Can we PLEASE attack Syria now?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

If ever I have wanted the West to display that latent whiff of prejudice, this is it:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012...n-killed-syria

It looks like a reporter for The Times and a French photographer were deliberately killed in shelling.

Why?

You know why.

So, can we now admit that Assad will do anything to retain power, and that our inaction has just made him more brazen, PLEASE?

[PanzerJaeger]

Can we PLEASE stop attacking sovereign nations now? How about we keep our self-righteous Western values to ourselves, and stop meddling in other nation's affairs. Can we do that?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Can we PLEASE stop attacking sovereign nations now? How about we keep our self-righteous Western values to ourselves, and stop meddling in other nation's affairs. Can we do that?

I dunno, maybe you should ask the Syrians.

Or are you going to tell me all those reports of shells and snipers are fabricated too?

[PanzerJaeger]

I dunno, maybe you should ask the Syrians.

Or are you going to tell me all those reports of shells and snipers are fabricated too?

What do shells and snipers in Syria have to do with Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla in Britain?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

What do shells and snipers in Syria have to do with Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla in Britain?

What did Nazi's in France have to do with Churchill?

Excuse me for extending my concern for other human beings beyond my native land.

Assad must be stopped, the Syrians cannot do it without help.

It is manifestly worse that Gadaffi, and from my point of view the failure to intervene in Syria, and resulting esclation, vindicates that intervention too.

[Ronin]

What did Nazi's in France have to do with Churchill?

Germany had attacked direct allies of england...a state of war existed between the 2 countries.

Assad must be stopped

that's like.....your opinion man.

It is manifestly worse that Gadaffi, and from my point of view the failure to intervene in Syria, and resulting esclation, vindicates that intervention too.

this is just like Libya....a civil war.....who are we to pick who is going to win? why is that our competence exactly??? not to mention what do we have to profit from sticking our collective noses in yet another mess?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

[QUOTE=Ronin;2053425238]Germany had attacked direct allies of england...a state of war existed between the 2 countries.

The war was prosecuted for what were considered to be moral reason, not purely geopolitical ones. Fighting World War II with Nazi Germany was not in Britain's interest, Hitler was not even really interested in the UK, not to the extent he was willing to sacrifice so many men and treasure to defeat us. Britain is not part of mainland Europe, our going concerns were not in Europe - we could have made peace.

that's like.....your opinion man.

So, along with everything else he should be allowed to kill famous Western journalists for criticising his regime? I don't think so.

this is just like Libya....a civil war.....who are we to pick who is going to win? why is that our competence exactly??? not to mention what do we have to profit from sticking our collective noses in yet another mess?

We get to not look week and morally bankrupt.

Libya mah not become a great democratic nation, but precious few people criticised Tony Blair for going into Kosovo. Those few people who do deploy the same arguments as with Libya, "but we caused MORE deaths", despite Somalia and now Syria giving that the lie.

[PanzerJaeger]

What did Nazi's in France have to do with Churchill?

Excuse me for extending my concern for other human beings beyond my native land.

Assad must be stopped, the Syrians cannot do it without help.

It is manifestly worse that Gadaffi, and from my point of view the failure to intervene in Syria, and resulting esclation, vindicates that intervention too.

Germany was at war with Britain. I'm not sure how the two situations are comparable. It's wonderful that you're concerned about the latest media spectacle. There are many millions of human beings around the world that could benefit from a version of that concern that doesn't involve dropping bombs and picking sides in civil wars. What's going on in Syria is a power play between vying factions. By embracing the FSA, the Sunni faction has dropped the facade of a peaceful movement and engaged the state in open conflict. If they aren't prepared to win that conflict, they have no one else to blame but themselves.

The self-righteous mindset behind these interventionist movements is dangerous. We have to stop thinking of small nations as conditionally sovereign.

