It is time for the West to intervene in Syria - Discuss

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

Watching what's happening in Syria, every day it's seeming more and more absurd to me that the international community, in particular the west, isn't doing... something. While it's clear that in the UN, efforts are being paralysed by China and Russia, who aren't happy about seeing a fellow autocracy in the dock, but the US and the wider community of democracies can and should do something about this. It's not just an internal Syrian matter now. With Turkey and Lebanon involved, this is a threat to international peace and security. We need to do something, so why arn't we?

Talking with my wife about it, it does seem to be a case of "twice bitten, thrice shy" after Iraq and Afghanistan. But do people really not see the massive differences here, between these two conflicts. These people want a democratic peaceful state. It's not like Iraq, where we intervened without a native uprising at the time. These people want a democratic reform. They want a free country. Why arn't we doing anything to help them?

Is it because we don't like sending soldiers to die? Is it because we've gotten squeamish about war all of a sudden. Guess what. Freedom, as they say, isn't free. We don't get to use that phrase to defend the sacrifices of previous wars, and then get all squeamish about the possibility of loosing people in a fight for a righteous cause.

And ultimately, its far better that we send in actual troops rather than just giving guns. Guns are notoriously neutral. They give power out to whoever wields them. That means, ultimately, that we could be giving guns to the kinds of people who would use them badly. If we intervene militarily, we at least have a direct stake in things, and direct control over what happens.

Furthermore, if we leave well enough alone, the people of Syria are more likely to fall under the influence of Islamists. The kinds of people who would make adultry a criminal offence, chop hands off for theft and make it illegal to be a non-Muslim serving the government. If we do nothing, the people will think the West has abandoned them, and that democracy and all that isn't good for much because it seems democracies don't actually look out for each other. Right now, the might of foreign militant Islamic might look pretty appealing if it means actually standing a chance of beating the Assad regime. If we don't stand behind the Syrians, we run the very real risk of them falling down a dark well.

And in the more immediate situation, there is this simple fact. People are dying because they want to be free. It's that simple. They want free press, free religion, free speech, free assembly etc. The longer we leave this alone, the more they will want anything but war, and the entry bar for "anything" will drop lower and lower.

Yes, it's going to be complicated. Yes, there will be problems. Yes, the mission will quite probably not be entirely accomplished in this decade.

Enclosed is a link to the Economist's justification of why military intervention is necessary. I'd like to start a broader discussion in this commuinity

Should we intervene? Why aren't we intervening right now? What form should that intervention take? Who should be involved?

http://www.economist.com/blogs/newsbook/2012/10/military-interventi...

[Hutch Hogan]

Considering the history of interventionalism in the middle-east I skeptical of the ability to make a positive change.  While it sounds cruel the best method is probably best to let them sort themselves out. 

Thrusting democracy through democratic means is not a good way to model responsible governance.  Aside from that, providing asylum for refugees is another good idea. 

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

Considering the history of interventionalism in the middle-east I skeptical of the ability to make a positive change.

 

I think though we are seeing the ME turning a corner, in the case of the Arab Spring and Iraq and Afghanistan and the Green uprising in 2009. Arn't we going to do something positive in response to this? Shouldn't we really help?

I mean, assuming that there might be some negative outcomes and not doing anything kind of seems like an impossible objection to overcome. "It won't be perfect, so we won't do anything". Isn't that kind of absurd. Nothing will ever be perfect, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't do something.

[Hutch Hogan]

I think though we are seeing the ME turning a corner, in the case of the Arab Spring and Iraq and Afghanistan and the Green uprising in 2009. Arn't we going to do something positive in response to this? Shouldn't we really help?

Considering that this is a shift towards more conservative religiously entombed governments, not exactly something I would like to support. 

I mean, assuming that there might be some negative outcomes and not doing anything kind of seems like an impossible objection to overcome. "It won't be perfect, so we won't do anything". Isn't that kind of absurd. Nothing will ever be perfect, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't do something.

I already gave an option to open up the borders to immigrants and refugees.  

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

Considering that this is a shift towards more conservative religiously entombed governments, not exactly something I would like to support.

 

Can you show me some definitive evidence of that? Thus far, from what I've seen, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt seems to be trying to go down the route of the justice and development party in Turkey. IE they are Muslims, and the work they do is inspired by Islam, but they do not want to force Islam onto the polulace.

I already gave an option to open up the borders to immigrants and refugees. 

That doesn't solve the long term problem. It's certainly something good to do, but the governments of the asylum receiving countries can't look after people forever. At some stage, that country's government needs to build itself back up, but first the old one needs knocking down.

[Hutch Hogan]

Can you show me some definitive evidence of that? Thus far, from what I've seen, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt seems to be trying to go down the route of the justice and development party in Turkey. IE they are Muslims, and the work they do is inspired by Islam, but they do not want to force Islam onto the polulace.

Though there are still things that come as a result, such as the discouragement from women to join politics, or the restriction of women from being the HoS.  On a related note, John Green talks about the shift towards conservatism while playing virtual football:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REb5qF_zyYg&feature=plcp

That doesn't solve the long term problem. It's certainly something good to do, but the governments of the asylum receiving countries can't look after people forever. At some stage, that country's government needs to build itself back up, but first the old one needs knocking down.

