Originally Posted by
Dayuhan
The extent to which a Syrian descent into disorder would negatively impact the neighbors is debatable and variable. Some might lose, others might gain.
There are also those with vested interests in disrupting the status quo in Syria, notably the Sunni majority and their GCC backers, who will not ask anyone's permission before attempting to advance their own interests. Since the status quo has effectively been disrupted and is not likely to return, there are a wide range of domestic and regional actors who are trying to shape the new status quo in their favor.
Agreed, partially... with the reservation that I can't imagine who you expect to "impose a peaceful settlement". Could you clarify? Is the imposition of a peaceful settlement a goal? For whom?
Agreed, though I'd add that they are not likely to submit to being removed from power by any non-democratic means either. They will fight, and as a last resort may try to secede.
How do you propose to remove them, having noted above that they will fight to the best of their ability to assure that they aren't removed? If you can remove them how do you propose to prevent the resulting power vacuum from spinning into civil war as local actors and their foreign backers try to fill it?
Should not be armed by anyone? How does one prevent the Saudis, Qataris, etc from arming the rebels?
This is the core of the issue: how do you apply that pressure?
Hard to say without a clear idea of what pressure is to be applied, which is the missing link in all this.
Agreed, vigorously.
Agreed.
That, again, would depend on the still unknown nature of the proposed intervention. Hard not to cock something up if nobody knows what's to be done.
Agreed; that was my position from the start.
Overall, the weak points are:
No clear statement of what form of intervention is proposed (as always).
No clear idea of how the post-intervention environment can be controlled or managed to the advantage (or just to avoid the disadvantage) of the intervening party.
No clear idea of who could intervene, particularly given the reality of domestic political will in democratic countries. Since we all reach the conclusion that there is no likely or feasible intervening party, the whole discussion seems moot and we go back to "wait and see", which is not the worst place to be... better than being up to our necks it the mess.