[Ronin]

The war was prosecuted for what were considered to be moral reason, not purely geopolitical ones. Fighting World War II with Nazi Germany was not in Britain's interest, Hitler was not even really interested in the UK, not to the extent he was willing to sacrifice so many men and treasure to defeat us. Britain is not part of mainland Europe, our going concerns were not in Europe - we could have made peace.

that might have make for pretty and heroic sounding press statements by Mr. Churchill but it isn´t exactly right.
if the Nazis had taken over all of Europe you guys were next....that's pretty clear.

We get to not look week and morally bankrupt.

again..that's a matter of opinion....I do not consider picking the fights we get into, based on our interest or lack thereof, to be either weak or morally bankrupt.

[The Stranger]

What did Nazi's in France have to do with Churchill?

Excuse me for extending my concern for other human beings beyond my native land.

Assad must be stopped, the Syrians cannot do it without help.

It is manifestly worse that Gadaffi, and from my point of view the failure to intervene in Syria, and resulting esclation, vindicates that intervention too.

economical bonds and political alliance as well as the public expectation of aiding the ally from ww1.

ofcourse asking what the nazi in germany had to do with the tommy at dunkerke or normandy would be a better question and one not so easily and cynically answered i think.

[rvg]

Let's not be hasty here. First of all the opposition is fragmented and exhibits signs of infiltration by al-qaeda. Those explosions in Aleppo specifically bear all the hallmarks of al-qaeda.
Second, if we do ouster Al-Assad, the minorities in Syria (alawites, christians, etc) are screwed: the sunni majority will tyrannize the far worse than Assad did.
Third, delivering Syria to a sunni majority rule might upset the balance in the region between sunnis and the shias.

So yeah, let's stay put and give Assad time to crush the rebellion. Yes, many people will die, but many more will die if we interfere.

[The Stranger]

[QUOTE=Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla;2053425242]

Germany had attacked direct allies of england...a state of war existed between the 2 countries.

The war was prosecuted for what were considered to be moral reason, not purely geopolitical ones. Fighting World War II with Nazi Germany was not in Britain's interest, Hitler was not even really interested in the UK, not to the extent he was willing to sacrifice so many men and treasure to defeat us. Britain is not part of mainland Europe, our going concerns were not in Europe - we could have made peace.

he only wore out his entire luftwaffe and few tons of bombs to bring england to its knees and not to mention sending his most able general to kill the brits in africa. he just had an irrational fear for the british homeguard and their coastal defense + navy. if he had just invaded the island, and lets be happy he didnt... luckily he had an even bigger and more irrational fear for russia, lets be happy for that too!

[CountArach]

How many local journalists are dead from this conflict? The only reason we care is because she is a famous Western journalist. Her death is a tragedy, but so are the deaths of all who die in this sort of senseless violence.

Putting our own western hands into a local civil war will only exascerbate things and push one side or the other even closer to radicalised forces who can play the anti-Western card all the more easily. We should just supply what aid we can to those who are affected by this and stay out.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Germany was at war with Britain. I'm not sure how the two situations are comparable. It's wonderful that you're concerned about the latest media spectacle. There are many millions of human beings around the world that could benefit from a version of that concern that doesn't involve dropping bombs and picking sides in civil wars. What's going on in Syria is a power play between vying factions. By embracing the FSA, the Sunni faction has dropped the facade of a peaceful movement and engaged the state in open conflict. If they aren't prepared to win that conflict, they have no one else to blame but themselves.

The self-righteous mindset behind these interventionist movements is dangerous. We have to stop thinking of small nations as conditionally sovereign.

This isn't just a "power play", it has taken months for the number of military personnel defecting to become even a blip on the radar - the general populace has started using lethal force because the Assad-loyal forces will kill them even if they don't. I said this with Libya as well, when the doctors, students, lawyers and footballers pick up guns you know its bad because it means ordinary people have decided the choice is not live or die.... its die fighting or die on your knees.

