Syria: a civil war (closed)

[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...