Syria

[wobblies]

Syria is in the midst of a civil war with proxy involvement from extremist groups, nearby countries, and superpowers. The civil war seems to be part of the Arab Spring but with new players and dynamics. The issue, then, is if outside groups should be playing any role and what that role would be. Our goal should be to help the country get onto a path to peacefully address the causes of the conflict. The use of chemical or biological weapons is the one thing that would require direct military intervention: that needs to be done by the world community, however, and not outside groups with their own agenda.
The Arab Spring is a consequence of the desperate poverty in the region and the absence of democratic institutions which allow the citizens of Syria to control their own destiny. The environment in which this is taking place is impacted but not caused by religion and religious factions. These problems are regional, but decisions about the solutions need to be left to the citizens of individual nations.
The generally accepted view is that Arab neighbors are intervening with military support on both sides, and the rest of the world is trying to provide humanitarian assistance.
There are people in this country that are clamoring to intervene with military support. They are talking about supplying arms that could later be used against us or creating a ‘safe corridor’ for citizens to seek a safe haven. So far, however, the evidence of that is frankly flimsy. Our government needs to back off of threats and assertions without that proof. In fact, comments like those of Defense Secretary Hagel are only making matters worse. Obama needs to rein him in
We should only intervene as part of the world community in concert with the Security Council. We, Russia, China, Arab neighbors and the rest of the world need to be of one voice. We would only make matters exponentially worse if we intervene unilaterally or as part of a partisan faction. We are in no position to try to take the high ground in the region after abetting Iraq’s use of banned weapons during the Iraq/Iran war. We are also in no position to take the high ground about state terrorism after using state terrorism to invade and occupy Iraq. We will only nurture legitimate fears of Muslims in the region: Muslims will turn on us.
Our first goal should be to get a cease fire. People need to stop killing one another and start talking. A delegation of nations with good offices should be seeking a dialog. While that is going on we also need to have an objective investigation of the use of banned weapons. Anyone using them should be prosecuted for crimes against humanity.

God Speed,
David

 

[ARMCX1]

I'm inclined to agree. Without international and regional support, a US affiliated intervention would be too risky in terms of outcomes. Assad is done with. It's the what and the who that replaces Assad that are vital to US interests. That's for sure.

My hope is that a post-Assad security agreement is brokered between Assad's opponents and the regional and international powers that will have to support internal Syrian security until a representative functioning government can emerge.

Sarin gas or not, the Syrian war and it's aftermath are a major policy consideration for the US going forward.

 

[wobblies]

Very well said, especially about a post-Assad government. I suspect that you would agree that Democratic institutions are the long term solutions, but there are pitfalls with that when a people have been led around by the nose. Burke was painfully articulate about that. Still, political power under popular control is likely to condemn extremism if only because of the wrath that it brings down on people. Furthermore, economic develop gives people a reason for hope.

 

[ARMCX1]

Like the power shift from Sunni to Shia in Iraq, the Syrian power shift will be in the opposite direction -- from an Alawite/Christian/Shia dominated government to a Sunni dominated government. That alone is bound to bring the government into more harmonious relations with the Syrian people. The biggest question is how forgiving can the assorted Syrian factions be? I'm guessing forgiveness is divine.

 

[Corruptbuddha]

We should leave them alone and let them and their neighbors sort it out.

It's simply none of our business.

 

[fairsheet]

The U.S. has been actively involved in forming a Syrian government that's "friendly" to our ideals, in hopes that it will the government that replaces Assad's. They're doing so, mostly with "butter" and very few "guns". Frankly, I think that's the best they can do at this point.

I imagine the Russians, Chinese, and Iranians have figured out that Assad's a lost cause. They're concern now, goes to trying to "own" whatever follows Assad. And practically by definition, whatever government WE appear to be aligning ourselves with, will be anathema to them. Shoot...they probably won't even be able to agree among themselves, who they should be backing.

Some are concerned that unfriendlies like Russia or Iran may be supporting Assad. We probably should be paying more attention to which ANTI-Assad forces they may be supporting. We really can't and shouldn't arm our chosen ones. The best we can do in that regard, is pressure the others to not arm THEIR chosen ones.

In conclusion...the biggest sticking point for our "side" in all this, is that the Islamists are the best organized opposition. And again, even as we'd be foolish to support them, maybe the best we can do is see that nobody else does, either.

 

[wobblies]

I would agree to the extent that we encourage Democratic institutions that represent the Syrian public. The problem would be in trying to support a group because it serves our interests: that kind of approach is transparent. Our only interest should be a mechanism for establishing peace and stability in the region. That, I humbly suggest, is more effective than picking winners and losers. Hopefully, extremist groups can be undermined in the process.