Given that they will die if someone does not knock out Assad's heavy weapons (as in Libya) intervention is not unreasonable. All we really did in Libya was level the playing field, it then quickly became clear Gadaffi had little actual support left outside of his mercenaries and clients, and I don't think there's any doubt he was bussing in Africans to be mercs, some of them have even admitted so.

that might have make for pretty and heroic sounding press statements by Mr. Churchill but it isn´t exactly right.
if the Nazis had taken over all of Europe you guys were next....that's pretty clear.

This has never been a convincing argument. The evidence points to Hitler prefering peace with Britain at least in the medium term, because Britain was the greatest Super Power at the time, a status we gave up to defeat Hitler. If you look at a lot of the correspondence, you see Hitler wasn't keen on fighting the British - our ethnic and political and cultural status (in his eyes) mitigated against it.

again..that's a matter of opinion....I do not consider picking the fights we get into, based on our interest or lack thereof, to be either weak or morally bankrupt.

Unarmed civilians have been begging for military intervention for a about eight months, now they have started fighting back on their own. they have more reason to hate the West than before, and they are now turning to the terrorists because they are the only people who will help them, train them, and supply arms.

This isn't Iraq or Afganistan, where we went and foun d a regime opponent, this is Somalia where if we don't back a faction the whole country will go up in flames. Have you SEEN was Somalia looked like in the 80's? Mogadishu was like Paris, and after twenty years the schools and hospitals are just reopening.

he only wore out his entire luftwaffe and few tons of bombs to bring england to its knees and not to mention sending his most able general to kill the brits in africa. he just had an irrational fear for the british homeguard and their coastal defense + navy. if he had just invaded the island, and lets be happy he didnt... luckily he had an even bigger and more irrational fear for russia, lets be happy for that too!

The British went to Africa to fight Hitler, consider instead the situation immidiately following Dunkirk, or before.

[The Stranger]

you are right.. sorry he went to africa to aid the italians. i guess what you say could be true for '39 and early '40 but not after that. but maybe he resolved after he saw that it would come to nothing and the brits would not make peace. i dont know. i do know what you say is true about the americans. however politics is politics and i think its too simple to say churchil did what he did because he was morally outraged... about what? the germans hadnt done much that was really against the moral code, they broke about all the political treaties, and you can call that immoral but its not that outrageous.

the politicians went in for politics, and they sent the soldiers and the soldiers went for ideals, money, love for their fellow human, to rise within the army, because they had no other options.

[Lemur]

I was worried that our Libyan playtime would give people ideas. I was right.

[PanzerJaeger]

This isn't just a "power play", it has taken months for the number of military personnel defecting to become even a blip on the radar - the general populace has started using lethal force because the Assad-loyal forces will kill them even if they don't. I said this with Libya as well, when the doctors, students, lawyers and footballers pick up guns you know its bad because it means ordinary people have decided the choice is not live or die.... its die fighting or die on your knees.

Given that they will die if someone does not knock out Assad's heavy weapons (as in Libya) intervention is not unreasonable. All we really did in Libya was level the playing field, it then quickly became clear Gadaffi had little actual support left outside of his mercenaries and clients, and I don't think there's any doubt he was bussing in Africans to be mercs, some of them have even admitted so.

More propaganda, and more repetition of the same lies that have been disproved over and over again in the past in regard to Libya. There are approximately one million people in the city of Homs alone. Do you honestly believe they'll all be killed if government forces restore control over the area? Of course not. As with any of these rebellions, only the ringleaders and their most ardent and open supporters are at any real risk - apart from those who become collateral damage between the two factions.

Even if one accepts that the international community is right to intervene during genuine genocidal activity, it is most definitely not the West's responsibility (or right) to play bodyguard for the Muslim Brotherhood or any other local rabble rousers. Standing up against a Middle Eastern government is brave, but comes with certain known risks. And apart from that, the actual level of popular support, and even Sunni popular support, for this movement is indefinite at best. To claim this is the government versus the people instead of the government versus a particular group of historically rebellious people is dubious indeed.

