Syrian crisis - what should be done?

[Steve Weldon]

Yes, if we want the leadership position then we need to set the example.

Yet, like everyone else I'm tired of our young men sacrificing so much, our economies being set back years and more, and in the end we really don't change middle eastern countries.   You won't change any country without a actual war is hell approach and then years of occupation as we did with Germany and Japan.   If we are not willing to make real and meaningful change then we should not "go to war."   

The "Shot Over the Bow" approach is the worst plan I've ever seen.  It's saying "we really don't want to get involved but you need to be punished, so we'll take out a few runways on an helicopter base (and provide you the day and time so no one gets hurt) and call it punishment, okay?   

I mean really, can they be serious?  Unfortunately yes.

The Israelis have been effective with their actions for the most part when all is considered.  When the bad guys do certain bad things the leaders who ordered these things at the highest practical level are targeted.  They can't sleep more than a few hours at any one location, every trip by plane, train, or automobile becomes a nightmare.  The target's life ceases to function as they know it.  They run scared.   They can no longer go near their family mosque, or other places they're used to hiding behind because such places aren't recognized as such.   And once their car is hit by a hellfire from Blackhawk then the next guy on the list is made known and I'm sure they think long and hard before acting.. because we teach them there are consequences they will pay for personally.  The bill will come in their mailbox.  And it's done at the least cost and the least life possible.   And it's been proven to work.

No wars, no huge costs, and the least life lost.  The  "rest of the world" might protest and make a few speeches, but really they know the bad guys need punishing and this works without hurting innocents unless the bad guy decides to risk his own family or friends, but nothing large scale.  Hell, even the UN finds little to complain about.  And you could enact this policy without formal sanctions against the country, sanctions which btw hurt more innocents than actual military actions do.

It's time to change the rules.. make it real to the people who so casually order things like the use of chemical weapons.  Go ahead, make my day..

[hjulenissen]

It's time to change the rules.. make it real to the people who so casually order things like the use of chemical weapons.  Go ahead, make my day..

Who gets to decide who are the bad guys and needs to be executed without a fair trial? The US? France? Russia? China? North Korea? NATO? The UN security council? When there is disagreement, may one player act on its own (using, perhaps, a "coalition of willing")?

If (as you seem to suggest) the use of WMD against civilians and (perhaps) the scale of manufacture of WMD is a crime in itself (that warrants death penalties without a trial), then what nation has the most criminal leaders?

What about the people who order the use of conventional weapons against women, children, elderly, sick and non-combattants?

I think that the establishment of "world order" is a noble but difficult task. It might have been easier in the aftermath of ww2 as economic and military power was concentrated among nations of cultural similarity and (perhaps shared goals). As long as the powerful nations see fit to play the game of politics rather than adhering to (or even signing up for) some international law, I don't see anything changing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Clash_of_Civilizations

http://www.globalpolicy.org/us-un-and-international-law-8-24/us-opposition-to-the-icc-8-29.html

-h

[stamper]

The UK won't be taking part in the bombing of Syria because Parliament has voted against participation and I don't think the Tories can find a way to get round that. I think David Cameron - the UK prime minister - will be secretly glad because it gets him of the hook. He can claim he tried his best and if anything goes wrong with a bombing mission by the USA and France then they will get the blame. If the situation worsens then he can claim his critics are to blame and he tried to alleviate the situation. I think he will, perversely, be a happy man.

[hjulenissen]

The UK won't be taking part in the bombing of Syria because Parliament has voted against participation and I don't think the Tories can find a way to get round that. I think David Cameron - the UK prime minister - will be secretly glad because it gets him of the hook. He can claim he tried his best and if anything goes wrong with a bombing mission by the USA and France then they will get the blame. If the situation worsens then he can claim his critics are to blame and he tried to alleviate the situation. I think he will, perversely, be a happy man.

That is, if you assume that he is only in it for staying in office not having any ambitions or goals of his own.

-h

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

...  they think long and hard before acting..

Riiiight... That has surely stopped them.

[GeekMark]

The UK won't be taking part in the bombing of Syria because Parliament has voted against participation and I don't think the Tories can find a way to get round that. I think David Cameron - the UK prime minister - will be secretly glad because it gets him of the hook. He can claim he tried his best and if anything goes wrong with a bombing mission by the USA and France then they will get the blame. If the situation worsens then he can claim his critics are to blame and he tried to alleviate the situation. I think he will, perversely, be a happy man.

I don't think he's happy about the decision...he's spoken up about the fact that some action needs to be taken even though UK military isn't getting involved. Well I guess that depends whether you believe him or not, but I do.

[Vladimirovich]

he's spoken up about the fact that some action needs to be taken even though UK military isn't getting involved.

did you expect him to express his joy in a public way  ... he is not that bad politician to let such slip happen

[stamper]

That is, if you assume that he is only in it for staying in office not having any ambitions or goals of his own.

-h

The ambitions of the Conservative party are to turn the UK into a truly free enterprise market economy - just like Thatcher once did - instead of a mixed economy and he sure isn't going to resign or let principles over Syria get in the way of that goal.

[Steve Weldon]

Who gets to decide who are the bad guys and needs to be executed without a fair trial? The US? France? Russia? China? North Korea? NATO? The UN security council? When there is disagreement, may one player act on its own (using, perhaps, a "coalition of willing")?

What, you think someone needs permission?  It's war.  Leave the decision making to those with the means to carry it out.   If we limit the killings to those with the power and who actually do execute WMD's they'll have the motivation to find another way to solve their problems.

If (as you seem to suggest) the use of WMD against civilians and (perhaps) the scale of manufacture of WMD is a crime in itself (that warrants death penalties without a trial), then what nation has the most criminal leaders?

