Do anything about Syria?

[Ibn_Warraq]

@Terr

No, not in Syria. But I spent a lot of time on the Golan.

Ah, so then you know how the Druze of the Golan, who are very much not Muslims, would like to become part of Syria again.

That certainly undercuts your thesis doesn’t it.

And I have seen first hand what sectarian violence does in Lebanon.

Sectarian violence fueled by the west, Israel, and the Palestinians.

Syria has a dramatically different history than Lebanon.

[Ibn_Warraq]

@Terr

Usually because the “indigenous Christian populations” find out that if they get along with Israel, their lives are endangered by their Muslim neighbors.

Oh bullshit. Many Israelis like to believe such crap, but I’ve never met any Palestinian Christians who believed that for a second.

Frankly, most Christian Palestinians aren’t fans of the Israelis, Hamas, or the PA and are fleeing to South America(particularly Chile) and Western Europe as quick as they can.

Until George Bush’s Iraq adventure, Israel and the Occupied territories were losing Christians faster than any other Middle Eastern country.

Here’s a short piece from 60 Minutes many might find interesting.

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7406228n

[Terr]

@Ibn_Warraq

Ah, so then you know how the Druze of the Golan, who are very much not Muslims, would like to become part of Syria again.

That certainly undercuts your thesis doesn’t it.

They are realists. I talked to a couple of Golan Druze who took Israeli citizenship (and were serving in the IDF). They said that most people in their villages would not take Israeli citizenship for fear that Israel would one day give the Golan to Syria and they would have to either leave or be punished for becoming Israelis.

Sectarian violence fueled by the west, Israel, and the Palestinians.

Why aren’t you counting Syria as well?

[BrainGlutton]

@janeyc

But isn’t it just that economic mix which is creating so many problems world-wide. The need to maintain the oil supply at all costs - particularly human - that leads to the escalation of internal strife to a world stage. Perhaps it is time the US started to look at maintaining and improving their own standards. With all the money they throw around the world being a leading power, they could make immeasurable improvements at home. Think new energy sources, medical cures, poverty remediation, medical care and so on.

Yeah, well, the present Admin is working on all that, kindasorta halfassedly but in the right general direction, and still meeting RW/GOP obstruction and fightback every single step of the way. In politics, you just can’t do everything at once – art of the the possible, the perfect is the enemy of the good, etc.. Meanwhile, the Syrian civil war is going on now.

[BrainGlutton]

@Ibn_Warraq

Sectarian violence fueled by the west, Israel, and the Palestinians. Syria has a dramatically different history than Lebanon.

Please tell us what you know about Syria’s history, that is relevant to this civil war, and whether America or Turkey or anybody else should intervene or not, and whether destabilization might lead to ethnic massacres/cleansing/strife, and, if so, how, if at all, that might be prevented. Serious question.

[Askance]

@BrainGlutton

But are we sure the Turks or the Jordanians or both together could do it? Assad’s army is still pretty formidable. And won’t have any second thoughts about fighing foreign invaders the way some have had second thoughts about fighting Syrians.

@Flyer

I’m not an expert, but it looks to me, based on the Wikipedia info, that Turkey and Syria are relatively equal in tanks and artillery. However, the Syrian army has 220,000 active personnel vs. 717,000 for the Turkish army.

Sure, but a substantial portion has defected to the “free Syrian” forces, and another even more substantial portion is fighting them, not to mention shelling defenceless villages. The border defences must be at a minimum.

@Der_Trihs

And even if they can do it, is it going to do any good for anyone? We’d still end up with a hostile Syria, as I doubt we could do that without it coming out. And from an ethical & human rights perspective, such a war is likely to harm the people of Syria more than Assad is (and isn’t especially likely to replace him with anyone better). We’re entirely too fond of destroying the village in order to save it.

The point wasn’t to convert a hostile Syria into one friendly to the west (although it’d be hard to be more aligned with Russia and less aligned with the west). The point is to depose a vile regime, bring an appalling tyrant to justice, and above all save innocent lives.

[BrainGlutton]

Robert Dreyfuss strongly cautions the Obama Admin to back off.

The Post urges Obama now, in an editorial today, to create armed “safe zones” for the Syrian rebels in Turkey and Jordan, defended by US air power, and to “begin supplying the opposition forces of its choosing with weapons and intelligence.”

That could tip the balance in Syria from proto–civil war to all-out conflagration. Indeed, the Obama administration’s policy all along has served to escalate the crisis. It has exerted no effort at all to bring about any sort of de-escalation in the crisis, to support talks, and it has given the kiss of death to Kofi Annan’s well-intentioned, and Russian-backed, diplomatic initiative. By championing the cause of the rebels since last year while demonizing Assad, the United States has done everything it can to make the crisis in Syria worse, not better. (Clinton is now accusing Russia of pushing Syria toward “catastropic” civil war.)