Your comment about anti-Assad forces that China or Russia might support is very interesting; international support for a group that we could all work with once violence is stopped has a lot o potential. Logically, that group would garner popular support, if we could work with the various conflicting factions in the neighborhood.

That kind of strategy would contrast with all of the partisan players in the region. Someone else in the room suggested that the two main players may be the Brotherhood and Hesbollah. Ironically, they could prove to be stabilizing influences if they can muster the courage to be constructive.

 

[Jen]

It is too bad we can't give humanitarian aid that actually reaches the people who need it most.........without having to engage in war to do it.

 

[fairsheet]

I would agree to the extent that we encourage Democratic institutions that represent the Syrian public. The problem would be in trying to support a group because it serves our interests: that kind of approach is transparent. Our only interest should be a mechanism for establishing peace and stability in the region. That, I humbly suggest, is more effective than picking winners and losers. Hopefully, extremist groups can be undermined in the process.

Your comment about anti-Assad forces that China or Russia might support is very interesting; international support for a group that we could all work with once violence is stopped has a lot o potential. Logically, that group would garner popular support, if we could work with the various conflicting factions in the neighborhood.

That kind of strategy would contrast with all of the partisan players in the region. Someone else in the room suggested that the two main players may be the Brotherhood and Hesbollah. Ironically, they could prove to be stabilizing influences if they can muster the courage to be constructive.

Call me pollyanna, but I think you're applying cold war "thinking", to a 21st-Century conflict as evidenced by your use of the word "proxy" up top. You suggest that we should avoid choosing a "side", simply because they might serve "our interests". But...in the specific context of THIS conflict, which side would we choose as a matter of our interest? And...what would that interest be?

And, this goes to my discomfit with your suggestion that because of acts past, "we have no standing". IF that's true, then your listing of a couple examples - Iran/Iraq and Li'l George's Debacle, is redundant. For a case could be made that based on this bit of our history or that, we have no standing to do much of ANYTHING! I think it better that we consider each instance in at least semi-isolation. So for instance...IF we were to intervene in Syria (which I'm NOT advocating), what would be our interest and/or motivation and would necessarily be "bad", simply by dint of something we did before?

I know I'm wearing this one out but....if people are really taken aback at the fact of the U.S. being the "world's policeman", who would they propose to take over that position?

 

[wobblies]

We may be typing past one another. I don't think we should be doing anything but trying to find peace in the region. I don't want to choose sides accept that of economic & political development. Our recent behavior in the region is precisely why we shouldn't be choosing sides. We are not in a position of criticizing others when we don't have clean hands.

I am not suggesting that the international community shouldn't be prosecuting any war crimes. If Assad is guilty, and there seems to be ample evidence, he should be prosecuted. Anyone else committing those crimes should also be taken to task. Still, that should be done by all and not by partisans. Furthermore, we have no business being partisan in a civil war where Sunni, Shia, and others are engaged using forces from all over the region.

That was also why I thought trying to reach common ground with outside agents on a peace plan was a good idea. I don't know what you mean about a Cold War prism and proxies. By the way, I don't know what you mean by my use of the term proxy. I also think that it is a bad idea to be arming any particular faction and using proxies because it just gets us intangled in the mess. Israeli actions in the region draws us in if only by proxy especially when the administration is trying to justify the recent attacks in the region. We should be using our offices to tell Israel to stay out of it.

The problem in the region is poverty and religious intolerance. We can lead in that area by example, but these petty stupid problems in the region is thousands of years old. They are the ones that have to grow up.

God Speed,
David

 

[wobblies]

You would think it would be common decency to just do it without interference.​

 

[fairsheet]

We may be typing past one another. I don't think we should be doing anything but trying to find peace in the region. I don't want to choose sides accept that of economic & political development. Our recent behavior in the region is precisely why we shouldn't be choosing sides. We are not in a position of criticizing others when we don't have clean hands.

I am not suggesting that the international community shouldn't be prosecuting any war crimes. If Assad is guilty, and there seems to be ample evidence, he should be prosecuted. Anyone else committing those crimes should also be taken to task. Still, that should be done by all and not by partisans. Furthermore, we have no business being partisan in a civil war where Sunni, Shia, and others are engaged using forces from all over the region.

That was also why I thought trying to reach common ground with outside agents on a peace plan was a good idea. I don't know what you mean about a Cold War prism and proxies. By the way, I don't know what you mean by my use of the term proxy. I also think that it is a bad idea to be arming any particular faction and using proxies because it just gets us intangled in the mess. Israeli actions in the region draws us in if only by proxy especially when the administration is trying to justify the recent attacks in the region. We should be using our offices to tell Israel to stay out of it.

