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...

[Kenth]

I believe it's important to be rational about the situation in Syria. On the one hand, you have the Assad regime attacking it's own people, killing civilians and destroys everything that you can call structure in society.

But on the other hand you have the rebels which is a very broad platform of people. Everything from Arab-spring influenced people to al-qaida members and they are not wholly innocent in this. Some examples are just a month old (here and here).

In conclusion we have two sides who both commits atrocities at both armed and non-armed people. Therefore it's not that easy to just intervene and pick a side, especially with the fact that the side you choose will most certainly not be prosecuted for their crimes.

I think the best bet you have for an ending to the civil war is to lure Assad away from power with something. It's not the best solution or the most moral if you look at the victims but I bet it's the easiest. One bait could be safe exit from Syria with his family and some kind of security for the Alawin people.

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

In conclusion we have two sides who both commits atrocities at both armed and non-armed people. Therefore it's not that easy to just intervene and pick a side, especially with the fact that the side you choose will most certainly not be prosecuted for their crimes.

I disagree. The Assad regeme commits atrocities as a matter of course. It indiscriminately bombs, it intentionally targets civilians etc. The rebels by contrast, fight the Syrian military, and where they have killed civilians, it has not been intentional. Although it is true that they've committed war crimes in the forms of summery executions, and those who commited those crimes should be prosecuted, keep in mind that these people have no formal training. Its understandable that they're not going to treat the enemy in the same way that a trained military force does.

I think the best bet you have for an ending to the civil war is to lure Assad away from power with something. It's not the best solution or the most moral if you look at the victims but I bet it's the easiest. One bait could be safe exit from Syria with his family and some kind of security for the Alawin people.

 

While the Alawi muslims need protection, I don't think it's acceptable for Assad to go free. What kind of symbol is that "commit atrocities, and when it gets too much it's okay to leave"?

[Kenth]

"...rebels by contrast, fight the Syrian military, and where they have killed civilians, it has not been intentional. Although it is true that they've committed war crimes in the forms of summery executions, and those who committed those crimes should be prosecuted, keep in mind that these people have no formal training. Its understandable that they're not going to treat the enemy in the same way that a trained military force does."

 

I believe that throwing postal workers from buildings and slicing peoples throats are not part of any formal military training either and judging from the articles and if it's true, then I am quite sure that it indeed was intentional.

This is exactly why I never could side up on the side of intervention. You are sure that the rebels never kill civilians unless it is unintentionally and then my friend, the Syrian rebels must be the first rebel group in the history of the world who has such high standards!

Neither you or me know for sure what's going on and denying the atrocities from the rebels is not fair against the truth or the victims of rebel violence. And even if they don't have a formal training I am quite confident that they have no problem with their altruism or empathic side and to let just blind hatred control their acts against prisoners just show a hypocritical side of the whole movement.

"..While the Alawi muslims need protection, I don't think it's acceptable for Assad to go free. What kind of symbol is that "commit atrocities, and when it gets too much it's okay to leave"

It's not about the symbol. It's about the people in Syria who's dying every day from Assad's bombs. If the price for democracy and an end to the killing is that Assad goes free, then I believe it's a price worth paying. What is your standards worth if it's made from the death of thousands of innocent?

Compare it with the situation in Northern Ireland and the IRA. Was it with military might, internments and a shut door to politics that made them lay down their weapons? No. It was by discussion, diplomacy and the possibilities for the terrorists to go free and be able to participate in normal life and politics that made it happen. It's trough the open hand you get someone to listen to you, not with a closed fist at their face.

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

I believe that throwing postal workers from buildings and slicing peoples throats are not part of any formal military training either and judging from the articles and if it's true, then I am quite sure that it indeed was intentional.

The difference is that these are not the norm. The majority of rebel activity is targeting the Syrian military. The Syrian armies norm, by contrast, is shelling indiscriminately.

 

Neither you or me know for sure what's going on and denying the atrocities from the rebels is not fair against the truth or the victims of rebel violence.

We do know however that the Syrian military, and it's actions, are working hard in killing civilians as a matter of course. That's the difference. The Syrian rebels are doing their best to target the military only.

 

It's not about the symbol. It's about the people in Syria who's dying every day from Assad's bombs. If the price for democracy and an end to the killing is that Assad goes free, then I believe it's a price worth paying. What is your standards worth if it's made from the death of thousands of innocent?

I suppose that is a reasonable point. But I'd like Assad to be in some kind of permanent enclosed exile, where he is kept secure, and not in the lap of luxury, but not brutal prison conditions either.

[Kenth]

"The difference is that these are not the norm. The majority of rebel activity is targeting the Syrian military. The Syrian armies norm, by contrast, is shelling indiscriminately."