The WW2 comparison is laughable. That Britain was not willing to tolerate an expansionist Nazi Germany just across the channel and everything that would entail has absolutely no bearing on the Syrian situation.

[Centurion1]

you want to do it phillip? do it with your countries own bombs and treasure.

this does not concern me and i find these rebels questionable.

[lars573]

I echo the let Syria fight it's own civil war. Also if foreign intervention is required, let Israel do it.

[rory_20_uk]

Overthrowing the leaders in Syria isn't going to be a panacea. Liberating countries in Europe returned them to their previous state. Doing so in Syria is going to leave it the same mess it is now with different people with the advantage.

Europe has its own problems. Let some nice Muslim countries on this one, and waste their blood and treasure on a lost cause.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Let's not be hasty here. First of all the opposition is fragmented and exhibits signs of infiltration by al-qaeda. Those explosions in Aleppo specifically bear all the hallmarks of al-qaeda.

Am I missing something here, or didn't deserters from the Syrian army claim credit for that?

Seems not unlikely, Assad's army has a long standing issue with people realising that they might be better off without him and feeling in a position to effect some change. These are often enough career soldiers, so I don't see why they shouldn't be able to pull it off -- they have the training, the experience, and it can't be too hard to get at the equipment.

[Vuk]

We should stick our noses out of it. We should only go to war with someone if it is to directly protect our interests and we get an immediate and important gain out of it. No offense to anyone in Syria, but they can take care of their own problems...we got plenty of our own. Syria and Assad are not worth one drop of innocent American blood. Even if we go in there and kill Assad, someone just as bad will take his place, and we will have succeeded in is wasting tons of money and getting innocent Americans killed.

A place like Iran poses a serious threat to our interests, and letting them do what they are doing could lead to Israel being wiped out, and there being a unified anti-American Middle-east that would pose a serious threat to us. I would hate to have to go to war with Iran (another war is the last thing we need), but at least that would benefit us. How would knocking Assad off help us? We should just stick our noses out of things for once. Look at the horrible things we did and let happen in Serbia because we had to go and be the hero.

[Viking]

I am not totally convinced that an outside intervention is in the best interest of the Syrian people at the present time; the country is somewhat religiously heterogeneous. I have also been led to believe that the Syrian air force is potent enough to, as a minimum, cause losses on any interventionist's side.

Syria and Assad are not worth one drop of innocent American blood.

Launch the paedo air force.

[Papewaio]

Civil wars are the worst ones to get involved with. Just compare the number of casualties in the US civil war to all other US conflicts.

There is no UN mandate and unlikely to be one either as neither Russia nor China want to get involved and I'm betting that the rest of the veto holders are silently praying that this remains the case. I don't see the EU having the capacity to do this.

If local countries like Turkey choose to get involved then their might be more of a reason for countries tha are further afield to intervene.

But to get an idea how long these conflicts can last look at the one hundred year war, north vs south Korea and how well Lebanon is going.

Of course some of these are wars by proxy so last far longer then if one side loses its outside benefactor. Vietnam is probably in the long term better off once western powers capitulated and it could build as a unified nation. The one takeaway point is that Vietnam would be better off now if western investment had not been curtailed for so long.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

How many local journalists are dead from this conflict? The only reason we care is because she is a famous Western journalist. Her death is a tragedy, but so are the deaths of all who die in this sort of senseless violence.

Putting our own western hands into a local civil war will only exascerbate things and push one side or the other even closer to radicalised forces who can play the anti-Western card all the more easily. We should just supply what aid we can to those who are affected by this and stay out.

