Syria - A MESS in recent days. What to do?

[mrvanwinkles]

Another person I spoke with says this is / and always has been - all about a power struggle between various "Tribes" and "Religions" and "Cultures" or "Groups".

In other words Tribal warfare.
[ All about a power struggle between Tribes, religions, cultures, various groups fighting each other to keep power and control ]

And that now it has devolved into Guerilla warfare and Terrorism.

Yes - makes sense - because how else could this thing be fought ?
Given the circumstances and conditions, it will become Guerilla warfare and Terrorism - there is no other way to fight in that environment.

And that now we are starting to see the Guerilla tactics and Terrorism also of the groups and factions that support the Syrian regime - start to take action.

Nasty Wasty situation.

Could get alot worse - before it gets any better.

I go watch the news now.

[Nighthawk 1]

All of this really speaks to how ineffectual the UN really is. The longer this goes on, more hatred and vendettas will build up, scores will be settled later. It is appalling that after the Rwanda failure nothing has really been learned. It is so heartbreaking to see innocent civilians being murdered while people talk. Russia and China have much to answer for in this conflict. Although there has been talk of a "UN Rapid Reaction Force" to settle issues like this, I don't see anything being done about it. When these conflicts arise, an international force with a healthy dose of local regional countries should put a quick end to situations like this.

[hugh]

When these conflicts arise, an international force with a healthy dose of local regional countries should put a quick end to situations like this.

International forces spent years in Iraq and Afghanistan and were unsuccessful, what makes you think they could "put a quick end" to Syria

[mrvanwinkles]

Any ideas what should or could be done Hugh?

Sounds like you don't think anything should be done because it would be ineffective and not worth it.

Fair enough. "Do nothing" is, in fact, an option.

But the argument from the past - ex. WW II - is that if the world just lets these things continue - they get much worse.

I guess "The World" is waiting to see what happens next - in order to judge what next steps, if any, to take, or not to take.

Plans and contingencies may be being developed.

Discussions between Allies may be happening in the meanwhile.


What about this idea ? :

The next time artillery starts being used against civilians - shut it down.

Surveil it, pinpoint it, have it communicated out of the country ASAP - by the citizens themselves if necessary.

"Artillery is being used against us for no apparent reason at this location".

Then, confirm it - by surveillance.

Then hit it - ASAP - right way.

Drone air strikes against that artillery - while it is still active against civilians.
Cruise missle it. Airstrike it if necessary.

Use your artillery power that way - and lose it.

Use it - and lose it.

Multi-nation force.


Like to hear some suggestions or ideas Hugh.

What do you think should be done? Could be done? If anything?

[Nighthawk 1]

Originally Posted by hugh

International forces spent years in Iraq and Afghanistan and were unsuccessful, what makes you think they could "put a quick end" to Syria

Bosnia. How long did that conflict drag on until finally the US stepped in with enough military might to end it. I'm not under the assumption that all interventions work. Some do, many don't. However the stand pat approach while innocent people are slaughtered I don't agree with.

I don't pretend to know enough about the nuances of setting up provisional governments and solving long standing disputes, but I do know that sometimes these things do work. The Assad regime is on borrowed time and I don't think his supposed "Damascus" support is as strong as it has been made out to be.

[Fry1989]

Originally Posted by hugh

fry1989,
moral indignation is wonderful thing when you don't have to put your life on the line.

Don't call me indignant, the global community absolutely has a moral duty to intervene when a country is in disaray. It wasn't done when Papa Doc had his killing fields in Haiti, it wasn't done in the Rwandan Genocide until too late, and it needs to be done now.

Also, I never said what kind of intervention. We could easily just do a no-fly zone and bomb Syrian artillery like was done in Libya and the only casualties from that for the intervening Community was the indirect death of one British airman in Italy, and three captured Dutch marines, who were later released alive, so it's absolutely laughable to suggest that a Syrian intervention would necessarily cost as many or "more" than the thousands of lives lost in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

[hugh]

Syria is not in disaray (sic).

Syria is a pretty efficient dictatorship which brutally suppresses dissent. Not unlike China, Russia, Iran and many other countries around the world. Are you suggesting that we have a moral duty to intervene in those countries too?

Finally and this will be my last post in this thread. Military analysts would laugh at the suggestion that Syria could somehow be controlled by fly-overs because Syria is nothing like Libya

This piece gives just a basic insight on why Syria is not LIbya.

