Syria: a civil war (closed)

[TheCurmudgeon]

In Syria today I have m' doubts that both aircraft and helicopters can readily distinguish between non-combatants and rebels. Aircraft bombing etc in an urban area is unlikely to be accurate in an urban setting; although to be fair we have seen very little reporting of this happening.

That is the problem. It goes back to Russia and China's opposition to intervention based on sovereignty. If you are willing to intervene based on human rights violations in a sovereign nation then China and Russia might be in trouble.

Same goes for Aircraft. If you argue that military aircraft cannot be used to strike military targets where there might be collateral civilian deaths, you would have to deny any country the use of them in all but a very limited instances. Not the kind of precedence anyone wants to set.

[Dayuhan]

That is the problem. It goes back to Russia and China's opposition to intervention based on sovereignty. If you are willing to intervene based on human rights violations in a sovereign nation then China and Russia might be in trouble.

Russia and China opposed intervention in Iraq, but it still happened. The absence of intervention in Syria isn't because of Russian or Chinese opposition, it's because nobody with the capacity to intervene believes they have enough at stake to justify the cost and risk of intervention.

[TheCurmudgeon]

Russia and China opposed intervention in Iraq, but it still happened. The absence of intervention in Syria isn't because of Russian or Chinese opposition, it's because nobody with the capacity to intervene believes they have enough at stake to justify the cost and risk of intervention.

Russia and China are the two hold-outs who block UN Security Council resolutions to act in Syria. We had and existing UN mandate for Iraq.

The 1991 Gulf War never fully ended, as there was no armistice formally ending the war. As a result relations between the United States, the United Nations, and Iraq remained strained, although Saddam Hussein issued formal statements renouncing his invasion of Kuwait and made reparations payments for Kuwait. The U.S. and the United Nations maintained a policy of “containment” towards Iraq, which involved economic sanctions, Iraqi no-fly zones enforced by the United States, the United Kingdom and France, and ongoing inspections of Iraqi weapons programs.[3] In 2002, the UN Security Council unanimously passed Resolution 1441 demanding that Iraq "comply with its disarmament obligations" and allow weapons inspections

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationa...War_Resolution

I believe that "unanimously" means they voted for it (or at least abstained).

[Ken White]

However,it has little to no applicability to what Dayuhan wrote. They did object and both provided aid to Saddam. Their current intransigence in public utterances and at the UN has little bearing on what other nations may do in Syria.

[Wyatt]

Russia and China may have a fear of HR being a precedent for intervention but its not something that puts them at risk imo. Sovereignty of the weak gets violated because its easy and they can do little to nothing to resist. the strength of your sovereignty seems only to rest on your power to resist.

If syria gave word governments pause, china and russia ought to sleep well. After all, we will probably just buy more Iphones and "like" the campaigns to end slave labor on Facebook because then we are doing something

[JMA]

Russia and China may have a fear of HR being a precedent for intervention but its not something that puts them at risk imo.

IMHO too.

Sovereignty of the weak gets violated because its easy and they can do little to nothing to resist. the strength of your sovereignty seems only to rest on your power to resist.

The validity of a claim to sovereignty must be challenged when no democratically elected government exists.

[JMA]

However,it has little to no applicability to what Dayuhan wrote. They did object and both provided aid to Saddam. Their current intransigence in public utterances and at the UN has little bearing on what other nations may do in Syria.

Don't buy that. Think 'precedent'.

[Ken White]

Don't buy that. Think 'precedent'.

If you mean you do not buy it, fine. Your prerogative. If that's an attempt to tell me not to buy it, you're wasting your time; I've already bought it and put in the garage...

You of all people should realize the US doesn't pay much heed to precedents -- you've certainly lambasted them enough over the issue. To no particular avail, I might add...

[JMA]

If you mean you do not buy it, fine. Your prerogative. If that's an attempt to tell me not to buy it, you're wasting your time; I've already bought it and put in the garage...

You of all people should realize the US doesn't pay much heed to precedents -- you've certainly lambasted them enough over the issue. To no particular avail, I might add...

That is exactly what I have been saying - thank you - about US foreign policy - it is bipolar - one wakes up every morning and wonders which US you will be seeing today.

[TheCurmudgeon]

However,it has little to no applicability to what Dayuhan wrote. They did object and both provided aid to Saddam. Their current intransigence in public utterances and at the UN has little bearing on what other nations may do in Syria.

If there was a UN resolution that authorized force I would venture to say that the US along with NATO would provide assets including troops. The UN is not irrelevant and none of the major players are going to act without at least an arguable pretext of a legal justification. The US had that in Iraq. I don't see Iraq as setting any precedent that can be applied to Syria.

