I may have given the opposite impression, but...
... I'm not necessarily averse to action. I'm not even necessarily and at all time averse to a bit of meddling. Before we contemplate action, commitment, and involvement,though, we need to get some things straight, especially when meddling is proposed.
We need to know our goal: what exactly do we want to achieve, and why?
We need to know and realistically assess the proposed method of achieving that goal, in detail.
We need to assess our commitment: what resources are we actually willing to commit, and do we have a realistic probability of success within those constraints? Is this goal something we want, or something we need? Do we have the political will to chew what we bite off? If we don't, better not bite it, because we'll likely end up choking on it.
We need to realistically assess the leverage we can and are willing to bring to bear, and its ability to achieve the desired goal.
We need to anticipate, to the best of our ability, the actions of those whose interests diverge from ours, and assess the leverage they can bring against us.
We need to assess the potential for unintended adverse consequences.
If those assessments come up unfavorably, or if we can only make them come up favorably by exaggerating our own capacity and will and underestimating those of our rivals, action may not be the smartest thing. Doing nothing, or very limited involvement, may not always be the most viscerally appealing course, but it's better than sticking your dick in a rat trap, diving into quicksand in an impulsive attempt to rescue someone, or sending forces out to achieve tasks that they are not equipped or trained to accomplish and that we are not willing to support to the extent needed for any level of success.
"Influence" isn't an abstract thing: either it's based on tangible carrots and sticks or it doesn't exist. If we don't know what the carrots and sticks are, the other guy won't know either, and he'll decline to be influenced. Any proposal based on the use of influence has to describe and assess exactly what carrots and sticks are to be used and how, just as a plan for military action has to be built around the capacities and constraints of the available forces.
Criticism by friends has a limit
It appears that Russia and Turkey will not follow the joint call for Assad to step down:
Quote:
“We do not share the point of view of the United States and Europe in regard to President Bashar al-Assad,” the foreign ministry spokesman, Alexander Lukashevich, said. The Interfax news agency quoted ministry sources as saying that Mr Assad had done “quite a lot” on promised reforms, and that the pledge to stop military operations was an “important move”.
In a serious blow, Turkey also refused to join the calls for Mr Assad to go, saying the opposition was not yet united. Turkey, once a key ally of Mr Assad, had previously suggested it might be on the verge of turning against him definitively.
Link:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...d-to-quit.html
Are western sanctions against Syria an option?
A comment on the Open Democracy website, which concludes:
Quote:
In the final analysis, sanctions are unlikely to produce the desired effect in time. Assad’s killing machine will continue to target civilians, but sanctions will suck the economic and political oxygen out of the regime.
And ends with:
Quote:
Most important of all, sanctions will demonstrate that western countries are serious about ending the brutal crackdown on the protests.
It also adds in some detail on Syrian oil and its impact.
Link:http://www.opendemocracy.net/islam-q...t-syria-option
In Shift, Iran’s President Calls for End to Syrian Crackdown
A NYT story, which is based on some IMHO very thin evidence:
Quote:
Regional nations can assist the Syrian people and government in the implementation of essential reforms and the resolution of their problems
Mr. Ahmadinejad said in an interview in Tehran, according to his official Web site. Other press accounts of the interview with a Portuguese television station quoted him as also saying:
Quote:
A military solution is never the right solution..
Link:http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/09/wo..._r=1&ref=world
Signs of civil war in Syria
A bleak assessment by IISS, in a Strategic Comment, which ends with:
Quote:
Reports suggested that the Assad regime initially reacted to Gadhafi's death by stepping up its brutal repression of protests. So the country could be in for a period of increasing violence. While the opposition may feel that too much blood has been shed for it to back down, its activists have failed so far to gather the momentum or cross-class consensus that would be required to challenge the government’s unity. The prospects of Syria emerging from conflict appear bleak.
Link:http://www.iiss.org/publications/str...-war-in-syria/
Some of the recent footage appears to show artillery and tanks firing on buildings, but still the opposition protest, invariably after Friday prayers. As before I rely on this website for updates:http://www.enduringamerica.com/home/...detention.html