Syria

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Not even remotely similar. If the West doesn't get involved, some, usually the losing side will assign the blame, but in general, it will be relegated to intelectual discussions. If the West does get involved, the common people will be the ones who hold the grudge, regardless of the outcome.

Disagree - Middle Eastern hatred of the US is based more on what the US has not done. Libyans love NATO - Syrians feel abandoned by the "Free" world.

The logic here is inescapable - if we kept backing democratic movements - other democratic movements will spring up, then we back those. However, we spent most of the cold war backing "stable" regimes, local strong men who would back our regional plays provided we gave them a means to oppress their own people.

As a result, we have alienated the democratic movements that aspire to the sort of society we enjoy.

If dictators knew that when they oppressed and brutalised their people B-52 bombers would drop incendiaries on their palaces, they would discover a sudden love of democracy. It's not a difficult concept - the monsters are craven, offer then the choice of death or abdication and they'll abdicate.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

This isn't rocket surgery. If you consistently back democratic movements, you'll create support for democratic movements. If you claim to back democratic movements and are anything but consistent, of course its going to tick people off. Freedom and democracy is an academic discussion for most of us, but for the folks living in Syria (or Iraq, still, for that matter) this is life and death stuff. Of course they're mad.

Couldn't have put it better myself. I'll just add that there's always a lot of harking back to how we did it wrong in the past, and therefore how we should take no part. Seems an odd lesson to learn from your mistakes.

[Montmorency]

I'll just add that there's always a lot of harking back to how we did it wrong in the past, and therefore how we should take no part.

So the answer is to literally be the world's policeman, to play the role to a greater extent than in even, say, WW2, to expend whatever's left of the treasury (hey, maybe we could just depose the CCP while we're at it?), to reinstate the draft and commit every last drop of our blood to 'improving' the world in our image? Jesus, even George Bush would tell you to wise up.

There simply is no "right" way or "right" answer, so to do anything would be no more than doing it wrong in the present. Moving to install functioning democracies in literally every state that doesn't meet some arbitrary criteria for democraticality is - please tell me I'm misunderstanding you.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So the answer is to literally be the world's policeman, to play the role to a greater extent than in even, say, WW2, to expend whatever's left of the treasury (hey, maybe we could just depose the CCP while we're at it?), to reinstate the draft and commit every last drop of our blood to 'improving' the world in our image? Jesus, even George Bush would tell you to wise up.

There simply is no "right" way or "right" answer, so to do anything would be no more than doing it wrong in the present. Moving to install functioning democracies in literally every state that doesn't meet some arbitrary criteria for democraticality is - please tell me I'm misunderstanding you.

Remove the Tyrant when the People rise up - a worse Tyrant replaces him, remove that one.

The "Right" answer is to remove Assad - and then drop 50,000 UN troops on the Country for the next decade. Doing nothing, letting a popular revolt against a dictator be crushed, that is unequivocally wrong. More, it is shameful and cowardly.

But hey - you're right. It was wrong for Britain to declare War against the Nazi's, when they had specifically said they wanted only Mainland Europe. There's ample evidence that after World War I both then Nazi's and the German General Staff had no desire to fight the British Empire, with it's massive reserves of manpower and it's de-centralised manufacturing that made it virtually impossible to stop us producing rifles and tanks, even if getting them to the front would have been hard.

I mean - hell - if we'd declared ourselves neutral the Two Great Powers now would, even money, be Britain and either Germany or the US.

Assad and his ilk are cut from the same basic cloth as Adolf Hitler - the difference is that opossing Assad is much easier and cheaper.

[Montmorency]

letting a popular revolt

First of all...

More, it is shameful and cowardly.

Here I put on my rvg-face.

But hey - you're right. It was wrong for Britain to declare War against the Nazi's, when they had specifically said they wanted only Mainland Europe. There's ample evidence that after World War I both then Nazi's and the German General Staff had no desire to fight the British Empire, with it's massive reserves of manpower and it's de-centralised manufacturing that made it virtually impossible to stop us producing rifles and tanks, even if getting them to the front would have been hard.

I mean - hell - if we'd declared ourselves neutral the Two Great Powers now would, even money, be Britain and either Germany or the US.

So, now you're talking about something completely different? To what purpose, exactly?

Assad and his ilk are cut from the same basic cloth as Adolf Hitler

Huh, and I figured Assad was just your run-of-the-mill dictator. Have there been discovered plans for the domination of the Middle East, from Tangiers to Samarkand, or something?

the difference is that opossing Assad is much easier and cheaper.

Nevertheless, the point is that -

Remove the Tyrant when the People rise up - a worse Tyrant replaces him, remove that one...50,000 UN troops on the Country for the next decade

- the necessary means to hold down Syria, let alone every remotely similar country in the world, simply do not exist. And even if the will did exist among the West to indefinitely militarize their society to unprecedented levels to 'police' the world, I seriously doubt that China and Russia, among others, would (assuming they're not themselves targets of this incredible Western frenzy) permit, let alone fund it.