What independent actions other nations take without legal justification is, or should be, part of the consideration that goes into the debate at the UN.

To be honest, I am not sure what point Dayuhan is trying to make.

[TheCurmudgeon]

If this is true I wonder how the Iranian's will respond?

Syrian rebels claimed they assassinated an Iranian diplomat in Damascus as war continues in the city of Aleppo. The Egyptian Al Arabiya website reported the assassination, which it said could not be confirmed. No details were available.

Rebels Say Iranian Diplomat Assassinated in Syria

[Ken White]

If there was a UN resolution that authorized force I would venture to say that the US along with NATO would provide assets including troops.

Well, as they say, never say never -- but I'll be surprised if that's a correct assessment. In the unlikely event it does occur, I suspect the commitment would be miniscule...

The UN is not irrelevant and none of the major players are going to act without at least an arguable pretext of a legal justification. The US had that in Iraq. I don't see Iraq as setting any precedent that can be applied to Syria.

No the UN is not irrelevant. Neither is its approval or disapproval going to cause the US to stop or go in something the US has determined to do. Rightfully so IMO. That means their relevance is relative...

Getting UN 'approval' is desirable but not mandatory. We used the UN to attempt to attract other Nations to the effort in Iraq and to give protective cover to those politicians who needed it for their domestic audience, no more.

Hopefully no one else will see Iraq as setting any precedent that can be applied to Syria...

What independent actions other nations take without legal justification is, or should be, part of the consideration that goes into the debate at the UN.

Okay. That's fine -- as long as everyone realizes tha the US will play by that rule only so long as it suits and can be beneficial.

To be honest, I am not sure what point Dayuhan is trying to make.

Can't understand why, it was perfectly clear to me. Thus my post to which this sub thread applies.

In any event, he has expanded on his original comment. It should be quite clear now -- and I agree with his take on the issue. Syria would be side show and we have other interests at this time. Elections, for instance...

[jmm99]

From TZ, Syrian general among 1,000 refugees fleeing to Turkey (3 Aug 2012):

About 1,000 Syrians, including a defecting brigadier-general, have fled to Turkey in the past 24 hours to escape intensifying violence in their country, a Turkish official said on Friday.

The latest group brought the number of Syrian refugees in Turkey to 45,500, up from 44,000 at the end of July, said the official, who asked not to be named. At least 25 military generals are among those who have taken refuge in Turkey.

Nothing unusual here. TZ has been running similar stories for months.

Of more interest is Abdullah Bozkurt's opinion piece, Turkey to shape Syrian army in post-Assad era (3 Aug 2012):

Considering that the only effective force keeping Syria together is the armed forces, Turks, Arabs and Americans have agreed on keeping the Syrian army pretty much intact to prevent major disarray in Syrian governance in the post-revolution era after the fall of embattled president Bashar al-Assad -- which looks more imminent.

The agreement will keep Turkey’s southern neighbor from plunging into a civil war along ethnic and sectarian lines while providing the necessary tools for the transitional government to restore stability and maintain public order during the elections and constitution-making process.
...
Turkey and its Arab/Western allies also plan to incorporate the Free Syrian Army (FSA), the largest armed opposition group operating throughout Syria, into the Syrian military after the departure of Assad. The FSA is composed of mostly defectors from the Syrian military and equips itself with arms it seized from Syrian military munitions depots and stockpiles. Some of the arms also come from black market dealings with the support of Turkey, the Gulf countries and the US. The FSA is led by Col. Riad al-Asaad, who is situated in Turkey and coordinates attacks on regime loyalists from there. I spoke on Sunday over a dinner to Ahmet Davutoğlu, who gave me the tally of total defectors so far: 26 generals, 47 colonels and 130 officers of various ranks have fled to Turkey. ... (and much more in article).

Ahmet Davutoğlu (Wiki), currently making nice with the Iraqi Kurds and not so nice with the Iraqi government.

Regards

Mike

[JMA]

I believe that "unanimously" means they voted for it (or at least abstained).

From:

On 8 November 2002, the Security Council passed Resolution 1441 by a unanimous 15–0 vote; Russia, China, France, and Arab countries such as Syria voted in favor, giving Resolution 1441 wider support than even the 1990 Gulf War resolution.

[JMA]

Russia and China opposed intervention in Iraq, but it still happened. The absence of intervention in Syria isn't because of Russian or Chinese opposition, it's because nobody with the capacity to intervene believes they have enough at stake to justify the cost and risk of intervention.