It doesn't matter.  Without the means you lose the war and the authority to effect change and carry out policy.

What about the people who order the use of conventional weapons against women, children, elderly, sick and non-combattants?

This ultimately is decided by those who win the war.  It always has been.

I think that the establishment of "world order" is a noble but difficult task. It might have been easier in the aftermath of ww2 as economic and military power was concentrated among nations of cultural similarity and (perhaps shared goals). As long as the powerful nations see fit to play the game of politics rather than adhering to (or even signing up for) some international law, I don't see anything changing.

I don't.  I think it's scary and for those who think they'll benefit from "the order."

[Steve Weldon]

Riiiight... That has surely stopped them.

Nothing is 100%.  It does work as a deterrent,  If there is a better way to deter lets use that.

[Vladimirovich]

If there is a better way to deter lets use that.

there is - bomb the rebels instead a secular Asad and that's it

[Rob C]

there is - bomb the rebels instead a secular Asad and that's it

Well, that's fresh concept, and I can see some sense there... Wait; innit what we are/were doing in Afghanis... ?

Rob C

[hjulenissen]

I think there is a certain "Bush-backlash". The lies that president Bush and his men told us in order to get to go to war in Iraq makes many people wary about going into Syria.

This has to be balanced against the genocides that have happened in recent history where UN troops might have made a difference, but did not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_Genocide

Is there no "3rd" way? Can the UN security councel not agree on use of collective force to aid refugees fleeing the country, leaving the combattants to fight?

-h

[mbaginy]

Quite true in my opinion, about the "Bush-Backlash".  But that's only a very recent example.  It seems that every war starts with lies, exaggerations and constructions to boost the own cause and criminalize the opponents.  The first victim of war is always truth.

I feel the proper time for involvement of "the West" has long passed.  "The West" was far too concerned with their financial problems.  The displeased Syrian population, who began demonstrating are no longer actively involved - far too many major and minor religious and fanatic factions have gathered to battle their common enemy for the moment.  They've poured into Syria for their own reasons.  Afterwards, they'll battle themselves.  Arming "the rebels" is to arm future enemies.

Who gives "the West" the right to punish the Syrian government for using chemical weapons?  Those who suffer are always the innocent.  There are countless dictatorships on this planet and far too many atrocities occur.  Why are only certain ones in such focus?  The matter is far more involved than what meets the eye.

The US and other countries should further assert political pressure but refrain from using military force.

By the way, who are "the West" and "the Rebels".  Always easy to simplify, but always wrong.

[mezzoduomo]

"I see the advantage in having our enemies fighting each other, despite the inevitable civilian suffering and the potential for the violence to spill into neighboring countries. We should focus on mitigating these problems, while letting our enemies kill each other. After all, at a certain point in a structure fire the firemen simply have to step back, let it burn and try to keep the fire from spreading."

First published in June 2013: http://nation.time.com/2013/06/04/the-enemy-of-my-enemyremains-my-enemy/#ixzz2dYX7OMmc

[PeterAit]

At risk of starting a new thread like the Snowden one, what should be done about the Syrian crisis?

With confirmation that chemical weapons have been used, do we as the rest of the World have a moral obligation to step in with military force, even if that puts our own troops at risk of similar attack?

It's clear that international law has been broken and while it's a bit early to conclude, it is also likely that a war crimes tribunal will be formed at some point in the future. But while major Governments are currently responding with some indecision regarding intervention, does the use of chemical weapons against civilians change the risk vs benefit and should we be more committed to stepping in to stop what happening?

Can we stop what's happening?

We seem to know for sure that chemical weapons were used, but by whom? The rebels seem to be a pretty vile bunch on their own, how can we be sure they didn't cleverly stage this attack to get the US and others to help them? Given the abysmal competence of the US "intelligence" community, we can't be even remotely sure. And, given Obama's "red line" comment, I cannot believe that Assad, vile though he may be, would be willing to risk US intervention for a minor tactical advantage. The whole thing smells fishy to me. It's a dismal situation, to be sure, but perhaps not the US's business (humanitarian aid aside).

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

We seem to know for sure that chemical weapons were used, but by whom?...

A Madison Avenue PR agency?

[RSL]

Ah, it's a joy to see all you military experts solving the world's problems. If only everyone would listen to you guys all would be well and people would stop killing each other.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Ah, it's a joy to see all you military experts solving the world's problems. If only everyone would listen to you guys all would be well and people would stop killing each other.

That's why, Russ, in all civilized societies, it is civilians commanding the military, not the other way around. Leave it to your military experts, and all they know to do is bomb the shit out of everything and everyone. In the post-WWII period, your military experts bombed 30+ countries, killing about one million civilians in the process.

[RSL]

Yeah. And we did it just for fun. Right, Slobodan? Same thing in WW II. We bombed the shit out of Germany just for the fun of it. Same with Japan.

Elected civilians certainly should be the people who decide whether or not we go to war, but it really helps if those elected civilians have had military experience so they at least have a clue what war actually means. But once the decision has been made it's always catastrophically stupid to have civilians trying to run the war. I was there when LBJ made all the targeting decisions in Vietnam. I sat at Ubon Ratchathani and watched North Vietnam build SAM sites we weren't allowed to hit until they were operational. I was there when Truman was making decisions about the Koran war. At least Truman had had enough military experience that he knew what to stay away from. I was happy when he canned Macarthur, but he made some really dumb mistakes before that. His first mistake was to tell the world we didn't really care about Korea, a decision that brought on the war.

As far as I'm concerned we desperately need a constitutional amendment that will keep anybody from running for commander in chief (president) unless he's had at least four years military experience.

You're not really in a position to talk about war, Slobodan.