britain, really. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

Apparently his mannequins have also been made to wear "Assad Is Shit" shirts.

He really should stay out iof politics. He is so obviously and embarrasingly unequipped for it.

 

[CrystalGeezer]

This is creepy. Assad's wife is pretending like everything is fine. (ANd yes I have a f***ing yahoo account and read their lame news on occasion, I never got around to getting a real one. )

http://shine.yahoo.com/healthy-livi...yrian-first-lady-asma-al-assad-193241101.html

 

[Johnny Barleycorn]

This is creepy. Assad's wife is pretending like everything is fine. (ANd yes I have a f***ing yahoo account and read their lame news on occasion, I never got around to getting a real one. )

http://shine.yahoo.com/healthy-livi...yrian-first-lady-asma-al-assad-193241101.html

Owner of the world's most expensive go-bag.

 

[CrystalGeezer]

Owner of the world's most expensive go-bag.

Yeah no kidding.

 

[Anonymous]

Since the syrians have a bad rep around here where I live I could not care less tbh. I feel the country got what it deserved for being the center of terrorism for God knows how long. They should deal with their own problems as a sovereign state.

 

[the_kaz]

Yes, it cannot be an easy decision. Or even possible for so many. I hope your family remains safe.

Thanks. It means a lot to me that there are people as far away as America who care about what's going on.

“Like many people I’m currently preoccupied with Syria, and at the uselessness of the United Nations. who don’t appear to unite any nations. But whether it’s Assad in Syria, or the British so-called royals, all world leaders are dictatorships, and from what we’ve seen in the middle east, they will all not hesitate to turn the tanks onto their own people should anyone question their morality.”

Essentially another excuse to attack Britain, really. Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

Apparently his mannequins have also been made to wear "Assad Is Shit" shirts.

I'd forgotten about that! Here I was hoping for a witty and intelligent insight... I'm a republican too, but that was just an idiotic statement.

This is creepy. Assad's wife is pretending like everything is fine.[/url]

Asma al-Assad is a deluded idiot. All evidence (from your link and elsewhere) shows that she actually believes that everything really is fine, and has completely lost her grasp on reality. Part of the reason why the West initially so excited when Bashar al-Assad took over from his father was because of her, as she's an intelligent progressive, completely secular, British woman from a well respected family, but it didn't take too long for everyone to realise that she's living in her own little world. She's a disgusting creature.

I feel the country got what it deserved for being the center of terrorism for God knows how long. They should deal with their own problems as a sovereign state.

"Center of terrorism"? I'm sorry, but you're clearly ignorant on this subject. Before all of this chaos kicked off, Syria was a liberal and secular country, where religious and sectarian violence was unheard of. Not only did Sunnis and Shiites get along, go to school together, and often make friends with one another regardless of religion, but so did Muslims and Jews (yes, Jews lived in Syria before this madness started, and possibly still do), Christians and Druze, etc. There was probably a 50/50 split in women who chose to wear a veil and those who didn't, while covered young Muslim women would ususally wear colourful headscarves to match their fashionable clothes, talk to men in public, and get good jobs. Education was excellent for the region, there was little stigma against atheists and even gays were tolerated, young people were westernised and dreamed of living in the US and Britain, and terrorism was something you only heard of from other countries. Your confusion might come from the fact that Bashar al-Assad allowed terrorists from other countries to go through Syria to help destabalise Iraq (a policy which has since come back to bite him on the arse, because it made it easy for outside extremists to enter Syria and destabalise it from within after the uprisings started), but Syrian terrorism has always been a marginal and localised issue, purely directed towards the Syrian government (for example, Muslim Brotherhood offshoots who were violently suppressed in the 1980s).

 

[Oh my god. it's Robby!]

Thanks. It means a lot to me that there are people as far away as America who care about what's going on.



I'd forgotten about that! Here I was hoping for a witty and intelligent insight... I'm a republican too, but that was just an idiotic statement.



Asma al-Assad is a deluded idiot. All evidence (from your link and elsewhere) shows that she actually believes that everything really is fine, and has completely lost her grasp on reality. Part of the reason why the West initially so excited when Bashar al-Assad took over from his father was because of her, as she's an intelligent progressive, completely secular, British woman from a well respected family, but it didn't take too long for everyone to realise that she's living in her own little world. She's a disgusting creature.



"Center of terrorism"? I'm sorry, but you're clearly ignorant on this subject. Before all of this chaos kicked off, Syria was a liberal and secular country, where religious and sectarian violence was unheard of. Not only did Sunnis and Shiites get along, go to school together, and often make friends with one another regardless of religion, but so did Muslims and Jews (yes, Jews lived in Syria before this madness started, and possibly still do), Christians and Druze, etc. There was probably a 50/50 split in women who chose to wear a veil and those who didn't, while covered young Muslim women would ususally wear colourful headscarves to match their fashionable clothes, talk to men in public, and get good jobs. Education was excellent for the region, there was little stigma against atheists and even gays were tolerated, young people were westernised and dreamed of living in the US and Britain, and terrorism was something you only heard of from other countries. Your confusion might come from the fact that Bashar al-Assad allowed terrorists from other countries to go through Syria to help destabalise Iraq (a policy which has since come back to bite him on the arse, because it made it easy for outside extremists to enter Syria and destabalise it from within after the uprisings started), but Syrian terrorism has always been a marginal and localised issue, purely directed towards the Syrian government (for example, Muslim Brotherhood offshoots who were violently suppressed in the 1980s).

just learning about this crazy woman kind of cute though
as for the anonymous poster, probably just an Israeli? troll
also, gotta say, did some maneuvers with the Syrians back in 90, many years ago now I know, but you train & fight(mostly train) along side people and you develop lifelong impressions
gotta say, the Syrian Army impressed me, professional, skilled, no bullshit
this was in direct opposition to those Saudi pukes that were far better equiped than the Syrians, had us(the USA) to rely on for back up and yet still exhibited sloth in training & COWARDICE IN BATTLE
I really cannot wait for those f***ers to fall, I don't care to who, they sort of represent all that is wrong with the region
sorry, getting off tangent though, what I mean about the Syrian army is, well, (@ the time) I respected them, they taught me that not all Arab nations "field" bad armies
I began to think of the difference between them and Israel, unlike with other Arab countries, was one of the tech of their weaponry being vastly differenent
and NOT SKILL level or courage in using such
sadly, this lead me to believe, as a former soldier, that they would not engage upon "wholesale" war against their own people
because, yes, even through all I have seen and done, I still equate "Good soldiering" with being a "Good soldier"
but that is my heart speaking, the truth is that "good soldiering" means following orders, which is simply why this civil war has gone on so long
I understand this and to be honest, I don't think it would be much different in the USA, as a matter of fact, I give the odds to the U.S. armed forces versus any possible internal rebellion, unless a significant amount of American soldiers defected to the other side
so yeah, Syria and my "USA" aint so different