Amazing... opinion stated as if fact.

[Dayuhan]

Amazing... opinion stated as if fact.

Why would that amaze you, of all people? When you say things like:

the US/Europe don't have the balls to stare down Russia and China

to cite but one example among many, is that not opinion stated as fact?

I've said this before, but anything written here - by you, me, or anyone else - should be assumed to be the author's opinion, unless specifically stated otherwise and appropriately referenced. That's common sense, given the nature of the venue.

To be honest, I am not sure what point Dayuhan is trying to make.

The point is that the primary restraint on US or European action is lack of interest, not lack of UN approval or fear of anything the Russians or Chinese might say or do. If the US and/or Europe really wanted to intervene and saw intervention as in their interests, they'd make a way. They don't. The lack of UN movement actually seems to me to be rather congenial for the US: we can blame the Russians and Chinese for obstructionism and we have an excuse not to do something we have no interest in doing.

I don't agree with this:

If there was a UN resolution that authorized force I would venture to say that the US along with NATO would provide assets including troops.

at all. I don't think the US would send troops no matter what the UN said, because I don't think the US has any desire to send troops. There's no realistically viable plan for military intervention (unless someone has one and is keeping it secret), there's no evident perception of compelling national interest, a great deal of home-front political resistance. Given the mood of the American public at this point, leading the country into another war would be something close to political suicide, an unattractive prospect for any administration.

[JMA]

Why would that amaze you, of all people? When you say things like:


to cite but one example among many, is that not opinion stated as fact?

I've said this before, but anything written here - by you, me, or anyone else - should be assumed to be the author's opinion, unless specifically stated otherwise and appropriately referenced. That's common sense, given the nature of the venue.

There is a point you seem to miss...being that when others make a statement of opinion you demand they substantiate their opinion... while when you make such statements if challenged you demand that you be proved wrong.

It is puerile high school level debating/discussion tactics. Don't you think it's time you grew out of it?

[Dayuhan]

There is a point you seem to miss...being that when others make a statement of opinion you demand they substantiate their opinion... while when you make such statements if challenged you demand that you be proved wrong.

In some cases that's true. In this debate, for example, I've maintained that the US has not seriously considered and should not consider military intervention because:

- No viable plan for such intervention has been proposed
- There's no evident perception of compelling national interest
- There's no significant home front political support for intervention.

None of these are susceptible to proof, because it's logically impossible to prove an absence. It can be disproved by demonstrating the presence of any of those things, but it can't be proved. As I've said, I'll gladly reconsider if anyone can demonstrate the presence of any of those elements.

On the other hand, the contention that US policy is "incompetent" could be effectively substantiated by an explanation of what superior (or simply "competent") alternative policy existed. The claim that the US refrained from intervening out of fear of Russia or China could be effectively substantiated by evidence suggesting that the US ever wanted to intervene but backed away, or some hint of what the Russians or Chinese might have done that the US feared.

Anyone who accuses a national leadership of incompetence but can't (or is afraid to) explain what a "competent" course of action would have been is in a poor position to accuse anyone else of failure to substantiate opinions. Glass houses, stones, and all that.

[jmm99]

wm,

My thoughts parallel yours about the Turkish-Russian partnership and the Russian-Syrian oil deal. The TZ commentators have been pretty much in line that Russia has to get something tangible to arrive at a negotiated settlement. Adding the Iraqi Kurds to the list of satisfied parties enhances the prospects for that settlement. As you note, there are lots of oil reserves in Iraqi Kurdistan.

Assad, however, is very damaged goods (Levrov says they don't want him). I expect in the final diplomatic picture he will be absent - expendible goods. If that final diplomatic solution avoids the three likely pograms (Alewite, Christian and Shia), expending Assad and his thugs would seem well worth it.

The Hittites were pretty good at diplomacy as well.

Regards

Mike

[davidbfpo]

Abu M has a worthwhile comment on the real "heavy hitter" today in Syria, artillery, not helicopters and aircraft - which make better film footage:http://www.cnas.org/blogs/abumuqawam...t-tyrants.html

It makes grim reading, even for a civilian who has read a lot:

If they are well supplied and reasonably competent, a mere battalion of artillery (eighteen guns) can keep a small city under fire indefinitely.....artillery is easier and cheaper to employ to the same effect without the international condemnation that would follow any use of chemicals.

The regime's use of artillery, including mortars, has reportedly been widespread, although no-one to date has reported - big caveat there is very limited access to Syria - that Bashir has followed his father's bombardment of Homs (in 1982?). A city that was being bombarded in July 2012.