 

I don't think that is a valid point. Hamas uses 10% of their fundings for weapons and the rest for social welfare. Their attacks on civilians is not the norm and therefore Hamas is something good. After all, majority of Hamas activity is targeted at helping people.

Just because they make more good than bad does not give them an excuse for the bad in my opinion, at least not if the bad that happens are exactly what they are supposedly trying to stop.

Your second point I can relate to even less, just because the Syrian government does it more does not give the Syrian Rebels more right in what some of them are doing.

We do know however that the Syrian military, and it's actions, are working hard in killing civilians as a matter of course. That's the difference. The Syrian rebels are doing their best to target the military only.

 

And apparently they can not control their own soldiers from making atrocities and therefore I think you should be careful to just jump right into support them without any form of critical thinking. Better to end this in a diplomatic way where there are a possibility for the law to take it's place against those on both sides who've been committing atrocities.

I should also quote one of the articles:

"Speaking in Geneva on Monday, Navi Pillay, the United Nations high commissioner for human rights, warned of atrocities by both the government and its opponents. Both, she said, “deploy snipers that target civilians.”

"And in a stern warning directed at antigovernment forces, Ms. Pillay noted the “undoubted climb in human rights violations” attributed to the rebels, including abductions and summary executions. “Opposition forces should be under no illusion that they will be immune from prosecution,” she said."

As I said, trying their best at shooting military only? Depends on which rebel you ask.

 

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

I don't think that is a valid point. Hamas uses 10% of their fundings for weapons and the rest for social welfare. Their attacks on civilians is not the norm and therefore Hamas is something good. After all, majority of Hamas activity is targeted at helping people.

Actually, most of Hamas's attacks are on civilians. Suicide bombings on buses and nightclubs etc were the norm of the Infadata's

 

Just because they make more good than bad does not give them an excuse for the bad in my opinion, at least not if the bad that happens are exactly what they are supposedly trying to stop.

 

I agree that it does not excuse the bad, but nor does it entirely discredit their cause. As I have pointed out, the ANC bombed civilian targets, that doesn't in itself make their cause unjust (although it does undermine their credibility).

 

Your second point I can relate to even less, just because the Syrian government does it more does not give the Syrian Rebels more right in what some of them are doing.

You're not understanding. It's not that one side does it more or less. It is that one side intends to do it on mass. The Syrian rebels do not intend to, on mass, kill civilians. Some of them have done this, but you don't see death squads killing large numbers of civilians all the time. If they did, the rebels would not have popular support. The primary aim of the rebels is to defeat the military, and they do not intend to do so by killing civilians. They have limits on the means they wish to use. The same is not true of the Syrian army. They intend to crush the rebellion by any means necessary. Hence their more large scale willingness to attack civilians indiscriminately.

 

And apparently they can not control their own soldiers from making atrocities and therefore I think you should be careful to just jump right into support them without any form of critical thinking.

 

You don't seem to understand the situation here. They arn't an enlisted army. It's not reasonable to expect them to be able to exercise a level of control akin to a national army. Given the reletively isolated number of cases of abuse we have so far, we should be praising the army for managing to keep it this low. Of course we would like it to be lower, but let's not treet this as an issue which undermines their issues, because it doesnt.

 

Better to end this in a diplomatic way where there are a possibility for the law to take it's place against those on both sides who've been committing atrocities.

 

Erm... I fail to see why there should be a diplomatic solution to a country where the government has displayed consistant willingness to indiscriminately kill its own civilians.

 

As I said, trying their best at shooting military only? Depends on which rebel you ask.

 

Do not conflate isolated incidents with the rebellion as a whole. Very recently, a large scale rebel operation was targeted at a military airbase. I don't see any large scale military operations by the rebels to indiscriminately kill civilians. I see a few isolated incidents, which of course should be condemned, but do not reflect the broader rebellion.

[Kenth]

"Actually, most of Hamas's attacks are on civilians. Suicide bombings on buses and nightclubs etc were the norm of the Infadata's"

I think you missed my point here. I said that violent actions is not the norm of Hamas work, only 10% of their economy goes to support the Hamas uprising, and with the previous statement you did, the norm in Hamas is at helping people and therefore they are good by that logic. I think we need to also look at what kind of killing is happening and how brutal they are instead of how many.

I agree that it does not excuse the bad, but nor does it entirely discredit their cause. As I have pointed out, the ANC bombed civilian targets, that doesn't in itself make their cause unjust (although it does undermine their credibility).

But here there is a big difference. We never intervened with military in South Africa. We did financial blockades and international condemnation at their state, just like we do to Syria today. Saying that we are not helping just because we don't go there and start shooting stuff is wrong.