The problem in the region is poverty and religious intolerance. We can lead in that area by example, but these petty stupid problems in the region is thousands of years old. They are the ones that have to grow up.

God Speed,
David

I must clarify that my response is intended more as a conundrum for us, than as a direct challenge to your ideas. This may sound a little over the top but, I think it goes directly to the point...IF you found out that your neighbor had imprisoned 3 young women, would you stay out of it and let them work it out on their own?

 

[EatTheRich]

It is too bad we can't give humanitarian aid that actually reaches the people who need it most.........without having to engage in war to do it.

The U.S. could open its borders to all the refugees, lift the sanctions against Syria, and cancel Syria's debt, which would have major positive humanitarian effects without being an act of war.

I know I'm wearing this one out but....if people are really taken aback at the fact of the U.S. being the "world's policeman", who would they propose to take over that position?

The Movement of Nonaligned Countries.

 

[wobblies]

Why? There are tens of millions of refugees around the world. Why wouldn't we begin by inviting the 100 of thousans of multi-generational Palestinians living in refugee camps. There are billions of people in poverty and oppression: the fire traps that we addressed a hundred years ago here in America have just been moved to that part of the world The solution to the problem is refugees being able return to their homes and economic development.

 

[EatTheRich]

And if we had a worldwide Soviet Union, we could have a worldwide economic development plan that put people's lives back on track. Right now, there's only so much the U.S. can do, about Syria or anywhere else. And usually in practice U.S. intervention results in positive harm.

 

[wobblies]

Rich~
Your comment is off topic, but I will comment that I'm glad we don't have an international Soviet Union. The Soviet Union and CPSU acted in the interests of Russian people in the inherited territories. The International acted in the interest of the CPSU and their nation-state. Let me make one other point that I won't take the time to detail here: the Soviet Union was never Socialist. I will assert gthat while they began to end the class structure by mitigating the division of wealth and income, they never made an effort to alter the division of labor. A ruling strata has controlled the country within a matter of years. Their instrument was the CPSU. That strata concretized into a ruling class by '89.​

 

[Corruptbuddha]

Need I remind you the Soviet Union failed....miserably?

 

[EatTheRich]

The Soviet Union as a federation of nations actually was founded as a way to fight Russian chauvinism ... it only became converted into a prison house of nations with Stalin's counterrevolution. In Lenin's time, the Soviet Union was very active in supporting the labor movement in places like Germany, the UK, and the U.S.--even when Russia's immediate interests were harmed thereby. From the standpoint of actual material relations--state ownership of the means of production, a planned economy, and a state monopoly on foreign trade--the Soviet Union WAS largely socialist, and its former constituent republics largely still are. It may have been a failure in some ways--as could be expected in a backward country that had hardly even developed capitalism, isolated and under tremendous pressure from the most powerful countries in the world--but it also has a lot of successes to speak of, including a huge increase in women's participation in the work force, huge increases in literacy especially among Asian Muslims and women, the defeat of Nazi Germany, the huge role the USSR played in bringing down Jim Crow, and pioneering space exploration.

But the point of my comment wasn't to defend the actual Soviet Union, it was to say that only under a similar international federation could planned economic development be pursued worldwide.

 

[squareshot]

And then along came Adolph.

 

[wobblies]

Rich~

I tend to agree with you that the USSR was organized for the benefit of all citizens of their country and that the machinations that led to an oppressive state. It is also true that the International attempted to intervene in other countries in support of working people: that was their Raison d'être. I also believe that the International functioned in the interest of the USSR. We are getting off subject, so I'll just add that Russia today along with every nation state involved is acting in its own interest in Syria. That is the very problem with our being involved.

God Speed,
David

The Soviet Union as a federation of nations actually was founded as a way to fight Russian chauvinism ... it only became converted into a prison house of nations with Stalin's counterrevolution. In Lenin's time, the Soviet Union was very active in supporting the labor movement in places like Germany, the UK, and the U.S.--even when Russia's immediate interests were harmed thereby. From the standpoint of actual material relations--state ownership of the means of production, a planned economy, and a state monopoly on foreign trade--the Soviet Union WAS largely socialist, and its former constituent republics largely still are. It may have been a failure in some ways--as could be expected in a backward country that had hardly even developed capitalism, isolated and under tremendous pressure from the most powerful countries in the world--but it also has a lot of successes to speak of, including a huge increase in women's participation in the work force, huge increases in literacy especially among Asian Muslims and women, the defeat of Nazi Germany, the huge role the USSR played in bringing down Jim Crow, and pioneering space exploration.

But the point of my comment wasn't to defend the actual Soviet Union, it was to say that only under a similar international federation could planned economic development be pursued worldwide.