Can I just point out, I have been outraged for weeks? I was just hoping someone else might be outraged.

you are right.. sorry he went to africa to aid the italians. i guess what you say could be true for '39 and early '40 but not after that. but maybe he resolved after he saw that it would come to nothing and the brits would not make peace. i dont know. i do know what you say is true about the americans. however politics is politics and i think its too simple to say churchil did what he did because he was morally outraged... about what? the germans hadnt done much that was really against the moral code, they broke about all the political treaties, and you can call that immoral but its not that outrageous.

the politicians went in for politics, and they sent the soldiers and the soldiers went for ideals, money, love for their fellow human, to rise within the army, because they had no other options.

Hitler's invasion of Czechsovakia, and the fact that the western Allies allowed it, should go down as one of the great moral outrages of the mid-20th Century, a Central European democracy abandoned to its fate.

You are, of course, correct - by the time Churchill became Prime Minister the die was cast, but Hitler didn't want to fight the British, too much trouble for too little gain. As far as he was concerned Britain was welcome to its overseas Empire and mercentile interests so long as Germany could have Europe and the heavy industry and agriculture therin.

More propaganda, and more repetition of the same lies that have been disproved over and over again in the past in regard to Libya. There are approximately one million people in the city of Homs alone. Do you honestly believe they'll all be killed if government forces restore control over the area? Of course not. As with any of these rebellions, only the ringleaders and their most ardent and open supporters are at any real risk - apart from those who become collateral damage between the two factions.

Western journalists, talking to locals and regional journalists estimate Homs suffers at least 40 casualties a day, and while the only Western journalist in Homs is now dead, there are others in the surrounding towns who report indiscriminate shelling, casualties they have seen... including women and children.

Leaving aside what I consider to be your overly paranoid assessment of Libya, which does not track with the situation on the ground in so much as casulties numbers aside those things DID happen, Mercs snipers and all, those things definately ARE happening in Syria.

Even if one accepts that the international community is right to intervene during genuine genocidal activity, it is most definitely not the West's responsibility (or right) to play bodyguard for the Muslim Brotherhood or any other local rabble rousers. Standing up against a Middle Eastern government is brave, but comes with certain known risks. And apart from that, the actual level of popular support, and even Sunni popular support, for this movement is indefinite at best. To claim this is the government versus the people instead of the government versus a particular group of historically rebellious people is dubious indeed.

Ignoring these people, and playing the "not our problem" card simply plays into the Islamist narrative that we are all Crusader bastards, toppling unpopular regimes undermines it - as it did in Libya.

Let's talk about Misrata a bit, the Misratan are out for blood, this is clearly in part because they withstood and lengthy and fairly bloody siege. The same thing has happened in Syria, over time relatively peaceful protest has become more violent, the lack of international intervention has undermined the moderate dissident voices and strenghtened the hand of the radicals, just as the oppressive economic conditions in Europe have undermined moderates here.

The more the Syrians suffer, the more the peacable will be either cut down or subverted.

The WW2 comparison is laughable. That Britain was not willing to tolerate an expansionist Nazi Germany just across the channel and everything that would entail has absolutely no bearing on the Syrian situation.

Would you like to consider the Somalian comparison, then?

you want to do it phillip? do it with your countries own bombs and treasure.

this does not concern me and i find these rebels questionable.

Bombs have a sehlf life anyway, and I fully expect us to have to deal with Syria anyway at some point, rather like dry rot, it gets worse the longer you leave it.

I am not totally convinced that an outside intervention is in the best interest of the Syrian people at the present time; the country is somewhat religiously heterogeneous. I have also been led to believe that the Syrian air force is potent enough to, as a minimum, cause losses on any interventionist's side.

OK, so we have a problem of religious heterogenity, but we are also seeing increasing discontent among the Sunni majority. At this point, it is alsmost certain Assad will fall, but it could take years, the longer the conflict brews, the longer people are waiting for the aftermath, the worse it will be. Say we have another year of this where resentment between groups continues to build, how many extra years will that add to the subsequent chaos.