First, we must consider the geographic differences between the two countries. Much of Libya’s population resides along the northern coast with its relatively flat coastal plains. There are few mountain ranges to hide in or to complicate bombing strategies. (Also, NATO forces were able to fly sorties from nearby European bases.) Syria’s population, by contrast, is tucked in or alongside mountainous terrain, complicating any tactical strategy. Air power could be effective, although it would come with higher costs, as we have seen in Afghanistan.

Libya is also less densely populated when compared with Syria’s cities, where much of the resistance has taken place. Urban centres such as Homs, Hama, Rastan and Idlib present a set of challenges for intervenors looking to minimize civilian casualties and collateral damage. As for the sheer size of Syria’s population — 22.5 million to Libya’s 6.6 million – it adds a related challenge: balance of forces.

Syria’s military is more than eight times what Col. Gadhafi’s was. Raw numbers show Syria’s airpower twice the strength of Libya’s former air force. President Bashar al-Assad has nine times the number of operable tanks, almost four times the amount of land weapons and three times the amount of towed artillery. There is, frankly, much more to contend with in terms of manpower and military capability.

This is not to say that a NATO-led invasion could not face the Syrian forces and deal them a potentially crushing blow. But it would come with significantly higher costs. Indeed, it is estimated that only about 40 per cent of Syrians oppose the Assad regime. Thus any intervening force would contend, possibly, with 60 per cent of the population viewing such an intervention as an act of aggression. That is, 13.5 million Syrians would oppose the foreign military campaign – twice the number of all Libyans combined.

[Fry1989]

Look Hugh, you don't have to agree with be but don't be rude about it and especially don't put words in my mouth. I used the Libya intervention as an analogy in response to your first attempt to put words in my mouth when I was never specific about what type of intervention should be done, but you suggested I support sending in the troops. Clearly you didn't get hint. So if you wanna directly quote me now, good, but maybe you should have payed more attention to my OPs.

Second, are you suggesting that China, Russia and Iran are in the current process of shelling their own cities to kill massive uprisings? If so, what's your source for this, I haven't heard anything about China shelling Xining, or Iran shelling Kerman, or Russia shelling Kirov. Infact, China just did the opposite, instead of sending the the PLA, they held local multi-candidate elections in that town that had enough of corruption. It may not be much by Western democratic standards, but it's alot more than bombing your own people into submission.

So yes, I think it's laughable that you would not only put words in my mouth twice, but claim that an intervention in Syria would be the same or even more deadly that the two decade-long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[NeilN]

Russia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Chechen_War
China: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_Tibetan_unrest

You seem to ignore the fact that the "global community" is what is stopping intervention in Syria. The Western powers are willing to act but China and Russia are stopping them. Are you suggesting the West act unilaterally?

[Fry1989]

Those aren't the same thing, Tibet and Chechnya want to secede, the Syrian people are trying to overthrow Assad's regime and make the country more democratic, it's apples and oranges. If you wanna talk about seccesional wars, you'll have to include Spain which is oppressing (sometimes militarily) the independence movements in Catalunya and Pays Basque, or Serbia over the Kosovo issue until the UN intervened, or even the United States during the "Civil War".

And no, I'm not saying that the West should act unilaterally, this isn't a West vs East vs. South and whatever side you like thing. The entire global community has a moral duty, and this isn't a new concept.

[NeilN]

Actually, in this case, it's very much a West vs. Russia/China thing as they've vetoed any potential intervention in Syria.

[Fry1989]

What China and Russia choose to do is irrelevant to the view that the entire global community has a moral duty to intervene, a concept that has been around for a very long time. That's what I'm doing here, I am expressing my view on the matter as a response to the original question in the OP as to what should be done. You don't have to agree with it, but I will not be bullied here and told that my opinion is somehow stupid or lesser than a non-interventionist wait-and-see-what-happens while-people-are-dying outlook.

[Nighthawk 1]

If 100% consensus was needed prior to doing anything, nothing would get done. The global community should act when it is able to do so--obviously intervening in China or Russia is a ludicrous comparison.

[Larry]

Morality has little to do with what the international community will or will not do. Its about money, trade and politics. What has the international community done in Turkey with the century long oppression and massacre of the Kurds.

[Nighthawk 1]

Originally Posted by Larry

Morality has little to do with what the international community will or will not do. Its about money, trade and politics. What has the international community done in Turkey with the century long oppression and massacre of the Kurds.

I agree that interventions are not consistent and are based more along the lines of what you've mentioned. Still though, interventions in some circumstances do work--this points to how ineffectual the UN really is.