Forget moral dimensions - I figured you for a realist, so think in terms of feasibility. This is honestly some of the wildest pie-in-the-sky nonsense I've heard on this forum in a while, and I certainly did not expect to hear it from you.

Weren't you against the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan? What's up? I didn't take you for the biggest neo-con or Wilsonian in the world...

[Brenus]

“I mean - hell - if we'd declared ourselves neutral the Two Great Powers now would, even money, be Britain and either Germany or the US.” No need to answer, but you think Japan wouldn’t have attack Singapore? And you really thing that Hitler and his allies would have defeat USSR?

[Papewaio]

There is a 0.5% chance the west will send in troops.

[rvg]

There is a 0.5% chance the west will send in troops.

It really needs to be zero. I find this whole "let's help Al-Qaeda take over Syria" line of thought quite bizarre.

[Montmorency]

let's help Al-Qaeda take over Syria

It's more of a 'indefinitely occupy the country no matter the cost and kill everyone who resists until things calm down and the inhabitants get the good sense to imitate stable Western liberal democracy'.

[Papewaio]

It really needs to be zero. I find this whole "let's help Al-Qaeda take over Syria" line of thought quite bizarre.

Did you see what happened to both the PLA and Hamas popularity once they were put in government. Best way to become unpopular is to be in charge.

The 0.5% still stands.

[rvg]

Did you see what happened to both the PLA and Hamas popularity once they were put in government. Best way to become unpopular is to be in charge.

The 0.5% still stands.

Putting them in charge allows them to do damage. So no, they shouldn't get anywhere near the seat of power.

[Papewaio]

They already do damage. See what's happening with Turkey and Eygpt... If the leaders are too religious the locals get annoyed with them very quickly. Only way to avoid that is either deliver economic benefits or lots of police.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

“I mean - hell - if we'd declared ourselves neutral the Two Great Powers now would, even money, be Britain and either Germany or the US.” No need to answer, but you think Japan wouldn’t have attack Singapore? And you really thing that Hitler and his allies would have defeat USSR?

I think that the Germans *might* have beat the USSR - without Commonwealth material support the Northern European and Mediterranean fronts would have required less of a commitment, possibly allowing the Germans to attack earlier in the year, in which case there's a good chance they would have broken Russia's back.

If Japan had attacked Singapore while the British Fleet was not tied down in the Atlantic, and Australian troops were not needing to be shunted around to other theaters, they either would have failed to take the port, or to hold it.

World War I and World War II ruined Britain and France, but it was the aftermath of WWII that nailed the coffin shut on the British Empire.

[rvg]

Looks like Assad's forces are steadily gaining the upper hand. Finally some good news. Hopefully this will all be over with sooner rather than later: Syria desperately needs peace.

[Beskar]

Syria would have got peace if Assad stepped down. So yeah... Mandate of the People and all of that.

[rvg]

Syria would have got peace if Assad stepped down...

If.

[Fragony]

Syria would have got peace if Assad stepped down. So yeah... Mandate of the People and all of that.

Who do you think the rebels are? God forbid Assad's forces lose..

[a completely inoffensive name]

I don't care who is in charge as long as they are not religious fundamentalists. Liberal democracies are the ideal, but the Bush administration proved that it cannot be done with the current culture that permeates the region.

That being said, the US should stay out of it completely unless the radical Islamists are set to take control.

[Fragony]

I don't care who is in charge as long as they are not religious fundamentalists.

Well take a chair, I got to tell you something. The rebels are religious fundamentalists.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Well take a chair, I got to tell you something. The rebels are religious fundamentalists.

Yes they are, I hope the US drops their support for them. The way you phrased that reply made me chuckle quite a bit by the way.

[Montmorency]

Not all the rebels are fundamentalists obviously.

Anyway, the UN should just hurry up and recognize a 3-way partition of Syria. It's already a fact and it's not going to change without someone's direct intervention.

[Fragony]

Not all the rebels are fundamentalists obviously.

Anyway, the UN should just hurry up and recognize a 3-way partition of Syria. It's already a fact and it's not going to change without someone's direct intervention.

You know them? There are hundreds of Dutch jihadis there and they get killed on daily bases, which I kinda like, adieu. But also from England and Belgium et France. What these people have in mind isn't exactly what I want for the normal folks in Syria, I wish them nothing but a good life and this isn't it.

[Sarmatian]

Syria would have got peace if Assad stepped down. So yeah... Mandate of the People and all of that.

That is highly debatable.

[Fisherking]

Syria would have got peace if Assad stepped down. So yeah... Mandate of the People and all of that.

Why would Syria be different from the other countries who had uprising during the Arab Spring?

Egypt is not doing so well. Libya and Tunisia have plenty of problems.

Unless you think that assignations, murders, and jail breaks are just part of the road to democracy.