Actually they probably could.  With many countries dipping beneath the 2.1 replacement level much of the government infrastructure based on taxation are going to have to be restructured,  such as pensions and welfare (at least here in Canada for sure).  From there, close trade with the other country and encourage other nations to do so as well.  

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

Though there are still things that come as a result, such as the discouragement from women to join politics, or the restriction of women from being the HoS

True, but those things are much smaller problems which can be evolved past in time, as opposed to the entranced militantism that could emerge if we don't do anything.

Actually they probably could.  With many countries dipping beneath the 2.1 replacement level much of the government infrastructure based on taxation are going to have to be restructured,  such as pensions and welfare (at least here in Canada for sure).

 

It can work, but the kinds of demographic change we're talking about happen over a very long period. We're talking about events happening faster than such systems could deal with.

 

From there, close trade with the other country and encourage other nations to do so as well.

 

That's a help, but it isn't going to actually completely oust the regieme. NK is trading with very very few countries, and it's still in play.

[Hutch Hogan]

True, but those things are much smaller problems which can be evolved past in time, as opposed to the entranced militantism that could emerge if we don't do anything.

I would think that attacking nations would result in increased militarism.  Especially in countries with governments yet to be toppled. Seeing that letting rebellions fester for long will result in international intervention may result in more aggressive pushes to prevent future rebellions. 

That's a help, but it isn't going to actually completely oust the regieme. NK is trading with very very few countries, and it's still in play.

Depends on how you define "in play"; sure a starving meth addict with a knife can inflict harm.  But that doesn't mean they've got a chance to win. 

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

I would think that attacking nations would result in increased militarism.

Attacking in league with the rebels will create a notion of solidarity with the populous. The reason things didn't work out so well in Iraq is because we started the fight. In Syria, it is the Syrians who started it. We're there to finish it.

Seeing that letting rebellions fester for long will result in international intervention may result in more aggressive pushes to prevent future rebellions.

 

All the more reason to attack sooner, so that repressive governments don't have chance to react. If it provokes regimes into more aggression, there is all the more justification for western intervention.

Depends on how you define "in play"; sure a starving meth addict with a knife can inflict harm.  But that doesn't mean they've got a chance to win.

 

Yes, but he is still hurting himself. That's what's happening with NK. It's government is still killing off practically all its people. Cutting trade with it isn't helping.

[Hutch Hogan]

All the more reason to attack sooner, so that repressive governments don't have chance to react. If it provokes regimes into more aggression, there is all the more justification for western intervention.

Yes, what we need in the Middle-East is more reactionary militarism.  The faster, the better. Foolish. 

Yes, but he is still hurting himself. That's what's happening with NK. It's government is still killing off practically all its people. Cutting trade with it isn't helping.

Facilitating their exodus helps.  Cutting off trade closes the coin purses of the top brass. 

This is akin to giving rape a death sentence.  Sure it could be argued for, but giving it a punishment equal to or greater than murder is going to result in more victim killing. 

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

Yes, what we need in the Middle-East is more reactionary militarism.  The faster, the better. Foolish.

I didn't say react unnecessarily. I said react sooner. IE when the regime starts killing its own people indiscriminately, not when such killing has been going on for 18 months.

Facilitating their exodus helps.  Cutting off trade closes the coin purses of the top brass.

In the case of NK, exodus helping is pretty tough. It's a good step, I agree, but it's a very long and drawn out solution, which only mitigates some people's suffering. The kind of issues we're talking about will affect lots of people for a long time.

This is akin to giving rape a death sentence.  Sure it could be argued for, but giving it a punishment equal to or greater than murder is going to result in more victim killing.

In the ME, that depends on if it's handled well, and if the people actually demonstrate a willingness to kill the perp.

[Hutch Hogan]

I didn't say react unnecessarily. I said react sooner. IE when the regime starts killing its own people indiscriminately, not when such killing has been going on for 18 months.

So then we can accidentally kill innocents while also turning a blind eye to those that are indiscriminately killed at the hands of the rebels.  

You think this is an easy game. 

In the case of NK, exodus helping is pretty tough. It's a good step, I agree, but it's a very long and drawn out solution, which only mitigates some people's suffering. The kind of issues we're talking about will affect lots of people for a long time.

Well that depends, we could fully incorporate them into our nations for the reasons I mentioned above.  

In the ME, that depends on if it's handled well, and if the people actually demonstrate a willingness to kill the perp.

You missed the metaphor. The act of intervening into the affairs of a nation through the use of military intervention could put more people in danger in surrounding regions. 

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

So then we can accidentally kill innocents while also turning a blind eye to those that are indiscriminately killed at the hands of the rebels.  

You think this is an easy game.

I didn't say it was an easy game, however it is a game that needs to be played, and needs to be won. The fact is that the Syrian gov troops are intentionally killing civilians. That's the big problem here. Accidental deaths are bad, but we can't be idle in the face of people perpetuating these kinds of intentional ones.

You missed the metaphor. The act of intervening into the affairs of a nation through the use of military intervention could put more people in danger in surrounding regions.

No, it couldn't. Turkey is already under attack. US action in Syria, Afghanistan and Lybia hasn't destabilised nearby countries at all. The worst area is the issue of North Western Pakistan, and that's because that's where the Taliban are hiding out.