The Assad family retained tacit support by keeping the country stable and relatively peacable, they can no longer do either.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

If you have a viable exit plan and some kind of crafty social engineering plan, then you have a valid idea here. Otherwise I don't see the point in calling for this attack--we have more than enough precedent in recent years to suggest it would end badly, with many more dead after it was all done than if we had just left it alone--certainly Syria would be no closer to Demoracy and certainly, years from now, the west (or rather, America, as these things go) would be blamed for all of the violence anyway, bringing us right back to where we don't want to be.

Unless you've got some kind of plan? No? Just rightous outrage without considering the lessons everyone should have been learning from our Iraqi and Afghani adventures? Or even the recent Lybia outrages? These things don't end well, stop supporting them. The situation in Syria is regrettable, but it is something perpetrated by a Syrian against other Syrians. They need to fix it themselves, if they ever want to break the cycle of dictatorship and foreign intervention.

Plan, plan.....

.........
..............

Hmmm.........

An attack of overwhleming force on a Syrian Airbase, followed by an attack on Syrian armoured regiment, long range.

Tell Assad that if he doesn't bow out and hand over to his deputy we'll crush his armed forces and let the rebels have his body, send him the clip of Gadaffi.

An insurrection needs the tacit support of a segment of the non-combatant population to function, at least 10%. You need to choke off that support , the key here is to rob the militias of legitimacy by enforcing a truce. What we did in Libya was back the rebels because the grey technocrats looked like they could found a functioning state. Here there's nothing like that yet, so what we need to do is enforce the sort of result they got in Egypt or Yemen.

At the same time, I would reach out to the Syrian army and tell them they should stop attacking civilians, or we will be forced to stop them ourselves. I honestly think that if we can, at the least, draw down the level of the violence Syria can be salvanged, instead of becoming another failed state - which is where we are currently headed.

[Strike For The South]

I eagerly await the upcomming Islamic theorcarcy.

Until someone can show me a state with a viable resistance group that can match the theorcrats in orgazation I remain dour on prospects on any sort of progress in the ME

[a completely inoffensive name]

Can't our soldiers attack some place a bit cooler this time around?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So... "topple the dictator and see what happens?"

I appreciate your righteous indignation because I feel the same way, but what you just typed here could have been taken straight out of a staunch "stay the course" type's mouth in the early years of the Iraq war. You're outraged at the treatment of the Syrian people, and feel something should be done, but in spite of all evidence pointing to this being a situation that will be incredibly difficult to resolve without escalating the bloodshed considerably (whether immediately or over time with some dumb protracted war--Syria shares a border with Iraq, after all) you don't actually offer any contingencies of any kind in that plan, which means its a bad plan.

And, speaking of lessons we should have learned in the last ten years, you shouldn't go to war with a bad plan.

And, even more importantly than all of that, even with a very limited engagement we still put our 'stamp' on a cause without knowing a whole lot about it. Every time we do this it backfires--even something as simple as supplying arms. Al Qaeda should be a case in point here, but I guess a lot of people are still refusing to acknowledge that we truly enabled the Jihad in the first place, back when the Sovs were invading Afghanistan.


We need to stop creating problems. Especially when times are hard at home.

No, cut the head off the snake, leave the regime in place. Assad can't move, he'll lose face and his generals will kill him. If he flees his generals can come to the table. Hardly perfect, but it has a good chance of stopping the violence.

[PanzerJaeger]

Western journalists, talking to locals and regional journalists estimate Homs suffers at least 40 casualties a day, and while the only Western journalist in Homs is now dead, there are others in the surrounding towns who report indiscriminate shelling, casualties they have seen... including women and children.

Your unwavering faith in Western journalism is misguided and giving you a serious case of selective outrage. You should be much more critical in assessing such claims. How did the journalists determine that casualties were at least forty per day? Did they wander around the war zone counting bodies, or are they repeating information from 'local sources'? What is the proportion of women and children killed to fighters? What were the circumstances surrounding those deaths? Were they drug out of their homes and shot in the head or were they caught in the crossfire between the rebels and the government? These are all important questions that journalists on the ground cannot hope to answer with any certainty, which highlights the dubious nature of such claims. They outrage, but do they inform?

