Syria: a civil war (closed)

[JMA]

You need to re-read the Friedman article. Those random Americans are drivers of many things...That would seem to be a norm. You 'out there' are of course aware that what comes out of the White House often bears absolutely no relationship to reality and you might be well advised to pay a bit more attention to random Americans...

Thats a waste of time as their is no US consensus. But then again I suspect that with a foreign policy record like the US it is understandable that nobody wants to take responsibility for what has happened in the past or even yesterday. I am beginning to see it as a cultural phenomenon. Pretty sad really.

And again, re-read the article. As you have finally realized, US foreign policy is driven by domestic politics, stuff that comes out of the WH is addressed almost always to a domestic audience and may be the very opposite of what's actually being done internationally.

This brings us right back to the start of all this. This is why the US foreign policy is seen as bipolar and so often jaw-droppingly incompetent. I understand you when you say that's how the US is - and its not going to change - and I repeat to you that because of this the outside world -increasingly - is losing both respect and fear for the US. I would go further and suggest the relationships between the US and Third World countries is more like that of a John and a prostitute - in that as long as the US keeps throwing cash around they will get the attention. Of course when the cash gets tight their calls might not get returned.

I would not presume to tell you what is in the best interests of South Africa yet you often presume to tell us what is in the best interest of the US...

You can say what you like about South Africa - I don't have an immature sensitivity over criticism of that nature which would lead to a knee jerk reaction.

You get that wrong about as often as does the White House...

And you get it right all the time?

[Ken White]

You can say what you like about South Africa - I don't have an immature sensitivity over criticism of that nature which would lead to a knee jerk reaction.

Reactions aren't the problem, making ignorant statements with little basis other than a few random biases is the problem -- or would be to me. YMOV.

And you get it right all the time?

Nope. Only about 85-90% of the time do I get it right. That's ahead of the International Mean by 14.7 to 19.7 percentage points. Fear not, you may catch up when you get older...

[JMA]

Reactions aren't the problem, making ignorant statements with little basis other than a few random biases is the problem -- or would be to me. YMOV. Nope. Only about 85-90% of the time do I get it right. That's ahead of the International Mean by 14.7 to 19.7 percentage points. Fear not, you may catch up when you get older...

Ken you may get it right somewhere around that level - not that I had noticed - which is lot higher than the US government of the day does. That's the point... shrugging off national failure doesn't change the facts as they play out on the ground.

[TheCurmudgeon]

An outside attempt to "enforce a separation of the combatants and force a political solution" would not prevent an escalation, it would be an escalation, and would probably kick off more escalation.

Peace in our time eh' Neville?

There are risks in any course of action. Right now the conflict IS escalating. Foreign fighters are entering the country with political and religious agendas that are only marginally part of the original fight.

For me it is a matter of whether recent events tied with long festering hatreds create a situation where the conflict extends beyond the borders. The only question now is, "Do the perception of recent victories in Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt along with the pent up rage that exist outside Syria remain contained or do outside agents use them to draw other regional players into the conflict for their own political gain?" If they do manage to bring others in, can those outside agents contain the fight or will the passion of the people take on a life of its own, both inside and outside Syria.

A bit of a worse case scenario, but I like to think positively.

[TheCurmudgeon]

Tragically, the spiral of violence in Syria is continuing,” Mr. Ban said in the statement. “The hand extended to turn away from violence in favor of dialogue and diplomacy — as spelled out in the six-point plan — has not been taken, even though it still remains the best hope for the people of Syria.”

Word of Mr. Annan’s resignation came as the United Nations General Assembly was preparing to vote on a resolution drafted by Saudi Arabia that demands that the Syrian government comply with his plan.

But the General Assembly resolution, which is scheduled for a vote on Friday, does not have the enforcement power of a Security Council measure, and has been viewed as largely a symbolic effort to embarrass Syria and its backers.

Major powers expressed regret over Mr. Annan’s resignation and acknowledged the difficulties of his assignment, but in doing so they appeared to commit the same kind of blame-laying he cited as a reason for quitting.

Jay Carney, the White House spokesman, said Mr. Annan’s resignation “highlights the failure in the United Nations Security Council of Russia and China to support meaningful resolutions against Assad that would hold Assad accountable for his failure to abide by the Annan plan.”

Russian news agencies quoted President Vladimir V. Putin as saying, “Kofi Annan is a very respectable person, a brilliant diplomat and a very decent man, so it’s really a shame.” At the same time, Russia’s Foreign Ministry said in a message posted on its Twitter account that it would vote against the General Assembly resolution on Syria, calling it unfairly biased against the Syrian government.

There was no immediate reaction to Mr. Annan’s departure from Mr. Assad or the array of Syrian opposition groups, some of which have always expressed doubts about Mr. Annan’s efforts.

But Louay Hussein, a Syrian writer and longtime opposition activist, said in an e-mail: “The responsibility of the failure of Mr. Annan in his mission is the responsibility of the international community, and not the Syrian parties to the conflict. It will have very negative consequences on the armed conflict in the country.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/03/wo...er=rss&emc=rss

Sadly, no one really wants this to work. They all have other agendas.

