Syria

Remove all ads!

OK, so now it looks like the US is going to take some course of action regarding the use of chemical weapons in Syria. I'm sure just about everyone knows by now, but Syria is involved in a civil war, and the current government, headed by Bashar al-Assad, crossed the "red line" when he used chemical weapons against the rebel forces.

For a more detailed look at what's going on, and a listing of the options of what's on the table in terms of a response, click here.

For me, I don't see any good options. On the one hand, there is certainly the case to be made that there is a humanitarian crisis that needs to be addressed. On the other hand, America has pretty much had enough of war in the last decade to want to get involved in another. Some have suggested that we arm the rebels, although that's not a really great solution either, as many of the rebel forces have ties to al Qaeda. Seeing as how that's not exactly friendly terms, that seems unwise as well.

Then there is the pragmatic part of me that has to wonder: al-Assad has been using conventional weapons for quite a while to kill off countless civilians - many of whom aren't part of the rebel forces. Is it so much worse to kill off your own citizens using chemical weapons versus conventional weapons? I mean, it didn't matter two years ago in Lybia when they turned the military against its own people. We aided those rebels. Why is it that we haven't intervened up to this point in Syria, and why is it that Assad's changing methods of killing civilians presents a moral obligation to intervene now?

 

This will be like Egypt. The people we end up helping will hate us more than the current regime.

I wouldn't touch Syria with a 10 foot pole.

 

Seems to me we have enemies on both sides. Civilian casualties are a given in conflict. Whether they are hit with a incendiary bomb or chemical bomb shouldn't be the deciding factor on whether or not we enter the fray. We shold stay out of it and deal with the victor. Let the UN handle it for once.

 

That's kind of where I'm at. This is a group of people that don't like us, fighting another group of people that don't like us. Are relations with Syria are currently poor, and they will remain poor regardless of who comes out on top in the end of all this. I'm not even motivated enough to support one group, as I think they would just as soon fight us as accept help from us. I see nothing to gain in this conflict. You can't even say you're toppling a dictator if he is likely to be replaced by an equally oppressive regime.

 

If I recall... Russia didn't give a flying falafel about Libya, but they have a small military base & port in Syria and have supplied most everything the Syrian army has for decades, and service the planes used in the Syrian air force. (Good BBC article about Russia and Syria) I'm not saying Russia wouldn't roll over for the US, but I doubt they'd be very happy about it.

 

Nuke them. Nuke N. Korea too. Just nuke them all.

I'm in a bad mood.

 

My personal opinion is that the Obama administration has mishandled this from the beginning, and it has the possibility to go down as the biggest foreign policy disaster of his tenure as President. (Of course, we're not out of Afghanistan yet, and who knows how next year will go. Though quite a few suspect 2014 will be an ugly year in Afghanistan). Chemical weapons strikes were President Obama's "red-lines" and I'm sure he's now regretting using that language, the radical Islamist element has only gained influence in Syria in the 2 years that the civil war has been ongoing, the regional refugee situation has gotten pretty intense, Syrian deaths in the fighting are something like 80,000, and the administration has given little overt support to regional efforts to tamp down on the fighting or violence.

NATO and the UN probably have some ability to do something here, and it seems to me that the U.S. could probably influence them to get more involved in Syria (especially Turkey). The "no-fly zone" is probably a good idea and while more expensive than our gov't often lets on, generally isn't that dangerous to our forces. The Libya intervention was pretty effective a few years ago, and I wouldn't be surprised if the Obama administration is attempting to evoke that imagery in discussions with allies that must surely be ongoing right now. That being said, Syria is a very different place and this is a very different situation.

Putting troops in Syria, especially U.S. troops, is an ugly proposition and unlikely to be palatable to the Republicans, the Democrats, or the Pentagon, for what that is worth. I don't see the American public supporting some sort of wide-scale U.S. military involvement there, either.

And let's not even mention Iraq, the boiling kettle next door, at this point.

I'll be impressed if the administration somehow turns this around and manages this in some sort of effective way.

 

Everytime something about Syria has come before the UN, Russia (and sometimes China) has vetoed it (denouncing Assad, calls to step down, sanctions, a plan for arab nations to help, buffer/safe zones, etc).

 

As far as #1 goes, that's always a matter of perspective. The guy who is not actively dying may not want any help, but the guy who's about to get shot in the head likely does. How do we decide who's 'right' or who speaks for everybody? Majority rules is probably not much comfort to the head-shot guy.

 

Syria is the new Irak or Afgahnistan or (insert random Liberated Country here).
So many things don't add up. All those special-interest player bay for blood/money/power in a different way.

And whenever a side favored by the West does something it's a victory...and a crime against humanity when the other side does it.

I don't think that any of the Western Powers gives a flying fekk about the Syrian people.
And why should they?? Far from the eye, far from the heart or some such.
Their interest is far more base i believe.

The wests own track-record on humanitarian intervention via "bombing into democracy" is far from reassuring.
It defies reason to think by bombing a country; its infrastructure, economy, people and so on into the stone-age will help anyone.
We have yet to see a real example where things, after such intervention did actually improve.

But like Gaear said...its all a matter of perspective.

 

Syria is NOT going to be the next Iraq or Afghaistan. More like the next Egypt or Libya. I believe the Irag/Afghan stage of American government is over with. It drains the economy and has made minimal difference at best in those regions, regardless of the original intent.

The worry is if the US pulls out in strength of the Mid-East, it is ripe for another power to step in, a.k.a. a Russia or China-like power. Our government will not let that happen. The "fear" is that other powers would allow the non-US allied Mid-East nations develop Nuclear Weapons. Again, the US government will never let that happen.

"Bombing into democracy" is never the intent. The intent is to keep those not allied with the US unable to produce the capability to inflict harm here to the US or it's allies abroad. Until the World Political Spectrum changes drastically, the Mid-East natiions will be stuck in this type of military stalemate with the US, Israel and their allies.

 

Muddying the waters even further...

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2013/04/201343022456525184.html

Hizbullah hints they will get more involved in the Syrian civil war...

 

Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Groucho Marx

 

I think Ernest Benn actually said that...

 

Whoever said that was spot on as one can get.

 

Ah, I stand corrected (said the man in the orthopaedic shoes ).