Why? Because the best and brightest in the Obama administration, backed by outside hawks, seem to believe that toppling Assad will strike a mortal blow to Iran. It’s not really about Syria. Ten thousand dead in Syria? Twenty times that many, if civil war erupts? Why, it’s worth it if it annoys Ayatollah Khamenei! say the Obama folks.

If real civil wars breaks out in Syria, sympathetic civil wars are likely in Lebanon and Iraq. Iraqi Sunnis will support Sunni fighters in Syria. Iran will tighten its grip on the government in Baghdad, and Iraq might split. Saudi Arabia, in its anti-Iran frenzy, will massively support Sunni fighters and tribes in Syria and Iraq. The entire region could go up in flames. In Lebanon, there are already signs of spillover, and Hezbollah there could react by either seizing power in Beirut or provoking Israel.

[Nobody]

So he’s saying stay out and let Assad slaughter his people, or help the rebels and risk causing civil wars in two other countries? Wow. I don’t know what to say.

I will say this though,

That could tip the balance in Syria from proto–civil war to all-out conflagration. Indeed, the Obama administration’s policy all along has served to escalate the crisis. It has exerted no effort at all to bring about any sort of de-escalation in the crisis, to support talks, and it has given the kiss of death to Kofi Annan’s well-intentioned, and Russian-backed, diplomatic initiative. By championing the cause of the rebels since last year while demonizing Assad, the United States has done everything it can to make the crisis in Syria worse, not better. (Clinton is now accusing Russia of pushing Syria toward “catastropic” civil war.)

It’s not Obama’s fault that Assad won’t stick to any agreed ceasefires, that he doesn’t seem serious about peace at all, and that he’s playing Annan like a fiddle. The failure to have peaceful talks likes on the shoulders of Assad and the rebels.

And of course Obama’s going to champion the cause of the rebels. They want the repressive regime off of their backs. You normally do demonize the dictator and praise the rebels who want to overthrow him/her.

[BrainGlutton]

@Nobody

So he’s saying stay out and let Assad slaughter his people, or help the rebels and risk causing civil wars in two other countries? Wow. I don’t know what to say.

Well, to put it in perspective, he’s also saying:

Here’s my view on the Syria crisis. President Assad, whose father ruled with an iron hand for three decades, inherited a not-so-ideological, sectarian regime determined to stay in power at all costs. Since the start of the uprising, which was sparked by the Arab Spring in neighboring countries, Assad has cracked down, hard, and he’s showed every intention of using violent force to remain in control. Those on the outside who thought he’d be toppled à la Egypt’s President Mubarak, without a fight, were sadly misguided from the beginning. There’s no reason to believe, now, that he’ll go quietly, as did Yemen’s President Saleh eventually. All indications are that the regime’s military and security forces are pretty much holding together, especially the Alawite command that is loyal to Assad.

The opposition in Syria is a hodgepodge of individuals, groups and organizations, including the nefarious Muslim Brotherhood, that is increasingly motivated by sectarian feelings. It is mostly, or almost entirely Sunni, and for a year now there have been reports of sectarian massacres carried out by both sides, atrocities that echo the events in Iraq in 2006–07. So far, what’s happened in Syria hasn’t reached anywhere near the level of intensity of the uprising in Iraq. The opposition, scattered and divided, doesn’t know what it wants beyond Assad’s departure. Meanwhile, the sectarian nature of the opposition has led Alawites, Shiites and Christians in Syria to maintain support for Assad. To its credit, the Obama administration has recognized that it doesn’t really have the option of directly supporting the Syrian rebels, despite Hillary Clinton’s failed efforts to unify the opposition and despite reports that the United States is facilitating the supply of arms to the rebels by Saudi Arabia and other kleptocratic, anti-Iran states in the Persian Gulf.

And if that situation gets any worse, it probably gets a lot worse.

[Nobody]

Well everything in that quote is why, while I think we should do something, I’m not 100% on board with helping the rebels. The fear of what comes next could be worse.

At bare minimum we should be helping evacuate refugees.

This seems to be a case of no good outcome.

[Boyo_Jim]

All I can see doing is having a B-2 bomber continually orbiting near the Syrian border, and if the US ever gets rock-solid intel on where Assad is, drop the smartest bomb in the inventory on him. Don’t do anything else before or after except talk to the opposition and see if they can provide any intel. Also make it clear to them that if they provide bad data and the bomb misses, that’s it there won’t be another attempt, and they’re on their own.

And then deny everything until the end of time.

[ralph124c]

What happens when Assad is overthrown? Do the Alawite ruling class get whacked? How about the Christian minority?
I can see old scores coming out-and lots of post-war violence.
Like a lot of places in the ME, there are no good courses of action:(

[BrainGlutton]

Great. Now the Syrian military has shot down a Turkish fighter jet “over its territorial waters”.

[Nobody]

Great, the conflict could be spilling over to other countries. At least it seems the weapons shipments from Russia aren’t going on any more.

[Tom_Tildrum]

@Nobody

Great, the conflict could be spilling over to other countries.

That seems to be what happened in Libya, with excess weaponry flowing to groups that overthrew the government of Mali.