“The bloodshed continues, most of all because of the Syrian government’s intransigence, and continuing refusal to implement the six-point plan, and also because of the escalating military campaign of the opposition — all of which is compounded by the disunity of the international community,” Annan said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...rRX_story.html

[Dayuhan]

Peace in our time eh' Neville?

Not likely in my lifetime, but that doesn't mean we need to be in the middle of whatever non-peace is going on.

If we speak of "appeasement", who would you say is being appeased?

There are risks in any course of action. Right now the conflict IS escalating. Foreign fighters are entering the country with political and religious agendas that are only marginally part of the original fight.

Of course they are. They would do so even if some foreign power was there trying to "enforce a separation of the combatants and force a political solution". They would likely move in more aggressively and with greater outside support if they could claim to be fighting to expel the infidel from the land of the faithful. I don't see how foreign intervention would change or alleviate the problem of foreign fighters moving in.

The only question now is, "Do the perception of recent victories in Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt along with the pent up rage that exist outside Syria remain contained or do outside agents use them to draw other regional players into the conflict for their own political gain?" If they do manage to bring others in, can those outside agents contain the fight or will the passion of the people take on a life of its own, both inside and outside Syria.

What "perception of recent victories in Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt" would that be? I don't think it would be accurate to claim those as Islamist victories, though certainly Islamists will try to exploit them, as will non-Islamists. I also wouldn't assume that Islamists moving into Syria to try to exploit that situation must automatically mean that Islamists will control Syria after Assad falls. Certainly they will try, that doesn't mean they'll succeed.

The passion of the people will of course take on a life of its own. It already has. All I can see outside intervention doing is providing a convenient target and rallying point for the most violent incarnation of those passions.

All very well to suggest that this is appeasement... but again, who's being appeased? And more to the point, what would you want to see done about it? Even more to the point, who would do it? We all seem to agree that US intervention would be a bad idea. The Chinese won't touch it... what payoff could there possibly be for them that would justify the expense, effort, and risk? Maybe Russia, slim outside chance, but wouldn't that just make things worse?

Without a viable intervening party and a realistically viable plan for intervention, talk of intervention is moot from that start. And yes, I'm aware that intervention doesn't have to be military, but realistically any effort to "enforce a separation of the combatants and force a political solution" is going to involve a substantial military commitment.

Sadly, no one really wants this to work. They all have other agendas.

I think plenty of people want to see it work, but wanting something to work and having the will or capacity to make it work are two different things. I'm not sure any outside party ever had the will, or realistically the capacity, to settle this without a major fight. The ability of outside parties to stop people from fighting seems much overrated to me: the whole world can express dismay and demand peace, but the fight will go on unless somebody steps into the snake pit to try and stop it. Usually it goes on even after someone steps in, and whoever steps in is likely to get bit.

Yes, it's ugly. What do you think should be or should have been done about it, and by whom?

[TheCurmudgeon]

The ability of outside parties to stop people from fighting seems much overrated to me...

Yes, it's ugly. What do you think should be or should have been done about it, and by whom?

They could quit supplying each side with arms. Don't see anyone rushing to do that. In fact, I see the opposite.

Everyone has an agenda ...

[Dayuhan]

They could quit supplying each side with arms. Don't see anyone rushing to do that. In fact, I see the opposite.

Everyone has an agenda ...

Of course everyone involved has an agenda, or they wouldn't be involved. Not everyone's supplying arms, and even if they weren't, would that end the fighting? I suppose it might, if it led to Assad's forces slaughtering the opposition, but is that a desirable outcome?

Again hypothetical, since those who are supplying arms will do it no matter what we think or say.

Saw this WP editorial...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...mEX_story.html

Starts out with a stirring call for leadership, but when it comes down to specific prescriptions, this is all that emerges:

No one is arguing for a Libyan-style intervention into Syria at this point. But the United States and its NATO allies could begin contingency planning for a no-fly zone, now that Mr. Assad is deploying aircraft against the opposition. Instead of providing only non-lethal support, such as medical supplies and communications gear, America could help supply weapons to the outgunned opposition fighters. It could work with Turkey and other allies to set up havens for them.

All of these moves contain risks. But those must be weighed against the danger of inaction — a long civil war that could spill across Syria’s borders.

I assume that contingency plans for a no-fly zone are already in place; that option would have been considered early and military planners would of course want to have a plan ready if needed. Isn't it true, though, that a no-fly zone would require a major attack to suppress air defenses? That essentially means American intervention... who else would do it? Given the general public attitude toward the prospect of another war, and given the upcoming election, I can't see that happening.

Question for those more technically inclined: would it be possible to enforce a limited no-fly zone over, say, Aleppo and surroundings purely using SAM assets based in Turkey and AWACS cover in Turkish airspace? Of course that would be internationalizing the conflict...

For that matter, wouldn't supplying weapons and setting up and protecting safe havens also be internationalizing the conflict? Seems like the dangers of action are very similar to the dangers of inaction, except that the dangers of inaction happen without us or some other poor dumb foreigners in the middle of it...

[JMA]

They could quit supplying each side with arms. Don't see anyone rushing to do that. In fact, I see the opposite.

Everyone has an agenda ...

Well of course once the weapons started to flow the genie was effectively out of the bottle.