Syria: a civil war (closed)

[Surferbeetle]

Assad May Lose Russia, China; McCain Calls for Airstrikes, By Nicole Gaouette - Mar 6, 2012 2:10 AM MT, Bloomberg News

Russia and China are shifting on Syria because they haven’t been “particularly happy with the position they’ve adopted in the region,” said Robert Danin, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington. Their UN vetoes scuttled a resolution authored by the Arab League calling for Assad to hand power to a deputy.

“They’re lined up against popular sentiment in the Arab world,” Danin said. “That’s just not a great place to be. They have a lot of reasons to reconsider their position.”

In a March 4 six-point statement about a political resolution on the “Syria issue,” the Chinese Foreign Ministry pointedly distanced itself from the Assad government, noting the regime’s violence against civilians. China called itself a “friend of the Arab people,” and urged an end to “all acts of violence, particularly violence against innocent civilians.”

[Tukhachevskii]

Rod Liddle, The Syria Delusion, The Spectator, 1st March 2012

[Bob's World]

Rod Liddle, The Syria Delusion, The Spectator, 1st March 2012

Nice find. I will forward to some of my co-workers. There is still room for cooler heads to prevail on this issue. Though as more US senior leaders come to see Syria as a cheap and easy way to take a jab at Iran, I fear that could slip away.

[JMA]

Rod Liddle, The Syria Delusion, The Spectator, 1st March 2012

OK lets look at this piece. This Ron Liddle person asked the following question:

What proportion of the Syrian population is fully in support of the continued uprising against the country’s authoritarian leader, Bashar al-Assad?

...then he pontificates for 930 words through which one must sift for what he sees as the answer to his question in 79 words:

...the Free Syrian Army has claimed that ‘50 per cent’ of the territory of Syria is no longer under government control. However, this 50 per cent does not seem to include any towns apart from Homs — just vast swaths of that reddish scrubland they have out there. On the other hand, the Syrian government’s referendum on a new constitution claimed a turnout of 57 per cent and a vote in favour of the constitution of almost 90 per cent.

Does Liddle answer his question?

Not close. Maybe he passed journalism school with junk like this but would not pass staff writing at any half decent army college.

If decisions are made based on crap like this little wonder so many policy decisions are a screw-up.

[ganulv]

Does Liddle answer [the] question [“What proportion of the Syrian population is fully in support of the continued uprising”]?

Not close.

Maybe he passed journalism school with junk like this but would not pass staff writing at any half decent army college.

I disagree that he failed to answer his own question, but I do agree that the prose is very much journalism writing. As such, you can get the gist by reading the first sentence of each paragraph (this is so the editor knows what can be cut without asking the writer). These include:

But I still do not see much evidence of burgeoning fury and rebellion among ordinary Syrians; as Hillary Clinton put it: ‘You don’t see uprisings across Syria the way you did in Libya.’

At the very least — the very least — you can say with some certainty that the popular opposition to Assad is far less widespread in Syria than was the opposition to the government in Bahrain, for example.

I think it is a responsible answer given the limited evidence available. While you may find that he hedges too much, I will remind you of the words of someone whom you seem to admire: “The demand for certainty is one which is natural to man, but is nevertheless an intellectual vice.”

[JMA]

I disagree that he failed to answer his own question, but I do agree that the prose is very much journalism writing. As such, you can get the gist by reading the first sentence of each paragraph (this is so the editor knows what can be cut without asking the writer). These include:

Oh he also no doubt believes he has answered his question... as do some around here

To that I respond with my favourite Bertrand Russell quotation:

If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. – Bertrand Russell

I suggest that our man Liddle (and those who support his view) are ready to clutch at any straw which they see as building a case against intervention in Syria or arming the various opposition groups.

I think it is a responsible answer given the limited evidence available. While you may find that he hedges too much, I will remind you of the words of someone whom you seem to admire: “The demand for certainty is one which is natural to man, but is nevertheless an intellectual vice.”

If I may suggest that you are getting ahead of yourself here (much like Entropy did) by not dealing with the initial question.

I would ask Liddle why he asked the question when he knew (or should have) that he did not have the answer. What was his point? Meeting a blog deadline? He gets paid by the word? What? Did his blog entry inform? I could go on...

I respect Russell for his honesty and moral courage - as apart from the physical (lower level) variety which many of us have displayed in battle at one time or other. I have mentioned this before (around here somewhere) that the need to protect their pensions has made many generals (both Brit and US) moral cowards to the cost of the respective militaries and their countries.

Russell again:

Many a man will have the courage to die gallantly, but will not have the courage to say, or even to think, that the cause for which he is asked to die is an unworthy one. - Bertrand Russell