 

You're not understanding. It's not that one side does it more or less. It is that one side intends to do it on mass. The Syrian rebels do not intend to, on mass, kill civilians. Some of them have done this, but you don't see death squads killing large numbers of civilians all the time. If they did, the rebels would not have popular support. The primary aim of the rebels is to defeat the military, and they do not intend to do so by killing civilians. They have limits on the means they wish to use. The same is not true of the Syrian army. They intend to crush the rebellion by any means necessary. Hence their more large scale willingness to attack civilians indiscriminately.

And still, with the knowledge of what horrible acts Assad is doing, the rebels still do the same. Not at the same scale off course but still. As I quotes about sniper death squads, postal workers of roofs etc.. If we intervene theese people will not be prosecuted and will be celebrated as heroes and I fail to see how that is more noble than allowing Assad flee and a quick end to the Syrian civil war.

I believe it is a big issue for giving tyem support or not because it's on the rise and it will not stop and if this is because they are starting to become desperate, well then "any means necessary" seems to apply for both sides, and why should we then help one side more than the other?

And even if they are not a national army, you have other rebels cappable of this, July 26-movement for example, The Zapatistan-army, Prauge uprising, Partisans in Poland, France etc... Keeping civilian casulties at 0 is impossible, but when you have sniper squads killing civilians from roofs it's not by mistake.

"Erm... I fail to see why there should be a diplomatic solution to a country where the government has displayed consistant willingness to indiscriminately kill its own civilians."

 

Because it's the fastest, easiest way to end the civil war and hopefully creat a democratic state were people from both sides can be prosecuted for what they did in the civil war.

[Vertigo_One [Ops Mod]]

I think you missed my point here. I said that violent actions is not the norm of Hamas work, only 10% of their economy goes to support the Hamas uprising, and with the previous statement you did, the norm in Hamas is at helping people and therefore they are good by that logic. I think we need to also look at what kind of killing is happening and how brutal they are instead of how many.

 

And I think you missed my point. I am not talking about whether the group as a whole is good. I am talking about whether their military conduct is good. It's just that in the case of Syria and the Free Syrian Army and Assad's troops, military conduct is the entirety of the equation.

I agree with you that the crimes of those rebels who committed summery executions etc should be punished, but the issue is that this is not a systemic issue. In the case of Assad's troops and Hamas, their destructive actions intended towards civilians are systemic issues, part of their fundimental make up. Which is why they deserve to be targetted for destruction by external forces.

 

But here there is a big difference. We never intervened with military in South Africa. We did financial blockades and international condemnation at their state, just like we do to Syria today. Saying that we are not helping just because we don't go there and start shooting stuff is wrong.

And here's another big difference. In South Africa, the military was not engaged in a suppressive campaign to intentionally target civilians. That is why in this instance, military action is called for. Were we just dealing with an oppressive segregator, I would agree with you, but we're not.

 

And still, with the knowledge of what horrible acts Assad is doing, the rebels still do the same. Not at the same scale off course but still.

You're still not getting the important difference. It's not that its happening on a larger or smaller scale, it's the reason why it's on a larger scale on the part of the military. IE it is their stated aim. The rebels aim isn't intentional targeting of civilians. That's demonstrated by the internal condemnation.

As I quotes about sniper death squads, postal workers of roofs etc.. If we intervene theese people will not be prosecuted and will be celebrated as heroes and I fail to see how that is more noble than allowing Assad flee and a quick end to the Syrian civil war.

I disagree. Internal condemnation proves that there is a call for dealing with people on both sides. I suspect there may be some form of truth and reconciliation system.

I believe it is a big issue for giving tyem support or not because it's on the rise and it will not stop and if this is because they are starting to become desperate, well then "any means necessary" seems to apply for both sides, and why should we then help one side more than the other?

If we intervene though, rather than just giving them guns, we can direct what is done with them and actual make it work, thereby prevenitng more atrocities. The fact is though that it is Assad's stated aim to wipe these people out, so that's rather different than some of the rebels doing it sometimes when they're not under central control. Also, I'd like to see some evidence that it's on the rise. Everything I've seen suggests its still very isolated. Furthermore, there is the question of what the rebels want. They want freedom and democracy, and if we intervene, we stand a better chance of giving it to them, rather than them falling into a trap of extremism.

 

And even if they are not a national army, you have other rebels cappable of this, July 26-movement for example, The Zapatistan-army, Prauge uprising, Partisans in Poland, France etc... Keeping civilian casulties at 0 is impossible, but when you have sniper squads killing civilians from roofs it's not by mistake.

Erm, the Prague uprising was unarmed protesters getting crushed by tanks. The Syrians did have that issue, but now the people got fed up of being shot at. Also, I see no reports of snipers intentionally targeting civilians that are not involved.