At this point, Homs and a portion of the Sunni community have not only broken away from Syria but also embraced the FSA and their violent activities across the country. Theirs is no longer a peaceful protest movement, but a rebellion. By upping the ante in that way, that militarization has legitimized an equally militarized government response. It is not unreasonable to expect the Syrian government to reassert control over a city waging war against it, if only to stop the terrorism in the rest of the nation. The question is how that campaign is being waged. Are atrocities being committed, or are the casualties a natural result of intense urban fighting? At this point, there is absolutely no proof or even any anecdotal evidence that what is going on is anything other than a government fighting a rebellion.

Leaving aside what I consider to be your overly paranoid assessment of Libya, which does not track with the situation on the ground in so much as casulties numbers aside those things DID happen, Mercs snipers and all, those things definately ARE happening in Syria.

I've provided ample evidence that those things did not happen in Libya. If you refuse to accept fact based analysis in favor of disproven early media claims, there is little I can do about it.

And I am very sure that the Syrian government is using military means against the rebels at this point. Just as in Libya, when a peaceful protest movement transitions into an armed rebellion, it is unrealistic to expect a government to allow itself to be attacked without a response. It wouldn't happen in Europe, it didn't happen in the United States, and it is not happening in Syria.

Ignoring these people, and playing the "not our problem" card simply plays into the Islamist narrative that we are all Crusader bastards, toppling unpopular regimes undermines it - as it did in Libya.

Let's talk about Misrata a bit, the Misratan are out for blood, this is clearly in part because they withstood and lengthy and fairly bloody siege. The same thing has happened in Syria, over time relatively peaceful protest has become more violent, the lack of international intervention has undermined the moderate dissident voices and strenghtened the hand of the radicals, just as the oppressive economic conditions in Europe have undermined moderates here.

The more the Syrians suffer, the more the peacable will be either cut down or subverted.

Apart from the fact that the Libyan rebellion was militant from the start, Misrata is an excellent example of what I was discussing earlier in relation to Homs.

The city rebelled against the government, attacking public buildings, government installations, and killing police officers, black immigrants, and anyone seen as loyal to the regime. The government subsequently surrounded the city and patiently waited while the regime tried to negotiate with the rebellion. When it became clear that the rebellion was not going to negotiate and rebel forces began to use Misrata as a staging ground for military attacks against government forces outside of the city, the government set about taking it back.

The media reports from inside the city were as outrageous as they were bogus. The tales of slaughter in the streets and tens of thousands of casualties were only later undermined when actual casualty reports showed no such thing. The numbers were comparatively miniscule, and disproportionately skewed toward fighting aged males. It turned out that the government had been fairly conservative in its use of force and focused on rebel fighters as opposed to the general populace in attempting to regain control of the city.

Misrata is an excellent example of how biased journalism can completely distort a situation and gin up misguided outrage. Don't succumb to such nonsense.

Would you like to consider the Somalian comparison, then?

You mean the veiled threat that if we don't intervene in these civil wars, the nations could descend into chaos that could be detrimental to our security? I don't buy it. In Iraq and Libya we replaced strong, authoritarian anti-islamist regimes with the power and reach to keep those nations from becoming the kind of government-less radical safe havens that Somalia has become with weak, disorganized governments with little or no control over large swathes of their territory. Hussein, Mubarak, Gaddafi, and Assad all fought against the radicalized Islam that now threatens our security. Whether those who are replacing them have the power or even the will to do the same is questionable at best.

Somehow I fail to see Somalia as strong argument in favor of Western intervention. It's more of a cautionary tale. For some reason, the thought of naked, beaten, and killed American soldiers being dragged through the streets of some third world backwater as the local zombie horde we were trying to help spits on them in glee just doesn't engender much excitement.