In Syria we see murders and abuse of minorities, particularly religious minorities. Is that a peoples movement? Kill your neighbor because he is different, very democratic isn’t it.

[Fragony]

Seeing it all over, the islamists who are so deeply admired by leftist intellectuals are just sadistic scum with little more in mind than the extermination of everything that doesn't suit them. We should be the ones killing them, and yes I understand the irony in that. But you all know it's true. Even more irony for the connaiseur, glad you have it

[Sarmatian]

Seeing it all over, the islamists who are so deeply admired by leftist intellectuals are just sadistic scum with little more in mind than the extermination of everything that doesn't suit them. We should be the ones killing them, and yes I understand the irony in that. But you all know it's true. Even more irony for the connaiseur, glad you have it

parroting present participle of par·rot

Verb
Repeat mechanically: "parroting back information".

[rvg]

Anyway, the UN should just hurry up and recognize a 3-way partition of Syria.

What good would that do?

It's already a fact and it's not going to change without someone's direct intervention.

Oh, it's going to change with someone's intervention or without.

[Montmorency]

I'll lay it out:

The coast is ruled by Assad, more or less.

The north-east is ruled by Kurds, absolutely.

The rest is firmly in rebel hands.

Support Assad publicly on the condition that he agrees to the partition on the map - as noted it already exists in practice.

Partition goes through and everyone gets what they want except Assad himself (but he's in no position to raise a fuss) and the more moderate rebels in the center.

The Turks, Iraqis, and Iranians get nervous about the Kurds but you know what, might as well give the Kurds a bone here. The Kurds are fairly secular, and could well be our friends if were to give them this political boost. Who cares if Iraq and Iran get pissed about the Kurds anyway? As for Turkey, they ought to come around once they leave their Islamist phase.

On the coast, Assad gets to stop the killing and continue his dictatorship peacefully, just as the majority of his Alawites and other minorities prefer. Plus, a coast-only Syria would be significantly weaker and so would never really trouble anyone again. Additionally, he owes us one for turning down the heat and perhaps even lending some support against the more tenacious rebels of the west. Let the tourists flow in once more.

Middle Syria becomes some kind of fundamentalist haven and terrorist training ground, but not before a meta civil war between moderates and jihadis. Let them fight it out, but support the moderates where possible. Put forth the possibility of Assad one day regaining Greater Syria (minus Kurdish Syria) if he invests his military and security apparatus into keeping down the Islamic Wasteland of whatever (once the kooks win). Drones come in to keep a good eye on things. Hopefully, after a few years of brutal suppression by neighbors and painful subjugation to extremists the regular folk will once more get the guts to rise up, and subsequently kick them out. Between Assad, the Kurds, and Jordan, the surviving 'terrorists' flee into Iraq which has anyway been taken over by fundamentalists (outside the cities). At that point, we're still looking at a decent outcome (aside from all the civilian deaths and war crimes/human rights abuses, but, you know...)

How's that for realism? Of course, it won't happen because it goes against the principles of the UN and all that, but I bet this solution would be pretty kickass if given a chance.

Oh, it's going to change with someone's intervention or without.

Assad simply does not have the strength to take back the rest of Syria ATM, and I really don't think he would want to take on both the rebels and the Kurds full-on. At this rate, a few more years and there will just be a ceasefire agreement recognizing the final divisions and boom - Syria is effectively split in three, just as I laid out. In my version above, of course, the West gets more leverage and can finetune the situation to a greater extent.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Couldn't that be done in a less radical way? I'm not sure carving Syria up would do wonders for its stability. If you remove the national institutions/bureaucracy, the three new states would have to build up their entire infrastructure from scratch. I don't think this is the best time to be doing that, since Assad and the Army would have free reign along the coast, and as you said there would be a new civil war in the heartland with Jihadis v the moderate FSA.

If the solution is made at an all-Syria level, then everybody has to compromise, rather than carving out personal fiefdoms. Granting autonomy could work on some level - surely the case of the Kurds in Iraq is a good example of just how successful this can be. They get the benefits of autonomy without the upheaval of outright independence.

[Montmorency]

Assad can not simply regain all his lost ground, not with his current resources, not unless sudden fatigue grips all the rebels or they prematurely fall into debilitating internal strife.

And if in a few years this continues to hold true, we will see the Kurds sitting pretty and the rebels still strong in the heartland. The latter and Assad will be exhausted, and eventually both will cling to one of the UN's motions toward peace. There will be international ceasefire talks...

Who at that point would be able to convince the rebels to accept Assad's hegemony once more? The rebels will have accomplished too much in a country too small, for the old 'lay down your arms and reintegrate into society' scheme to work out here.

I'm confident that partition of some sort will be the outcome regardless of Western intervention (short of the 'catastrophic land invasion in support of the rebels' scenario), and so tweaking things to our best advantage in light of this is just good sense.