 

Because it's the fastest, easiest way to end the civil war and hopefully creat a democratic state were people from both sides can be prosecuted for what they did in the civil war.

It isn't the fastest or easiest way to end this. I agree that the option of letting Assad go diplomatically is an okay one, but we need to intervene to make Assad realise that he doesn't have the option of just prolonging the conflict, and hanging on to power via miliatry action like this. 

[Eystein,]

Some examples are just a month old (here and here).

The articles also cite clear condemnation from Syrian revolutionaries and independents against these kinds of acts as well. That is a good sign, and reason enough not to give up on them.

[Eystein,]

I agree wholeheartedly that the West should have done much more to have resolved this long ago, in a way that would not only have favored us, but also the Syrian people. I stopped following the developments long ago however, as I became aware of increasing marginalization of moderate voices in the rebellion factions. So I'm not up to date on the current balance of atrocities, but I'm not surprised that the rebels have had their fair share of them since the fighting got started for real. I do think that a more proactive western support early on, both ideologically and interventionally (if wanted), could have prevented radical hawks from taking charge of the armed insurgents.

As Vertigo mentioned these people lack formal training, and maybe even basic knowledge about the concept of ethical conduct in war and treatment of prisoners. (Some would argue that Bush did as well *cough* *cough* Guantanamo *cough*... Still there...) It's easy for us to project our high standards on them, and much of the things they've allegedly done is most certainly awful. But they are all alone in this, and when you fear for your life it's only natural to go out hard, all the way, before they get to you. And then, if you have the wrong leadership who let hate rhetorics run loose, then anyone who've signed up for battle can get caught up in these mindless killings. You don't necessarily comply because you want to, but because you're scared. Scared of being the next one to be targeted by your own. 

I know that the Geneva conventions state that you can not be exempt from criminal conviction, in a HR trial, even if you've killed an unarmed prisoner with a gun to your head. I agree with this concept in theory, but I think it is an unreasonably high standard to be held against someone who've never been exposed to this line of thinking. It is an extremely high standard to be held against anyone.

This is why I would in this conflict only hold the instigators of such behavior, those who have allowed such brutality to take place in the first place, those who called the shots, to be held responsible in the aftermath of this conflict. That is first and foremost Assad and his goons, but most certainly some of the rebel leaders as well. Assad alone, although understandably so, is responsible for the escalation of this conflict. Then again, if the rebels win, then their battle leaders will be proclaimed heroes most likely. And I don't think that by the time that happens, that their vision for the new Syria will be much to our liking. And I don't think they will like us much either... Especially if we keep bitching about human rights violations. Which of course is not a reason to stop bitching about it, I'm just saying...

I also agree that there is a huge difference in backing popular uprisings against governments we very much would like to see gone also, than to instigate the removal of one on our own initiative (like the Bush doctrine). I think people deserve to feel that they earned freedom themselves. That doesn't mean that we can not help.

All in all, I think the West have failed to take advantage of the Arab spring. Whatever the outcome, I think we should have supported the rebels in all the countries we saw government crackdowns in, unconditionally and without apology. We might not like the outcome, and could be forced to cool relations rather quickly, but at least it would have been a ticket to earn some goodwill in the ME, and a chance to make an impact on the ideological fallout.

I think it's too late however...

[Eystein,]

To clarify... Just because it may be to late for us to benefit from engaging ourselves, doesn't mean we shouldn't do it, if it's the right thing to do. It's just that the issue of resolving the issue is much more complicated now that we would be forced to persecute rebels as well... I suppose for most people it would be more preferable stay out of it all together at this point, but I think we've failed them. It would have been piece of cake for NATO to take out Assad's heavier forces with airstrikes from Turkey. Kept him from mobilizing.

[Kenth]

"As Vertigo mentioned these people lack formal training, and maybe even basic knowledge about the concept of ethical conduct in war and treatment of prisoners. (Some would argue that Bush did as well *cough* *cough* Guantanamo *cough*... Still there...) It's easy for us to project our high standards on them, and much of the things they've allegedly done is most certainly awful."

 

I would agree with you, if we we're talking about some kind of native tribe who never been in contact with the outside world. This is not an isolated native tribe. These people are intelligent, many of them high educated and rational thinkers. To dismiss the thought of them having the understanding of taking care of prisoners who are unarmed is in my humble opinion, a great insult to both their intelligence and their people.

We have other examples of rebel groups without any formal training in earlier years who even though they lacked formal training, still were able to keep themselves disciplined and not cutting their prisoners throats of. This is a example of a rebel group, extremely disorganized, without any formal structure with ideologies that range from libertarians to al-qaeda and if you don't understand that problem, then it will become hard to understand why they aren't able to defeat Assad or being able to control their own soldiers.

 

And because of this fact, I believe that an intervention is not the solution.